About kb

free spirit, lover of red wine, bacon, sushi, the ocean, and adventure. I work in the legal field, do freelance writing, and take care of children.

[placeholder]

Posted on December 9, 2011 by kb

I’m sorry I’ve been such a terrible blogger this week!

I have so much to tell you!
Some of it is sad and some of it is super awesome.

So be excited – I promise that there will be updates soon. I have to babysit tonight and since I’m going snowboarding tomorrow, I promise that there will be time for updating.

Happy Friday, world. You’re beautiful.

On Blogging as Not-Journalism

Posted on December 7, 2011 by kb

Judge Hits Blogger With $2.5 Million Fine for Not Being a Journalist

3 minutes ago by Peter Pachal

In a case that’s sending a frightening message to the blogger community, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that a blogger must pay $2.5 million to an investment firm she wrote about — because she isn’t a real journalist.

As reported by Seattle Weekly, Judge Marco A. Hernandez said Crystal Cox, who runs several blogs, wasn’t entitled to the protections afforded to journalists — specifically, Oregon’s media shield law for sources — because she wasn’t “affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”

The Obsidian Finance Group sued Cox in January for $10 million for writing several blog posts critical of the company and its co-founder, Kevin Padrick. Obsidian argued that the writing was defamatory. Cox represented herself in court.

The judge threw out all but one of the blog posts cited, focusing on just one (this one), which was more factual in tone than the rest of her writing. Cox said that was because she was being fed information from an inside source, whom she refused to name.

Without the source, she couldn’t prove the information in the post was true — and thus, according to the judge, she didn’t qualify for Oregon’s media shield law since she wasn’t employed by a media establishment. In the court’s eyes, she was a blogger, not a journalist. The penalty: $2.5 million.

The debate over whether bloggers are journalists has been going on for years, but the consensus has been largely settled — on the opposite side of what Judge Hernandez has ruled. Attorney Bruce E. H. Johnson, who wrote the media shield laws in next-door Washington State, told Seattle Weekly that those laws would have protected Cox had her case been tried in Washington.

In a more high-profile case, an editor from Gizmodo escaped criminal charges after revealing to the world an iPhone prototype lost in a bar. Although police raided the California home of editor Jason Chen in 2010, the case was cited as a test for that state’s media shield law, and the district attorney said publicly this year that no charges would be filed to anyone from the site.

When discussing the case, Steve Jobs told The Wall Street Journal‘s Walt Mossberg that he believed Chen was “a guy,” not a journalist. Mossberg countered that he himself was a blogger, and that he thought bloggers were journalists. (You can see the exchange in this video, at about the 17:00 mark.)

Are bloggers the same as journalists? And if not, what is the dividing line? Share your thoughts in the comments.

source: Mashable

On the Letter of Intent That Isn’t

Posted on December 6, 2011 by kb

I’ve been procrastinating for the better part of five months now.
Instead of trying to do the big push for graduate applications due in the fall, I decided to wait until the January 15 deadlines.
So I took the big test. I got my scores back. I am awesome at either knowing stuff or test taking, perhaps both.
In early November, I contacted one of my professors. (Mid-November, maybe.) Then Thanksgiving happened. I still haven’t written my personal statement. That’s what is standing in the way of graduate school application completion.
Transcripts have been requested, from both institutions of higher learning that I attended. The basic forms have been printed out, inked. Recommendations have been asked for – but I can’t get them until I write my statement, because my professor wants to read all of it.
Thus, all I really have to do is write the damn statement. It is three pages. It shouldn’t be that hard.

And yet, it is. I stare at the blank page, unsure of how to begin. This is attempt number seven. I’ve even made it a Google Doc so that Maddie can read it and start appearing in my dreams again (she’s my super ego, isn’t that strange? Whenever I’m upset at myself, or stressed, Maddie shows up in my dreams and bosses me around. It’s oddly effective, although I’m not too sure she’s entirely pleased because Dream-Maddie is mean).

If I had my way, I’d write my entire letter of intent like I was writing a profile in a magazine. It’d be a sweet look back at my life from my perch on a sweet couch. I’d have sweet gray hair and a mug of steaming tea. I’d even have my colorful reading glasses dangling from a chain around my neck. Badass.

