The paradox of choice - food for thought

Mistakes on the way to happiness (for women)

A few days ago I found a very good article - What makes women happy? http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2006/jun/11/familyandrelationships6

It's a long one, but here are my favorite parts:

We should be the happiest generation of women in history. We can choose whether to have children, and when. We don't need to marry to survive, and if marriage makes us miserable, we can divorce. Interesting and rewarding careers are on offer. We can reasonably expect men to take on a proportion of domestic responsibility. For women of other generations, we would seem to be sitting in front of a smorgasbord of opportunities. Yet we're not satisfied. It's not so much that we have to make a million choices; more that, having chosen, we are haunted by the possibility that our choices might be wrong.

If you actually ask women what makes them happy, they're quite likely to say 'sex', or 'eating' or a 'cold bottle of sauvignon blanc' because sensual pleasures are still as available as they ever were. But the woman who told me that happiness was 'sitting on the sofa with my husband' seemed to be imagining a different quality of experience altogether.

'the status and role model of a mother is lower than that of a street sweeper, because any unpaid work is despised and downgraded'.

In making our decisions, we compare ourselves to other people all the time, which is why a famous experiment found that far more people would prefer to earn $50,000 in a world in which average earnings were $25,000, than $100,000 in a world in which average earnings were $250,000. We're caught in a bind: we get quite a lot of exhilaration and sense of freedom from our choices - to be fashionable or stylish, live in the city or the country, be married or stay single. Such decisions are crucial to establishing our identity. But we can't escape the fact that all these choices are made in a context, and the idea that we can identify pure preferences that express our innermost souls is absurd.

When I go out to lunch three times in a row with a friend who only pushes a lettuce leaf around her plate, I feel unhappy (and at some level, I actually hate her) because I think a) she's more interested in cultivating her thinness than having a good time with me and b) she's implying she has more self-control than I do. And also because she's probably right about that.

We are in competition with women, and we're in competition with men, and it's exhausting - and, if we pause to think about it for a minute, often ugly and demeaning. It's also a no-win situation, because there will always be someone more competent or beautiful.

One of the first things to understand is that scientists are increasingly reaching that the neural pathways in the brain for desire are separate from those for happiness. In other words, we might desire things that don't make us happy.

Love and friendship score highly on all tests of what makes people happy, although love is obviously also capable of making people very unhappy. When it goes well, love satisfies both the desire for self-fulfilment (love is a search for the self, to the very bottom) and the sometimes contradictory desire for recognition, approval and endorsement of identity. There's general agreement that it isn't necessary to be in a relationship to be happy; but in that case, you do need plenty of friends.

This helps to explain why religious people consistently report greater levels of happiness than others. Religion offers a glimpse of some thing beyond the self.

The Meaning of the Engagement Ring

The engagement ring symbolizes a man's desire and commitment toward his bride-to-be, a gift  to signify an engagement and a man’s intention of marrying her.
In the past this gift was the groom's way of showing his commitment to financially take care of his future wife. Prior to the nineteenth century, women could not own property and it was common for them to collect pieces of jewelry as an investment for the future. If need be, a woman could sell her jewelry in bad times.
The beginning of the engagement ring dates back to the Fourth Lateran Council, which was presided over by Pope Innocent III (1215). Pope Innocent declared that there should be a longer waiting period between a betrothal and the marriage, which spawned the inception of ring giving. Generally plain rings of silver, gold, or iron were presented. Engagement rings with gems were representative of status and aristocracy. After time, diamonds were made available to the middle class as well. The reason that diamonds are generally used in engagement rings traces back to the Middle Ages, and even Roman Times. The Romans revered the diamond because they believed it had supernatural powers.

