Ciara shut it down at K104's Summer Jam.
Performed Songs:Basic Instinct (U Got Me)
Ride/w Ludacris
Pretty Girl/Boy Swag
Oh
1,2 Step
Check back here tommorrow for video of the performances
Sabtu, 31 Juli 2010
Ciara Live @ Summer Jam Pics
Ciara shut it down at K104's Summer Jam.
Ride/w Ludacris
Pretty Girl/Boy Swag
Oh
1,2 Step
Check back here tommorrow for video of the performances
ashley harkleoad tennis player
ashley harkleoad
ashley harkleoad
ashley harkleroad pics
ashley harkleroad
ashley harkleroad
ashley harkleroad
ashley harkleroad
ashley harkleroadConfirmed: Ciara's Basic Instinct Due October 5th
After online speculation, Billboard have confirmed that Ciara’s upcoming third album Basic Instinct will now arrive in stores on October 5th.
In a new article published on Billboard.com, “Ride” producer Tricky Stewart has discussed the unexpected success of the single, as well as Ciara’s impending comeback.
“The track has caught on because it’s infectious, memorable and returns Ciara to her fan base,” Stewart says. “The last album we had a number of people in our ears not believing in our vision. This time Ciara drew the line and really fought for what she believed in.”Good move. Ciara definitely needed more time to release another single, and to promote and perform. Bring on “Gimmie Dat”.
Cambridge: King's College Chapel
King's College is one of the wealthiest colleges at Cambridge University. The buildings here are also very sublime, particularly the chapel. Henry VI planned for the dimensions and the construction commenced in 1446.
The interior of the chapel is even more sublime than the exterior. The fan vaulting was added by Henry VIII, the successor of Henry VI. It looks intricate yet beautiful.
The two large windows at the east and west ends are adorned with stained glass.
There are also 12 smaller windows on each side of the chapel, each with beautifully crafted stained glass as well.
Even the smaller chapel within the chapel is intricately decorated with stained glass windows. I love stained glass windows. They are just so adorning and colourful.
Soul Summer.com Interview:Teairra Mari Is On Her Shit (Speaks On Her Sis Ciara)
Being a 20-something woman these days is no easy feat—much less in the music industry. Some girls go looking for help from a man. But when you don’t need a “sponsor” you really have nothing to worry about—just ask Teairra Mari.
You probably remember this sweet-faced songstress letting the gents know how to make a girl feel good a few years back, but these days Teairra Mari is more about taking control of her career, her destiny, and making sure that she makes that money so that she can always sponsor herself.
Teairra Mari let SoulSummer.com into her world, her connection with God, music, her debut as an actress, and how she wants the chance to have all of the cake in the world and eat it too.
Soul Summer: Tell us who Teairra Mari is—what are all of the facets that make you… you?
Teairra Mari: Well yes, she is an actress, a singer, she’s outspoken, sassy, and intelligent [laughs]. She’s also very hands-on with her career, which she wasn’t before and now she is. She’s very in tune with God and the Earth period. I’m a very earthy kind of girl. If I’m stressed out I can look at a tree and smile—it’ll make me feel better.
SS: When did you really start getting hands-on with your career? Was it something that came with age, maturity, and seeing how the business really works?
TM: Yeah, it came with growing up in the business, and like you said seeing how things work and how people are. It’s about taking it all in and realizing what I have to do to make my ship float.
SS: Now, as far as God and being spiritual has that always been a part of you, or is that something that with time became more and more a part of your character?
TM: It’s always been a part of my life. I grew up in a very religious home with my grandmother, and she’s a Christian woman. For me being more spiritual has come with me maturing and learning things about the world, myself, and people. It helps so much to be in tune with my spirit.
TM: Yes, my mother’s mother was. My father’s mother raised me, but my mother’s mother was definitely.
SS: Has music always been a part of your life and your escape where you put all of your creative energy?
TM: Yes, all my life. Since I can remember I have loved music. It’s always been a part of my family and upbringing.
SS: Let’s start from the beginning of your career… how did you initially hook up with Roc-A-Fella Records? Did you know someone who knew someone? Did you know someone who knew Jay?