Instead, I’m being professional. I’m being bland. I’m being overly accomplished – that’s a lie, I actually look really bad on paper. Real life me is so much more exciting than paper me. Come on, three pages. Just be out of me so I can edit them and then be on with my life!

On Capital, sort of.

Posted on December 5, 2011 by kb

The 99%: “Money Can’t Buy You Class”

Social Commentary post by GretchenSisson, Submitted by GretchenSisson on December 5, 2011 – 12:24pm;tagged Beverly Hills, Gossip Girl, inequality, Real Housewives, Wealth.

screen shot from the opening credits of the Beverly Hillbillies, showing a family of four white people driving in a car with lots of stuff in the back

A very special thank you to the Countess LuAnn of the Real Housewives of New York for supplying the title to today’s post. I doubt this is what the Countess was going for, but she brings up a good point: what’s the difference between having money and having class privilege? Is there one anymore?

There’s always been the concept of “old money” and “new money,” and the former seems to spend a good deal of time spurning the latter until begrudgingly accepting them—usually when newer money comes along. In fact, when Caroline Schermerhorn married William Astor in 1854, this was a marriage of old and new money. Caroline brought to the marriage old New York Knickerbocker stock (this is where the New York Knicks get their name from) and William Astor brought the new real estate money. The Astors were now “old” money, and would be allowed to look down their noses at the upstart Vanderbilts with their tacky railroads.

But do these lines between old and new money ever really go away? The Beverly Hillbillies of the 1960s showed us an unsophisticated rural family transplanted into swanky Beverly Hills after oil is found on their land. Are they accepted by their neighbors? No, obviously not. But their tight-knit family and clearly voiced morals place them as superior to their rich, superficial neighbors. If upward mobility won’t get you accepted by the people with money, well, that’s OK—did you really want to be like them anyway?

Even on Gossip Girl, ruling prep school princess and over-achiever Blair Waldorf is portrayed as a bit of an upstart because both of her parents have earned, rather than inherited, their money (like Serena’s parents did). As Jenny (who lives in Brooklyn, takes the subway to school, and makes her own clothes, so is clearly “poor”) tells Blair in season two: “You might be privileged, Blair, but you work for every single thing you’ve achieved. Like me. Serena just glides through.”

What’s really going on here?

Well, the Countess has a point. Class privilege is something different from having money, even though having money can take you pretty far. (And it should go without saying that class privilege is connected to race privilege—people of color don’t have the same opportunities or experiences as white people, regardless of how wealthy they are.)

Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu was one of the first to spell out how class privilege really comes from different kinds of capital. There’s the obvious kind: economic capital, cash money, the stuff that gives you purchasing power and freedom from having to worry about how to pay rent, your heating bill, and your student loans.

Then there’s social capital. This is your network: who you know, who your parents know. Unsurprisingly, if you go to a fancy prep school with the grandsons of Congressmen and the daughters of business leaders, you have pretty darn high social capital. You have easier access to sources of power, which means you have more power and privilege.

Finally, there’s cultural capital. This form of capital is not who you know, but what you know about how to succeed in the culture you live in. (It can also include what you own, based on what you purchased because of what you know.) So, if you’re well educated, and you read the right books, know the right artists, own the right gadgets, watch the right TV shows, can name the right designers, speak with the right accent, and eat with the right fork—well, that’s a form of privilege all on its own. Middle-class families can be really, really good at giving their children lots of cultural capital, even when they lack economic and social capital.

I’m opening my series with this little sociology refresher so that, as you (hopefully) read on, you understand what I mean when I refer to class privilege, and you can think about what kinds of privilege different characters in pop culture might have and where they got it. Additionally, when we talk about social mobility, we might wonder with kinds of capital are most important to that mobility. Because, really, we’re not just talking about money.

source: Bitch Magazine

Weekly Non Sequiturs and such

Posted on December 2, 2011 by kb

It’s been a quiet week.
Actually, the exact opposite is true.

Blog-wise, I’ve been substituting articles for actual original content, but you’ve already noticed that.

Life-wise, I’ve been making more calls to Mom asking her advice than I have in a long time. I hate that there are no right answers. I hate uncertainty. I hate it when people can’t communicate. So this has all been really fun. It’s not one thing. It’s all the things.