The most popular reason for a diamond to be used is because a diamond is said to be forever because the durability is meant to last forever but it is also because a love worthy of marriage is meant to last forever.
It is important that when a man presents his girlfriend with the engagement ring that his is sincere and that he expresses his undying love and interest in her. He is asking her to abandon her state of being single and to join with him in what will be a lifetime of matrimony. The better his engagement speech is, the better his proposal will be in terms of meaning and impact.
In some countries, such as Australia, both men and women exchange engagement rings. After the man proposes, the bride-to-be buys him an engagement ring as well.
In the Americas, and in Western tradition in general, the engagement ring is worn by a woman on her left hand ring finger. The reason behind this dates back to classical times, when the fourth finger on the left hand was known to contain the vena amoris, or "vein of love”.  People believe that the vein of love in the fourth finger goes directly to the heart of the woman.

 

Keep in mind that your engagement ring will serve to share your love not only for the duration of the life that you share with your wife, but chances are good that it will also stay in your family for generations as you pass it to your children and grand children.

Brave New World - 5

What are the greatest minds of our time working on? Let's sneek a peek at tomorrow :)

GMOs in short

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/health/california-gm-foods/index.html?hpt=he_c2

 

A different point of view: What makes us who we are?

World's Oldest Temple Discovered In Turkey

Turkey is Bulgaria's neighbor and I didn't know it had the oldest temple in the world, far older than the Pyramids in Egypt... wow, it's never late to learn new things about the world we live in  :)

How science is trying to avoid death

"Through the Wormhole" is one of my favorite science tv program. It shows complicated things in an easy and understandable way.

Here's one of the latest episodes I've seen. It doesn't look like the science will really be able to take people back from their final destination, however the researches and experiments shown are very interesting.

The Food We Eat

"We are what we eat", but do we know what we eat, do we even think about it?

The video below makes me really worried:

Men's and women's brains

Well, I agree men and women think in a different way. I don't know if this explanation is true, but for sure it's funny.

Men will extinct?

It has long been suspected that the sex chromosome that only males carry is deteriorating and could disappear entirely within a few million years, but until now, no one has understood the evolutionary processes that control the Y chromosome's demise. Now, a pair of Penn State scientists has discovered that the Y chromosome has evolved at a much more rapid pace than its partner chromosome, the X chromosome, leading to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, which are the structures that hold our DNA, but just one pair of these chromosomes are sex chromosomes, while the others are referred to as non-sex chromosomes. "In eutherian mammals [humans and other non-marsupial mammals], the sex chromosomes contain an additional region of DNA whereas, in the egg-laying mammals and marsupials [such as opossums and platypuses], this additional region of DNA is located on the non-sex chromosomes," said Penn State's Kateryna Makova. "At first, bits of DNA within this additional region were readily swapped between the X and Y chromosomes, but some time between 80 and 130 million years ago, the region became two completely separate entities that no longer swapped DNA. One of the regions became specifically associated with the X chromosome and the other became specifically associated with the Y chromosome."

Writing in PLoS Genetics, Makova explains that by comparing the DNA of the X and Y chromosomes in eutherian mammals to the DNA of the non-sex chromosomes in the opossum and platypus, the researchers were able to go back in time to the point when the X and Y chromosomes were still swapping DNA, just like the non-sex chromosomes in the opossum and platypus. The scientists then were able to observe how the DNA of the X and Y chromosomes changed over time relative to the DNA of the non-sex chromosomes. "Our research revealed that the Y-specific DNA began to evolve rapidly at the time that the DNA region split into two entities, while the X-specific DNA maintained the same evolutionary rate as the non-sex chromosomes," said Makova.

After determining that the Y chromosome has been evolving more rapidly and has been losing more genes as a result, they wanted to find out why the Y chromosome has not already disappeared entirely. "Today, the human Y chromosome contains less than 200 genes, while the human X chromosome contains around 1,100 genes," said co-researcher Melissa Wilson. "We know that a few of the genes on the Y chromosome are important, such as the ones involved in the formation of sperm, but we also know that most of the genes were not important for survival because they were lost, which led to the very different numbers of genes we observe between the once-identical X and Y. Although there is evidence that the Y chromosome is still degrading, some of the surviving genes on the Y chromosome may be essential, which can be inferred because these genes have been maintained for so long."

