With a name like vampire squid, I really don’t have to look any further for a flashy, eye-grabbing title. Yep, there is a squid out there actually called the vampire squid. Have you seen it? If you have not, you really should. How can you resist with a name like that?
Luckily, you can see this fab deep-sea denizen thanks to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) and their incredible remotely operated vehicle (ROV) technology that allows them, and now you, to watch these animals in their natural habitat. Some of this incredible footage was just placed on YouTube for everyone to see.
The vampire squid, or Vampyroteuthis, is actually not considered a true squid, but is a close relative of both squids and octopods, all of which form the group known as cephalopods. There are many true squids in the squid family, and many octopods in the octopus family, but only one Vampyroteuthis. A single species that, in and of itself, makes up the last remaining member of its family. It is considered a phylogenetic relic; a remnant of a group of organisms that has long since gone extinct.
You probably wont see this creature on display at the Monterey Bay Aquarium any time soon. It routinely lives between 2000 and 3000 feet, in a region called the Oxygen Minimum Zone, or OMZ. This is a hard habitat to replicate, not to mention how difficult it is to capture and transport one of these fragile animals successfully.
And they are, in fact, fairly fragile. They reach only a foot in length when fully grown. They’re sort of squishy and gelatinous. They swim slowly, and spend much of the time drifting passively. Swimming fast probably isn’t something they can pull off too often. Because they live in cold, oxygen-poor regions of the deep-sea, Vampyroteuthis has a very low metabolism, the lowest of any cephalopod.
The vampire squid also does not suck blood, or turn into a bat at night. However, it does have wing-like fins on the sides of its head, which propel Vampyroteuthis through the water. And, it has webbing between its legs that almost give it the appearance of being wrapped in a cape or cloak. It is dark reddish black in color, and lives in the deep ocean where there is virtually no light from the sun.
Light from the sun, however, is not needed for Vampyroteuthis. Instead, it makes its own light, as it is covered with light producing organs called photophores. It has highly sensitive eyes. Cephalopod eyes, in general, have many of the same features as the vertebrate eye (that’s your and my eye). Therefore, they have very good vision, and a relatively well-developed nervous system for processing that information.
Vampyroteuthis also lacks two abilities common in other cephalopods. It cannot change color. And, it does not ‘ink.’ However, these two features are hardly needed in the deep-ocean habitat.
Be sure to check out the links!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Anniversaries and New Connections
It is the one year anniversary of publishing my column in the Marina Gazette. When I started writing the column I re-dedicated this blog to the same effort. In honor of both of their first birthdays, I have started a new Facebook page to share the information more easily. I hope you enjoy the expanded venue!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
What is the Meaning of This?
Today we will chat about words; their history, their common usage, and their evolution within language. This is the science of etymology. My inspiration from this comes from my eldest, dearest darling of a child (insert whatever brand of personal sarcasm you prefer here), the young Mr. Think Science, Jr.
Each Monday TS Jr. comes home with a list of spelling/vocabulary words that he is meant to write several times, and then look up in the dictionary and define. Now this dictionary that we use at home is rather sentimental, as dictionaries go. It was my mother’s in college, and she gave it to me in high school. It is huge, and heavy, and literally fifty years old. The fact that it is huge and heavy causes some complaining when it must be dragged to the kitchen table, and I am secretly convinced that it gains at least twenty pounds in weight whenever touched by my dear child, or so you would think based upon how he carries on about having to drag this hulking beast from his room. Personally, I think this is ‘character building’, and I think he should have to carry this dictionary in his backpack to school, walking uphill both ways, like I did as a child…in the snow…in Arizona…but I digress. I may have to change my stance on this.
I recently learned the limitations of a 50-year old dictionary. For one, it does not have words in it that were invented in the modern age, such as ‘unfriend.’ You might recall from previous posts that this was The Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2009. The second limitation is really the same limitation, and that is that this dictionary was written in a different era.
At little background is needed about now - I have been harping on TS Jr. to choose the first definition given for each word, since that is usually the most common definition. He, of course, chooses whichever definition is the shortest. Therefore, many words on his list, prior to my scrutiny, have simple, but not inaccurate, definitions such as ‘noun.’
The word of the moment, whose true and detailed meaning we were anxiously waiting to reveal, was ‘chartreuse.’ And, in my 50-year-old dictionary, the definition for chartreuse is ‘a green or yellow aromatic liqueur’ (insert dramatic pause here to simulate new conundrum for mostly politically correct parental unit, aka me). I did not even know there was a liqueur called Chartreuse.