TM: I was signed to this production company in Detroit named KISS Productions and we got flown out to Atlanta by this man named D.L. Simmons who was really good friends with L.A. Reid. L.A. Reid was just getting his position over at Def Jam and he met with me, liked me, and signed me right then. It was a done deal and I didn’t meet Jay-Z until I was halfway through with the album. I met him, he heard the first single, then he took the first single and put his little intro on it, stamped it, and from there it was on. But, I was never directly signed to Roc-A-Fella, I was always signed to Def Jam and Jay-Z just stamped me with Roc-A-Fella.
SS: Okay, got it, got it. Since switching labels have you kept in touch with Jay or L.A. Reid?
TM: No, no. I’ve seen L.A. Reid out and he’s been very nice.
SS: What was the split with Def Jam about?
TM: It was a business decision and it was time for them to clean up shop. They dropped me and a plethora of other artists, so I was just unfortunately one of those artists that got released at that time.
SS: You’ve been with Warner Brothers since and it seems like you’ve found a new home. How have you felt since signing with them?
TM: I’ve been feeling great because I feel like I know what not to do, and that’s always great because we don’t always have the answers to everything. But, if you know what not to do it leaves room for less mistakes, so I feel great that I know what not to do because now I can move forward and if I make any other mistakes I can learn and that’s great. I’m happy here and I’m happy that everything happened the way that it did because it’s made me into a strong person, a more business savvy-person that’s on her ish.
SS: Your album is due out next month?
TM: Yes. Well actually it’s a digital EP, it’s not an album. It’s a digital EP that’ll be released on iTunes and it’s titled, Sincerely Yours. It’ll be out August 17th. Now, we were working on an album and most of the songs got leaked, so we decided to go back to the drawing board on doing an actual album. But, most of the songs that weren’t leaked at that point we decided to put on the EP to give the fans something, because my fans have been waiting for a long time for something to come out. I just didn’t feel right making them wait another three or four months.
SS: Is Sincerely Yours going to be like a mixtape introduction to what the album will be?
TM: No, I wouldn’t say that because it’s music from me, and my album will be music from me, so if you put it that way, then no. I wouldn’t say it’s a mixtape introduction, but I’m actually releasing a mixtape next month with DJ Drama, The Point Of No Return, so that’s the mixtape introduction from me. The EP is the EP, just 7 unreleased songs… that’s all that is.
[SINCERELY YOURS OFFICIAL TRACKLIST: #01. Sponsor (feat. Soulja Boy x Gucci Mane) #02. Uneasy #03. Body #04. Emergency #05. Hunt 4 U (feat. Pleasure P) #06. Lucky #07. Operator #08. Stranger (Bonus track)]
SS: Do you think that R&B artists doing mixtapes is the new wave of just keeping your name out there, being able to do music any time you want to, and just giving your fans more?
TM: Yeah, definitely, I’d have to agree with that. I think it’s a great thing because you can do a mixtape, but you don’t have to do all remixes, you can do original songs, put them out for free, and call it a mixtape.
SS: “Sponsor” is a song that I’ve been listening to with one of my best friends for months. What was the inspiration behind that song?
TM: You know, I didn’t write “Sponsor” and I had nothing to do with creating it, and when I heard it I was like ‘I don’t want to record that.’ [laughs] Then after listening to a couple of times, I thought it was so catchy, so shit—whoever records it has one on their hands. So after listening to it I decided to make that song my song. I made it very sarcastic because I don’t have a male sponsor supporting my lifestyle, I work my butt off to earn my own piece, but let’s make it fun and something that the girls can dance to on the way to the club, just to have fun with. If you have a job, you have a sponsor as well. Whoever is distributing your coins is your sponsor.
SS: How did you hook up with Soulja Boy on this track? I’ve also heard Gucci Mane on a version, so how did that happen?
TM: Gucci Mane is a labelmate, so he came… that was a given. As far as Soulja Boy, I was in the studio in The Record Plant, here in Los Angeles, and he was there too, so I was like ‘I have this song that I want you to hear, tell me what you think.’ So, he listened to the song and he loved it and wanted to get on it, so he did it that night. That’s how it happened, it was just a casual encounter that ended up turning into a song.
SS: How do you feel about BET banning the video? For years they’ve had videos on that are degrading to women and it seems like the moment that a woman feels empowered, the video gets yanked.
TM: When I first heard it, I was like ‘what?’ I thought the same thing, like as many videos that they’ve played that have sent this message, or that message, but they won’t play my video, wow… I was hurt. I ended up talking to the people over there and they told me that BET never banned your video or said that they wouldn’t play your video, that’s a rumor, that’s a lie. So, I guess it was just a rumor, and I ended up seeing it on BET myself and that showed me right there that it was just a rumor.