There is so much potential in a specific situation (which I am overjoyed about), and I’m worried that the slightest movement in the wrong direction could jeopardize everything. There’s been a lot of exterior pressure on this specific situation and I can tell that it’s starting to affect things. Honestly, I much prefer agonizing over my every move rather than agonizing over what else could be screwing this up. It’s cloudy territory and I’m in a position where I could be really hurt. I seriously do not want that to happen and will do everything in my power to prevent it. (This is why actually liking the people you date is problematic. The potential for pain is not pleasant.)

On the plus side, tomorrow will find me driving Frank (Mike’s car) up to the mountains. And then I will slide down the face of the mountain on my various body parts. It’s going to be excellent. Em’s going up with another group, so I’m thinking I will trade the greens for blues. Someone text me at 5am and remind me to bring ibuprofen.

I’m also going to a birthday party for one of the little girls I babysit. I’m excited. I still need to find her a present – I think I want to get her temporary tattoos. The little girls love them. Ever since we had the conversation about tattoos before I went swimming with them this summer, I’ve laughed every time I think about the middle one saying, “Mommy doesn’t let us have the kind that stays on forever,” when I offered her a temporary one from my car. I’m so lucky that I get to be a babysitter. I’m also so lucky I found this family – I seriously adore these people.

Mickey Avalon is in town tomorrow night. I have a feeling that this show will either be the biggest letdown ever or the best experience of my life. There is no middle ground. It’s definitely going to be an adventure. I’m excited.

Okay, million dollar idea of the day (other than Wine-Away, which removes the horrid wine stains from your lips before your 8am meeting, I don’t have much in that department): personal Google. I want to Google: “Do I own a VHS copy of Better Off Dead? Did I leave it in Chicago?” or perhaps “Where is my black mini skirt?” Both of those are seriously necessary queries. (If you’ve seen my black mini skirt, shoot me an email. I’m lacking sex appeal like mad and it’s all with that skirt!) If Google could just index all of my things and ideas and then just know where they are or what they were, I’d be such a better person. I’d be on time for work every day because it would know where my keys and phone are.

I’m wanting to make K watch Better Off Dead tonight. We were going to go down to the Parade of Lights, but I can see how that might not materialize as a solid plan. The early morning mountain trek precludes participants from partying heavily the night before, and if I am stuck downtown, I will naturally wander into a bar and commence adventuring. (I can’t help it. Adventure finds me, I swear.) So perhaps I’ll suggest quiet dinner and a movie? But does that make me/us lame? (Of course not, I’m Katie Barry and this kid’s got chutzpah to match – in a good way, not like traditional Hebrew-ish.)

I’ve been reading a website dedicated to black women. At times, I find it surprisingly boring – just like Cosmo stopped holding my interest when I was like 17 [secret confession: I bought one this month to read in the bathtub] – but there times when I can’t look away. I keep thinking, why can’t this be a multi-cultural site? But then I realize that most “multi-cultural” sites are totally in white-gaze and don’t even take into account multi-racial perspectives. Whatever. I’ve been reading about what I shouldn’t bring up in relationships (oops), which friends are toxic (ha, we already knew the answer to that), etc. It’s addicting. I mean, who doesn’t want to know the “7 Insecurities All Women Have in Relationships”? I do.

I’ve been being way too over-analytical lately. I can’t stop trying to put sociology on everything I see. It’s like my brain is turned on by the thought of grad school and so has started to work again, but instead of limiting its processing to normal work hours, I’ve had the urge to start deconstructing everything I see, hear, or read. If only I could channel all of this and get to work on my application, we’d be in business. I was so productive this week at work. Seriously. Overdrive. This is good.

Happy Friday, world. I hope you’re all loving your beautiful selves this weekend. I most certainly am.

On Working Moms

Posted on December 2, 2011 by kb

Working Moms Multitask, And Stress, More Than Dads

by PATTI NEIGHMOND

Allison Long/MCT /Landov

A Kansas City family prepares a meal together. A new study finds that working mothers log more hours — and get more stressed — than working fathers while multitasking at home. (This family wasn’t part of the research.)

A new study in the December issue of the American Sociological Review comes up with some findings that lots of women may feel they already know too much about: Working mothers spend significantly more time multitasking at home than working dads. And those mothers aren’t happy about it.

Researchers from Bar-Ilan University in Israel and Michigan State University looked at 368 working mothers and 241 fathers who worked outside the home. Turns out, the women were on overdrive, with some even describing the hours between 5 and 8 p.m. as the “arsenic hours.”