Darling TS Jr. subsequently won the battle that ensued about changing the definition to a more ‘school-appropriate’ definition, since, as he aptly pointed out, that WAS the first definition. So, that is the definition on his homework. I believe this is what they call ‘eating your words’ and TS Jr. skipped all the way to class, backpack sans giant dictionary, with the revelation that never again would he be held to the first definition of a word and might yet be able to get away with such concise and profoundly accurate definitions as ‘noun.’
Chartreuse is a French liqueur that contains 132 herbal extracts. Produced by monks, the alcohol gets its name from their home, the Grande Chartreuse monastery located in the Chartreuse Mountains. Chartreuse was originally thought to be an elixir of long life, stemming from a recipe obtained by the monks in 1605, and was 71% alcohol. The more modern Green and Yellow varieties, which tend more towards green and yellow coloration respectively, range from 55 to 40%. Sadly, the monks were expelled from France in 1903 when the French government attempted to take over both the monastery and the highly profitable Chartreuse production business. The monks simply moved to Spain and kept on making Chartreuse under a slightly different label. Attempts to reproduce the monk’s secret recipe failed miserably, the company went bankrupt, and the monks were allowed to return in 1927. The monastery was destroyed by a mudslide in 1935 and production was moved to nearby Voiron where it continues today. Thank you, Wikipedia. None of that information was in any of the dictionaries that I consulted.
The color that we refer to as ‘chartreuse’ comes from the color of the original alcohol, a very bright color between green and yellow. Today we might refer to this color as fluorescent green. The greenish color comes from the chlorophyll in those 132 herbs. And chlorophyll, does, in fact, fluoresce. Recall from your basic biology that chlorophyll is the green pigment that plants use to absorb light for photosynthesis, which is the process by which they produce new tissue and grow - you just knew I’d slip the science there somehow.
My note to the teacher along with the homework - Please don't suspend my child. I will buy a new dictionary this weekend.
Each Monday TS Jr. comes home with a list of spelling/vocabulary words that he is meant to write several times, and then look up in the dictionary and define. Now this dictionary that we use at home is rather sentimental, as dictionaries go. It was my mother’s in college, and she gave it to me in high school. It is huge, and heavy, and literally fifty years old. The fact that it is huge and heavy causes some complaining when it must be dragged to the kitchen table, and I am secretly convinced that it gains at least twenty pounds in weight whenever touched by my dear child, or so you would think based upon how he carries on about having to drag this hulking beast from his room. Personally, I think this is ‘character building’, and I think he should have to carry this dictionary in his backpack to school, walking uphill both ways, like I did as a child…in the snow…in Arizona…but I digress. I may have to change my stance on this.
I recently learned the limitations of a 50-year old dictionary. For one, it does not have words in it that were invented in the modern age, such as ‘unfriend.’ You might recall from previous posts that this was The Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2009. The second limitation is really the same limitation, and that is that this dictionary was written in a different era.
At little background is needed about now - I have been harping on TS Jr. to choose the first definition given for each word, since that is usually the most common definition. He, of course, chooses whichever definition is the shortest. Therefore, many words on his list, prior to my scrutiny, have simple, but not inaccurate, definitions such as ‘noun.’
The word of the moment, whose true and detailed meaning we were anxiously waiting to reveal, was ‘chartreuse.’ And, in my 50-year-old dictionary, the definition for chartreuse is ‘a green or yellow aromatic liqueur’ (insert dramatic pause here to simulate new conundrum for mostly politically correct parental unit, aka me). I did not even know there was a liqueur called Chartreuse.
Darling TS Jr. subsequently won the battle that ensued about changing the definition to a more ‘school-appropriate’ definition, since, as he aptly pointed out, that WAS the first definition. So, that is the definition on his homework. I believe this is what they call ‘eating your words’ and TS Jr. skipped all the way to class, backpack sans giant dictionary, with the revelation that never again would he be held to the first definition of a word and might yet be able to get away with such concise and profoundly accurate definitions as ‘noun.’
