HappehCom

May 312016
 

Scientists R Stoopid. Really Really Stoopid. The scientists described in the news article that is the basis for this blog post claim that the reason Russian people do not smile has to do with psychological factors. While that claim may have some small percentage of truth to it, that is not the real reason Russian people do not smile.

The actual reason Russians, as well as many Asian cultures, do not smile much is physical. The physical reason is related to the discussion in the news story about how people who smile are frequently viewed as fools by Russians and the people of various Asian cultures. Human beings who are physical weak in a particular way will have a tendency to smile frequently, while human beings who are physically strong in a particular way will tend to never smile.

The news article is reprinted below.

Continue reading »

May 272016
 

For the Victorians, it was known as self-abuse, and was deemed the cause of most physical and psychological ills. At the height of a moral and medical panic, one nineteenth century expert declared: ‘That insanity arises from masturbation is beyond a doubt’. Both scientific knowledge and cultural attitudes towards masturbation have both thankfully changed dramatically in the intervening two hundred years since then. In the present day, 38 per cent of women and 61 per cent of men masturbate, according to research.

Continue reading »

Mar 122016
 

One of the main reasons given by people who reject the claims of Happeh Theory is that “Scientists disagree with those claims”. Those poor trusting people have been brainwashed to believe that scientists always know what they are talking about, and that scientists should always be trusted and believed before anyone else is trusted and believed.

The posts found in this category of the website provide examples of scientists being wrong about their pronouncements. Hopefully the open minded reader, after perusing all of the examples of scientists making mistakes found in this and other related categories, will realize that doubting the claims of Happeh Theory because scientists disagree with them is not a rational act. If scientists can be wrong about all of the examples posted on this website, then of course they can be and are wrong in their disagreements with the claims of Happeh Theory.

The study that is the basis of this post discovered that the drug Ritalin, which has been prescribed to ADHD patients for over a decade, has no long term beneficial effect. The patients could have been taking sugar pills all that time and experienced the same relief from their ADHD symptoms.

Just think of all the money those scientists and the Pharmaceutical companies made from Ritalin prescriptions over that decade.

Never trust a scientist. They lie. They promote ideas for profit. And they are just plain stoopid and don’t know what they are talking about.

The original news story is reprinted below.

———————————————

Drugs such as Ritalin make no difference to the long-term outcomes of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, who continue to struggle academically and mentally as they get older, early research findings suggest.

The Murdoch Childrens Research Institute has been following 178 children with ADHD and 212 children without ADHD for three years to identify what factors make a difference to the development of children with the disorder.

By the age of seven there are severe academic, social and mental health differences between children with ADHD and their peers, the Children’s Attention Project, which is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, found. Three years on, these disparities persist, preliminary findings suggest.

Four times as many 10-year-olds with ADHD suffer from mental health problems such as anxiety and oppositional disorder. They are also well behind their peers in their maths and reading abilities. There was no difference in outcomes between boys and girls.

“All of them continue to be substantially at risk of academic and mental health problems as they had been at seven,” one of the chief investigators of the project, paediatrician Daryl Efron said.

The 13 per cent of children in the study who were taking medication such as Ritalin to treat their ADHD were doing no better or worse than their unmedicated peers at age 10. “Medication doesn’t alter the long-term outcomes of kids [with ADHD],” Dr Efron said. He cautioned that the project wasn’t designed to test the long-term effectiveness of drugs.

Dr Efron said drugs like Ritalin were very effective in reducing the day-to-day symptoms of ADHD “but we haven’t progressed very much beyond that”.

“Medication is fantastic for treating the symptoms of ADHD . . . helping kids be calmer and focus better. It doesn’t surprise me that so far we haven’t shown medication makes a difference to kids doing better into the future.”

Dr Efron said doctors need to find out what combination of support and intervention does make a difference long-term. He suggested it could involve medication, parent support and remedial strategies.

It is estimated that 5 per cent of children have ADHD, although not all are diagnosed. Children with ADHD are at greater risk of poor outcomes in adolescence and adulthood, including mental health issues like anxiety, learning difficulties and getting in trouble with the law.

Dr Efron said that the mean age of being diagnosed with ADHD isnine years, and 80 per cent of children with ADHD who are seeing a paediatrician are on medication.

Paula Burgess has found that occupational therapy and the family’s new dog have made the most difference to her seven-year-old son, Jesse, who has ADHD. Jesse will ask his mum to rock him on the yoga ball when he feels his symptoms escalating.