SS: Around the same time that the rumor of BET banning “Sponsor” came out, they had banned Ciara’s song “Ride.” Do you think there is a double-standard in the industry?
TM: I thought that I heard recently that that was a rumor too. I mean whatever it is, I don’t see what’s wrong with her video either. She’s not doing anything in that video that she wasn’t doing in the “Promise” video, or the “Goodies” video. When I heard that I was really, really shocked because she murders the video and I thought that it was perfection. I know that she worked her ass off in that video and it’s a kick in the face if that was true. I don’t know if it’s a double standard, and if it’s about keep men up higher. I just know that we work so hard at what we do, so that kind of stuff is just a kick in the face and that’s all I can really say.
SS: You appear in the movie Lottery Ticket coming out next month with Loretta Devine, Bow Wow, and all of these great actors. How was that experience for you?
TM: It was amazing, Loretta Devine is a veteran, Ice Cube is a vet, Mike Epps, and Charlie Murphy are all people that we all watched growing up, so to be on the set with them is a blessing. To come together with the younger generation was also a blessing. I think it’s going to be one of those movies that will go down in the Black history books because it’s a strong cast, a great storyline, it’s very funny, and it’s family friendly.
SS: Who do you play in the movie?
TM: I play Nikki Swayze, and I’m like the hot chick in the projects that they live in and I’m interested in rich guys… older rich guys. We’re supposed to be 17 in the movie and the guys I’m interested in are between 25 and 30. I never paid Bow Wow’s character any mind, but as soon as he wins the lottery, her sponsoriffic side comes out. [laughs]
SS: Have you been working on any other movie projects lately? Anything else coming your way?
TM: Yes, there have been a lot of things coming my way. My friend Naturi [Naughton] kept telling me, ‘Girl, after this movie, watch how many scripts you get.’ She was definitely right about that. I’ve been getting so many calls and it’s just a great thing. I can’t really speak on what I’m going to do, but I have options so that’s a great, great, great thing.
SS: After this digital EP drops and the movie comes out what do you think the next steps are in your career? Do you want to sing, act, write, produce, or do it all?
TM: Do it all honey! Why not? [laughs] It’s the movie, mixtape, and EP—of course I’m still working on the album, so hopefully that’ll be out later this year. More movies—I’m getting into that. From there we’ll see how the wind blows, but I’m going to keep working hard and doing the things that I love and making money while doing it, so I can’t complain at all.
The Mystical Path of Scientific Understanding
Reading and understanding the latest papers is a crucial part of being a scientist, but it's not something that we're ever taught to do, explicitly, as part of a scientific education. You take classes on genetics, and then maybe you become a grad student and you start doing genetics research: but there are no classes on reading genetics papers. It's something you pick up as you go along, if you're lucky.But reading a paper isn't one single skill: as you learn more about a particular field your understanding of the published literature tends to progress through certain stages. At least, this is my experience. Like all such "stage models" what follows is a simplification, but it's something I think I'd have found useful to have been told when I was starting out.
Stage 0 : Huh?Next comes the most dangerous stage:
You don't even understand what the paper is about. If I were to somehow find myself reading a paper on quantum chromodynamics, I would have no idea what it was trying to say, let alone whether it was right.
How to tell if you're at this level: The title has you stumped.
Stage 1 : Oooh!This is dangerous, because a paper could be completely wrong, and you wouldn't know - yet you know enough to be mislead by it, and to think you understand it. Incidentally, this is the stage inhabited by most journalists and politicians
You understand the paper's conclusions, but that's it: you don't get how the authors arrived at them, or how they relate to anything else. My understanding of chemistry is at this level: if someone claims to have found a new way of synthesizing some molecule, I know what that means, but I have to take the result or leave it: I can't criticize it, and in order to know how important the result is and what the implications are, I only have the author's word.
How to tell if you're here: you struggle with the Methods and the Results; you rely on the author's summary of their findings in the Abstract or the Discussion. The Introduction is all new to you.
How to get here: read a textbook until you grasp the basics of the field.
These next two stages don't really come in any particular order. 2a does not necessarily precede 2b (it's just the one I chose to write about first.)
Stage 2a : Hmmm.Finally, we come to the highest stage, the moment of Enlightenment, saroti, Nirvana...