Chartreuse is a French liqueur that contains 132 herbal extracts. Produced by monks, the alcohol gets its name from their home, the Grande Chartreuse monastery located in the Chartreuse Mountains. Chartreuse was originally thought to be an elixir of long life, stemming from a recipe obtained by the monks in 1605, and was 71% alcohol. The more modern Green and Yellow varieties, which tend more towards green and yellow coloration respectively, range from 55 to 40%. Sadly, the monks were expelled from France in 1903 when the French government attempted to take over both the monastery and the highly profitable Chartreuse production business. The monks simply moved to Spain and kept on making Chartreuse under a slightly different label. Attempts to reproduce the monk’s secret recipe failed miserably, the company went bankrupt, and the monks were allowed to return in 1927. The monastery was destroyed by a mudslide in 1935 and production was moved to nearby Voiron where it continues today. Thank you, Wikipedia. None of that information was in any of the dictionaries that I consulted.
The color that we refer to as ‘chartreuse’ comes from the color of the original alcohol, a very bright color between green and yellow. Today we might refer to this color as fluorescent green. The greenish color comes from the chlorophyll in those 132 herbs. And chlorophyll, does, in fact, fluoresce. Recall from your basic biology that chlorophyll is the green pigment that plants use to absorb light for photosynthesis, which is the process by which they produce new tissue and grow - you just knew I’d slip the science there somehow.
My note to the teacher along with the homework - Please don't suspend my child. I will buy a new dictionary this weekend.
Monday, December 28, 2009
What's In a Name?
Names are important - they tell us what things are, and what they are not.
Recently, two high-schoolers from Trinity High School in New York undertook a most amazing science project. With the help of Rockefeller University and the American Museum Of Natural History, they collected objects around them to determine their DNA identities. They compared the DNA sequences from their objects to a DNA library known in the scientific community as GenBank.
Their first finding was, unfortunately, not unusual among such studies. They found that 17% of the food products that they tested were actually misrepresented by the names on their labels (see press release). Such food products included a brand of sheep's milk cheese that was actually made from cow's milk, venison dog treats made of beef; gourmet sturgeon caviar that was actually Mississippi paddlefish, a delicacy called “dried shark” which was freshwater Nile perch, dried smelt that was instead Japanese anchovy, and “Caribbean Red snapper” that turned out to be Malabar blood snapper from Southeast Asia.
Their study is the latest of many papers that have cast doubt on the foods we eat, particularly some of the more extravagant ones. Last year, two other students from Trinity High School tested the sushi in local restaurants and found that other fish species were often substituted from some of the higher end ones. Of course, despite being rather underhanded, this may work out in the fishes’ favor, as the cheaper fish tend to be more abundant (which is why they are cheaper), and are perhaps less threatened by fishing pressure. But, this is not universally so. Fish that cannot be traded legally often get processed and sold under pseudonyms. A full 25% of fish tested in that study proved to be entirely other fish. Of these, at least one was a species that is farmed and on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s ‘safe’ list (but it is not nearly worth the price of the species it was masquerading as), and another was a federally listed endangered species.
Their second finding was truly inspired. The pair discovered what is potentially a new species of cockroach. If it proves to be new to science, the two will get to choose its name. This means both a common name, and its scientific name - the name that will be recognized by scientists the world over, no matter what language they speak, as belonging to this species and this species only.
The scientific name is a latin name consisting of two parts; a binomial consisting of the genus and species names. For example, we are Homo sapiens, of the genus ‘Homo’, and the species ‘sapiens’. Note that species are never referred to as just their species name. So, we would never call ourselves just ‘sapiens.’ We are Homo sapiens, or H. sapiens. Also note that the species portion of the binomial is not capitalized; only the generic, or genus, name. And, that the genus and species names are italicized.
Recently, two high-schoolers from Trinity High School in New York undertook a most amazing science project. With the help of Rockefeller University and the American Museum Of Natural History, they collected objects around them to determine their DNA identities. They compared the DNA sequences from their objects to a DNA library known in the scientific community as GenBank.
Their first finding was, unfortunately, not unusual among such studies. They found that 17% of the food products that they tested were actually misrepresented by the names on their labels (see press release). Such food products included a brand of sheep's milk cheese that was actually made from cow's milk, venison dog treats made of beef; gourmet sturgeon caviar that was actually Mississippi paddlefish, a delicacy called “dried shark” which was freshwater Nile perch, dried smelt that was instead Japanese anchovy, and “Caribbean Red snapper” that turned out to be Malabar blood snapper from Southeast Asia.
