My kingdom for an orange

Did you know that human beings and guinea pigs are the only mammals on the planet that cannot synthesize vitamin C? Every other mammal on Earth can produce vitamin C on their own.

We need oranges or we die.

This strikes me as rather ironic considering that human begins are also the only mammals on the planet who found themselves at sea for long periods of time without access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

Think about it:

The only mammal that cannot produce vitamin C is also the only mammal that purposefully and unknowingly spent extended periods of time away from its only source of vitamin C.

A cruel God or a cosmic joke?

Is the Chamberlen family one of the greatest collections of scoundrels to ever walk the face of the Earth?

Obstetrical forceps are rarely used today, but in the sixteenth century, they were the only hope for mothers whose babies needed to be rotated prior to delivery. Without them, labor could last days and often ended in tragedy. Sadly, this instrument did not become available to physicians worldwide until 150 years after its invention. The inventor, Peter Chamberlen, and his succeeding heirs kept this bit of technology a secret for more than a century, going so far as to carrying the forceps into the birthing room in a lined box and only be using them once everyone was out of the room and the mother blindfolded.

This all but assured the family’s high standing with the royalty of England, who relied on the Chamberlen’s obstetric expertise for years.

I understand the desire to profit from your invention as much as possible, and the simplicity of the forceps all but assured that they would be copied once seen, but how many mothers and their babies died in the 150 years that the forceps remained a secret?

Doesn’t this make the Chamberlen family one of the greatest collections of scoundrels to ever walk the Earth?

The tranquility of a cheeseburger

I am off to the Patriots game today, an almost all-day affair in which we will spend the afternoon watching the first game on a television mounted in the back of my friend’s car followed by three hours screaming and cheering inside Gillette Stadium. Food, poker and the tossing of the pigskin will fill much of the afternoon as well.

My friend, Shep, can get quite emotional in the midst of a Patriots game, particularly if a referee, a pass interference call on either side of the ball or a gain of two yards on a running play is involved. While I tend to be more cerebral in my analysis of the game, Shep is pure emotion while watching a game, capable of firing off a string of curses that would embarrass Rex Ryan. When there are kids around, I sometimes need to remind him of his language.

But I think I’ve found a much better way to help Shep manage his emotions:

Meat.

Researchers at McGill University in Canada have found that merely looking at a photograph of cooked meat has a calming effect on men.

The results were published earlier this week.

Researchers explain that this effect probably has an evolutionary basis.  While the acquisition of meat in our earlier hunter/gatherer days might have been a stressful endeavor, the moment of consumption likely had the opposite effect on men.

"It wouldn't be advantageous to be aggressive anymore, because you would've already used your aggression to acquire the meat, and furthermore, you'd be surrounded by people who share ... your DNA," lead researcher Frank Kachanoff told the Montreal Gazette. "One of the basic principles in evolution is to want to preserve not only your DNA but also that of your next of kin."

I could offer the same rationale to Shep, explaining that there is no advantage in being aggressive in regards to the referees or the play calling when when your seats are adjacent to the press box and 60,000 screaming fans are sitting between you and the field. But perhaps I’ll simply take a photograph of the sirloin that will be cooking prior to the game and flash the image to him from my iPhone from time to time.

Especially if there are little kids around.

When sex is involved, shouldn’t it always be the lead?

Talk about burying the lead. New York Times columnist John Tierney reports on a Harvard study that found that a focused, attentive mind results in significantly greater happiness than daydreaming.

“Using an iPhone app called trackyourhappiness, psychologists at Harvard contacted people around the world at random intervals to ask how they were feeling, what they were doing and what they were thinking.”

The title of Tierney’s piece is When the Mind Wanders, Happiness Also Strays, and the first three paragraphs of the story address this specific finding.

While the daydreaming aspect of the story is interesting, it isn’t even close to the best part of the study.

Most significant to me was the fourth paragraph, which reported that people were happiest in the midst of sex.

The implications of this are astounding. Obvious, perhaps, but astounding nonetheless.

First, it’s amazing that people were willing to respond to an iPhone prompt during sex or immediately thereafter.

That itself could have been the lead:

Technology in the Bedroom: People Participate in Coital and Post-Coital Study (presumably with their partner’s permission)

It’s a lengthy title, but it’s a hell of a lot better than Tierney’s choice.

Or how about the fact that the sex generates the greatest degree of happiness?  This may sound obvious, but based upon the conversations that I have had with husbands and wives, couples are clearly not taking full advantage of this king-of-all-activities happiness generator.

With that in mind, the title of Tierney’s piece could have been:

Unhappy? Drop the Headache/Long Day and Tired Routine and Take a Roll in the Hay!

