聚會時間 晚上7:00-9:30
板橋區文化路一段421巷11弄1號 (陽光甜味咖啡館)
新埔捷運站1號出口 旁邊7-11巷子進入20公尺 看到夏朵美髮左轉
吃飯口味看個性
What the Foods You Eat Say About Your Personality
Jelisa Castrodale
This article originally appeared on Broadly.
"If you think about it, through most of human existence, we ate what was available," says John Hayes, an associate professor of food science at Pennsylvania State University. "Or if we didn't eat what was available, we ate what our dominant culture was. Imagine in 1950s Britain, you probably ate sausages and boiled potatoes and overly boiled vegetables."
"Today," he continues, "you can get chicken tikka everywhere."
While access, culture, and habits are huge factors in determining what foods we consume, in the last few years, a handful of studies have shown that personality traits also have some influence over what we choose to put in our mouths.
Spicy Risk Takers
For example, according to research by Hayes (a self-professed chili head for more than 20 years) and former Penn State grad student Nadia Byrnes, people who like to ride fast rollercoasters or enjoy being the center of attention at a party probably also order their wings with the hottest flavor profile available. In two different studies, Hayes and Byrnes examined the role personality plays in the intake of spicy foods.
In the first, which published in 2013, Byrnes and Hayes gathered the answers of 97 people who rated the intensity of capsaicin (the active component of chili peppers) samples. After analyzing their answers alongside the results of a personality survey, they found that people who tend to seek sensations (for example, those who like to drive fast on a twisty road) were more likely to enjoy and eat spicy foods. They also found that people sensitive to reward (those who enjoy being praised and winning in competitions) were also more likely to eat spicy foods.
The second study, which came out earlier this year, confirmed these findings and went on to clarify that while a person with sensitivity to reward may eat spicy foods, that does not necessarily mean that person actually likes spicy food. The takeaway, Hayes explains to Broadly, is that "personality influences liking, which influences intake, but personality can also influence intake without actually influencing your liking for the food."
This reveals how multi-factorial food choices are, he says. "It's about things like culture and our food environment and not just what we like to eat."
Enjoy that gin and tonic, you psychopath.
The Sweetest Things
In 2011, another group of researchers investigated whether conceptual metaphors, like when caring people are referred to as "sweet," can offer any insight into personality processes. After executing five different studies, which included seeing if participants volunteered to do another survey without compensation, researchers found that people who like sweets, such as candy, caramel, and chocolate cake, tend to be friendly and compassionate—sweethearts, essentially.
"People high in agreeableness liked sweet foods to a greater extent than did people low in agreeableness," the authors write, "and, perhaps of more importance, such preferences for sweet food tastes predicted laboratory measures of prosocial functioning [such as helping, sharing, or volunteering]."
Alternatively, a person who has a penchant for black coffee, tonic water, or radishes might be a psychopath. According to work released last year by Austrian researchers that surveyed a total of almost 1,000 people, those who prefer bitter-tasting foods and drinks are more likely to have anti-social personality traits, such as being manipulative, callous, and/or insensitive.
General bitter taste preferences emerged as a robust predictor for Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and everyday sadism
"General bitter taste preferences emerged as a robust predictor for Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and everyday sadism," the study's authors write. Furthermore, "the results suggest that how much people like bitter tasting foods and drinks is stably tied to how dark their personality is."
Life Is Like a Box of Chocolates
While the academic research is still in its early stages, Alan Hirsch, a neurologist and psychologist specializing in the treatment of smell and taste loss at the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, has been connecting people's taste preferences to their personality traits for years. He's written a number of books, including What Flavor is Your Personality, among others. Hirsch says he and his team have looked at the taste preferences and personality profiles of more than 18,000 people, making correlations using everything from snacks and breakfast foods to ice cream flavors.
"Basically everything we do reflects our underlying personality—the direction you comb your hair, the color tie you wear, the of shoes you wear, even the model car you drive," Hirsch tells Broadly. "The question is, are we smart enough to figure out what it means? That's basically what we've done with food preferences."