Their study is the latest of many papers that have cast doubt on the foods we eat, particularly some of the more extravagant ones. Last year, two other students from Trinity High School tested the sushi in local restaurants and found that other fish species were often substituted from some of the higher end ones. Of course, despite being rather underhanded, this may work out in the fishes’ favor, as the cheaper fish tend to be more abundant (which is why they are cheaper), and are perhaps less threatened by fishing pressure. But, this is not universally so. Fish that cannot be traded legally often get processed and sold under pseudonyms. A full 25% of fish tested in that study proved to be entirely other fish. Of these, at least one was a species that is farmed and on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s ‘safe’ list (but it is not nearly worth the price of the species it was masquerading as), and another was a federally listed endangered species.
Their second finding was truly inspired. The pair discovered what is potentially a new species of cockroach. If it proves to be new to science, the two will get to choose its name. This means both a common name, and its scientific name - the name that will be recognized by scientists the world over, no matter what language they speak, as belonging to this species and this species only.
The scientific name is a latin name consisting of two parts; a binomial consisting of the genus and species names. For example, we are Homo sapiens, of the genus ‘Homo’, and the species ‘sapiens’. Note that species are never referred to as just their species name. So, we would never call ourselves just ‘sapiens.’ We are Homo sapiens, or H. sapiens. Also note that the species portion of the binomial is not capitalized; only the generic, or genus, name. And, that the genus and species names are italicized.
Friday, December 18, 2009
When Science Has it all Wrong
It is human nature to look around us and try to make sense of what we see. So, of course, when observers of the natural world long ago realized that there were female crab spiders that came in different colors, they wondered why. It appeared that yellow spiders lived in yellow wildflowers and white spiders lived in white wildflowers. Therefore, the obvious conclusion, color differences must be for camouflage. Yellow spiders resting on yellow flowers are practically invisible – to us.
Crab spiders eat wasps (this is one spider I would not mind having in my backyard). They sit in the center of the wildflower, and wait. Wasps come to the flower to collect nectar, and the perfectly camouflaged spider is waiting there, and happily collects dinner.
It is completely logical and downright sensible. In an homage to Rudyard Kipling, I argue that this is the perfect ‘just-so’ story. So much so, why would any scientist bother to test this?
But, it turns out that this idea has never been tested. That the spiders eat wasps as described above is known. But, is the camouflage important? Do yellow spiders on yellow plants actually do better at capturing wasps than yellow spiders on white plants, or white spiders on yellow plants? Shockingly, they do not, as featured in the journal Science's ScienceShots. The camouflaged spiders are no better than non-camoflauged spiders. Yellow spiders on white, yellow, or purple flowers all have the same success, as do white spiders.
So, why do the spiders come in different colors? They both eat the same food (wasps), so it is not food causing the color change. They cannot actually change colors when they move to different flowers, so it is something they are born with, and they must then choose the right flower in order to be hidden effectively. Perhaps the spiders are camouflaged in order to be protected from their predators, whatever organism is seeking them out for dinner. I am guessing birds. Or, perhaps it is as the authors of this research speculate; not about camouflage at all. The different colors have differing UV protective qualities. The point is – we’ve got no idea.
I recently gave a presentation of my own research to my group of graduate students at our weekly meeting. I was interrupted a few minutes into my presentation by a student who asked “wait a minute, this relationship seems so obvious, don’t we already know this?” Turns out, young grasshopper, that we do not. And, the conclusion was not as it would have seemed to be, on the surface of it all.
That we do not yet know all there is to know about the natural world is reassuring to me. One – job security. Two – the natural world still contains the greatest mysteries of all time. It is enough to keep me entertained for probably the rest of my days.
So, why does the giraffe have a long neck? Giraffes, it turns out, have not evolved long necks in order to gather leaves from tall trees, though those necks are still darn handy in that regard. Long necks are a sexually-selected trait. Meaning, females prefer males with long necks, and have, with their choosiness, driven the course of evolution. Much like the infamous Tule Elk, whose antlers are so large that the largest males cannot lift their heads off the ground. Biology isn’t always logical, but those female Tule Elk sure like large antlers.
Are blue whales the largest animals ever to roam the earth? And, does the fact that they are in the water, and do not have to bear their weight on land, allow them to get so large. There is pretty convincing evidence now that there were dinosaurs much heavier than blue whales, and that they lived on land.
As for how the leopard got its spots, well Rudyard Kipling had this one pretty close to right in his Just So Stories. The hunter in the story observed that the animals, without their stripes and spots, “ought to show up in this dark place like ripe bananas in a smokehouse.” I’m pretty sure he is spot on.