“The first thing they had to start worrying about is getting dinner, interfacing with their kids, getting done all the housework chores,” says sociologist Barbara Schneider with Michigan State University, who co-authored the study. “You could see from the data all the stresses and strains they felt as they walked in the door, and all the tasks” they felt they had to accomplish during those early-evening hours.

The working parents in the study wore watches that beeped randomly seven times throughout the day. Researchers wanted to know how much they were multitasking. So, after the beep, the men and women filled out forms that described what they were doing, what “else” they were doing, and whether they were happy, stressed or wished they were doing something else.

After gathering all the information, the researchers found that working mothers spent 10.5 more hours every week on multitasking compared with working fathers — typical chores like preparing dinner, doing laundry, maybe even doing some work brought home from the office, while also talking with their child and helping with homework.

Fathers, on the other hand, did a different kind of juggling. “When they’re multitasking, it tends to be more work related — so they might be answering a work call” while spending time with the kids, Schneider says.

As a result, Schneider says, the women reported much greater feelings of stress and being overwhelmed than the men reported. The men reported feeling pleased with their multitasking.

Psychologist Russell Poldrack, of the University of Texas at Austin, studies how our brains make decisions and process information. He says there’s a big difference between multitasking in the short term — answering the phone while driving, for example — versus multitasking over a number of hours, like the mothers in this study. These mothers were likely overloading their “working memory,” he says.

“Our brains can only hold so much information in working memory, and when we get overloaded, a different set of systems turns on in the brain — chemical systems that are actually related to the stress response,” says Poldrack. “And the neurons in our prefrontal cortex lose the ability to hold information in the same way that they can when we’re not stressed out.”

Understanding the biology behind being frazzled may not be much comfort to the average over-stressed working mother.

Which is why researcher Barbara Schneider suggests some big changes. While men in the study worked longer hours on the job outside the home than women, Schneider says, employers could be more creative in scheduling, giving men more flexible hours and more time at home so that child care and household chores can be more equitably divided.

Source: NPR

On an article that made me laugh

Posted on December 1, 2011 by kb

What Women Really Need – from ThoughtCatalog

DEC. 1, 2011
By JOSH GONDELMAN

Guys, we all know that what women say they want is different from what they actually need. Sure they might say they want a nice guy or a chance to study yoga in India, but that’s just a cover up for deeper needs that they usually won’t admit to. Fellas, no matter what ladies say, the things they need most are food, shelter, and potable drinking water.

Seriously, women need food. Sometimes they may want to eat salad. Sometimes they may want to eat sloppy joes. It doesn’t matter. Without food, women will physically die. Literally, they will stop living. Food contains nutrients such as Vitamin C and Riboflavin that women need to survive. So when a woman says she wants a good listener, know that the subtext is that she needs potassium to live. She also needs a ton of other vitamins and minerals that she’ll “conveniently” never mention to you. There’s glucose in food that the mitochondria in her cells need to produce adenosine triphosphate so she can move around and stuff. These are things that you’re just expected to know. It’s 2011, guys, and women don’t want to be with someone that doesn’t understand that.

But food alone can’t fulfill a woman. Not kale, and not even chocolate. It’s not like the comic strip Cathy. Women in this day and age need more. Like shelter. Seriously, dudes. Women need shelter from the elements. They can’t just live on a hammock or in a pillow fort. They’ll get sick. Women need walls. They need roofs. I’m not saying you need to provide those for them, but if a woman is trying to find shelter, and you stand in her way, you’re being a jerk. It’s not the prehistoric era anymore. You can’t just drag a woman back to your cave by the hair. First of all, that’s assault. Secondly, a cave does not provide adequate protection from rain, wind, and large predatory animals. Why are you even living in a cave? That’s insane. Get with the program.

Finally, women need potable drinking water. As a guy, you’re probably like: “I’ll drink any water, regardless of the toxins it may contain. Who cares if it is radioactive or full of the ebola virus?” Women aren’t like that. When they say potable drinking water, they really mean it. If you say your drinking water is potable, and it isn’t, a woman will know. She’s not going to write off that flesh eating bacteria or radiation poisoning as fun or cute. Be a man. Face facts. It is not too much for a woman in this day and age to ask for water that she can drink that will hydrate her with little to no crippling physical side effects.

