More
Ever Play Hangman? Listen To This Guy Reveal The Truth Behind The Game.
Words have tremendous power. Use them wisely.
09.24.14
Sponsored
How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”
all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz
Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research
True
There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.
Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.
At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.
Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.
When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.
And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.
“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”
Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.
Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.
In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.
If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!
And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.
Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.
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.
Why 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.
Even 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.
via Ruth Watts (used with permission) and Canva/Photos
A mother takes a photo of her child for her Instagram feed.
A recent study by Data Recovery found that 68% of parents admit to making posts and sharing photos about their children, and 73% of people don’t personally know everyone who looks at their page. This can be a big problem. While most parents think that “sharenting” is harmless, some real dangers can happen to children whose photos are shared online.
Should parents post photos of their kids online?
According to NPR, sharing photos of your children could result in them being bullied by other children, or they could have their photos digitally “kidnapped” and used by fake accounts. In some cases, the photos could wind up on child pornography sites.
Ruth Watts (@ruthwattshv on TikTok), a British family health worker, recently posted a viral TikTok about parents who overshare about their kids and she makes a point that everyone should hear. After scrolling through a typical parent's page, anyone can learn more about a child’s life than the parents would ever intend to share.
Watts says that by knowing a child only through social media, she can figure out their full name, date of birth, parents' names, birthday, where they live, the foods they like and dislike, the toys they play with, their diagnosis, the parks where they like to play and so much more.
@ruthwattshv What’s your opinion on this? Let me know in the comments ❤️ #parenting #parentsoftiktok #parentingtips #mumsoftiktok #mumlife #mum #healthvisitor #responsiveparenting #gentleparenting #parentingtips #parentingrules #babytok #babyhacksandtips #gentleparentingtips #wholesomemomcontent #mumcontent #momcontentcreator #healthvisitor
We may not think we’re giving out much information about our children. Still, when you add up all the posts year after year, plus the comments, it would be pretty easy for a predator to learn a lot about a child based solely on social media posts.
“Can you guess how I know this child? I purely know them through watching them on social media,” Watts says in a video with over 500,000 views. “I purely know all of your information because the parents have chosen to share that private, confidential information about their child. And yes, a story here, a story there and upload here and upload there. It all creates a picture. It is a jigsaw that people notice. People pay attention to and the wrong people pay attention to.”
Watts also adds that when parents share pictures of children online, they put their children in a vulnerable position without asking for their consent. The video inspired over 500 comments, many from parents who thanked her for her brutal honesty and others who shared why they don’t share photos of their children online.
A mother takes a photo of her child for her Instagram feed. via Canva/Photos
“This is exactly why the majority of people have no idea I even have a child. The people that matter will see him grow up in person, not fake friends through a screen,” Mikita Blackmore wrote. “This is why I don’t post my daughter on social media; it’s so scary what people can do these days,” Clara Marie added.
“I always say if you wouldn’t go to the effort of printing the photo and handing it to that person, then they shouldn’t have access to that image,” Soph wrote.
Why shouldn't parents post photos of their kids online?
Watts says she created the video because she has 2 children and feels that kids everywhere deserve a voice. “I feel it’s important to advocate for children who are vulnerable and unable to consent to posting the images. Let alone the parents and children having no understanding of internet risks and security,” she told Upworthy. “How would people feel if I started posting pictures of them without consent? I’m sure they wouldn’t like it. So why is it ok for us to post our children?”
You can follow Watts on Instagram @RuthWattshv.
A woman who is very bored.
How can anyone feel bored in a world with social media, streaming movies, TV shows on-demand and the ability to download just about every book in the world? It may sound paradoxical, but according to a study published in Communications Psychology by Katy Y.Y. Tam and Michael Inzlicht, digital media makes us more bored.
Studies show that since 2010, the amount of time people report feeling bored has increased dramatically and the trend has intensified over the years. Interestingly, people began reporting greater levels of boredom shortly after we all started using social media on our new smartphones.
Why am I bored all the time?
According to researchers, here’s what’s happening. Given that we have access to entertainment whenever we like, the bar for what we consider entertaining or stimulating has increased. It’s like when someone is an addict and they keep needing more and more of the same substance to get the high they crave.
Further, when we engage in less stimulating activities, such as reading a book or attending a class, we feel even more bored than before the digital revolution because we have become accustomed to heightened levels of stimulation.
A woman who is very bored.via Canva/Photos
Another reason flipping through TikTok leaves you feeling bored and listless is that digital media fragments our attention, making it hard to focus on the activity at hand. We quickly switch between videos and activities, our phones pulse and beep with notifications, and texts pop up on the screen, so it’s hard to engage with the content deeply. Also, knowing that we can be distracted at any moment makes it harder to focus. “Digital devices intensify boredom by disrupting attention,” the researchers explain.
“Digital media increases boredom through dividing attention, elevating desired levels of engagement, reducing a sense of meaning, and serving as an ineffective boredom coping strategy,” Tam and Inzlicht argue in their paper.
These findings are supported by a report from the Netherlands’ Radboud University, which recently found that “phone usage wasn't an effective method to alleviate boredom and fatigue and even made these feelings worse in many cases.”
A man who is very bored.via Canva/Photos
As we pointed out with the Dorito Theory a while back, sometimes experiences that aren’t fulfilling can still be maximally addictive. As we scroll and scroll and scroll, trying to come across something that cures our boredom, it’s time to ask ourselves how we feel after the experience. Did logging in deliver the experience we thought we’d get? Or, did the frantic search for content keep us occupied until the boredom crept in again?
Tam says that we can have more meaningful and less boring experiences with digital media if we find longer-form content that we can immerse ourselves in. However, this may prove more complicated than years ago, as our attention spans are much shorter.
“If people want a more enjoyable experience when watching videos, they can try to stay focused on the content and minimize digital switching. Like paying for a more immersive experience in a movie theater, more enjoyment comes from immersing oneself in online videos rather than swiping through them,” Tam writes.