People who use more emojis may have more sex and get more dates, suggesting that emoji users may be better at making social connections, according to new research with 5,327 single Americans and a second replication study with 275 adults.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

*Emo*ji-laden communication – when used correctly, at least, and presumably people who use them more are more “fluent” – is has more *emo*tional depth, I’m guessing? And humans are more likely to have sex and/or be friends with with other humans they feel emotionally connected to.


I’m wondering if they controlled for age.

Young people may be more likely to hookup and to use emojis. Older people may be more picky and less likely hookup…and less likely to use emojis.

They’ve got some retiree-aged people too. So I’d be curious how the results look when broken down by age, both the age of the sender and the receiver. And heck, by gender, too.

30’s woman? Maybe less interested in receiving emojis — that guy’s immature.

60’s men/women? Maybe emojis are a playful thing. Or maybe they never use them at all.

18 year olds? Maybe everyone is using emojis, and they’re more likely to hookup.

Who knows? (I hope the researchers do)


How does one control for gender?
How did they do it in this study?

(The paper is freely available so it seems.)


No offense to the researchers, but who cares? Why is this something people are looking at? There’s no possible way to show causality, there’s nothing actionable and it helps nobody.


It means they’re *younger*.


Human-caused climate change has triggered wind shifts in Antarctica, according to a new study, driving accelerated melting across the continent’s west coast. The research is the first to draw a direct link between human-induced climate change and Western Antarctica’s rapidly melting glaciers.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

How does Antarctica have a “west coast?” Isn’t every coat the northern coast?


Anyone want to help me build Noah’s Arc ll? It’s just like the first one but with blackjack and hookers.


We, as a species and a civilization, are so fucked. Really fucked. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggling fucked we are. I mean, you may think how fucked we were during the last world wars, but that’s just peanuts compared to how fucked we are right now.


It makes sense now why all these billionaires are racing to get into space colonisation.

I hope their unsanitised phones don’t turn out to be a problem.


How does Antarctica have a west? Is it not just North and South? Do they use the meridean line?


The Efficiency Paradox: High-powered competing species are wasteful but live in efficient ecosystems, while low powered species make efficient use of resources but their ecosystems are wasteful. This idea could give insight into how evolution has shaped ecosystems over time.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Think of a rainforest: animals and plants have lots of food, but are competing heavily with each other. All of their waste- leaves, poop, etc. Is recycled within the rainforest (the ecosystem).

Think of a desert. The lonely scorpion or cactus needs to preserve every ounce of water or energy to survive. But it’s waste may be lost or unclaimed.


Anyone care to explain what am efficient or wasteful ecosystem means?


I don’t see this as a paradox. It’s my view that life exists because under the right circumstances it is the most efficient path to increased entropy. But if you die out before you’ve exhausted all the resources then that’s not optimal either. Optimal is to use all the resources as quickly as possible without leaving anything behind.

Mankind is nature’s latest optimization, assuming we don’t kill ourselves off before our work is done.


What are “high powered species” and “low powered species”?


Wouldn’t it be the other way around, the ecosystem shapes the species that reside in it?


Stone tools are evidence of modern humans in Mongolia 45,000 years ago, 10,000 years earlier than previously thought

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Seems like we keep discovering and earlier and earlier starting point.


43,000 BCE… can you imagine?


The further we go back in history the less humans there are and consequently less evidence there is to find isn’t it. So it makes sense that we were here much earlier than we currently think and it’s only matter of time before we find more evidence to further push back the timeline.


Is it too outrageous to think that there was someone alive back then, that (if they died) would make it impossible for the family that I currently have to have even existed?


That just means we’re stupider than we thought


Researchers have developed a device that can record vibrations sent through a mother’s abdomen when her baby’s heart beats or when the fetus squirms and kicks. The device could potentially reduce an estimated 2.6 million stillbirths per year worldwide.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

How would this eliminate stillbirths?


This reminds me of when I signed up for a drug trial and was warned to tell them immediately if I got a rash. When I asked if they could cure it they said no, it was lethal, but they’d def want pictures.


What might be the negative impact of a high false positive rate for a device ostensibly to be worn and monitored 24 hours a day for several months?


As the study says, the tested method is not significantly better than the regularly used fCTG. no need to hype this up by making up huge potentials of saved babies.


8 months pregnant and would totally buy this. I’m pretty calm about labor and being a mother, but the possibility of a stillbirth is a true nightmare. I don’t know how any mother ever emotionally survives that.


