i feel like im writing about "pop" psychology but im actually trying to decry it//right and left\\

You're trying to remember something.

lucky for you, this girl is studying memory.

Cognitive and Experimental Psychologists implement two major methods of retrieval when studying memory: Recall and  Recognition. We use these techniques too. For instance, when we're trying to reach back into our minds and resurrect a memory, a detail, the day the music died, we may be able to recall the item explicitly:

THE MUSIC DIED WHEN BUDDY HOLLY DIED ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 1959

seriously, type "what day did the music die" into Google. the search engine is pretty explicit.

If unable to pinpoint a date off the top of our heads, we may need some clues to answer the question. Items related to the main concept in question can lead you to recognize it, locate its trace in your mind eventually. I am totally assuming you know who Buddy Holly is by the way, and I apologize if you don't. I just need a specific fact that is somewhat well-known to roll out here.

So, we mentioned the word "recognize." That's a concept in cognitive psychology. Let's explore it by focusing on processes underlying recognition: re-experience and familiarity.

RECOGNITION by re-experience/recollection brings about feelings of being able to mentally relive the past. 

RECOGNITION by familiarity brings about feelings of being on the edge of knowing something for sure. One can feel clueless as to why the familiar feeling is arising.

Researchers conducting experiments distinguish between these recognition processes by asking participants if they can "remember" the item or word (which indicates recollection), or if they just simply "know" that they saw the item before (which indicates familiarity).

There is EVIDENCE for these different processes underlying recognition from neuroimaging studies:

Recollection shows increased activity in the hippocampus, while familiarity shows increased activity in the parahippocampal and perirhinal cortices. Think of these subprocesses as complementary to explicit recall. The parahippocampal and perirhinal cortices are literally encasing the explicit center:

The hippocampus (G. “seahorse”), the Explicit Center;

The parahippocampal cortex, a complementary structure to the hippocampus, involved in the “where” recognition;

sidenote:

Studies show the parahippocampal gyrus to have a role in recognition of social context as well as environment. Research from a group led by Katherine P. Rankin suggests that the parahippocampal gyrus is responsible for detection of sarcasm. 

You may be wondering: Isn’t the left side of the brain responsible for the understanding of language, and other linear, rule-based processes? As you keep learning about the mind, the more you will realize that the left-brained/right-brained dichotomy is grossly oversimplified. Both hemispheres have their specialties, but what is one side of your body without the other?

Yes, the right parahippocampal gyrus is involved in recognition of visual context, a finding that probably dances on your prior knowledge of right-brained specialization. But, in keeping with its name, there is strong evidence supporting that the parahippocampal gyrus is involved in recognition of paralinguistic elements of conversation (e.g. sarcasm). 

For a refresher on Greek prefixes: ORIGIN from Greek para ‘beside’;

The right parahippocampal gyrus has been shown to be responsible for recognition of environmental context, social context, as well as nuances in language–elements that sit beside language itself. This shows us that hemispheric lateralization is not as left-brained/linear, right-brained/spatial as we thought. While the left brain may be more responsible for following grammatical rules, the right parahippocampal gyrus can aid you in recognizing where those rules bend to take on a meaning other than the literal translation. 

Doesn’t this make splendid sense? The supposedly SPATIAL, weird-super-interpretive hemisphere of your brain aids you in detecting the location of sarcasm. If the left, more linear side of our brain did this, it would have to detect the sarcasm as a thing in each instance it arises. The things, or words, used to create a sarcastic sentence can vary, but the environment around it is what makes it sarcasm.

From this, we could say that sarcasm is not an object; it does not follow linear rules, or translate semantically. The literal meaning is the what. The where, on the other hand, considers where you and your fellow conversationalist are in your lives, in your surroundings, and, ultimately, in your minds. It is these spatial concepts that point to sarcasm rather than define it. 

Bihemispheric elements complement one another in dealing with a supposedly left-brained construction (language), which could not take on the same meaning–no matter how many grammatical rules you lived by–if you didn’t implement your right-brained wisdom.