Makova and Wilson then decided to test the hypothesis that some of the genes on the Y chromosome are being maintained because they are essential. The team's approach was to compare the expression and function of genes on the Y chromosome with analogous genes on the X chromosome. "If the genes' expressions and/or functions were different, then it would make sense that the genes on the Y chromosome would be maintained because they are doing something that the genes on the X chromosome can't do," explained Makova. "This hypothesis turned out to be correct."

Although some of the genes on the Y chromosome have been maintained, most of them have died, and the team found evidence that some others are on track to disappear, as well. "Even though some of the genes appear to be important, we still think there is a chance that the Y chromosome eventually could disappear," said Makova. "If this happens, it won't be the end of males. Instead, a new pair of non-sex chromosomes likely will start on the path to becoming sex chromosomes."

In the future, the team plans to use its newly generated data to create a computer model that tracks the degeneration of the Y chromosome. The scientists hope to determine how long it will take for the Y chromosome to disappear.

Article taken from: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20090616231446data_trunc_sys.shtml

The Paradox of Revenge

The passion for revenge is strong and sometimes almost overwhelming. But our intuitive logic about revenge is often twisted, conflicted, parochial, and dangerous. Revenge is a primitive, destructive, and violent response to anger, injury, or humiliation. It is a misguided attempt to transform shame into pride. Many governments, religions, traditions, and cultures provide guidance on when revenge may and may not be sought. Unfortunately this guidance is often unsatisfactory.

Revenge originates from the primal need for self-defense. In today's world, it is often abused as a destructive and futile response to anger or humiliation.
Most strategies for revenge fail because they attempt to change the past. Unfortunately once the damage is done and the injury, insult, humiliation, or other loss occurs, the clock cannot be turned back and the loss is permanent. In addition, the value of the loss to the offended is seen as much greater than any benefit gained by the offender. As a result the offense represents an unrecoverable loss to society as a whole. Successful strategies for revenge look far into the future and recognize that the cycle of vengeance and retaliation can only spiral toward tragedy and are best stopped before they are started.
Revenge is a doomed attempt to eliminate shame and increase stature by asserting dominance. It fails because asserting dominance does not increase stature, instead it usually increases violence. Also, remorse cannot be coerced, it has to be discovered. Evidence indicates that forgiveness increases self-esteem and decreases anxiety.
Economics and business decision-making recognize sunk costs as the costs that have already been incurred and which can never be recovered to any significant degree. Economic theory proposes that a rational actor does not let sunk costs influence a decision because past costs cannot be recovered in any case. This is also called the bygones principle; let bygones be bygones. This recognizes that you cannot change the past. The fallacy of sunk costs is to consider sunk costs when making a decision. Sound business decisions are based on a forward-looking view, ignoring sunk costs.

Read more at the original path of the article: www.emotionalcompetency.com/revenge.htm

Sex Sells Sometimes

Does Sex really sale? Or may be the question is when does sex sell? It's just a tool and if it's used well it may bring success, otherwise......

Here are a few commercials that are trying to sell by imposing sex:

1. Lingerie - I like it! There was a quote : "If love is blind why is lingerie so popular?"

2. A vacuum - Really? Where's the vacuum? Doesn't look like something that would attract an average housewife.

3. Toilet Paper - feeling of intimacy... may be

4. Car. I think it's too much, but it's funny.

5. Coffee - Passion, art :)

6. Hamburger? I'm sure she's not eating food like that?
7. Shops? Hahahah I'll remember it just because it makes me laugh, but I'm sure it's not that funny for the lady working there.

Marketing Point - Does Sex Really Sell?

An article from:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/time-out/201007/does-sex-really-sell

It was interesting to be read, as I not completely agree. But it's always good to see more points.

