Post a news story, entertain me!

Aliens.gif

I was thinking Q.

Same-sex married couples cope with stress more positively and collaboratively than different-sex couples, and women married to men report more negative support — meaning that their spouses react ambivalently or even hostilely in response to stress — than women married to women

Stress is common in all marriages, but same-sex married couples cope with that stress more positively and collaboratively than different-sex couples, according to a new study from researchers at The University of Texas at Austin. The study also found that women married to men report more negative support — meaning that their spouses react ambivalently or even hostilely in response to stress — than women married to women.

The research, published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, examined how the gender and gender composition of a couple affect their dyadic coping, or how they manage stress together. It also looked into how dyadic coping affected couples’ marital quality.

Yiwen Wang, a Ph.D. candidate in UT Austin’s Department of Sociology and a graduate research trainee at the university’s Population Research Center, and Debra Umberson, a professor of sociology at UT Austin, analyzed survey responses of 419 couples in both same- and different-sex marriages. They found that both men and women in same-sex marriages are more likely to cope with stress collaboratively than those in different-sex marriages, but that dyadic coping was equally important for men’s and women’s marital quality in both same- and different-sex marriages.

“This research shows that while there are some gender differences in dyadic coping efforts, the effects of supportive and collaborative dyadic coping as well as of negative dyadic coping on marital quality are the same for all couples,” Wang said. “Our findings also emphasize the importance of coping as a couple for marital quality across different relationship contexts, which can be an avenue through which couples work together to strengthen relationship well-being.”

Although patterns of stress, dyadic coping and marital quality are well-examined in heterosexual marriages, the same is not true of same-sex marriages. By including same-sex couples in their study, the researchers sought to correct that imbalance and demonstrate the importance of considering gender composition in marriages when studying marital dynamics. The study indicated that both men and women in same-sex married couples are more likely to work together to cope with stress, possibly because they share similar gender-related experiences and responses to stress.

“Including same-sex spouses and looking at how they work with each other to manage stress as compared to different-sex spouses can help us better understand the ways in which gender dynamics unfold in marriages,” Umberson said. “Same-sex couples face unique stressors related to discrimination and stigma. Coping as a couple may be especially important for them as they do not receive as much support from extended family, friends or institutions as different-sex couples do.”

The researchers also say that it’s important to consider the perspectives and experiences of both partners in a marriage when studying marital dynamics, including the ability to cope with stress. By analyzing individual responses from more than 800 people who make up the 419 couples studied, their research is helping to fill a gap in understanding and could improve intervention or prevention programs that address marital functioning.

“It is imperative that we advance our understanding of how spouses influence each other’s well-being for same-sex as well as different-sex married couples and that we consider both spouses’ perspectives within couples,” Umberson said. “Research should identify areas of risk and resilience for men and women in gay, lesbian and heterosexual marriage to ground the most effective strategies for policy and practice.”

Why are you trying to groom us?

An explanation for why I listen to them constantly.

The Alaska snow crab population shrank from 8 billion in 2018 to 1 billion in 2021

Billions of snow crabs have disappeared from the waters around Alaska. Scientists say overfishing is not the cause

But calling the Bering Sea crab population "overfished" -- a technical definition that triggers conservation measures -- says nothing about the cause of its collapse.

"We call it overfishing because of the size level," Michael Litzow, the Kodiak lab director for NOAA Fisheries, told CNN. "But it wasn't overfishing that caused the collapse, that much is clear."

Litzow says human-caused climate change is a significant factor in the crabs' alarming disappearance.

Snow crabs are cold-water species and found overwhelmingly in areas where water temperatures are below 2 degrees Celsius, Litzow says. As oceans warm and sea ice disappears, the ocean around Alaska is becoming inhospitable for the species.

I hate science reporting these days.

If you follow the link through to Nature and read the abstract, they're very clear about this not establishing causality.

Article wrote:

69%

Are we sure this isn’t secretly an onion article? Cause that percentage is a little on the nose.

Does it also apply to generic Cialis? No reason for asking...

But for real...

OK but wait. Does a single Viagra pill reduce your risk of Alzheimers? Or am I going to have to walk around with an inappropriately serious trouser resident every day for the next thirty years for that effect?

Jonman wrote:

OK but wait. Does a single Viagra pill reduce your risk of Alzheimers? Or am I going to have to walk around with an inappropriately serious trouser resident every day for the next thirty years for that effect?

go blind but stave off Alzheimer's? Tough call...

Jonman wrote:

OK but wait. Does a single Viagra pill reduce your risk of Alzheimers? Or am I going to have to walk around with an inappropriately serious trouser resident every day for the next thirty years for that effect?

That's not a medical issue, that's a scheduling issue.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Jonman wrote:

OK but wait. Does a single Viagra pill reduce your risk of Alzheimers? Or am I going to have to walk around with an inappropriately serious trouser resident every day for the next thirty years for that effect?

go blind but stave off Alzheimer's? Tough call...

It's not big enough to poke myself in the eye, but thanks for the assumed compliment!

I feel like this is the old "If you masturbate you have hairy palms" joke just updated.

Good to know, thanks Farley. Unfortunately for me it does not apply to prostate cancer, but glioma? That’s a terrible one, great to have new tool against it.

