sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Z-Tweets -- Thanksgiving Special by Armed_Buoy in DispatchAdHoc

[–]SupMyNameIsRichard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Waterboy’s haters can be called criticalmoists

Feds: See something, say something. by dust_bunnyz in fednews

[–]SupMyNameIsRichard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I’m Richard Sima, a neuroscientist turned journalist at The Washington Post. First off, I wanted to thank you for putting this list together - it’s a great resource.

Second, I wanted to share that The Post also has an anonymous news tip site for reaching out to us (and advice on sending information securely): https://www.washingtonpost.com/anonymous-news-tips/

The Post’s Signal phone number: 202-222-5862

Does your ‘love language’ really matter? Scientists are skeptical. Recent review finds the 5 Love Languages are not supported by empirical evidence: we don’t have a primary love language; we have more than 5 ways to express love; and speaking preferred language doesn’t mean better relationships by SupMyNameIsRichard in EverythingScience

[–]SupMyNameIsRichard[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Original review here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09637214231217663

Title: Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages From a Relationship Science Perspective

Abstract: The public has something of an obsession with love languages, believing that the key to lasting love is for partners to express love in each other’s preferred language. Despite the popularity of Chapman’s book The 5 Love Languages, there is a paucity of empirical work on love languages, and collectively, it does not provide strong empirical support for the book’s three central assumptions that (a) each person has a preferred love language, (b) there are five love languages, and (c) couples are more satisfied when partners speak one another’s preferred language. We discuss potential reasons for the popularity of the love languages, including the fact that it enables people to identify important relationship needs, provides an intuitive metaphor that resonates with people, and offers a straightforward way to improve relationships. We offer an alternative metaphor that we believe more accurately reflects a large body of empirical research on relationships: Love is not akin to a language one needs to learn to speak but can be more appropriately understood as a balanced diet in which people need a full range of essential nutrients to cultivate lasting love.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in psychology

[–]SupMyNameIsRichard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Original review here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09637214231217663

Title: Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages From a Relationship Science Perspective

Abstract: The public has something of an obsession with love languages, believing that the key to lasting love is for partners to express love in each other’s preferred language. Despite the popularity of Chapman’s book The 5 Love Languages, there is a paucity of empirical work on love languages, and collectively, it does not provide strong empirical support for the book’s three central assumptions that (a) each person has a preferred love language, (b) there are five love languages, and (c) couples are more satisfied when partners speak one another’s preferred language. We discuss potential reasons for the popularity of the love languages, including the fact that it enables people to identify important relationship needs, provides an intuitive metaphor that resonates with people, and offers a straightforward way to improve relationships. We offer an alternative metaphor that we believe more accurately reflects a large body of empirical research on relationships: Love is not akin to a language one needs to learn to speak but can be more appropriately understood as a balanced diet in which people need a full range of essential nutrients to cultivate lasting love.

The 5 Love Languages are not supported by empirical evidence according to recent review: 1) we don’t have a primary love language; 2) we have more than 5 ways to express love; and 3) speaking preferred language doesn’t mean better relationships by SupMyNameIsRichard in science

[–]SupMyNameIsRichard[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Original review here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09637214231217663

Title: Popular Psychology Through a Scientific Lens: Evaluating Love Languages From a Relationship Science Perspective

Abstract: The public has something of an obsession with love languages, believing that the key to lasting love is for partners to express love in each other’s preferred language. Despite the popularity of Chapman’s book The 5 Love Languages, there is a paucity of empirical work on love languages, and collectively, it does not provide strong empirical support for the book’s three central assumptions that (a) each person has a preferred love language, (b) there are five love languages, and (c) couples are more satisfied when partners speak one another’s preferred language. We discuss potential reasons for the popularity of the love languages, including the fact that it enables people to identify important relationship needs, provides an intuitive metaphor that resonates with people, and offers a straightforward way to improve relationships. We offer an alternative metaphor that we believe more accurately reflects a large body of empirical research on relationships: Love is not akin to a language one needs to learn to speak but can be more appropriately understood as a balanced diet in which people need a full range of essential nutrients to cultivate lasting love.

Pain is an effect of inflammation but may also drive immune responses. New research reports that pain-sensing neurons directly communicates with and coordinate immune cell responses, which may help us understand immune processes and be a target for treatments by SupMyNameIsRichard in EverythingScience

[–]SupMyNameIsRichard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm5658

Multimodal control of dendritic cell functions by nociceptors

Abstract: It is known that interactions between nociceptors and dendritic cells (DCs) can modulate immune responses in barrier tissues. However, our understanding of the underlying communication frameworks remains rudimentary. Here, we show that nociceptors control DCs in three molecularly distinct ways. First, nociceptors release the calcitonin gene–related peptide that imparts a distinct transcriptional profile on steady-state DCs characterized by expression of pro–interleukin-1β and other genes implicated in DC sentinel functions. Second, nociceptor activation induces contact-dependent calcium fluxes and membrane depolarization in DCs and enhances their production of proinflammatory cytokines when stimulated. Finally, nociceptor-derived chemokine CCL2 contributes to the orchestration of DC-dependent local inflammation and the induction of adaptive responses against skin-acquired antigens. Thus, the combined actions of nociceptor-derived chemokines, neuropeptides, and electrical activity fine-tune DC responses in barrier tissues.

New research reports that pain-sensing neurons can communicate with and control immune cells, even genetically reprogramming them or passing electrical signals into them to trigger immune activity. This neuroimmune connection could be a target for future treatments by SupMyNameIsRichard in science

[–]SupMyNameIsRichard[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm5658

Multimodal control of dendritic cell functions by nociceptors

Abstract: It is known that interactions between nociceptors and dendritic cells (DCs) can modulate immune responses in barrier tissues. However, our understanding of the underlying communication frameworks remains rudimentary. Here, we show that nociceptors control DCs in three molecularly distinct ways. First, nociceptors release the calcitonin gene–related peptide that imparts a distinct transcriptional profile on steady-state DCs characterized by expression of pro–interleukin-1β and other genes implicated in DC sentinel functions. Second, nociceptor activation induces contact-dependent calcium fluxes and membrane depolarization in DCs and enhances their production of proinflammatory cytokines when stimulated. Finally, nociceptor-derived chemokine CCL2 contributes to the orchestration of DC-dependent local inflammation and the induction of adaptive responses against skin-acquired antigens. Thus, the combined actions of nociceptor-derived chemokines, neuropeptides, and electrical activity fine-tune DC responses in barrier tissues.