“He’ll say ‘Mummy I’m not feeling right, can you rock me please’ and then he’ll come straight down,” Ms Burgess said. Meanwhile, the presence of border collie River is helping reduce Jesse’s anxiety.

It’s been a far more positive experience than the disastrous six weeks Jesse spent on Ritalin. While his teachers noticed an improvement, Jesse’s anxiety spiralled, and he would lash out at his mother when he got home from school, kicking and punching her.

“We want to make sure he can get through school, but not at the price of the imbalance it caused in his body, and the tension it caused between us,” Ms Burgess said.

Ms Burgess hasn’t ruled out medicating Jesse in the future if necessary, but for now the family is managing his ADHD with occupational therapy, routine, monitoring his diet, support from the school he attends, and the psychologist and psychiatrist he sees. River is being trained as a therapy dog, and later in the year Jesse will also try equine therapy.

“We’ll take it day by day and see what happens,” Ms Burgess said. “It’s a mix of things [that work], having the right team in place, having people to go to to ask questions, getting constant feedback on what’s going on.”

“With ADHD you can have a false sense of security, you can think it’s going really well, then everything goes crap and it’s almost like starting again.”

Feb 232016
 
Home » Energy Focusing Or Energy As Intent - Gallery 01 » Tagged photos: Energyfocus
Energy_Focus_Gallery_001.jpg
The man’s open hands are focusing his energy on his head
Energy_Focus_Gallery_002.jpg
This man’s energy is focused in the direction of his pointing finger
Energy_Focus_Gallery_003.jpg
This man is focusing his energy on the basketball
Energy_Focus_Gallery_005.jpg
This man is focusing his energy on his brain
Energy_Focus_Gallery_006.jpg
This actor is focusing his energy on the camera to make an impression because otherwise he would look old
Energy_Focus_Gallery_007.jpg
The man’s energy is focused on the ping pong ball
Energy_Focus_Gallery_008.jpg
Each player is focusing their energy on the ping pong ball
Energy_Focus_Gallery_009.jpg
All of these people are focusing their energy on a ping pong ball
Energy_Focus_Gallery_010.jpg
This man is focusing his energy on his head
Energy_Focus_Gallery_011.jpg
This man’s energy is focused in the direction his eyes are looking, which is to his left
Energy_Focus_Gallery_012.jpg
The energy of this man is focused to his left
Energy_Focus_Gallery_013.jpg
The man in the white shirt is focusing his angry energy on the man he is shaking hands with
Feb 162016
 

A scientist selling a book wants people to believe that the pain people experience on breaking up a relationship is caused by changing chemicals in the brain. This claim is another example of Scientists Being Stoopid.

Human beings have what is commonly referred to as “energy”. This energy can leave the body and enter into another body where it influences the second body. That is exactly what happens between two human beings in a relationship. The energy of each person leaves their body and enters into and entwines with the body of the other human being in the relationship, or the energy of just one of the human beings in the relationship enters into and entwines with the body of the other human being in the relationship.

The reason “breaking up a relationship” is painful is basically due to exactly what the phrase says. The “breaking up” of the energy linkage between the two human beings.

An easy way to visualize what is going on is to think of two human beings in a relationship as two pieces of a puzzle. When two puzzle pieces are pulled apart, one of the puzzle pieces has a gap in it where the other puzzle piece connected it to it. When two human beings “break up”, a void or “gap” is created in one or both of the human beings in the relationship. It is that void or “gap” in the energy body that causes the pain associated with “breaking up” a relationship.

Scientist R Stoopid. Sometimes they are stoopid on purpose to create false beliefs in people which make the people easier to control because of their faulty world view, and sometimes well meaning scientists r stoopid because they do not know any better. Regardless of the reason why Scientists R Stoopid, it is always best for any person to immediately assume any proclamation or claim by a scientist is stoopid. It is almost always safer and more accurate to trust one’s own judgement about whatever issue some scientist is making a proclamation or claim about.

That advice of course applies mainly to proclamations and claims involving human beings, their reactions, and their motivations. It is likely that a scientist making claims about something such as how a metal or chemical reacts in a particular way when interacting with other metals or chemicals for instance, are more correct than the ideas or feelings a layman or untrained person would have about such interactions.

