Wednesday 1 March 2017

Red vs. Blue:Men see why Necktie Colors Matter


In high-stakes politics and business, there are only two colors of ties: red and blue. Oh, sure, you might spot purple or yellow now and then, but those are clear statements of aloofness, be they calculated or careless.
Few world leaders or CEOs want to be seen as aloof.
But does it matter whether one wears red or blue? Yes, suggest several studies, including one published in the journal Science on Feb. 6, 2009. More on that in a moment.
First, some color:
Tonight (Feb. 28), during his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Donald Trump wore a blue and white striped tie. Seated behind Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Paul Ryan, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, both wore blue ties.
For his inauguration on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump wore a red tie with his dark suit, while outgoing President Barack Obama donned a blue tie. Their wives wore the reverse, with Michelle Obama in a red dress and Melania Trump wearing a powder blue ensemble. [The 15 Weirdest Presidential Inaugurations in US History]
In the first presidential debate of 2016, then-nominee Donald Trump donned a blue tie, while the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, wore a red suit. (Here's more science on why everyone should wear red.) The Democrats may have decided on "red" during the election, as Clinton's running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine donned a red tie during the first vice presidential debates on Oct. 4, while Trump's running mate, then-Indiana governor Mike Pence sported a blue necktie.


In President Obama's first 11 days on the job, he wore only red and blue ties, observed Daily News reporter Joe Dziemianowicz. "Obama represents something different in politics, but he dresses the same as everyone else," said Esquire senior fashion editor Wendell Brown. "Washington, D.C., is a strange place when it comes to style. All the emphasis is on fitting in."
At the inauguration in January 2009, Obama and Joe Biden seemed to coordinate efforts: "For the inaugural festivities, both executives chose predictable dark gray suits, white dress shirts, enlivened by either baby blue or red necktie," wrote Lisa Irazarry of The Star-Ledger in New Jersey. "As Obama wore a blue necktie on Monday and Biden wore his blue Tuesday, maybe they prearranged not to duplicate each other alternating necktie colors."
(Former President George H.W. Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush both had on plum overcoats and purple scarves at the inauguration. They can be aloof now. Plus, purple is associated with royalty and we do tend to treat our former presidents as such.)
Where's all this come from?
The ties to red and blue go way back. Neckties are said to be descended from the cravat and used throughout most of history, at least the portion during which humans have been fully clothed. Blue was once associated with the blue blood of British nobility, while red represented the red blood of the Guards.
Red has long been associated with love. And there's some science to that, too. A study last year found red clothes on women makes men feel more amorous towards them. In sports, athletes wearing red are known to outperform their opponents, in part because referees cut the red-clad competitors some slack, researchers discovered.
Politicians, of course, love to gain advantages. Neckties are one way they try to do that.
As Washington Post columnist Tom Shales wrote of a televised Bush-Kerry presidential debate in 2004: "Bush wore his traditional blue necktie, though a darker shade than the usual robin's-egg hue, and Kerry wore the classic TV-red necktie; red ties supposedly lend color to the face of whoever wears them, and if there's anything the Massachusetts senator needs, it's color."
But wait, there's more.
Red and blue are also thought by psychologists to improve brain performance and receptivity to advertising. The 2009 study in Science supports this idea. It also suggests nuances that world leaders and presidential candidates might want to know about, assuming one buys into the notion that presidential messages and speeches are essentially a form of advertising.
The study found that red is the most effective at enhancing our attention to detail, while blue is best at boosting our ability to think creatively.
"Previous research linked blue and red to enhanced cognitive performance, but disagreed on which provides the greatest boost," said study leader Juliet Zhu of the University of British Columbia. "It really depends on the nature of the task."
Zhu and colleagues tracked the performance of more than 600 people on cognitive tasks that required either creativity or attention to detail. Most experiments were conducted on computers with a screen that was red, blue or white.
Red boosted performance on detail-oriented tasks such as memory retrieval and proofreading up to 31 percent more than blue. For brainstorming and other creative tasks, blue cues prompted participants to produce twice as many creative outputs compared with red cues.
Why? Look around.
"Thanks to stop signs, emergency vehicles and teachers' red pens, we associate red with danger, mistakes and caution," Zhu said. "The avoidance motivation, or heightened state, that red activates makes us vigilant and thus helps us perform tasks where careful attention is required to produce a right or wrong answer."
And the value of blue?
"Through associations with the sky, the ocean and water, most people associate blue with openness, peace and tranquility," says Zhu, who conducted the research with UBC doctoral candidate Ravi Mehta. "The benign cues make people feel safe about being creative and exploratory. Not surprisingly it is people's favorite color."
Perhaps presidential candidate's choice of red vs. blue neckties should be made more thoughtfully than they realize.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published in 2009 and updated in 2017. 
Advertisement
Read More »