Article concerning right-brains and sarcasm: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/research/03sarc.html?em&ex=1212724800&en=51b0f096761db2f9&ei=5087+&_r=0

So I didn't quite complete my whole lesson on recognition. I guess I just wanted to explain how subprocesses of memory, such as those facilitated by the parahippocampal gyrus, aid us in retrieving more explicit ones, such as the date February 3rd, 1959. While you tried to remember the day the music died and who I was talking about, this may have helped you (link):

And I was singin', bye, bye, Miss American pie...

wingdings//ding\\onion halves

did you know your keyboard can do this:

JKDEWAFHYGDSRHTRHTRJYYHFDBBVVCCXXSSNNMUUAQU

Write in Wingdings in caps lock.

(If you translate the red from wingdings font, you get "write in wingdings with the caps lock")

These symbols are produced in the wingdings font. I wanted to know what the heck this was about.

So Wingdings is the Microsoft-patented name for the symbols printers (people, not machines) used to spruce up their manual products. The name Wingdings is an amalgam of Windows and the font's original name, Dingbats. 

Both in printing and early internet, Dingbats saved time. It has also been used to promote conspiracy theories. 

(check it below!)check it below!

& THIS IS STILL A FOOD BLOG !

^^please translate this for me, would you?

Useful tips on how to cut an onion: 

1.) Peel off the skin.

2.) Cut in half, length-wise – that is, to divide the ROOTS in half, so that your onion looks like this onion (without the tunic):

3.) You should now have two onion halves. Slice one of those halves vertically, from the roots to bygone tunic. But don't slice all the way. Kind of just – flirt with the roots, and to the basal plate.

4.) Turn your knife so that the blade looks like a horizontal surface. Use this new direction to slice your onion half into horizontal layers. Be sure to watch the video (embedded in image below) if this isn't clear.

5.) Turn your knife back to its default chopping position (blade pointed down), and chop your onion with the blade parallel to the roots.

for assistance, talk to this guy.

my hippocratic oath//presidential valentines

Notes from the notebook of yours truly:

Neuropsych, 1/31/2016

Clinical and Lesion Studies: Relating Brain Damage to Abnormal Behavior:

Clinical and lesion studies focus on identifying brain effects (specifically, brain lesion effects) on behavior. 

Clinical studies look at cases in humans, do not inflict harm; lesion studies look at cases in animals after manipulating brain tissue.

            
Notable Clinical studies: Medical Observations

                        (e.g., Hippocrates, Galen, Broca, Wernicke)

Hippocrates (460-380 BC) believed the “brain hypothesis” – that the organ that influences all senses and movement is in fact the brain.

-He was one of the first to deny epilepsy as proof of demonic possession.

-Hippocrates was also the first to note that the brain processes information and controls the body contralaterally.

Learning about "key" historical figures is like testing your faith in iconography. When individuals are wrapped in accolades, deemed the harbingers of some great and no-longer-to-be-questioned discovery, I wonder: was Hippocrates, a Greek physician, “father of medicine,” really the FIRST, or the ONLY ONE, to think these things?

Probably none of which was written by him??!?!

I tend to need some insight beyond this computer's Apple dictionary to define my own understanding. PBS is a good, corroborating source:

While Hippocrates, the so-called father of medicine, lived in the early 5th century B.C., the famous oath that bears his name emerged a century later. No one knows who first penned it.

Often I'm afraid that what I learn is lying to me. Sometimes the syllabus seems to gloss over, simplify things indefinitely. I hear and see that these people did these things and are these things and webbed some sophisticated finding into society's modern network of knowledge. 

But I find it difficult to think that someone was the sole "discoverer" of anything. And when every textbook tells you so, it's like doubting your own birth certificate as proof of your existence.

We really just need a face, someone to look to; a body to wear the cape of some concept. Because if we said this was just "Medicine's Oath," what possible version of ourselves would be available to believe in?

Valentine's day is bordered by Presidential birthdays.

Coincidence??!?!?!

(this person loves iconography)