It is necessary to say that there might be a correlation between changing chemical levels in the brain as the body of a person involved in a relationship breakup reacts to the loss of the energy linkage that took place when they were in the relationship, but those chemical levels are not the main cause of the negative reactions associated with a relationship breakup.

The news story describing the release of the scientist’s book is reprinted below.

———————————-

wWhen two human beings are in a relationship tHave you ever found yourself in the foetal position on the sofa for days on end, curtains drawn, phone unanswered, moving only to haphazardly wipe the snot and tears from your face? All that has happened is you’ve been made aware that you won’t be seeing a person you had a lot of interaction with much any more. That’s it. So why does it leave you reeling for weeks, months, even for the rest of your life, in some cases?

Humans seem primed to seek out and form monogamous romantic relationships, and this is reflected in a number of weird things the brain does when we end up falling for someone. Attraction is governed by many factors. Many species develope secondary sex characteristics, which are features that occur during sexual maturity but that aren’t directly involved in the reproductive process; for instance, a moose’s antlers or a peacock’s tail. They are impressive and show how fit and healthy the individual creature is, but they don’t do much beyond that.

Humans are no different. As adults, we develop many features that are apparently largely for physically attracting others: the deep voice, enlarged frames and facial hair of men, or the protruding breasts and pronounced curves of women. None of these things are “essential”, but in the distant past, some of our ancestors decided that is what they wanted in a partner, and evolution took over from there. But then we end up with something of a chicken-and-egg scenario with regards to the brain, in that the human brain inherently finds certain features attractive because it has evolved to do so. Which came first, the attraction or the primitive brain’s recognition of it? Hard to say.

It is important, however, to differentiate between a desire for sex, AKA lust, and the deeper, more personal attraction and bonding we associate with romance and love, things more often sought and found with long-term relationships. People can (and frequently do) enjoy purely physical sexual interactions with others that they have no real “fondness” for apart from an appreciation for their appearance, and even that is not essential. Sex is a tricky thing to pin down with the brain, as it underlies much of our adult thinking and behaviour.

But this isn’t really about lust; we’re talking more about love, in the romantic sense, for one specific individual. There is a lot of evidence to suggest the brain processes love differently. Studies by Bartels and Zeki suggest that when individuals who describe themselves as in love are shown images of their romantic partners, there is raised activity (not seen in lust or more platonic relationships) in a network of brain regions including the medial insula, anterior cingulate cortex, caudate nucleus and putamen.

There is also lower activity in the posterior cingulate gyrus and in the amygdala. The posterior cingulate gyrus is often associated with painful emotion perception, so it makes sense that your loved one’s presence would shut this down a bit. The amygdala processes emotions and memory, but often for negative things such as fear and anger, so again, it makes sense that it’s not so active now. People in committed relationships can often seem more relaxed and less bothered about day-to-day annoyances, regularly coming across as “smug” to the independent observer.

One type of chemical often associated with attraction are pheromones, specific substances given off in sweat that other individuals detect and that alter their behaviour. While human pheromones are regularly referred to (you can seemingly buy sprays laced with them if you’re looking to increase your sexual appeal), there is currently no definitive evidence that humans have specific pheromones that influence attraction and arousal. The brain may often be an idiot, but it is not so easily manipulated.

However, being in love seems to elevate dopamine activity in the reward pathway, meaning we experience pleasure in our partner’s presence, almost like a drug. And oxytocin is often referred to as the “love hormone” or similar, which is a ridiculous oversimplification of a complex substance, but it does seem to be elevated in people in relationships, and it has been linked to feelings of trust and connection in humans.

The flexibility of the brain means that, in response to all this deep and intense stuff, it adapts to expect it. And then it ends. Consider everything the brain invests in sustaining a relationship, all the changes it undergoes, all the value it places on being in one. If you remove all this in one fell swoop, the brain is going to be seriously negatively affected. All the positive sensations it has grown to expect suddenly cease, which is incredibly distressing for an organ that doesn’t deal with uncertainty and ambiguity well at all. Studies have shown that a relationship breakup activates the same brain regions that process physical pain.

Addiction and withdrawal can be very disruptive and damaging to the brain, and a not dissimilar process is happening here. This isn’t to say the brain doesn’t have the ability to deal with a breakup. It can put everything back together eventually, even if it’s a slow process. Some experiments showed that specifically focusing on the positive outcomes of a breakup can cause more rapid recovery and growth. And, just sometimes, science and cliches match up, and things really do get better with time.