The Strange 'McGurk' Effect: How Your Eyes Can Affect What You Hear



It's pretty easy to spot a badly dubbed foreign film: The sounds that you hear coming out of the actors' mouths don't seem to match up with the movements of their lips that you see.
In other words, even when our vision and hearing are being stimulated at the same time during the film, our brains do a really good job of picking up on which lip movements go  with which speech sounds.
But the brain can also be fooled. In an intriguing illusion known as the McGurk effect, watching the movements of a person's lips can trick the brain into hearing the wrong sound. [10 Things You Didn't Know About the Brain]
The McGurk effect occurs when there is a conflict between visual speech, meaning the movements of someone's mouth and lips, and auditory speech, which are the sounds a person hears. And it can result in the perception of an entirely different message.                                              
Now, in a new study, neuroscientists at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston attempted to offer a quantitative explanation for why the McGurk effect occurs. They developed a computer model that was able to accurately predict when the McGurk effect should or should not occur in people, according to the findings, published (Feb. 16) in the journal PLOS Computational Biology. (Here is one demonstration, and another; neither of these examples were the actual video used in the study.)
In the demonstration of the McGurk effect used in the study, the participant is asked to keep his or her eyes closed while listening to a video that shows a person making the sounds "ba ba ba." Then that individual is asked to open their eyes and watch the mouth of the person in the video closely, but with the sound off. Now, the visuals look like the person is saying "ga ga ga." In the final step of the experiment, the exact same video is replayed, but this time the sound is on, and the participant is asked to keep his or her eyes open. People who are sensitive to the McGurk effect will report hearing "da da da" — a sound that doesn't match up with either the auditory or visual cues previously seen.
That's because the brain is attempting to resolve what it thinks it's hearing with a sound closer to what it visually sees. If the person closes their eyes again, and the video's sound is replayed, he or she will once again hear the original sound of "ba ba ba."
The effect was first described in an experiment done in 1976 by psychologists Harry McGurk and John MacDonald, which showed that visual information provided by mouth movements can influence and override what a person thinks he or she is hearing.
The McGurk effect is a powerful, multisensory illusion, said study co-author John Magnotti, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Baylor.  "The brain is taking auditory speech and visual speech and putting them together to form something new," he said. [6 Foods That Are Good For Your Brain]
When people are having a face-to-face conversation, the brain is engaged in complicated activity as it tries to decide how to put lip movements together with the speech sounds that are heard, Magnotti said.
In the study, the researchers tried to understand why the brain was better able to put some syllables together to interpret the sound heard correctly but not others, Magnotti said.
To do this, their model relied on an idea known as causal inference, or a process in which a person's brain decides whether the auditory and visual speech sounds were produced by the same source. What this means is that the sounds come from one person talking, or from multiple speakers, so you are hearing one person's voice, but looking at another person who is also talking, at the same time.
Other researchers have developed models to help predict when the McGurk effect may occur, but this new study is the first one to include causal inference in its calculation, Magnotti told Live Science. Factoring in causal inference may have improved the new model's accuracy, compared with previous prediction models of the illusion.
To test the accuracy of their prediction model, the researchers recruited 60 people and asked them to listen to pairs of auditory and visual speech from a single speaker. Then the participants were asked to decide if they thought they heard the sound "ba," "da" or "ga."
Their results showed that the model they developed could reliably predict when the majority of participants involved in the experiment would experience the McGurk effect. But as expected from their calculation, there were also some people who were not susceptible to it, Magnotti said. [Eye Tricks: Gallery of Visual Illusions]
Interestingly, Magnotti said that when this same test has been done with students in China rather than people in the United States, the McGurk effect has been shown to work in other languages.
Magnotti said that he thinks the computer models developed for this study may also have some practical uses. For example, the model could be helpful to companies that build computers that assist in speech recognition, such as a product like Google Home or Amazon Echo, he said.
If these smart speakers had cameras on them, they could integrate people's lip movement into what a person was saying to increase the accuracy of their speech-recognition systems, he said.
The model may also help children with cochlear implants, by improving researchers' understanding of how visual speech affects what a person hears, Magnotti said.
Read More »

