+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy

Education

This guy would have a hard time saying "french fry." Tragic.

Processed food gets a bad rap. But without it, we might have never been able to even say the word “food.” Or “friendly,” or “fun” or “velociraptor” for that matter. Why is that? “F’s” and “v’s” belong to a group of sounds known as labiodentals. They happen when you raise your bottom lip to touch your top teeth and are used in more than half of today’s human language. But science suggests we didn’t always have this linguistic ability.

As hunter gatherers, our ancestors ate a diet that was minimally processed and required more effort to chew. As a result, by adolescence their teeth would develop what’s called an edge-to-edge bite, where the jaw is elongated so that both the bottom and top teeth are completely flush with one another.

Cue the Neolithic period, where widespread agriculture meant more soft foods like stew and bread and less laborious chewing. Over time, the slight overbite that most people are born with stayed preserved, because chewing was less of an arduous process.

This also made labiodentals easier to produce, as indicated by a 2019 study published in Science magazine. You can catch the video below:

Researchers created two models—one of an edge-to-edge bite and the other of an overbite—to see which version was better for articulating labiodentals. The models clearly showed that the edge-to-edge bite required far more effort. Try to align your bottom and top teeth right now and say “fuh” or “vuh.” Not easy, is it?

The study offered the compelling argument that without the introduction to farming and softer foods, humans might have never incorporated labiodentals into their vocabulary. Even today, modern language used by hunter-gatherer groups use only one-fourth as many labiodental sounds as other languages affected by agriculture.

While the study was met with criticism, its findings offer an unprecedented concept: that our language is shaped not only by cultural and intellectual factors, but also by biological conditions. It also poses some new questions, such as what the spoken word actually sounded like thousands of years ago. It’s certainly an idea to chew on.


This article originally appeared two years ago.

Education

Dating expert says to 'stop chasing the spark' and ask these 8 post-date questions instead

Dating "like a scientist" can apparently save you a lot of headaches and heartaches. Here's how.

Dating is hard. But this can help make it easier.

Sure, it’s amazing when we go on a date and instantly hit it off with another person. But let’s be honest, that doesn’t always happen. And that can be for myriad reasons which don’t necessarily indicate a lack of romantic potential—nerves, having an off day, feeling self conscious, etc.

This is part of what can make dating, especially frequent dating, so frustrating. It’s easy to know what to do after a terrible date—never see that person again. Done. But those somewhere-in-the-middle dates, the ones that don’t rise to rom-com level but still manage to be pleasant enough…how do you effectively assess those?

According to one expert, it all comes down to eight simple questions.

While appearing on the Diary of a CEO podcast, behavioral scientist Logan Ury (who also happens to be the Director of Relationship Science at Hinge) shared how so many people approach dating by doing what she called “relation-shopping.”

Ury likened it to shopping for a pair of bluetooth headphones, saying, “you log onto Amazon and you say ‘okay I want ones that are this color, this weight, this battery life.’ And you start to think ‘oh, I can shop for a partner the same way.’”

But that strategy doesn’t work, Ury noted, because it doesn't focus on how both partners interact together, and it enables a person to make judgments based on assumptions. Ury used the example of not wanting to date someone whose parents were divorced because they “must not know how to be in a great relationship.”

Instead, Ury encouraged people to “date like a scientist.” Which of course means testing theories, remaining open to being wrong, and of course, asking questions.

With that, here is the “post-date eight” checklist you can use to evaluate whether or not a person is right for you:

1) What side of me did this person bring out?

2) How did my body feel during the day? Stiff, relaxed, or somewhere in between?

3) Do I feel more or less energized than I did before the date?

4) Is there something about them that makes me curious?

5) Did they make me laugh?

6) Did I feel heard?

7) Did I feel desire in their presence?

8) Did I feel captivated, bored or somewhere in between?

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Part of what makes the post date eight so effective, according to Ury, is how it “trains you to tune into your experience” and treat the date as though it were a “job interview.” Ury also notes that the first question is particularly important, because "whoever that person brings out in you is who you will be for the rest of your life in that relationship and don't you want to be the happy, secure, desired, hilarious version of yourself?"

Fair point, Ury. Fair point.

