If you thank your parents for your intelligence or blame them for your stupidity, you might be right—but not because of the way they raised you.
In fact, a new study provides the most compelling evidence yet that intelligence is affected by a single gene.
The research, carried out at UCLA and published in Nature Genetics, studied fMRI brain scans and DNA samples of over 20,000 people. Thanks to the massive pool of volunteers, the researchers were able to identify a single gene that has a significant, measurable—but admittedly small—impact upon intelligence.
They found that variations on a gene called HMGA2 can alter IQ by 1.29 points. The variation in the gene is just a single different molecule in its string of DNA.
Despite the small difference, it’s an amazing discovery to establish that such a small chemical variation can have an effect on human intelligence. [Read More]
Singular.
Gene determinism.
Your intelligence, or lack thereof, is decided (at least partially) by a SINGLE gene?
How is that even fair?
Because for some…
It’s just really NOT.
Release Date: June 15, 2012
While still in his teens, Donny (Adam Sandler) fathered a son, Todd (Andy Samberg), and raised him as a single parent up until Todd’s 18th birthday. Now, after not seeing each other for years, Todds world comes crashing down on the eve of his wedding when an uninvited Donny suddenly shows up. Trying desperately to reconnect with his son, Donny is now forced to deal with the repercussions of his bad parenting skills.
Cast: Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Leighton Meester, James Caan, Eva Amurri, Susan Sarandon, Milo Ventimiglia, Will Forte, Colin Quinn, Todd Bridges, Vanilla Ice, Ian Ziering
Studio: Columbia Pictures (Sony)
Director: Sean Anders
Screenwriter: David H. Caspe
Genre: Comedy
Ten Razzies?
Wow!
Eat your heart out Hollywood
Nobody and I say again Nobody has 10 Oscars
And until yesterday
Nobody had 10 Razzies either
Mazel tov Adam
You are the first one
Enjoy your success
You are envy of the world
They say that it’s an honour just to be nominated, but this is one honour most in Hollywood could probably do without. The winners of the annual Golden Raspberry Awards — better known as the Razzies — were announced Sunday night, and the big “winner” of the night? Adam Sandler.
Unlike the Oscars, which recognize outstanding achievement in film, the Razzies are given out to the very worst films and performances of the year. With categories like Worst Picture, Worst Actor, and Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel, winning a Razzie is a dubious distinction in Tinseltown.
The legal protection that are afforded to some people and all under the guise of ‘fairness and equality’!
Now extends to ones ‘attractiveness’…
Seriously?!
[via Care2] In a recent New York Times Op-ed piece, economist Daniel S. Hamermesh asked a provocative question: should ugly people be a legally protected class?
Hamermesh definitively thinks so. And he’s proposing that anti-discrimination laws be extended to more, er, homely people.
But why, exactly, should something as seemingly subjective as beauty be the subject of anti-discrimination laws? For one thing, as Hamermesh points out, extensive research has shown that attractive people have measurable advantages over unattractive people.
Unattractive people are more likely than their attractive counterparts to earn less money, recieve longer prison sentences and be poorer. Attractive people, on the other hand, are more likely to recieve more attention from their bosses, get better deals on their mortgages and find a higher-earning spouse. The list goes on.
But how could you possibly offer legal protection to unattractive people when beauty is so subjective? Hamermesh offers an important counterpoint: Individuals might have different opinions on who the most attractive person in the room is, but when it comes down to it, most people agree on who is generally considered attractive and who isn’t.
And, perhaps the supposed subjectivity of attractiveness is precisely the problem for outlawing appearance-based discrimination. As Deboarah L. Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University and author of The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law said in an interview,
Most Americans have bumped up against some aspect of the problem and might be energized to do something if they came to see this as not just an individual problem but a social injustice and cultural challenge.
****
In 2000, a bartender at Harrah’s in Las Vegas lost her job because she wouldn’t wear makeup. The Nevada Supreme Court later sided with the casino. In 2002, Jazzercise turned a fitness instructor in San Francisco down for a franchise because the company thought she was too fat. Jazzercise ultimately reversed its decision and stopped requiring its instructors to look “trim and fit”.
What explains the different outcomes of these two cases? Indeed, San Francisco, unlike Las Vegas, has appearance-based anti-discrimination laws on the books. [Read More]
No matter how people like to delude themselves…
You cannot force someone to react in a manner dichotomously opposed to their beliefs just because you demand it.
In fact, often by doing so?
One often exacerbates the original problem, more so than if they would have let the situation come to its natural resolution.
So no, sorry…
Laws cannot fix ‘ugly’.
But, given the proper make-up coverage?
Maybe you can:
[via Daily Mail] A Russian make-up artist has proved anyone can look as glamorous as a celebrity with his ‘miracle makeovers’.
Stylist to the stars Vadim Andreev says he can transform anyone into model material in just one hour with his cosmetics tricks.
The 27-year-old, from St Petersburg, Russia, has released before and after pictures of his recent makeovers to show how different women can look with the right eyeshadow, blusher and concealer.
‘Make-up is a very personal and individual process. I believe that every common girl can become a glamorous celebrity,’ he said. ‘I want to help everyone to see their own beauty, just sometimes it takes a little bit more time and a bit of a helping hand.’
Vadim said that his subjects are often so amazed by their transformation they don’t recognise themselves.
‘They do not even expect that they may become so beautiful just by putting a few accents on their faces,’ he revealed.
The beauty guru, who has worked with Russian and Georgian popstars, actresses and models, charges around £90 to give makeovers to ‘everyday’ people.
He says those coming to him for help must do so with a certain mind set or they will struggle to accept their new look.
‘Some conservative people are not ready for such a make over, so they need time to get used to these changes,’ he explained. ‘But most women embrace the changes – and evolve their look to incorporate the new glamorous them.’
However, while he is happy to share some of his tricks of the trade with his customers, he says there are some beauty secrets he cannot reveal.
‘There are obviously special secrets we use in professional make-up to extend the beauty look – but these are top secret,’ he teased. [Read More]
Nope.
Never mind…
Just saw the trailer for the new Adam Sandler movie, Jack & Jill and the make-up?
There are certain types of ugly?
Unfixable, even by the best of make-up artists Hollywood has to offer.
I hear lawyers rubbing their hands together in glee now, even as you read this.
Gee…
Talk about bursting my magic-make-up-can-take-the-ugly-away bubble.