You understand the paper's conclusions and its methods, so you're able to judge how strong the argument is. If I were reading about a new cancer drug, and learned that had passed a large randomized controlled clinical trial, I'd be fairly confident that it works. Whereas, if I read that it had been "tested" in one patient (a case study), I'd be skeptical. I don't know anything about cancer drugs but I do know about clinical trials.
How to tell if you're here: you're comfortable reading the Methods and the Results.
How to get here: Read the Methods sections of papers in the field. If you don't understand the terminology, find a textbook or a review paper dealing with methods.
Stage 2b : Oh, interesting...
You understand why the authors decided to research this stuff, because you understand the specialist background literature about this sub-topic. You can judge important the research is and what the implications of it are. Note that the Introduction and the Discussion are meant to serve to explain all this context for the benefit of people who don't have this level of understanding of the topic, but in fact they're often either poorly written or actively misleading, so you can't rely on them.
How to tell if you're here: you find yourself either agreeing with, or criticizing, the Introduction and the Discussion.
How to get here: read recent review papers about the field. Textbooks are unlikely to be up-to-date enough, or detailed enough, to be of much use. Just remember that every review paper offers a different slant so make sure you don't just read one and take it as gospel.
Stage 3 : Aha!
This is what happens when you have both of the previous kinds of understanding - you see what the authors did and why they did it. This is more than the sum of its parts, because it allows you to evaluate whether they chose the most appropriate way of answering the questions they set out to investigate. You can think up a better way of doing it, or design interesting follow-up work.
This is the stage at which you stop seeing papers as communications from a mysterious other world, and see them as something written by people much like yourself - which, or course, is what they are.
For example, if I were to read a paper using fMRI to study whether a new antidepressant raises dopamine levels in the brain, I'd be able to say that while that's an excellent question, fMRI is unable to show this directly, whereas PET can, so it's probably a better option; but they probably chose to use fMRI because it's a lot cheaper than PET and much less hassle.
How to tell if you're here: you pretty much know what the full paper is going to be like from the Abstract alone; you probably don't bother to read the whole thing.
How to get here: Get to 2a and 2b.
The Mystical Path of Scientific Understanding
Reading and understanding the latest papers is a crucial part of being a scientist, but it's not something that we're ever taught to do, explicitly, as part of a scientific education. You take classes on genetics, and then maybe you become a grad student and you start doing genetics research: but there are no classes on reading genetics papers. It's something you pick up as you go along, if you're lucky.But reading a paper isn't one single skill: as you learn more about a particular field your understanding of the published literature tends to progress through certain stages. At least, this is my experience. Like all such "stage models" what follows is a simplification, but it's something I think I'd have found useful to have been told when I was starting out.
Stage 0 : Huh?Next comes the most dangerous stage:
You don't even understand what the paper is about. If I were to somehow find myself reading a paper on quantum chromodynamics, I would have no idea what it was trying to say, let alone whether it was right.
How to tell if you're at this level: The title has you stumped.
Stage 1 : Oooh!This is dangerous, because a paper could be completely wrong, and you wouldn't know - yet you know enough to be mislead by it, and to think you understand it. Incidentally, this is the stage inhabited by most journalists and politicians
You understand the paper's conclusions, but that's it: you don't get how the authors arrived at them, or how they relate to anything else. My understanding of chemistry is at this level: if someone claims to have found a new way of synthesizing some molecule, I know what that means, but I have to take the result or leave it: I can't criticize it, and in order to know how important the result is and what the implications are, I only have the author's word.
How to tell if you're here: you struggle with the Methods and the Results; you rely on the author's summary of their findings in the Abstract or the Discussion. The Introduction is all new to you.
How to get here: read a textbook until you grasp the basics of the field.
These next two stages don't really come in any particular order. 2a does not necessarily precede 2b (it's just the one I chose to write about first.)
Stage 2a : Hmmm.Finally, we come to the highest stage, the moment of Enlightenment, saroti, Nirvana...
You understand the paper's conclusions and its methods, so you're able to judge how strong the argument is. If I were reading about a new cancer drug, and learned that had passed a large randomized controlled clinical trial, I'd be fairly confident that it works. Whereas, if I read that it had been "tested" in one patient (a case study), I'd be skeptical. I don't know anything about cancer drugs but I do know about clinical trials.
How to tell if you're here: you're comfortable reading the Methods and the Results.
How to get here: Read the Methods sections of papers in the field. If you don't understand the terminology, find a textbook or a review paper dealing with methods.
