Banana popsicles: one memory I have of you.
Hmmmm. I think I can remember your face at the bottom of the laundry chute. But maybe that’s just my brain making stuff up.
Orange ice cream: something I’ve always wanted to tell you.
Gosh many things. Apologies for all the shit I put you through, how much you inspire me. Also that your booty looks damn good in short shorts.
Strawberry tea: favorite outfit.
Who’s? Mine or yours? If it is mine, I have a grey tank I got in the men’s section of the thrift store. I like it with my baggy brown harem pants. Very comfy, very cute. If it is yours, anything from Modcloth, you fashionable creature.
Strawberry iced tea: your best feature.
Again, not sure if mine or yours but I’m gonna go with you since why not. Your eyes are so bright and sparkly. So pretty.
This turned out to mostly just be me saying how awesome my sister is. I love you, Adina!
hahaha did you have to pick THAT memory… :P (for those not in the know, that day ended with me in the hospital getting stitches)
And i’m blushing. you are so sweet!!! I love you too!
OKAY BUT THIS IS ON THE STEAM PAGE??
AZAMI ROUTE WE’VE ALWAYS DREAMED OF MAYBE?
Russian medical record written in cursive
you say russian and i raise you chinese
*gasp of horror*
i refuse to believe any of this translates to anything
i’m going to just keep reblogging this every time a new language is added
As a Hebrew speaker I would just like to say that that is not standard Hebrew writing, that is some messy ass medical shit.
i’m pretty sure only the right half of that book (if any) is hebrew because at the top it says “miyamin lesmol” aka “from right to left”, which is the way the arrow is pointing, and also how hebrew is read.
the left page says “mismol leyamin” at the top, which is, you guessed it, “from left to right”. aka not how hebrew is read.
not that either of those pages is legible hebrew to me, except on the top…
Are Male and Female Brains Different?
This awesome new video from BrainCraft takes a look at the old adage “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus” through the lens of modern brain science. Sure, there’s lots of biological differences between people who identify as male, female, or neither… but in terms of our brains, do any of them really matter? Or are we just trying to mold science into what society already believes is true?
If you went to the movie theater this weekend, you might've caught the latest Scarlett Johansson action movie called "Lucy." It's about a woman who develops superpowers by harnessing the full potential of her brain.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "LUCY")
I'm able to do things I've never done before. I feel everything and I can control the elements around me.
You've probably heard this idea before. Most people only use 10% of their brains. The other 90% of the basically dormant. Well, in the movie "Lucy," Morgan Freeman gives us this what-if scenario?
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "LUCY")
What if there was a way of accessing 100% of our brain? What might we be capable of?
We would be capable of exactly what we're doing now, which is to say, we do use a hundred percent of our brain.
That is David Eagleman.
I'm a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine.
And he says, basically, all of us are like Lucy. We use all of our brains, all of time.
Even when you're just sitting around doing nothing your brain is screaming with activity all the time, around the clock; even when you're asleep it's screaming with activity.
In other words, this is a total myth. Very wrong, but still very popular. Take this clip from an Ellen DeGeneres stand-up special.
(SOUNDBITE OF STAND-UP SPECIAL)
It's true, they say we use ten percent of our brain. Ten percent of our brain. And I think, imagine what we could accomplish if we used the other 60 percent? Do you know what I'm saying?
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "TOMMY BOY")
Let's say the average person uses ten percent of their brain.
It's even in the movie "Tommy Boy."
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "TOMMY BOY")
How much do you use? One and a half percent. The rest is clogged with malted hops and bong residue.
Ariana Anderson is a researcher at UCLA. She looks at brain scans all day long. And she says, if someone were actually using just ten percent of their brain capacity...
Well, they would probably be declared brain-dead.
Sorry, "Tommy Boy." No one knows exactly where this myth came from but it's been around since at least the early 1900's. So why is this wrong idea still so popular?
Probably gives us some sort of hope that if we are doing things we shouldn't do, such as watching too much TV, alcohol abuse, well, it might be damaging our brain but it's probably damaging the 90 percent that we don't use. And that's not true. Whenever you're doing something that damages your brain, it's damaging something that's being used, and it's going to leave some sort of deficit behind.
For a long time I've wondered, why is this such a sticky myth?