Seriously. With a tough economy, limited leisure funds, and a general state of unhappiness plaguing so many people, why not take advantage of this free, calorie-burning, happiness-infusing activity?

And why not make this the lead?

Isn’t it better to lead with the glories of sex than the pitfalls of daydreaming about sex?

Lacking social sensitivity and stress

Two recent Scientific American reports that speak directly to me: 1. Researchers have found that the intelligence of individual group members is not a good predictor of how well the group as a whole performs. Teams that perform best rate high in social sensitivity: their members interact well, take turns speaking and include more females than teams that perform poorly.

This may explain why I am often left off so many teams and why I am actually forbidden to join certain annual committees at my workplace.

I’ve been known to make people cry from time to time.

Stupid social sensitivity.

2. A multiyear study of nearly 2,400 surveyed subjects found that those who experienced negative life events reported better mental health and overall well-being than those who did not. Negative events included serious illness, violence, bereavement, social stress, relationship stress, and disasters like fires, floods, etc.

So those who had zero negative life events experienced more overall stress and lower life satisfaction.

And here’s the rub: Those who experienced a high number of stressful negative events also reported greater stress. While the authors note that its impossible to identify this sweet spot of adversity, their research suggests that around two to three events might provide the ideal amount of protection from future stress and unhappiness.

This study seems to support some of my personal observations and explain a little bit about myself. In my  experience, I have found that people who have not experienced difficulty and tragedy in their early lives tend to be more fragile and easily troubled. Small problems can seem looming and daunting to them, and they often become paralyzed by stress and fear.

Conversely, I have often attributed my relative immunity to stress to the difficulties in my past.

After you have been killed twice, robbed at gunpoint, robbed at knife point, arrested and tried for a crime you did not commit, lived in your car, been slandered in public, and lived with a goat, everything less doesn’t seem so bad.

And my almost utter disregard for the daily stressors that impact so many people has proven frustrating to some of my friends and colleagues, and occasionally my wife. I can sometimes come across as nonchalant, cavalier and uncaring, when in reality I care a great deal about the tasks at hand but simply do not worry so much about any negative ramifications involved.

For some people, effort, concern, attention and stress are interminably linked.

I can be concerned about an issue, give it all my attention and work hard to resolve it without the worry of what might happen if I fail.

Unless that failure includes a shotgun-toting, switchblade-wielding goat and a jail cell full of bees, I know I’ll be fine.

The question is what would you prefer to be?

The slightly more fragile, more stressed out person who left a relatively happy high school experience for a traditional four-year college, followed by two years of graduate school, a good job, a stable marriage, a nice home and two lovely children…

…or me?

No middle ground

The University of Edinburgh released a study that measured the intelligence of adult brothers and sisters and found no significant difference in the average IQ between the sexes. However, they did find that men are twice as likely to be at the top and bottom tiers of the IQ scale.

As a man, I’m not sure how I feel about this.

Personally, I know that my thoughts, speech, and actions reflect of my rapidly  shifting position to the top or bottom tiers of of the intelligence scale. I can feel either incredibly brilliant or remarkably stupid depending on the situation.

Actually, that’s not quite right. In truth, I typically consider myself incredibly brilliant regardless of the situation and only discover later that I was acting like a complete moron.

Of course, my initial, and oftentimes false, inclination to assume that I am a genius might make me stupid regardless of the results of my actions.

See?

This is why we are twice as likely to occupy the top and bottom tiers of the IQ scale.

Save the planet. Sit your ass down.

My good friend, Charles, has often argued about the dangers of over-populating on the planet. He believes in a two child per couple limit, reasoning that human beings should only seek to replace themselves. Of course, Charles has three children, so his credibility is now shot.

Apparently he was right. It appears that just walking my dog every morning is proving to be more damaging to the climate than driving to work.

It’s not my personal use of fossil fuels that is threatening to melt the polar ice caps, but the breakfast burrito and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that keep me upright and moving throughout the day.

Food production, it turns out, producing more carbon, than the burning of fossil fuels on a mile-by-mile comparison.  m

While we’re on the topic of food, this has to be one of the least eco-friendly food products on the planet.

Still, it looks damn good.

Biological explanation

A recent episode of This American Life dealt with the issue of testosterone. A researcher in the field and the author of Heroes, Rogues and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior was discussing how testosterone varying levels impact behavior.

He described people with naturally high levels of testosterone as being characterized by boldness, fearlessness, confidence, a willingness to speak one’s mind, and a tendency to move things forward with little hesitancy or indecision. However, the drawback is that these people tend to develop enemies and be blindsided by things going on around them.