Crab spiders eat wasps (this is one spider I would not mind having in my backyard). They sit in the center of the wildflower, and wait. Wasps come to the flower to collect nectar, and the perfectly camouflaged spider is waiting there, and happily collects dinner.
It is completely logical and downright sensible. In an homage to Rudyard Kipling, I argue that this is the perfect ‘just-so’ story. So much so, why would any scientist bother to test this?
But, it turns out that this idea has never been tested. That the spiders eat wasps as described above is known. But, is the camouflage important? Do yellow spiders on yellow plants actually do better at capturing wasps than yellow spiders on white plants, or white spiders on yellow plants? Shockingly, they do not, as featured in the journal Science's ScienceShots. The camouflaged spiders are no better than non-camoflauged spiders. Yellow spiders on white, yellow, or purple flowers all have the same success, as do white spiders.
So, why do the spiders come in different colors? They both eat the same food (wasps), so it is not food causing the color change. They cannot actually change colors when they move to different flowers, so it is something they are born with, and they must then choose the right flower in order to be hidden effectively. Perhaps the spiders are camouflaged in order to be protected from their predators, whatever organism is seeking them out for dinner. I am guessing birds. Or, perhaps it is as the authors of this research speculate; not about camouflage at all. The different colors have differing UV protective qualities. The point is – we’ve got no idea.
I recently gave a presentation of my own research to my group of graduate students at our weekly meeting. I was interrupted a few minutes into my presentation by a student who asked “wait a minute, this relationship seems so obvious, don’t we already know this?” Turns out, young grasshopper, that we do not. And, the conclusion was not as it would have seemed to be, on the surface of it all.
That we do not yet know all there is to know about the natural world is reassuring to me. One – job security. Two – the natural world still contains the greatest mysteries of all time. It is enough to keep me entertained for probably the rest of my days.
So, why does the giraffe have a long neck? Giraffes, it turns out, have not evolved long necks in order to gather leaves from tall trees, though those necks are still darn handy in that regard. Long necks are a sexually-selected trait. Meaning, females prefer males with long necks, and have, with their choosiness, driven the course of evolution. Much like the infamous Tule Elk, whose antlers are so large that the largest males cannot lift their heads off the ground. Biology isn’t always logical, but those female Tule Elk sure like large antlers.
Are blue whales the largest animals ever to roam the earth? And, does the fact that they are in the water, and do not have to bear their weight on land, allow them to get so large. There is pretty convincing evidence now that there were dinosaurs much heavier than blue whales, and that they lived on land.
As for how the leopard got its spots, well Rudyard Kipling had this one pretty close to right in his Just So Stories. The hunter in the story observed that the animals, without their stripes and spots, “ought to show up in this dark place like ripe bananas in a smokehouse.” I’m pretty sure he is spot on.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Science of…Facebook?
After writing about YouTube and Twitter last week you knew I’d have to get to Facebook eventually. A recent study about to be published in the journal Psychological Science has revealed something I find intrinsically fascinating – that Facebook profiles actually capture people’s true personalities.
Now, I am not suggesting that Facebook provides you with some deep understanding of a person and can in anyway replace meaningful, in-person interaction. Even as a regular Facebook user, I will put this caveat right up front. But, what this study revealed is that people essentially tell the truth about who they are when they create their profiles, take those little quizzes, and so on. I find that downright amazing. Isn’t this the standing fear with on-line dating, that you will show up to meet the person (since you cannot have an on-line marriage…but maybe you can now with Facebook), and they’ll be totally different from how they advertised themselves in their profile?
Case in point: Facebook allows you to post whatever picture you want. And, I view the posting of that picture as something akin to attending my high-school reunion. I have not seen these people in a long time, some of them were mean and snooty, and I want to impress them when they see me. And, I do not mind admitting that I would like to impress them with my clearly adorable and smart children, my own obviously stunning intellect, and of course my age-defying good looks. And, this is why there is currently a cartoon version of me on my Facebook page. One that is 20 pounds lighter than the actual me (though not nearly as witty and smart because she’s really very two-dimensional).
I do love that Facebook has allowed me to find old school classmates from across the globe and reconnect with them. And, I am somewhat amazed that when I do find the time to take those little quizzes that I do answer them honestly. Based upon their findings, the authors of the study suggest that this is because “online social networks are not so much about providing positive spin for the profile owners, but are instead just another medium for engaging in genuine social interactions, much like the telephone."