You probably think it's obvious that sex sells. That's a basic, unchallenged marketing belief. When it comes to advertising and sales, we naturally turn to eye candy, pretty women and men who are the ideal faces of persuasion. They smile seductively when they urge us to buy, buy buy! And we buy.

But with sex and sales, as with so many other issues, it turns out that more is not necessarily better. In fact, what a visual hint of sex will accomplish, a visual barrage of sex can destroy. Not long ago, researchers at Iowa State University found that viewers of programs with sexually explicit or violent content were less likely to remember commercials immediately after watching and even 24 hours later.

Does sex sell? Not necessarily, it turns out. It is not as obvious as we supposed. Perhaps we need to rethink some of our beliefs.

The Iowa study involved several hundred subjects aged 18-54 with demographics selected to match those of the U.S. television audience. Those who saw ads during neutral programming (no sexual or violent content) remembered the advertised products better than those who saw the ads during sexual or violent programs.

We can speculate about why this might be true. Perhaps it's because people pay so much attention to the violence and sex that they have less attention to spare for the commercials. Perhaps the sexual and violent images stir up their own thoughts, which interfere with the ability to pay attention to the commercials. Or perhaps, as is the case in real-life experience of trauma, strong emotions aroused by powerful images impaired their memory directly.

Regardless of the mechanism, the practical result of sex and violence on TV is that viewers remember less of the products the advertisers are trying to sell. If you can't remember it, you're not going to buy it.

The false notion that sex and violence sell comes from the fact that their intensity captures the channel surfer's attention. Advertising revenue is naively based on the number of viewers, regardless of whether their ads make an impact on them. But if the viewers can't remember the commercials on these shows, what difference does it make that more people are watching!

When television, or other media, is criticized for poor taste and poor judgment, it tends to explain away responsibility by referring to the marketplace: sex sells, the industry says. And we're in the business of selling products by selling commercials. But this Iowa study, and previous ones that examined violence alone, shows that argument to be false. Advertisers who want to make an impression on television viewers would be better off reaching fewer people who can remember their product, than reaching more people who are so overwhelmed by the program that the commercial message is lost. Sexually graphic, intensely violent television programs are selling only one thing: the message of excessive violence and sex.

It is a coarsening and degrading message. It is a message of hostility and misogyny. And it doesn't even work!

Determine The Root Cause: 5 Whys

The 5 Whys is a technique used in the Analyze phase of the Six Sigma DMAIC methodology. The 5 Whys is a great Six Sigma tool that doesn't involve a statistical hypothesis and in many cases can be completed without a data collection plan.

Asking "Why?" may be a favorite technique of your three year old child in driving you crazy, but it could teach you a valuable Six Sigma quality lesson. The 5 Whys is a technique used in the Analyze phase of the Six Sigma DMAIC methodology. It's a great Six Sigma tool that doesn't involve data segmentation, hypothesis testing, regression or other advanced statistical tools, and in many cases can be completed without a data collection plan.

By repeatedly asking the question "Why" (five is a good rule of thumb), you can peel away the layers of symptoms which can lead to the root cause of a problem. Very often the ostensible reason for a problem will lead you to another question. Although this technique is called "5 Whys," you may find that you will need to ask the question fewer or more times than five before you find the issue related to a problem.

Benefits Of The 5 Whys

• Help identify the root cause of a problem.
• Determine the relationship between different root causes of a problem.
• One of the simplest tools; easy to complete without statistical analysis.

  When Is 5 Whys Most Useful?
  

• When problems involve human factors or interactions.
• In day-to-day business life; can be used within or without a Six Sigma project.

  How To Complete The 5 Whys
  1. Write down the specific problem. Writing the issue helps you formalize the problem and describe it completely. It also helps a team focus on the same problem.
  2. Ask Why the problem happens and write the answer down below the problem.
  3. If the answer you just provided doesn't identify the root cause of the problem that you wrote down in step 1, ask Why again and write that answer down.
  4. Loop back to step 3 until the team is in agreement that the problem's root cause is identified. Again, this may take fewer or more times than five Whys.