One study looked at the vodka flavor preferences. Commissioned in the early 2000s by the company that distributed Stolichnaya vodka at the time, the researchers conducted several hours of personality tests. The subjects then blind-tested various flavors of vodka, including peach, vanilla, orange, and others, thus producing a statistical correlation between vodka flavor preferences and personality typing.
According to Hirsch's findings, people who say they like peach vodka tend to be "lively, dramatic, and enthusiastic." In contrast, cranberry vodka lovers tend to be serious, dull in bed, and work too much. Meanwhile, vanilla vodka drinkers are "impulsive, emotionally driven" and like to be around other people.
Basically everything we do reflects our underlying personality—the direction you comb your hair, the color tie you wear, the of shoes you wear, even the model car you drive
大部分癌症來自壞運氣!
Most Cancer Cases Arise from "Bad Luck"
Sharon Begley,STAT scientificamerican.com
It was the study that launched hundreds of scientific rebuttals, insinuations that the authors had been paid off by the chemical industry, and charges that it was a “massive” stunt “hidden behind fancy numbers of doubtful quality.”
The claim that sparked this controversy? That “bad luck,” more than environmental factors or inherited genes, affects whether someone develops cancer, implying that preventive efforts from smoking cessation to environmental cleanups were largely pointless.
Now the authors of that 2015 paper are back. In a study published on Thursday in Science, they double down on their original finding but also labor mightily to correct widespread misinterpretations of it. This time, using health records from 69 countries, they conclude that 66 percent of cancer-causing genetic mutations arise from the “bad luck” of a healthy, dividing cell making a random mistake when it copies its DNA.
The scientists go to great pains to explain that this doesn’t mean that two-thirds of cancers are beyond the reach of prevention. But understanding the role of these unforced errors “could provide comfort to the millions of patients who developed cancer but led near-perfect [healthy] lifestyles,” said cancer biologist Dr. Bert Vogelstein of Johns Hopkins University, senior author of both the original study and the new one. “This is particularly true for parents of children who have cancer” and might blame the tragedy on the genes they passed on to their child or the environment they provided, he said.
“They did it right this time,” Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said of the authors. “In the first paper they upset a lot of people who are advocates for cancer prevention, and confused a lot of people,” by leaving the impression that most cancers are beyond the reach of prevention. “But a reasonable person can read this one and think, prevention is not useless.”
Separate research has shown that roughly 42 percent of cancers are preventable by, for instance, not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, and not being exposed to cancer-causing pollutants.
Not all critics of the first paper were swayed, however. “I am not very impressed with the overall conclusion,” said Dr. Yusuf Hannun, director of the Stony Brook Cancer Center, who led a 2015 study showing that the vast majority of cancers are due to extrinsic factors, not random mistakes in DNA copying.
The original “bad luck” study as well as this one compared how rates of cancer in different tissues relate to the frequency with which healthy cells in those tissues — lung, bone, brain, and more — divide.
They found a very close correlation. Cells of the large intestine divide frequently, and 5 percent of people develop cancer in that tissue. Cells of the small intestine divide rarely, and only 0.2 percent of people develop cancer there. Because dividing cells do not always copy their DNA perfectly, every division is an opportunity for a cancer-causing mutation to arise; more divisions, more cancers, the Hopkins team argued.
Overall, they found, about two-thirds of the difference in cancer rates from one kind of tissue to another is due to differences in the rates of cell division in those tissues. That conclusion echoes the one in their previous, US-only study, and held for all 17 cancer types and all 69 countries they analyzed.
That doesn’t mean that two-thirds of cancers are caused by unforced errors in DNA copying, however. The high or low rate of cell divisions account for two-thirds of the differences in cancer rates from one kind of tissue to another. For instance, the “cause” of the Himalayas is the Indian tectonic plate smashing into the Eurasian Plate. That has produced more than a dozen peaks reaching above 26,000 feet. But the difference between K2’s 28,251 feet and Annapurna’s 26,545 feet is nevertheless partly due to random factors, from wind erosion to the angle of the rock strata underlying each mountain.
0 意見:
張貼留言