Stage 2b : Oh, interesting...
You understand why the authors decided to research this stuff, because you understand the specialist background literature about this sub-topic. You can judge important the research is and what the implications of it are. Note that the Introduction and the Discussion are meant to serve to explain all this context for the benefit of people who don't have this level of understanding of the topic, but in fact they're often either poorly written or actively misleading, so you can't rely on them.
How to tell if you're here: you find yourself either agreeing with, or criticizing, the Introduction and the Discussion.
How to get here: read recent review papers about the field. Textbooks are unlikely to be up-to-date enough, or detailed enough, to be of much use. Just remember that every review paper offers a different slant so make sure you don't just read one and take it as gospel.
Stage 3 : Aha!
This is what happens when you have both of the previous kinds of understanding - you see what the authors did and why they did it. This is more than the sum of its parts, because it allows you to evaluate whether they chose the most appropriate way of answering the questions they set out to investigate. You can think up a better way of doing it, or design interesting follow-up work.
This is the stage at which you stop seeing papers as communications from a mysterious other world, and see them as something written by people much like yourself - which, or course, is what they are.
For example, if I were to read a paper using fMRI to study whether a new antidepressant raises dopamine levels in the brain, I'd be able to say that while that's an excellent question, fMRI is unable to show this directly, whereas PET can, so it's probably a better option; but they probably chose to use fMRI because it's a lot cheaper than PET and much less hassle.
How to tell if you're here: you pretty much know what the full paper is going to be like from the Abstract alone; you probably don't bother to read the whole thing.
How to get here: Get to 2a and 2b.
Jumat, 30 Juli 2010
Kamis, 29 Juli 2010
Video: Teairra Mari Live @ Taste Of Chicago (Hunt 4 U & Cause A scene
Credit: Youtube User/PeaceLoveAndLifee
Ciara Rides Down The Charts
The Left Hand of Obama
Voters in the 2008 Presidential election didn't have a meaningful choice. Whichever box they ticked, they were voting for a lefty.
Yes, Obama and McCain are both sinistral, a rather unlikely occurrence since just 7-10% of adults are left handed. Netherlands-based neuroscientists Casasanto and Jasmin decided to make use of this coincidence to test the hypothesis that people tend to make "good" gestures with their dominant hand and "bad" ones with their off-hand, in a new PLoS paper: Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians.
They analyzed the final televised debates from the '04 and '08 elections, in which the candidates discussed various topics, both positive i.e. their own policies, and negative i.e. their opponent's Vietnam War records, choice of running-mate, and association with dodgy preachers. They also examined the gestures that the speakers made to accompany their positive or negative points, and recorded which hand they used. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both right-handed, by the way.
Here's what they found:
Both lefty candidates tended to use their left hands for good gestures and their right hands for bad ones, while the right-handed showed the opposite pattern. The data also reveal some interesting facts about the overall number of gestures: Obama had a hands-off approach with only 119 gestures in total, while McCain was gesticulating all over the shop (259). Bush and Kerry, however, were essentially equal (192 vs 193). Maybe Kerry's one extra gesture was just one too many for the electorate, thus costing him the Presidency.
Anyway, does this prove that we use our dominant hands to make "good" gestures - supporting the notion that we unconsciously associate positive ideas with our dominant side of space, and negative ideas with our non-dominant side? Well, this study includes a large amount of data: it is, statistically, very likely that Obama really does tend to use his left hand over his right hand for positive gestures, i.e. this is unlikely to be due to random chance.
But does this mean that there's a correlation between handedness and good-gesture-lateralization? We actually only have 4 data points relevant to that question: Obama, McCain, Kerry and Bush. We have a lot of information on each of those people, but there are only 4 independent sets of data.
Suppose that everyone has a hand-they-use-for-good-gestures, and that it's 50/50 whether it's left or right - that is to say, suppose it has nothing to do with your general handedness. Clearly, there's then a 50% chance that any given person's good-gesture-hand will match their handedness, just by coincidence. There's a 1 in 4 chance that, for any two people, both will have a match; it's 1 in 8 for three people and 1 in 16 for four people. Which implies that there's a 1 in 16 chance that these results would have happened purely by chance.
Maybe we need to look back to the Clinton / Dole debates to get some more data...