  5 Whys Examples
  Problem Statement: Customers are unhappy because they are being shipped products that don't meet their specifications.
  1. Why are customers being shipped bad products?
  - Because manufacturing built the products to a specification that is different from what the customer and the sales person agreed to.
  2. Why did manufacturing build the products to a different specification than that of sales?
  - Because the sales person expedites work on the shop floor by calling the head of manufacturing directly to begin work. An error happened when the specifications were being communicated or written down.
  3. Why does the sales person call the head of manufacturing directly to start work instead of following the procedure established in the company?
  - Because the "start work" form requires the sales director's approval before work can begin and slows the manufacturing process (or stops it when the director is out of the office).
  4. Why does the form contain an approval for the sales director?
  - Because the sales director needs to be continually updated on sales for discussions with the CEO.

  In this case only four Whys were required to find out that a non-value added signature authority is helping to cause a process breakdown.

  Let's take a look at a slightly more humorous example modified from Marc R.'s posting of 5 Whys in the iSixSigma Dictionary.

  Problem Statement: You are on your way home from work and your car stops in the middle of the road.
  1. Why did your car stop?
  - Because it ran out of gas.
  2. Why did it run out of gas?
  - Because I didn't buy any gas on my way to work.
  3. Why didn't you buy any gas this morning?
  - Because I didn't have any money.
  4. Why didn't you have any money?
  - Because I lost it all last night in a poker game.
  5. Why did you lose your money in last night's poker game?
  - Because I'm not very good at "bluffing" when I don't have a good hand.

  As you can see, in both examples the final Why leads the team to a statement (root cause) that the team can take action upon. It is much quicker to come up with a system that keeps the sales director updated on recent sales or teach a person to "bluff" a hand than it is to try to directly solve the stated problems above without further investigation.

  5 Whys And The Fishbone Diagram
  The 5 Whys can be used individually or as a part of the fishbone (also known as the cause and effect or Ishikawa) diagram. The fishbone diagram helps you explore all potential or real causes that result in a single defect or failure. Once all inputs are established on the fishbone, you can use the 5 Whys technique to drill down to the root causes.

  Take-Away Quotation
  "If you don't ask the right questions, you don't get the right answers. A question asked in the right way often points to its own answer. Asking questions is the ABC of diagnosis. Only the inquiring mind solves problems." -- Edward Hodnett

Original path to the article: http://www.isixsigma.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1308:&Itemid=155

Young more lonely than the old

Loneliness is more prevalent among the young than those past retirement age, a survey suggests, amid profound changes in the way we live and interact.Across all ages one in 10 people in the UK often feel lonely, the Mental Health Foundation has found, a state which can impact upon one's physical health. The charity highlights the decline of community and a growing focus on work. Technology can isolate but is also an unrivalled means of connecting people, the poll of 2,256 people concludes. The Lonely Society report described the generational differences uncovered in its survey as "striking". Nearly 60% of those aged between 18 to 34 questioned spoke of feeling lonely often or sometimes, compared to 35% of those aged over 55.
But it is possible there are generational differences in the subjective interpretation of what it is to be lonely. In addition, the survey did not break down the differences between the active 55-year-old enjoying retirement and the frail, isolated 80-year-old. Chronic elderly isolation was brought to the fore earlier this year with the deaths of a Northamptonshire husband and wife, whose bodies were found in their frozen home in the middle of Britain's coldest winter. The changing nature of the family, with fewer children who themselves often move away, has increased the prospect of elderly isolation. This has also become more likely as a result of longer life expectancies, the report noted. But neighbourhoods have also changed, with the local services such as post offices that tended to form the heart of old communities on the decline. The report also found gender differences, with more women than men reporting loneliness, and more likely to feel depressed as a result. It highlighted the fact that the proportion of people living alone, both male and female, had doubled between 1972 and 2008.