Researchers found substantial amounts of microplastics in freshly fallen snow in Europe and the Arctic, indicating widespread dispersion of airborne microplastic.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I swear every single article I see come out talks about the massive spread of microplastics, almost nothing addresses the actual effects that microplastics have on human and animal (or even plant) life. What are the *actual* repercussions of severe and consistent exposure to microplastics? We already know that they’re everywhere, we’ve known for decades at this point. What happens to us as a result?

All I really have is some vague idea that this is probably not a good thing with no actual concrete evidence of why and just how bad it’s going to be. Most of what I can find online is a single study with rats that became increasingly stressed as plastics built up in their liver and lungs, and tests done on cells in petri dishes that can’t actually substitute for humans


This whole thing with plastics reminds me of the lead thing back in the day, before it was prohibited it was used in everithing and scientist were finding it in the most unecspected places (like in the polar ice).


The reason as to why no studies have been done is because the chemicals that are used to make/in plastics have been in the blood of very single human being (including newborns) since the 50s so it’s impossible to have a control group

I’m gonna go ahead and assume though has alot to do with higher rates of cancer, autism etc. But we’ll never know for sure


Ok, but have they figured out if it’s harming humans or not?


We are fucked aren’t we?


Large meta-analysis adds more evidence that even a single major depressive episode can have long-lasting cognitive effects even after it ends — including deficits in selective attention, working memory, and long-term memory

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

This is anecdotal but I do feel my memory is worse now than before I started having depressive episodes around age 17. I’m 25 now.


Is this reversible in any way?


This scares the hell out of me, I’ve been noticing some major deficits as I’m coming out of a 3 year major depressive episode.

Does anybody with knowledge know what I could possibly do to help with this? I’ve never heard of depression remission therapy and I have reverted back several times.

I’m like actually scared here.


I had my first depressive episode when I was 18 or 19 and it’s like there’s been a wet blanket on my brain ever since. I can’t remember things as well as I used to. I can’t love my dog as much as I used to. I don’t enjoy doing things. I have trouble recalling words. Etc etc. It’s basically ruined my life


I guess I’m gonna be a potato at this rate.


Boosting a single molecule in the brain can change “dispositional anxiety,” the tendency to perceive many situations as threatening, suggests a new study in nonhuman primates, which provides hope for intervening early in life to treat people at risk for anxiety disorders and depression.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

what do i eat to boost this molecule? joking not joking


A single “type” of molecule?


Just a single molecule can make a lot of changes in the brain, let’s say for example ethanol


Doesn’t matter, health insurance is unaffordable.


Can we have this like 3 years ago please?

Id like to not drop out of highschool last yead


In an analysis of hundreds of basketball half-time speeches, researchers found a significant relationship between how negative a coach was at half-time and how well the team played in the second half: The more negativity, the more the team outscored the opposition.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Sports Psychologist here.

I have reservations about the study, particularly due to the framework around the language being used. For example, the researchers classified the following as “negativity” and used this as an example:

‘I don’t care if you’re up by 10 points, you can play better than this.’”

Personally, I don’t see a statement like this as “negativity”. This could just as easily be construed as “demanding” or “high standards”. Heck, it could even be construed as positivity – the coach is spurring them on to play better because he believes they’re capable of better.

In the end, I’m not so sure that it’s “negativity” that enhances performance rather than being demanding, setting high standards, etc. It’s all in how the athletes interpret the reaction of the coach, and that’s totally subjective.

Interesting research though, for sure.


Maybe I’m missing it but I don’t spot in the article: How strong is this effect? Did it increase scoring by 1000%? 1%? 0.0000001%?


Fear is a powerful temporary motivator.

Just ask gun robbers.

If you want longer term success, fear, derision, and power trips are not the best tools.


Team performance is likely to regress to the mean.

Team underperforms (or other team overperforms) in first half = Coach more likely to be negative.

Both teams are more likely to regress to the mean in the 2nd half than continue the unexpected trend.

I think their work is valid here, but they don’t mention this, at least in the abstract. I can’t see the rest of the journal.

It would be helpful to see some detail about this; you really need to quantify the expected results of a game (i.e. the betting line) to separate the effects of coach speeches at halftime.


I have seen more negative haftime speeches when the team was winning. “Don’t get complacent, you are playing sloppy, can’t let them back in the game.”

I wonder how they controlled for how the team was doing before the half.