Am I wrong, or does this sound like someone you know?

Big head finally explained

Things finally make sense to me. A survey of 1,000 Iraqi teens reveals a surprising effect of living in a war torn country. It seems that when faced with an indirect threat to one's self or nation, human beings take action to raise their own self esteem.

Researchers from the University of Cincinnati conducted a survey that measured the self-esteem of 1,000 Iraqi teens living in ten neighborhoods in Baghdad.

All teens were exposed to news of assassinations, mortar attacks, car bombs, and other deadly threats. No direct attacks, but indirect attacks on their country, neighborhood, and well-being.

The results are surprising. The more fear the teens felt, the higher their self-esteem. Levels of self-esteem were actually as high as any random sample of US adolescents.

But the researchers say their findings are in line with a long-held theory that indirect threats to our sense of self will cause us to take action to bolster our self-esteem.

Finally, I understand where my bloated, over-developed sense of self derives. I used to think that my excessively favorable assessment of myself was simply wise and accurate judgment. But now I realize that this enormous ego is the result of a life filled with attacks against my well being.

A childhood dominated by a genuinely evil and awful stepfather.

Arrested and tried for a crime I did not commit.

High school hazing resulting in ambulance rides to the hospital.

Robbed at gunpoint.

Mugged at knifepoint.

Two near-death experiences.

Homelessness.

An anonymous attempt to publicly destroy my reputation and career.

It’s a wonder I can fit my head through the door.

Give kids a reason to write

I was on an escalator in the MOMA, and I heard a mother ask her son, “What was your favorite exhibit?” The boy hemmed and hawed and ultimately failed to answer the question.

I wanted to explain to the mother that a better question would have been, “What exhibit did you hate the most?”

This would have most certainly generated a response.

A fundamental truth about human beings, and especially about kids, is that they are more likely to remember the things that they despise rather than the things that they love. I can’t remember a single gift that my grandparents ever gave me save the socks and underwear that I received on Christmas.

It’s just more fun to complain.

And while the mom on the escalator might have preferred to know that her son loved the Mattisse exhibit the most rather than listening to him gripe about the creepy photography, getting him to gripe and complain about the worst exhibit would have been a more effective way of getting him to talk about his visit, and ultimately, he might have gotten around to talking about his favorite as well.

The same holds true in writing.

One of the most common essay topics in the history of mediocre writing instruction asks students to write about their favorite moment from summer vacation.

I find that I get a much more enthusiastic and interesting response if I give the kids the choice to write about their most miserable moment of summer vacation instead. More than half of the class typically chooses this version of the topic, and the responses are often humorous, detailed and utterly engrossing. Most important, the kids appreciate the choice and are more engaged.

Everyone is a critic, so why not embrace this tendency and get kids excited about writing.

It’s why kids took the time to write hate mail to author Neil deGrasse Tyson regarding his mention of Pluto’s recent loss of planetary stature in his book.

People write most enthusiastically when they are angry.

You’ve probably noticed this about me from time to time.

Disturbing my sleep on purpose

Researchers on a recent episode of the Harvard Business Review IdeaCast recently discussed a Berkeley study which showed that people actually enjoy television more with commercials than without. This is attributed to the phenomenon known as adaptation. As people continue to experience pleasing stimuli, their degree of pleasure decreases as their body becomes accustomed to, or adapts, to the stimuli. This is why a massage chair will vary the areas of the body that it is massaging and turn off completely halfway through a massage. If the entire body was to be constantly being massaged, the massage itself would become considerably less pleasurable over time. But by stopping the massage midway and then beginning it again, it reactivates the pleasure centers of the body which caused the person to enjoy the massage in the first place.

Apparently commercials serve a similar purpose. Interrupting the story allows for a greater sense of entertainment when the story resumes.

I have always made a similar claim about sleep. For years, I would set an alarm to go off at 2:00 AM, just so that I would have the opportunity to experience the joy of falling asleep again. After years of this training, I am now typically able to wake up in the middle of the night on my own, much to the relief of my wife, who does not ascribe to this philosophy and would never abide by a middle-of-the-night alarm. The worst night of sleep for me is the uninterrupted one, because the time I spend in bed passes in the blink of an eye.

Now Harvard Business Review has validated what many have previously felt was a ridiculous belief.

Of course, it’s helpful that I can fall asleep without exception in less than a minute, but I trained myself over a period of years to do that as well, so I’m merely reaping the rewards of my hard work.

Please tell me I’m not alone in this now substantiated belief.  Is there anyone out there who would prefer to wake up two or three times a night rather than sleeping straight through?