Facebook era

New technology meanwhile may be both a boon and a burden, the report suggested. At one level, it has enabled people to make connections they might not otherwise have made, and virtual friendships can evolve into real-life relationships. The report cites the example of the parenting website Netmums, which says that because of contacts made online 10,000 women meet face-to-face every month, reducing the sometimes intense sense of isolation new mothers can experience. But there are also concerns that technology is being used as a replacement for genuine human interaction. Nearly a third of young people questioned for the report said they spent too much time communicating with friends and families online when they should see them in person. Whether this has any genuine biological impact is unclear, but it has been suggested that physical presence is needed for the hormone oxytocin to be released - believed to be the chemical process underpinning the relationship between social contact and healthy hearts.
Manhattan meetingsSarah Brennan, head of the charity YoungMinds, said: "The young people we work with tell us that talking to hundreds of people on social networks is not like having a real relationship and when they are using these sites they are often alone in their bedrooms. "Loneliness is a big problem which we need to start to tackle. In the last few years our communities have broken down and become atomised. We need to foster these relationships again and invest in our young people's wellbeing so that they have somewhere to go or to turn to when they are feeling lonely."
Dr Peter Byrne of The Royal College of Psychiatrists said the report challenged the perception that loneliness was restricted to isolated, elderly "Eleanor Rigbys", with its findings on the young. He added: "Economic changes that disrupt people's work-life balance and family life, and send people hundreds of miles for work, are likely get worse during this recession. Openness about being lonely, and vulnerable friends and neighbours, is an important first step." But while many more of us may be living alone in cities, with some thought loneliness can be averted, the report suggested. "For example, Manhattan in New York has 50% lone households, more than anywhere else in the United States, yet its 'urban village' model sustains social networks because people habitually use alternative meeting places, including cafes and public spaces," the authors wrote. "According to evolutionary psychology, cities could in fact be our perfect environment because of the demands they make on our complex social brains, but only if they are well designed."

Original link to the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8701763.stm

Birth control pill approved 50 years ago

On 9 May 1960 the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the world's first birth control pill, a drug that has reshaped the cultural landscape in much of the world. The Pill allowed women to explore sexuality for the first time without fear of unwanted pregnancy. The anniversary invites a look at the questions surrounding oral contraception. One question for the anniversary is why, 50 years on, science has come up with a potency pill for men but not a male birth control pill.

Debate continues to rage on the Pill's health effects. In addition to worrisome side effects such as weight gain and nausea, the use of the Pill has been linked to a greater incidence of blood-clotting disorders. Researchers are also exploring possible links between hormonal contraceptives and cancer, infertility and sexual dysfunction.

Though health risks remain, the Pill has been widely accepted as the most satisfactory method of contraception, in part because of ease of use. By 2002, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11.6 million American women were on the Pill, making it the nation's leading method of contraception. Research published in January in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology says that oral contraceptives have been used by about 80 percent of women in the United States at some point in their lives.

Development of impotence drugs, such as Cialis, Viagra and Levitra, have delivered blockbuster profits to the world's big drug companies. The absence of a birth control pill for men suggests the drugmakers have decided it would be a bad investment risk. China has come the closest to a Pill for men with a birth control injection that is producing promising test results.

Conditions were not propitious in the United States for the development of the Pill. In In 1873, the US Congress passed the Comstock Law, which forbade all forms of contraception. Margaret Sanger's advocacy of birth control helped, indirectly to bring funding to the researcher credited with the development of the oral contraceptive, Gregory Pincus in 1951. Nine years later, Enovid - the first Pill was approved. Four years after the FDA approved the Pill, the US Supreme Court struck down the Comstock law.