Lastly, Ury encouraged folks that feeling an instant “spark” truly isn’t everything. In fact, they often burn out. “Slow burn” connections, on the other hand, often denote secure, long lasting partnerships.

The post-date eight can therefore act as a “new barometer,” retraining your brain to stop chasing “initial chemistry,” (and therefore avoid the “anxious-avoidant loop” that comes with it) and instead gauge whether or not "interest is gaging upwards.”

This new way of dating might not work as a movie plot. But for real life…it does sound promising.

Students

A 9-year-old goes in on standardized tests and ends with the best mic drop of all time

When 9-year-old Sydney Smoot stood up at her local school board meeting, I doubt they expected this kind of talking to.



If you need proof standardized testing is setting students up for failure, just ask the students.

Sydney Smoot has a bone to pick with the Hernando County School Board. The issue? The Florida Standards Assessment Test, or FSA for short. On March 17, 2015, Sydney bravely stood up at her local school board meeting to share how she felt about the test and why she believes it's failing students and teachers.

"This testing looks at me as a number. One test defines me as either a failure or a success through a numbered rubric. One test at the end of the year that the teacher or myself will not even see the grade until after the school year is already over. I do not feel that all this FSA testing is accurate to tell how successful I am. It doesn't take in account all of my knowledge and abilities, just a small percentage." — Sydney Smoot

Can we give this little girl a medal? She was speaking right to my soul with that speech!

I reached out to Sydney and her mom, Jennifer, via email to find out more about what prompted this passionate speech.

What inspired you to write your letter?

"What inspired me to speak all started one day when I came home. My mom asked me how the testing went, and I told her I was told not to speak about the test to anyone. I had not felt comfortable signing something in the test. I had concerns about this test because there was a lot of stress put on students and myself. I was a little nervous before the speech, but when I was called up to the podium, I did not feel nervous because I knew this speech was going to help a lot of people."

Have you ever thought about running for president? Cause I'd vote for you!

"I've thought about running for president because if I'm president, I will be considerate about the people in this state."

You gotta admit, she looks pretty good up there, right?

Parents have a right to be concerned about standardize testing regulations.

One thing that really stuck out to me in Sydney's speech was that the FSA prohibits students from talking to their parents about the test. So I was anxious to hear what Sydney's mom thought about the stipulation. She had this to say:

"When my daughter came home telling me she had to sign a form stating she couldn't talk to anyone including her parents, I got concerned. Not only that I didn't like the fact that the last four of her Social Security number was on the test labels along with other personal information. In today's world of identity theft, it doesn't take much for people to get a hold of these things and use them.

I would like to tell other parents to learn more before these tests start in your children's school and know what they are testing. They have options, you can opt out so to speak, and the child can complete alternative testing if they are in the retention grades; or, if the child wants to take the test, support them and let them know that no matter how they do, it does not define them as a person.

It's a test and a poorly designed one at best."

Standardized tests are changing the classroom. And not for the better.

As Sydney shared in her speech, she and her classmates are feeling the pressure when it comes to preparing for the FSA. But they aren't the only ones. Teachers are also struggling to get students ready and are often forced to cut corners as a result.

What standardized tests also fail to take into account is that in many ways, test-taking is a skill, one that not every student is ready for. When I was in school, we spent months gearing up for the dreaded FCAT, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. And if months of test prep wasn't bad enough, if you didn't pass the FCAT, you couldn't graduate high school. Talk about stressful! The pressure of your high school career rides on one test, combined with the fact that standardized tests don't accurately measure what students have learned. Plenty of capable students fail these tests due to increased anxiety and stress. If high school students are struggling to handle the pressure of standardized testing, imagine how difficult it must be for elementary school students like Sydney!

Young Sydney is a testament to how important it is that we listen to students and create curriculum that challenges and educates them, rather than scaring them into "learning." I think Sydney's suggestion of three comprehensive tests throughout the year makes way more sense than one big statewide test that interferes with teachers' schedules and stresses students out. And let's be real, when's the last time you heard a kid ask for MORE tests?! Clearly standardized tests aren't the answer or at least need some serious work. Hopefully Sydney's message will make an impact and get her school board and schools across the nation to rethink how we measure students' success.

This article originally appeared 9 years ago.

Education

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographsWhy so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

wedding party photoEven wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.