Again, David Eagleman.
And I think it's because it gives us a sense that there's something there to be unlocked, that we could be so much better than we could. And really, this has the same appeal as any fairytale or superhero story. I mean, it's the neural equivalent to Peter Parker becoming Spiderman.
In other words, it's an idea that belongs in Hollywood.
UGH YES THIS. My biggest neuroscience pet peeve.
As a final example of the areas into which religious imagery can extend, we can look at the phrase sheyne moyshe ve-arendlekh, beautiful little Moses-and-Aaronses. Inevitably preceded by the words zi hot, she has, the idiom means “stacked.” Moses and Aaron sneak in by way of the Song of Songs, which is recited every Friday in much of the Yiddish-speaking world and every Passover throughout the whole of the Jewish world, and was thus familiar to large numbers of people who were not especially scholarly. One of its verses reads: “Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies” (Song 4:5).
Since the time of Rabbi Akiva, every traditional commentary on the Song of Songs has been at pains to prove that it has nothing to do with erotic poetry or physical love. It is generally taken as an allegory, usually of God’s love for the Jews. The popular Artscroll prayer book, which is rapidly becoming standard issue in all sorts of synagogues and temples, provides an easily accessible illustration of this sort of interpretation. In their introduction to the Song of Songs, the editors state quite openly that “a literal translation would be misleading—even false—because it would not convey the meaning intended by King Solomon.” In this spirit, the second verse—“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for thy love is better than wine”—comes out as “Communicate Your innermost wisdom to me again in loving closeness, for Your friendship is dearer than all earthly delights.” The misleading version of Chapter 1, verse 12—“While the king sat at his table, my spikenard sent forth its fragrance”—is corrected to: “While the King was yet at Sinai my malodorous deed gave forth its scent as my Golden Calf defiled the covenant,” which sounds a lot dirtier to me.
To be fair to the editors, they aren’t making this stuff up. They are following Rashi’s commentary fairly closely, and it’s important to stress that Rashi’s commentary has been indispensable to traditional study for nearly a thousand years: Jewish learning without Rashi is like pop music without the Beatles.
In his comments on the first verse quoted, Rashi refers to the medresh on the Song of Songs: “Your two breasts, which give you suck. That is, Moses and Aaron.” The two things that sustain the Children of Israel are the law, as given by Moses, and the sacrifices performed by Aaron the High Priest and his descendants. Of course, there is no mention of any of this in the text, and generations of schoolboys have noticed the disjunction between what the words are saying and what grown-ups insist that they mean. Over and over again, kids—boys in this case—took the commentary on its own terms, then extended those terms beyond the sacred page: now that we know what “breasts” really means, it “would be misleading—even false” to call any breasts “breasts.” Where the Boers were read into a text, Moses and Aaron are being read out of one. The commentary has been applied to the things described, not to the literary description of those things, but it has also kept its character as a commentary on a specific verse of the Bible. If the breasts of the woman in the Song of Songs are Moses and Aaron, then all women’s breasts are Moses and Aaron, and all the really good ones are beautiful Moses and Aarons—and now we know what Hooters will be called if the company ever goes kosher.
michael wex (born to kvetch)
i was not making that up
like tbh i feel like my problem with the “dark and gritty!!” trend in modern stories is this
there’s this idea in our culture that cynicism is realistic? that only children believe in happy endings, that people are ultimately selfish and greedy and seeing with clear eyes means seeing the world as an awful place
that idealism is— easy, i guess. butterflies and sunshine and love are easy things to have in your head.
but i’ve known since i was fifteen that idealism— faith in humanity— optimism— is the most difficult thing in the entire world.
i constantly struggle to have faith in humanity, because it’s really, really easy to lose it. it’s easy to look at the news and go “what were you expecting? of course humans behave this way.” it’s easy to see the world and go “ugh, there’s no hope there.” and the years when i believed that were easy. miserable— but easy.
it is hard work to see the good in people. it is hard work to hope. it is hard work to keep faith and love and joy and appreciation for beauty in my daily life.
and when moviemakers and tv producers and writers go “omg!!! all characters are selfish and act poorly and don’t love each other, nothing ever happens that is happy or good, that’s so much more realistic, that’s so much more adult”
no, it’s not
it’s the most childish thing i can imagine.