NOTE: Unusually Hot or Cold Weather Could Affect Babies' Weight


Unusually hot or cold weather may affect the birth weight of babies, a new study suggests.
Researchers found that women who experienced unusually hot or cold weather during pregnancy were at increased risk for having babies with a low birth weight, even when the baby was not born prematurely.
Advertisement
Given that global climate change is expected to lead to an increase in extreme weather events, including unusually hot or cold weather, "these results highlight the need for more research as well as public health awareness of the potential adverse effects of extreme local temperature during pregnancy," the researchers wrote in their findings, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Environmental Research. [9 Uncommon Conditions That Pregnancy May Bring]
For the study, the researchers analyzed information from more than 220,000 babies born at 19 U.S. hospitals, from 2002 to 2008. They used weather data to determine the daily temperatures in the regions surrounding each hospital, and then they calculated the average temperatures for each trimester of pregnancy, as well as the average temperature during the whole pregnancy.
The researchers were interested in whether ambient temperatures might affect the risk of so-called "term low birth weight" babies — babies who are born at 37 weeks of pregnancy or later, but weigh less than 5.5 lbs.
In the study, unusually cold weather was defined as temperatures below the 5th percentile of average temperatures for a particular region, and unusually hot weather was defined as temperatures above the 95th percentile of average temperatures for a region.
This means that what the researchers considered to be hot or cold weather varied, depending on where the women lived. For example, at a hospital in Springfield, Massachusetts, unusually cold weather during a woman's second trimester was defined as temperatures below 27 degrees; but below 56 degrees at a hospital in Los Angeles; and below 70 degrees at a hospital in Miami.
The results showed that the women who were exposed to unusually cold weather in the second and third trimesters, or unusually hot weather in the third trimester, were 18 to 31 percent more likely to have term low-birth-weight babies, compared with those who were exposed to milder weather in the second and third trimesters.
In addition, women exposed to unusually hot or cold weather over their entire pregnancy were about 2.5 times more likely to have term low-birth-weight babies, compared to those exposed to milder temperatures over their entire pregnancy. [10 Surprising Ways Weather Has Changed History]
"Until we can learn more, it makes sense to reduce the amount of time that pregnant women are exposed to extreme hot or cold weather," said study senior author Pauline Mendola, an epidemiologist at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). "For example, pregnant women might try to avoid prolonged outdoor exposure to extreme heat or cold whenever possible," Mendola said.
Babies may be born with a low birth weight at term (37 to 40 weeks of pregnancy) because they are genetically predisposed to small size, or because they experienced an illness, infection or failure to grow in the womb, the researchers said.
The researchers don't know why exposure to unusually cold or hot temperatures in pregnancy may affect birth weight. One possibility is that extreme temperatures could reduce blow flow to the uterus, which could affect fetal growth, they said.
The new findings held steady even after the researchers took into account factors that could have affected the baby's birth weight, including the baby's sex and the mother's body mass index.
However, the researchers don't know how much time the women in the study spent outside, or how often they used air conditioners or heaters, and this information could affect the results.
The new findings add to those of a previous study by the same group of researchers, which found that exposure to unusually cold or hot temperatures in pregnancy is linked with an increased risk of preterm birth.
Read More »

OMG! Pictures of the day...dont miss it, Splensiziates what can you say about all?




Read More »
Designed by Anyinature