Maybe Toughskins and parachute pants will make a comeback, too

I am pleased to report that there is a new trend in town, and it goes against everything that I despise about the fashion industry. Scientific American reports that researchers surveying California consumers found that people who are seriously well-off are willing to pay a premium for items whose branding is more discreet.

In short, these are people who are willing to pay more to leave the logo off the item.

Can you imagine?

A Coach bag that isn’t plastered with the letter C? How will anyone know how much money I spent on this bag?

A pair of Gucci sunglasses without the brand name scrawled on the side?  Someone might think that I bought these at a kiosk in the mall!

A polo short without a stupid little alligator sewn onto the breast? How will anyone know that I am a person of value and worth?

As a man whose wardrobe is nearly free of any outward logo or label (I’ve yet to find a pair of well-made athletic sneakers without a logo, and a few pairs of my gym shorts might also be so adorned), I find this news incredibly refreshing.

It’s my secret hope that this new fashion trend will become so popular that the closets bursting with labeled and logoed clothing that stretch across America and have cost so many people a near fortune to assemble will become utterly worthless, the fashion equivalent of Toughskins, parachute pants and Enron stock. Imagine a vast wasteland of overpriced, brand-named merchandise that’s very ownership confirms the mealy mouthed, shallow-minded, sweaty desperation of its status-seeking owner.

Heaven, perhaps?

The thought that the nonsense of high school fashion demands would end in high school was something that I (and Bowling for Soup) gave up on long time ago.

Today I have been given hope.

Pleasure in another person’s pain

From time to time, I have expressed an occasional appreciation for schadenfreude: pleasure in the misfortune of others.

It turns out that I am not so unusual. after all

Thanks to the ability of scientists to conduct brain scans, new research has demonstrated that when a person learns about the misfortune of a colleague or friend, the pleasure center in his or her brain activates.

Similarly, when one learns about the success or good fortune of a friend, the pain center of the brain will light up.

In short, envy is physiologically attached to pain, and schadenfreude is attached to pleasure, at least within the brain. 

And so It turns out that I am just like everyone else, only different in my willingness to admit to how despicable I may be feeling.

Perhaps my publisher should triple the price of my book

It is a sad fact that price seems to equate to pleasure in human beings.

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology recently studied a subject’s reaction to wine after being informed about the price of the bottle.

Of course, the researchers were not truthful about the price.

Two of the wines sampled were offered twice, once at an alleged low price and once at a much higher price. And the subjects consistently said they enjoyed what they thought were expensive wines more.

What’s more, a brain scan of the subjects indicated that although their taste centers registered the wines equally, the pleasure centers of their brains registered greater pleasure for the more expensive wine.

Certain aspects of humanity are disgusting, don’t you think?

But are all humans susceptible to this tendency? I can think of a bunch of people who I know who most certainly are, but I’d like to think that I’m enough of a contrarian and a minimalist to be immune to this much of this nonsense.

But probably not.  While I have no strong attachment to material possessions, I could see myself succumb to the illusion that a more expensive golf ball will fly farther or a more expensive club will allow me to strike the ball better.

I think I’m less susceptible than most, given my general distaste for materialism, but sadly, I’m also a little human.     

But you know who might be immune to this tendency?  My new hero.  

Rachael Ray.

I know.  You weren’t expecting that name.  Were you?

I got caught watching Rachael Ray’s daytime program for about two minutes the other day when I couldn’t find the remote control (my dog was sitting on it). She had a segment about the newest fashion trends, highlighting some fashion deals available in the marketplace today.

An odd-looking fellow named Cojo presented several pairs items from the world of lady's fashion.  In each pairing, one item was excessively expensive and one that was not.  At one point Cojo showed Rachael a Valentino purse and told her that it retailed for $895.

Rachael’s response:

That is stupid. I would never buy a bag that cost $800. My mother would kill me.

And you know what? I believed her.

Despite the wealth that she has likely accumulated, I really believe that she was disgusted at the price of the bag and would not purchase it.

I didn’t have much of an opinion on Rachael Ray before today. Even though it seems as if everyone in the world watches the Food Network (including my entire book club), I do not, so I have only experienced Rachael in bits and pieces, on commercials and on the occasional cooking show that Elysha might be watching.  And though the little bit that I’ve seen of her is sometimes annoying, I became Rachael Ray’s biggest fan today when she declared her opposition to these disgustingly inflated, image obsessed, status symbol prices.

Imagine what a delightful world it would be if every woman stood up and rejected the $1,200 sweater and the $400 pair of shoes like the great Rachael Ray…

And if every man stood up and declared a $800 watch or a $35 golf ball to be utter stupidity…

Probably not going to happen, huh?