Original link: http://www.newsahead.com/preview/2010/05/09/united-states-9-may-2010-birth-control-pill-approved-50-years-ago/index.php

Arguments in a Relationship- Inevitable When People are Close

Anyone who has been in a close relationship with another person has most likely been in an argument with that person. Disagreement is a part of any healthy relationship, but it can also be destructive to a relationship if the disagreement is dealt with in a non-productive manner. Frustration is normal, no two people are exactly alike, but learning how to appropriately vent that frustration without hurting the other person or yourself can be difficult. In order to better understand proper ways to deal with relationship conflict, you must first recognize the communication techniques that can be destructive to a relationship.

Destructive Communication Method #1: Avoiding the Argument
While some people live for a good debate, many others hate to argue. They avoid a potential argument like the plague and do anything they can to steer their relationship away from any conflict. Often, those who try to stay away from disagreements end up sacrificing their own desires and needs in order to keep everything copasetic. This avoidance can be very destructive to any relationship.

Just because you ignore something that is bothering you doesn’t mean it is going to just go away. The frustration you are hiding will eat away at you and cause you more stress than the brief argument that might have occurred if you brought the topic up to your partner. Covering up problems can result in two scenarios: an unsatisfying relationship or a blowout fight.

The first scenario may not happen overnight, but can build over time. If you are legitimately bothered by something that your relationship partner is doing but you don’t tell them about it, they will most likely continue to do whatever is bothering you. You will find yourself constantly frustrated with your relationship partner, hoping that they will change but not doing anything to help them change. Eventually you will become dissatisfied with the relationship. Yes, if you voice your opinions about what is bothering you, it may spark an argument, but at least your partner will know it is a problem and the two of you have the potential to work together to overcome that problem.

In the second scenario, minor frustrations that are suppressed will eventually build up until you get overwhelmed and end up getting very angry with your partner. It may be a small little frustration that finally sets you off but, with all of your built up anger, you end up lashing out at your partner, leaving them hurt and confused. Your partner is left wondering why such a small issue made you so angry, not knowing that you anger stems from a bunch of suppressed frustrations.

Voicing your legitimate frustrations is necessary in order to alleviate those problems. A small argument might be worth a lifetime of internal stress and unhappy relationships.

Destructive Communication Method #2: Nagging and Nitpicking
While it is important to voice your frustrations, it is also important to first make sure that you have a valid argument. When in a relationship it is important to “choose your battles”. To avoid sticking your foot in your mouth, make sure you are complaining about something that does justify the argument it may bring.

It is easy to get very comfortable with your partner and feel you can call him or her on every little flaw they have or mistake they make. Because you are so close to each other, you feel you can speak openly, but, often, you may inadvertently be hurting your partner or your relationship. Examine the reasons why something is bothering you and, if you feel the reasons are valid then it may be worth brining it to your partner’s attention. However, if you get into a habit of nagging your partner about every little thing that bothers you, you are brining unnecessary arguments into the relationship.

How would you feel if your partner was constantly telling you “Why didn’t you call me the second you got home? Don’t you love me?” or “Don’t look at that other girl, I consider that cheating!” Not only are these invalid, over exaggerated statements that will usually start an unnecessary argument, but they are also clear windows into your own insecurity and can make you less attractive in the eyes of your partner. Your partner may begin to “walk on eggshells” around you if you are constantly getting on his or her case about every little thing.

If something bugs you but you know it is just a personal preference and not the fault of the other person, try voicing your problem in a way that will not automatically anger the other person or make him or her defensive. If you don’t like your partner’s new hairstyle, don’t say “I hate your hair” (fighting words for many image-conscious people) say “This new haircut is fun and funky, but your previous haircut really brought out the beauty in your facial features more.” This way you are not just nagging, yet you are expressing your preference.

Destructive Communication Method #3: Hurting in the Heat of the Moment
If you do begin to argue it is vitally important that you choose your words carefully. Once something has been said, it can never be erased from memory. Because of this, try your best not to get overheated during an argument; you might say something you truly regret.