The researchers claim that the psychology behind the success of sites such as Facebook comes from the basic human need to be known by others. If the information people got from Facebook could not be trusted, then it would quickly fall out of favor because we wouldn’t actually know each other at all.
What I am equally surprised by is my own observation of just how much people will put “out there” on Facebook. I’ve seen posts by people blasting their spouses, posts by students blasting their professors, and by employees blasting their bosses. In many of those cases I know/work with/like both the post-er (plaintiff) and the post-ee (defendant) and think to myself “Oh dear, should I know this? Should I do something?” Of course, there is really no need for me to say anything because there is one thing that Facebook obviously isn’t. It isn’t private. Do our usual filters that prevent us from making career- or relationship-ending statements shut down because it is just us and the computer, mano-a-machino, when we are typing? Are we under the impression that the 200 or so people we have “friended” are our circle of dearest and best friends that should all be trusted with our most intimate thoughts the very moment that we have them?
Additional research published in Psychological Science suggests, oddly, that people tend not to adopt “stable disclosure strategies,” and reveal too much information in situations such as on-line social websites. People tend also not to reveal enough information when they most need to, such as admitting unhealthy habits to a physician during an exam. They attribute this to a level of fluency – which they describe as the ability to process information. We are comfortable and process information easily in our little Facebook worlds. We are often uncomfortable, and don’t necessarily understand the medical jargon being used, in our doctor’s offices. In the latter setting, we don’t process information easily, and we are less likely to reveal information about ourselves.
In closing, I add this lovely tidbit. Each year new words are added to the dictionary as new colloquialisms are added to our language. The Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2009 is “unfriend”, as in "To remove someone as a friend on a social networking site such as Facebook."
Now, I am not suggesting that Facebook provides you with some deep understanding of a person and can in anyway replace meaningful, in-person interaction. Even as a regular Facebook user, I will put this caveat right up front. But, what this study revealed is that people essentially tell the truth about who they are when they create their profiles, take those little quizzes, and so on. I find that downright amazing. Isn’t this the standing fear with on-line dating, that you will show up to meet the person (since you cannot have an on-line marriage…but maybe you can now with Facebook), and they’ll be totally different from how they advertised themselves in their profile?
Case in point: Facebook allows you to post whatever picture you want. And, I view the posting of that picture as something akin to attending my high-school reunion. I have not seen these people in a long time, some of them were mean and snooty, and I want to impress them when they see me. And, I do not mind admitting that I would like to impress them with my clearly adorable and smart children, my own obviously stunning intellect, and of course my age-defying good looks. And, this is why there is currently a cartoon version of me on my Facebook page. One that is 20 pounds lighter than the actual me (though not nearly as witty and smart because she’s really very two-dimensional).
I do love that Facebook has allowed me to find old school classmates from across the globe and reconnect with them. And, I am somewhat amazed that when I do find the time to take those little quizzes that I do answer them honestly. Based upon their findings, the authors of the study suggest that this is because “online social networks are not so much about providing positive spin for the profile owners, but are instead just another medium for engaging in genuine social interactions, much like the telephone."
The researchers claim that the psychology behind the success of sites such as Facebook comes from the basic human need to be known by others. If the information people got from Facebook could not be trusted, then it would quickly fall out of favor because we wouldn’t actually know each other at all.
What I am equally surprised by is my own observation of just how much people will put “out there” on Facebook. I’ve seen posts by people blasting their spouses, posts by students blasting their professors, and by employees blasting their bosses. In many of those cases I know/work with/like both the post-er (plaintiff) and the post-ee (defendant) and think to myself “Oh dear, should I know this? Should I do something?” Of course, there is really no need for me to say anything because there is one thing that Facebook obviously isn’t. It isn’t private. Do our usual filters that prevent us from making career- or relationship-ending statements shut down because it is just us and the computer, mano-a-machino, when we are typing? Are we under the impression that the 200 or so people we have “friended” are our circle of dearest and best friends that should all be trusted with our most intimate thoughts the very moment that we have them?
Additional research published in Psychological Science suggests, oddly, that people tend not to adopt “stable disclosure strategies,” and reveal too much information in situations such as on-line social websites. People tend also not to reveal enough information when they most need to, such as admitting unhealthy habits to a physician during an exam. They attribute this to a level of fluency – which they describe as the ability to process information. We are comfortable and process information easily in our little Facebook worlds. We are often uncomfortable, and don’t necessarily understand the medical jargon being used, in our doctor’s offices. In the latter setting, we don’t process information easily, and we are less likely to reveal information about ourselves.