Yes. And while the numbers are different, pretty sure the same ratio applies to a lot of other crimes.

Include family friends, clergy, etc and it's probably more staggering

And in more good news - if you don't get COVID you may be able to get Malaria!

'Super' mosquitoes have now mutated to withstand insecticides, scientists say

Billie Eilish says she watched 'The Office' so much that she legitimately thought the Irish band U2 was from Scranton

"Last June, we were in Ireland. I'm in my hotel and I get flowers delivered to my room and it has a little letter on it," she said. "And it's this really, really sweet letter and it says 'from Bono.' And I was like, 'Why would Bono, who's from Scranton — '

"You thought Bono was from Scranton, Pennsylvania?" Kinsey asked.

"Yes," Eilish replied. "I go, 'Why would he send me something in Ireland? What does this have to do with him?' And it said, 'Welcome to my hometown,' or something like that. But U2 is from Scranton. And I kept asking everyone like, 'What is Bono doing sending me flowers all the way across the world? Why would he do that?' And my friends were like, 'Billie, what are you talking about? They're Irish.' I was like, 'No they're not.'"

The Grammy-winning singer said she thought U2 was from the US because of a conversation between Michael and John Krasinski's "Office" character, Jim Halpert, in season four.

In the episode titled "Goodbye, Toby Part 1," Michael, while putting together a mixtape for Holly (Amy Ryan), asked Jim: "Hey, what's the group that was from Scranton that made it big? Was that U2?"

In response, Jim said, "Yes."

Eilish said that because the moment was played straight without a pause or a laugh, she interpreted it as Jim answering Michael's absurd question honestly.

"Here's the thing. We are going to give you our phone numbers. Any time you come up on something like this, you just text us. We are like your 'Office' aunties," Kinsey told Eilish.

Family Dynamics and Doctors' Emotions Drive Useless End-of-Life Care. Surveys repeatedly indicate that nearly all people would rather die peacefully at home, yet painful, long-shot treatments remain common, and efforts to reduce usage have failed

Researchers from Rutgers and other universities have developed a behavioral model that explains a long-standing healthcare mystery: Why do so many terminally ill patients undergo intense last-ditch treatments with little chance of meaningful life extension?

Surveys repeatedly indicate that nearly all people would rather die peacefully at home, yet painful, long-shot treatments remain common, and efforts to reduce usage have failed.

Previous analyses have mostly emphasized patients’ treatment preferences at the end of life. The new model, which its creators named the Transtheoretical Model of Irrational Biomedical Exuberance (TRIBE), focuses squarely on clinician psychology and family dynamics.

“Old models tended to assume that clinicians were purely rational agents, leading patients toward logical choices,” said Paul R. Duberstein, lead author of the study and chair of the Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy at the Rutgers School of Public Health. “Once doctors have recommended a treatment or procedure, there’s enormous pressure on patients to undergo it.”

The TRIBE model combines two older theories – Socioemotional Selectivity Theory and Terror Management Theory – to explain why this happens. The model shows how emotional pressures on doctors and complex family dynamics provoke excessive efforts to cure incurable conditions.

“This model incorporates research showing that clinicians are emotional beings, like all people, and these emotions strongly impact their patients’ choices,” Duberstein said. “Doctors hate to ‘give up’ on patients, so they often recommend treatments with very little chance of success. That won’t change until we improve medical education and the culture of irrational biomedical exuberance.”

“Irrational exuberance” is a term that economist Alan Greenspan famously used to describe investor sentiment in the lead-up to the dot-com crash, but Duberstein and his colleagues said it has long affected doctors and patients as much as it has affected Wall Street. They read of one-in-a-million cures and irrationally believe that they or their patients will be that one in a million – just as people who purchase lottery tickets think they’ll be the lucky winners.

Pointing out the irrationality of the choice doesn’t affect doctors any more than it affects lottery players. Indeed, the researchers believe, it affects doctors less because, unlike gambling, which is often portrayed as a vice, the struggle to preserve life is typically portrayed as a virtue. Motives to prescribe long-shot treatments are noble – to avoid death, save a life, “do all we can,” “fight a battle” and “never give up.” In this view, failing to prescribe long-shot treatments is tantamount to abandoning patients and, for patients, failing to try these treatments is tantamount to abandoning loved ones.

The authors, who also hail from Tulane, Rochester and Rowan, call for new approaches to clinical care and public education that will address the emotions that fuel useless treatments at the end of life. “At some level, every patient death is a potential source of shame for doctors and a source of guilt for surviving family members,” Duberstein said. “By changing the culture of medical education and broader cultural attitudes toward death, we can address the emotions and family dynamics that have prevented too many patients from receiving quality care in their final days and weeks of life.”

That's why I think I should have the option to get a payout from my insurance provider instead of seeking treatment if I get a terminal illness. Or universal healthcare

I've already turned down one standard of care treatment, and the doctors I have said they wished more patients were okay with selecting their own care. It's not completely prescriptive but I like to think my docs will let me know when the returns on a new treatment have diminished sufficiently to not bother with it.

farley3k wrote:

And in more good news - if you don't get COVID you may be able to get Malaria!

'Super' mosquitoes have now mutated to withstand insecticides, scientists say

Killing off mosquito populations with pesticide wasn't a good solution in the first place. It never was.