Don’t go crazy trying to meet these needs for a woman right away. If you just met someone and all of a sudden you’re digging her a well or building her a wigwam, you’re probably coming on a little strong. Start small. Maybe with a sandwich (food) or a glass of water (water). Plus, given that women under thirty are now earning as much as men of the same age, they are likely to have addressed these needs on their own. Don’t just assume that a woman is lacking a sturdy residence. Listen to her. Just know, that there are certain things that may go unsaid.

Look, when you meet a woman, and she tells you that she wants someone to build a future with or to find an internship in San Diego so she can be near her family, be aware that there are some deeper issues she’s not addressing. On a basic level, if you’re standing in the way of her ability to secure food, shelter, or potable drinking water, then all the backrubs in the world aren’t going to make this work.

Sorry, bros. That’s just how it is.

On Afghan Acid Attacks…

Posted on November 30, 2011 by kb

One of the biggest issues facing our planet is women’s rights. It won’t stop being an issue. We can’t stop the fight for education; independence; equality.

This goes beyond women’s rights – which are often neglected after revolutions. Globally, we need to redefine our definitions of masculinity. We need to reinforce that violence (in all forms) has negative consequences. We need to start discussions about the negative impacts of violence on our communities.

I applaud the parents of this young woman for making the choice to refuse the man who asked for her hand in marriage. It’s a shame that their strength was answered with violence. I hope that they find the support they need in their community.

Afghan woman attacked with acid after refusing marriage

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2011%2F11%2F30%2Fus-afghanistan-acid-idUSTRE7AT1EY20111130&layout=standard&show_faces=false&width=450&action=recommend&colorscheme=light&height=35

Analysis & Opinion

On Dear Margo and other things…

Posted on November 29, 2011 by kb

“Dear Margo” really pissed me off today. (Great, Katie, now even mature women are offending you? Actually, yes.)

It deals with the word “slut” (among other things). While I don’t particularly care for the word itself, and thus I have no desire to in any way “reclaim” it, I do see the word as one of the biggest obstacles to overcoming the stigmas surrounding female sexuality.

Dear Margo: I often see references in your column (and elsewhere) to “friends with benefits.” Where can I find a woman like this? It sounds wonderful. I can have sex and do nothing for her in return. When did this “friends with benefits” start? When I was a young man, we used to call those women sluts. So today we rename the sluts, and they fall for it. I wish I were 30 years younger. I could use a friend with benefits. —John from Essex
Dear John: Thanks for the laugh. Your sly take on this subject is most likely shared by everyone who is middle-aged. My guess is that this new casual approach to what used to be something meaningful is post-sexual revolution, if not post-post-sexual revolution. Somehow the kids went off the rails and decided sex was just something to do … you know, like a video game or playing darts. The women you call “sluts” I would call “loose,” and they have been around forever. That behavior, however, was not sanctioned, as it is now; there was usually a reputational price to pay, if not a venereal disease. (Those are still possible, by the way!) Around the 1780s, Count Talleyrand observed: “In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily.” So you see, dear, the activity has remained the same; only the name has changed. —Margo, historically

Read more:Dear Margo – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/dearmargo#ixzz1f7enXBCX

Margo reminds the writer that this is not a new behavior – a reminder for which I am grateful; this is in no way new behavior and shouldn’t be treated as such – yet she reinforces the negative connotation of words such as “loose” and “sluts,” going so far as to imply that these woman who are participating in “friends with benefits” relationships have venereal diseases.

This irks me for multiple reasons, but let’s start with the most obvious. Saying that a venereal disease is a price to pay for loose behavior is way off the mark. Sex does not equal disease. More sex does not equal more disease. Sexually transmitted infections and diseases have existed for most of history. They don’t just belong to women (who get screwed, literally, because their anatomy is more receptive to diseases). They are spread by any number of people in any number of different ways. While people who have a higher number of sexual partners may have more opportunity to come in contact with more diseases, that is not always the case. Anyone engaging in sexual activity should regularly take the responsibility to seek medical attention (including preemptive care like obtaining birth control pills and STI testing). Some people contract something the first time they have sex. Some people never do. Having a casual sex relationship – “friends with benefits” – does not imply dangerous sexual practices. The rates of sexual infection are through the roof in so many demographics. Someone you know has one, and, for all you know, so do you. The only way to be sure is to be tested regularly and be honest with your partners. Trust me, they’ll respect you for it. (While you’re at it, don’t forget to get your HIV test!)