It doesn’t help anyone in an argument when someone starts name-calling. Don’t let yourself get so angry that you start calling your partner hurtful names like “stupid” or “ugly”. Never use the term “hate”. You don’t really hate anything about your partner; if you did you would not be in a relationship with them. Hate can be one of the most destructive words used in an argument and insults can hurt the one you love even when you don’t really mean them.

When you feel yourself getting really angry, it is perfectly ok to pause, take a breath, and think about what you really want to say rather than what your defenses want you to say. If you and your partner find yourselves blowing your arguments out of proportion often, take some time during one of your good conversations to figure out ways to solve your argument problems. Perhaps you need to agree that if either of you say “time out” in the middle of your argument, you both have to go into separate rooms for a couple of minutes to reevaluate your argument and calm down.

Once destructive communication methods are recognized it is easier to understand your own feelings. Avoiding destructive ways of arguing (or not arguing for that matter) and promoting healthy ways to work through disagreements can greatly improve your relationship satisfaction and, in turn, help you build a more solid foundation in your relationship.

Original lik:
Communicating More Effectively During Arguments By Kim Lance, NEWSdial.com contributor

Women prefer chocolate to sex

British women would rather have chocolate than wine, designer cosmetics and sex, says new research.
It is the ultimate guilty pleasure, with 2.3 million admitting that they have the sweet treat at least three times a day, reports express.co.uk.
A third of women confess that they dream about chocolate during the day compared with only 18 per cent who think about sex.
In contrast, six in 10 men have sex on their minds for most of the day and 11 per cent think about chocolate.
More than one in five women say that they would kiss goodbye to their sex lives before chocolate.
The study of 2,000 women was carried out by cereal bar firm Fibre Plus.
Spokeswoman of the firm Sally Tribe said: "Women turn to chocolate for comfort or to cheer themselves up. For many, it never disappoints".

original link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/relationships/man-woman/Women-prefer-chocolate-to-sex/articleshow/5855363.cms

“Life is short, have an affair”- encourage cheaters and take their money

When Ashley Madison, a social networking site for married people looking to have affairs, put up a billboard in Times Square, the owners of the building across the way threatened to burn it down. Soon major news teams like Fox were reporting on the complaints the advertisement stirred up among offended passersbys. By Thursday, July 24, only three days after it went up, the billboard was removed.

According to CEO Noel Biderman, who spoke from his office in Toronto, Ashley Madison's users have more than doubled in the last year. He admits that's due in part to media fodder from PR stunts like the Times Square billboard, which he says has aroused massive interest.

Was Biderman angry his billboard got taken down? His response: “Disappointed but not deterred.” He’s also quick to point out, “There’s absolutely nothing illegal in what we do. We offer freedom of choice.” Biderman has a point: “I don’t think a billboard is going to convince you to commit adultery. It just makes you aware of our service. People come to us because we offer them a lack of judgment. Step back and look at marriage and divorce rates. Monogamy is obviously up for debate.”

“This isn’t a question of race, or socio-economic class, or even gender,” he says. “Monogamy isn’t in people’s DNA, even if it’s still best for raising a family.” By Biderman’s calculations, the average man on Ashley Madison is in his late 30s or early 40s and has been married seven years, while the average woman is in her late 20s or early 30s and has only been married two. “The wedding passes, the bubble bursts, and women have fewer options,” he speculates for why female users turn more quickly to cheating. In general, the site tries hard to attract women, who only make up 30% of its user base.

Payment of $249 entitles the customer to participation in the "affair guarantee program," which pledges you to find "someone" within three months or your money back. To ensure that you keep up your end of the bargain, you must set up an attractive profile with photo, send at the very least 60 priority mail messages to different members, send five Ashley gifts, and engage in at least 180 minutes of instant messaging during that timeframe.

taken from: http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-19/columns/life-is-short-have-an-affair-new-york/