But at least we know there’s something going on in the brain when someone pays $2,000 for a handbag.  I may still find this behavior disgusting and inane, but there’s a biologic component to the lunacy as well.   

Like a disease…

It also helps to explain the obscenity of objects like this.

Organ swapping?

How about this for an idea? Every year thousands of people die waiting for kidney and other organ transplants. It’s tragic considering how many of us have an extra kidney just waiting to be transplanted.

Even more tragic:

Think about the number of perfectly good kidneys that are lost when patients die while waiting for heart, liver, pancreas and lung transplants each year.

Here’s my plan:

If you are awaiting an organ of any kind other than a kidney (heart, liver, pancreas, lung, intestines, eyes) and are willing to donate one of your kidneys while waiting, you get moved up the list.

Yes, many people who are awaiting organs are far too sick to undergo a transplant surgery, but this is not always the case. People awaiting eyes, for example, are often in perfectly good health other than their inability to see.

Why not offer them a deal:

A kidney in exchange for a better shot at an eye?

And if you you're perfectly healthy and donate a kidney and one day find yourself in need of an organ, you get first spot on the list.

Give people a reason to donate these unneeded kidneys.

See any flaws in my plan?

The world is slightly less interesting today

Scientists claim to have answered the question that has confounded philosophers for centuries: Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

It was, they say, indisputably the chicken.

A team from Warwick and Sheffield universities examined the formation of a chicken's egg in microscopic detail and discovered that the shell was made from a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.

I can’t remember a time when I was opposed to scientific discovery, but the thought that my daughter will grow up in a world in which the chicken-or-egg controversy is finally settled saddens me a little.

Breasts and legs but no sex

Did you know that we’ve genetically engineered industrial turkeys to be so large that they can no longer have sex? Farmers use the equivalent of a turkey baster in order to impregnate female turkeys. Turkey baster to impregnate female turkeys?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Melting ice or a bullet in the head?

There’s been much discussion over the potential loss of the polar bears as a result of the recent melting of polar ice. Many environmentalists have adopted the polar bear as their symbol of the dangers of global warming.

While I have also grown concerned over the environment in recent years and don’t want to see the polar bear disappear from this planet, I think that it might be prudent to revise the Oslo Agreement, which permits the hunting of this supposedly endangered species. The treaty allows hunting "by local people using traditional methods," although this has been liberally interpreted by member nations. All nations except Norway allow hunting by the Inuit, and Canada and Denmark allow trophy hunting by tourists.

More than a thousand polar bears per year are killed under the auspices of this treaty.  

While I believe that the preservation of longstanding Native American traditions is a good thing, there are certain customs that we may want to put the kibosh on. For example, scalping was a common practice for the North American Indians, but we don’t allow this sort of thing to take place today.

If we are really concerned about the possible extinction of polar bears, why not start by keeping the bullets and arrows out of their heads?

Avoid cannibalism under these McSweeney's-referenced circumstances

I reference the apocalypse often. Not the apocalypse mentioned in the Bible, but the real possibility that someday, governments will collapse as a result of a man-made or natural disaster (or zombie invasion) and human beings will find themselves living in the Stone Age again. While I am not looking forward to this day, I am prepared for it and will be ruthless about my survival. I’ve already chosen the people with whom I will band together, and many close friends and family are excluded from this list because of what I perceive as their inability to survive under extreme conditions and/or their unwillingness to do the unthinkable in order to keep their family alive.

When the apocalypse comes, it’s every man for himself.

Years ago on the last day of school , one of my colleagues gave me a Zombie Apocalypse Survival Kit, complete with Raman noodles, matches, Twinkies, and THE ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GUIDE.

I’m thinking about adding her to my band of merry survivalists. I’m pretty sure that she’s ruthless enough, and the addition of the Twinkies to the kit was clever on a number of levels.

As a result of my desire to be prepared for this unfortunate day, I’m always on the lookout for new and pertinent information regarding apocalypse-related scenarios.

McSweeny’s provides just such information.  It’s a brilliant and potentially lifesaving list that all good apocalypse-preparedness experts should know about, as gruesome as it may be.

I’m only jealous that I didn’t think of it first.

Turkey baster

I’ve often been advised to learn something new everyday.  And I try.

Today’s bit of knowledge was especially interesting. 

I learned that artificial insemination via an anonymous sperm donor can be done from the confines of one’s own home, with the use of a turkey-baster in the words of one doctor. 

More on this when I have more facts, but apparently the process involves a fairly large containment chamber, an ample supply of liquid nitrogen, a hot plate and a Sears catalog of genetic markers.

This is sure to find its way into a book someday soon.