In closing, I add this lovely tidbit. Each year new words are added to the dictionary as new colloquialisms are added to our language. The Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2009 is “unfriend”, as in "To remove someone as a friend on a social networking site such as Facebook."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Viral Video
Science, Twitter, and YouTube? Seems like one of these things is not like the others (remember the old Sesame Street song?). But, sure enough, internet tools like Twitter and YouTube are being used to convey science to the world, and not just scientists.
Two recent, and most fabulous, examples hit my e-mail inbox today, and could not demonstrate the phenomenon more aptly.
The first came in the form of a message from a friend and colleague, with a link to his colleague’s blog post. These two colleagues co-teach a course. My friend showed a neat video as part of his lecture, to demonstrate a fascinating bit of evolution, about the sling-jaw wrasse. Like the name implies, the sling-jaw wrasse has developed a series of hinges and joints in the head that allows it to literally throw its jaws at its prey. This is what I do for a living – study how animals work. I was sent the message because I had worked a little bit on this particular species (but I was not the one to discover the most amazing biological feat I just told you about). Check it out. Or, just do a search for “Epibulus” in Youtube.
The sling-jaw wrasse is amazing. What I find more amazing is that the colleague posted a twitter feed that went something like this “My co-instructor showed this crazy sling-jaw wrasse video in our class today” with the link above. A few folks tweeted back. It hit a couple of blogs, including Discover Magazine….then web news sites, then the London Telegraph (a newspaper), and a week later there had been 165,000 views of the YouTube video.
The second example hit my inbox just one hour and twenty-six minutes earlier, courtesy of ScienceNow. This is about bone worms. You know with a name like bone worms, these have got to be cool animals. Researchers right here in Monterey Bay, from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, have been studying these worms that show up at food falls in the deep sea. Whales die, sink, and become an important source of nutrition for the next several years for species like bone worms. These worms arrive at the carcass as larvae, and metamorphose into adult females. Additional larvae that arrive after that point settle on the females and become males, living in a sort of harem serving the female (there is just something quite fabulous about that). Researchers have been sinking carcasses that wash up on the beach for the last few years and tracking who shows up. Turns about there are at least 15 species of these worms in Monterey Bay, most of them new to science. Check out the bone worms in action. Or, just search for “MBARI bone worms” in YouTube.
Two recent, and most fabulous, examples hit my e-mail inbox today, and could not demonstrate the phenomenon more aptly.
The first came in the form of a message from a friend and colleague, with a link to his colleague’s blog post. These two colleagues co-teach a course. My friend showed a neat video as part of his lecture, to demonstrate a fascinating bit of evolution, about the sling-jaw wrasse. Like the name implies, the sling-jaw wrasse has developed a series of hinges and joints in the head that allows it to literally throw its jaws at its prey. This is what I do for a living – study how animals work. I was sent the message because I had worked a little bit on this particular species (but I was not the one to discover the most amazing biological feat I just told you about). Check it out. Or, just do a search for “Epibulus” in Youtube.
The sling-jaw wrasse is amazing. What I find more amazing is that the colleague posted a twitter feed that went something like this “My co-instructor showed this crazy sling-jaw wrasse video in our class today” with the link above. A few folks tweeted back. It hit a couple of blogs, including Discover Magazine….then web news sites, then the London Telegraph (a newspaper), and a week later there had been 165,000 views of the YouTube video.
The second example hit my inbox just one hour and twenty-six minutes earlier, courtesy of ScienceNow. This is about bone worms. You know with a name like bone worms, these have got to be cool animals. Researchers right here in Monterey Bay, from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, have been studying these worms that show up at food falls in the deep sea. Whales die, sink, and become an important source of nutrition for the next several years for species like bone worms. These worms arrive at the carcass as larvae, and metamorphose into adult females. Additional larvae that arrive after that point settle on the females and become males, living in a sort of harem serving the female (there is just something quite fabulous about that). Researchers have been sinking carcasses that wash up on the beach for the last few years and tracking who shows up. Turns about there are at least 15 species of these worms in Monterey Bay, most of them new to science. Check out the bone worms in action. Or, just search for “MBARI bone worms” in YouTube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