Daniel Casasanto and Kyle Jasmin1 (2010). Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians: Spontaneous Gestures during Positive and Negative Speech PLoS ONE
Yes, Obama and McCain are both sinistral, a rather unlikely occurrence since just 7-10% of adults are left handed. Netherlands-based neuroscientists Casasanto and Jasmin decided to make use of this coincidence to test the hypothesis that people tend to make "good" gestures with their dominant hand and "bad" ones with their off-hand, in a new PLoS paper: Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians.They analyzed the final televised debates from the '04 and '08 elections, in which the candidates discussed various topics, both positive i.e. their own policies, and negative i.e. their opponent's Vietnam War records, choice of running-mate, and association with dodgy preachers. They also examined the gestures that the speakers made to accompany their positive or negative points, and recorded which hand they used. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both right-handed, by the way.
Here's what they found:
Both lefty candidates tended to use their left hands for good gestures and their right hands for bad ones, while the right-handed showed the opposite pattern. The data also reveal some interesting facts about the overall number of gestures: Obama had a hands-off approach with only 119 gestures in total, while McCain was gesticulating all over the shop (259). Bush and Kerry, however, were essentially equal (192 vs 193). Maybe Kerry's one extra gesture was just one too many for the electorate, thus costing him the Presidency.Anyway, does this prove that we use our dominant hands to make "good" gestures - supporting the notion that we unconsciously associate positive ideas with our dominant side of space, and negative ideas with our non-dominant side? Well, this study includes a large amount of data: it is, statistically, very likely that Obama really does tend to use his left hand over his right hand for positive gestures, i.e. this is unlikely to be due to random chance.
But does this mean that there's a correlation between handedness and good-gesture-lateralization? We actually only have 4 data points relevant to that question: Obama, McCain, Kerry and Bush. We have a lot of information on each of those people, but there are only 4 independent sets of data.
Suppose that everyone has a hand-they-use-for-good-gestures, and that it's 50/50 whether it's left or right - that is to say, suppose it has nothing to do with your general handedness. Clearly, there's then a 50% chance that any given person's good-gesture-hand will match their handedness, just by coincidence. There's a 1 in 4 chance that, for any two people, both will have a match; it's 1 in 8 for three people and 1 in 16 for four people. Which implies that there's a 1 in 16 chance that these results would have happened purely by chance.
Maybe we need to look back to the Clinton / Dole debates to get some more data...
Daniel Casasanto and Kyle Jasmin1 (2010). Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians: Spontaneous Gestures during Positive and Negative Speech PLoS ONE
The Left Hand of Obama
Voters in the 2008 Presidential election didn't have a meaningful choice. Whichever box they ticked, they were voting for a lefty.
Yes, Obama and McCain are both sinistral, a rather unlikely occurrence since just 7-10% of adults are left handed. Netherlands-based neuroscientists Casasanto and Jasmin decided to make use of this coincidence to test the hypothesis that people tend to make "good" gestures with their dominant hand and "bad" ones with their off-hand, in a new PLoS paper: Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians.
They analyzed the final televised debates from the '04 and '08 elections, in which the candidates discussed various topics, both positive i.e. their own policies, and negative i.e. their opponent's Vietnam War records, choice of running-mate, and association with dodgy preachers. They also examined the gestures that the speakers made to accompany their positive or negative points, and recorded which hand they used. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both right-handed, by the way.
Here's what they found:
Both lefty candidates tended to use their left hands for good gestures and their right hands for bad ones, while the right-handed showed the opposite pattern. The data also reveal some interesting facts about the overall number of gestures: Obama had a hands-off approach with only 119 gestures in total, while McCain was gesticulating all over the shop (259). Bush and Kerry, however, were essentially equal (192 vs 193). Maybe Kerry's one extra gesture was just one too many for the electorate, thus costing him the Presidency.
Anyway, does this prove that we use our dominant hands to make "good" gestures - supporting the notion that we unconsciously associate positive ideas with our dominant side of space, and negative ideas with our non-dominant side? Well, this study includes a large amount of data: it is, statistically, very likely that Obama really does tend to use his left hand over his right hand for positive gestures, i.e. this is unlikely to be due to random chance.
But does this mean that there's a correlation between handedness and good-gesture-lateralization? We actually only have 4 data points relevant to that question: Obama, McCain, Kerry and Bush. We have a lot of information on each of those people, but there are only 4 independent sets of data.
