Nina Davuluri win is a tribute to her joyful performance and marks the growing visibility and cultural influence of Indian-Americans. Of criticism that she is, somehow, not American, she says: ‘I have to rise above that.’
The article in the Christian Science Monitor discusses the achievements of the South Asian communities in America.
Nasik
Five Myths of Terrorism by Michael Shermer
(1) The myth of pure evil, which holds that perpetrators commit pointless violence for no rational reason.
(2) That terrorists are part of a vast global network of top-down centrally controlled conspiracies against the west
(3) That terrorists are diabolical geniuses as 9/11 Commission report described them as “sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal”
(4) That terrorism is deadly on a vast scale
(5) That terrorism is effective and it works
Michael Shermer, a regular contributor of social and psychological issues in Scientific American magazine has written a detailed analysis and the latest results of scientific research at various American universities.
This one page article explains that how much there is disconnect between the reality and myths about terrorism.
The article also discusses the scientific study of aggression:
(i) Instrumental violence
(ii) Revenge
(iii) Dominance and recognition
(iv) Ideology
It is an interesting and informative article.
For details, please click the hyperlink below:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=five-myths-of-terrorism-including-that-it-works
Posted by EDITORS
By Carl Zimmer in NYT
“Monogamy is a problem,” said Dieter Lukas of the University of Cambridge in a telephone news conference last week. As Dr. Lukas explained to reporters, he and other biologists consider monogamy an evolutionary puzzle.
In 9 percent of all mammal species, males and females will share a common territory for more than one breeding season, and in some cases bond for life. This is a problem — a scientific one — because male mammals could theoretically have more offspring by giving up on monogamy and mating with lots of females.
In a new study, Dr. Lukas and his colleague Tim Clutton-Brock suggest that monogamy evolves when females spread out, making it hard for a male to travel around and fend off competing males.
On the same day, Kit Opie of University College London and his colleagues published a similar study on primates, which are especially monogamous — males and females bond in over a quarter of primate species. The London scientists came to a different conclusion: that the threat of infanticide leads males to stick with only one female, protecting her from other males.
Even with the scientific problem far from resolved, research like this inevitably turns us into narcissists. It’s all well and good to understand why the gray-handed night monkey became monogamous. But we want to know: What does this say about men and women?
As with all things concerning the human heart, it’s complicated.
“The human mating system is extremely flexible,” Bernard Chapais of the University of Montreal wrote in a recent review in Evolutionary Anthropology. Only 17 percent of human cultures are strictly monogamous. The vast majority of human societies embrace a mix of marriage types, with some people practicing monogamy and others polygamy. (Most people in these cultures are in monogamous marriages, though.)
There are even some societies where a woman may marry several men. And some men and women have secret relationships that last for years while they’re married to other people, a kind of dual monogamy. Same-sex marriages acknowledge commitments that in many cases existed long before they won legal recognition. Click link for full article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/science/monogamys-boost-to-human-evolution.html?ref=science&_r=0
Posted By F. Sheikh
(Shared by Dr. Ehtisham)
Because of who my father is, I’ve been able to occupy some seats I never expected to sit in. Inside any important philanthropy meeting, you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left. There are plenty of statistics that tell us that inequality is continually rising. At the same time, according to the Urban Institute, the nonprofit sector has been steadily growing. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent. Their growth rate now exceeds that of both the business and government sectors. It’s a massive business, with approximately $316 billion given away in 2012 in the United States alone and more than 9.4 million employed.
Philanthropy has become the “it” vehicle to level the playing field and has generated a growing number of gatherings, workshops and affinity groups.
As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.
But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else is further locked into a system that will not allow the true flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful and fulfilled life. Click link for full article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html