Secondly, Margo focuses on the women. It is interesting to me that both the writer and respondent think that the issue of “friends with benefits” implies a lack of morals on the woman’s part, yet not on the man’s. So it’s perfectly fine for men to engage in this sort of behavior while women are shamed for doing exactly the same? Are we socially regressing? Seriously? Did this year’s SlutWalks teach you nothing? Women walk this terrifying line between progressive sexual freedom and the social sanctions they face for embracing and “owning” their sexuality. Trust me, I get a lot of flack for being so outspoken. There are a lot of incorrect assumptions made about who I am as a woman because of it. Just because you’re pro-sex or sex positive does not make you a floozy. It means you’re informed (hopefully).

Finally, I take issue with Margo saying that this behavior is sanctioned, when in fact, it isn’t. Her tone proves that much. Again, the double-standard for sexual behavior is still alive and well. Men are allowed to have certain desires and act on them, yet women are shamed for either having desires or acting on them. As far as I see it, there’s no reason to walk to the purity line if my husband/future partner won’t be expected to do the same. That said, there’s nothing wrong with making any of those choices – for purity, for modesty, etc. Sexuality is a gift, and it shouldn’t be used recklessly. There is something to be admired about the sanctity of any sexual relationship; many of those “friends with benefits” relationships also contain the elements of respect, admiration, and companionship that are mutually satisfying for both partners involved.

But are those relationships socially sanctioned? No, at least not for the female participants. We still use derogatory language when referring to girls exploring their sexuality; we still put men down by calling them feminine names; we still objectify women; we reinforce beauty as a means of success. We are doing nothing but reinforcing antiquated power structures through our subtle expressions of disapproval of what acceptable female behavior can or cannot be.

When the writer of the letter says, “It sounds wonderful. I can have sex and do nothing for her in return,” he is completely forgetting that any “friends with benefits” relationship is a relationship just like any other. Things that keep relationships alive? Mutual satisfaction. Trust. Respect. Communication. Things he doesn’t seem capable of providing.

On the "Love Hormone" Gene – from Time Magazine

Posted on November 29, 2011 by kb

Telltale Signs You’ve Got the ‘Love Hormone’ Gene?

By Maia Szalavitz Thursday, November 17, 2011

Canyou tell at first glance if someone is likely to be a good partner or parent?New research suggests that observers can identify the most nurturing andsocially sensitive people, just by watching their behavior for 20 seconds — andthat these highly empathetic people are more likely to have a gene variationassociated with trust and caring.

The genetic variation affects the receptor for oxytocin,often referred to as the “love hormone” or “cuddlechemical” because it plays a role in social bonding, trust, empathy andgenerosity. Levels of oxytocin increase during orgasm and childbirth, and ithelps the formation of bonds between friends, lovers, and parents and children.

Research has shown that people with two G variants ofthe gene are more empathetic and “prosocial,” showing morecompassion, cooperation and positive emotion. In contrast, those with the atleast one A version of the gene tend to be less empathetic, may have worsemental health and are more likely to be autistic.

MORE: ‘Love Hormone’ OxytocinEnhances Men’s Memories of Mom — Good or Bad

In the new study, researchers videotaped 23 romanticcouples while one person listened to his or her significant other describe atime of personal suffering. Then, 116 strangers were asked to watch silent20-second clips of the videos and rate the listeners on how supportive andtrustworthy they seemed.

People who were rated as most empathetic based on theirbody language and behavior — things like keeping eye contact, smiling andnodding while their partner spoke, and having open body posture — were alsomore likely to have the GG genotype, researchers found. Of the 10 people ratedthe most trustworthy, six had the GG variant; of the 10 rated lowest on trust,nine had two copies of the A gene variation.

“We were floored by how strongly significant theresults were by genotype for such a small number of people evaluated,”says Sarina Rodrigues Saturn, assistant professor of psychology at Oregon StateUniversity and an author of the study.

Men who carried the GG genotype were also more easilyidentified as being sensitive, compared with the women.

a mile high and then some…

the space between reality and the rest

Author Archives: kb