Suppose that everyone has a hand-they-use-for-good-gestures, and that it's 50/50 whether it's left or right - that is to say, suppose it has nothing to do with your general handedness. Clearly, there's then a 50% chance that any given person's good-gesture-hand will match their handedness, just by coincidence. There's a 1 in 4 chance that, for any two people, both will have a match; it's 1 in 8 for three people and 1 in 16 for four people. Which implies that there's a 1 in 16 chance that these results would have happened purely by chance.
Maybe we need to look back to the Clinton / Dole debates to get some more data...
Daniel Casasanto and Kyle Jasmin1 (2010). Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians: Spontaneous Gestures during Positive and Negative Speech PLoS ONE
Yes, Obama and McCain are both sinistral, a rather unlikely occurrence since just 7-10% of adults are left handed. Netherlands-based neuroscientists Casasanto and Jasmin decided to make use of this coincidence to test the hypothesis that people tend to make "good" gestures with their dominant hand and "bad" ones with their off-hand, in a new PLoS paper: Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians.They analyzed the final televised debates from the '04 and '08 elections, in which the candidates discussed various topics, both positive i.e. their own policies, and negative i.e. their opponent's Vietnam War records, choice of running-mate, and association with dodgy preachers. They also examined the gestures that the speakers made to accompany their positive or negative points, and recorded which hand they used. George W. Bush and John Kerry are both right-handed, by the way.
Here's what they found:
Both lefty candidates tended to use their left hands for good gestures and their right hands for bad ones, while the right-handed showed the opposite pattern. The data also reveal some interesting facts about the overall number of gestures: Obama had a hands-off approach with only 119 gestures in total, while McCain was gesticulating all over the shop (259). Bush and Kerry, however, were essentially equal (192 vs 193). Maybe Kerry's one extra gesture was just one too many for the electorate, thus costing him the Presidency.Anyway, does this prove that we use our dominant hands to make "good" gestures - supporting the notion that we unconsciously associate positive ideas with our dominant side of space, and negative ideas with our non-dominant side? Well, this study includes a large amount of data: it is, statistically, very likely that Obama really does tend to use his left hand over his right hand for positive gestures, i.e. this is unlikely to be due to random chance.
But does this mean that there's a correlation between handedness and good-gesture-lateralization? We actually only have 4 data points relevant to that question: Obama, McCain, Kerry and Bush. We have a lot of information on each of those people, but there are only 4 independent sets of data.
Suppose that everyone has a hand-they-use-for-good-gestures, and that it's 50/50 whether it's left or right - that is to say, suppose it has nothing to do with your general handedness. Clearly, there's then a 50% chance that any given person's good-gesture-hand will match their handedness, just by coincidence. There's a 1 in 4 chance that, for any two people, both will have a match; it's 1 in 8 for three people and 1 in 16 for four people. Which implies that there's a 1 in 16 chance that these results would have happened purely by chance.
Maybe we need to look back to the Clinton / Dole debates to get some more data...
Daniel Casasanto and Kyle Jasmin1 (2010). Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians: Spontaneous Gestures during Positive and Negative Speech PLoS ONE
Stylish Underwear For Women
Today’s underwear fashion we can see almost all colors of rainbow, from yellow to blue. And there is no special favour here, unlike recent time, when we were offered to wear only white or black underwear. Today these colors are definitely pressed back, and you can choose any tint in any color spectrum – warm or cold.
The only difference is that all these colors look like diluted by milk, degraded, softened will the most delicate tints. If it is yellow (like La Perla), it is resembles a color of butter. If dark-blue (like Wolford), then it awakes memories about clear winter gloamings. If pink, (like Rosapois), it copies tints of a tea-rose or a powder on slightly-tanned skin. In general, regardless of your preferred color for lacy underwear, you can bravely buy it under only condition – it will be in pastel shades.
A stress is on the word “lacy”, as actual underwear should be delicate not only in tints, nut also texture. And what can be more delicate than lace? Even if you would like to choose something, say, made of more elegant and feminine satin, remember, - there should be lacy insets in it definitely.
Asian Lingerie Show On China
Chinese models present creations for HOSA China Lingerie Fashion Trend Collection.the HOSA even comes for april,in beijing "China International Fashion Week" every years.
Adriana Lima Present The Lingerie & Denim Trunk Sale
Designers from Oscar de la Renta to Alexander McQueen all use sheer overlays to add feminine and flirty touches to anything from cocktail dresses to simple tees. This trend is great because it reinvents what we already know adding more dimension and a level of surprise to any outfit.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)