Lifestyle – Encyclopedia.com

Is it True That Once a Cheater Always a Cheater?

Makayla — Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:14:09 +0000

We’ve all heard the saying “once a cheater always a cheater,” and many women scorned believe it to their core. On the other hand, it’s also believed and widely spread about that people can change. Some say, people do change, but not cheaters. So is it true that once a cheater always a cheater? Studies show that cheating is more common than most people think. Does that mean that once a cheater always a cheater? Not exactly. It seems that whether or not people cheat has more to do with if their relationship meets their needs than it does with the character of the cheater. About 22% of men and 13% of women admit to cheating in their relationships. Researchers also discovered that people who say they are happy in their marriage still cheat. Is it because they were cheaters before and they just have to cheat? Once a cheater always a cheater? Experts say no. Relationship counselors have seen many couples persevere through cheating and the cheater never cheat again. On the other hand, the opposite happens just as often. According to some studies, someone who has cheated before is 3x more likely to cheat again in their next relationship. Do they like the outcome of cheating or see it as a way out? Regardless of why cheaters cheat again, there seems to be some validity to the notion that once a cheater always a cheater. But it isn’t that way for everyone. Cheaters don’t always cheat again. Some of them are overcome with guilt and some of them cheated for a very good reason. Some go on to leave their partners in favor of the partner they cheated with. There’s no doubt that being cheated on hurts and feels like a betrayal but with so many people doing it, some couples question the validity of relationships expectations altogether. Once a person cheats – they are more likely to do it again Once a cheater always a cheater isn’t true for everyone. Some cheaters learn from their mistakes and remain faithful for the rest of their lives. Those that change the way they act are few and far between according to some sources. Statistics show that it is more likely for a person to cheat once they have cheated before. So even though it isn’t every cheater, it is true that once a person is a cheater, they are more likely to cheat. According to scientists, there is a good reason why. After we have cheated and lied, our brain begins to recognize that behavior as an option. The more lies that are told the more telling lies becomes normal. The same goes for cheating (and lying to cover it up). Some researchers believe that once betraying and lying to people you love becomes part of a normal life and relationship it can be very hard to see that it’s wrong. This is not definitive proof that once a cheater always a cheater saying is true but it does mean that watching for red flags is still a good idea.

The post Is it True That Once a Cheater Always a Cheater? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That 98% of What you Learn is a Waste?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 18:18:04 +0000

Used as a hot button in political debates, the idea that 98% of what you learn is a waste gets tossed around often in conversation. Most of us know it’s true that not everyone will need Algebra and Trigonometry during their life, but is it also true that 98% of what we learn is a total waste? Democrats and other advocates looking to change the school system have long said that a large percentage of what children are taught doesn’t actually help them. Some even say that the way the lessons are taught is also problematic, allowing very little room for comprehension but plenty for competition. Some lifelong teachers point to the pressure of standardized test scores as a reason that school is a waste of time while others simply say that 98% of what kids learn is a waste altogether. However, many of those ideas behind learning are misguided and not based in how the brain learns. Since the brain is constantly learning based on perception of it’s environment, the notion that 98% of what we learn is a waste is a bit short sighted. Learning isn’t just about memorizing the times tables and knowing when to use prepositional phrases but is also about seeing how to act in groups, learning to follow directions and developing a sense of self discipline. Is 98% of what we learn a waste? If 98% of what we learn is a waste, what could be taught that makes our time spent learning worthwhile? Some intellects and philosophers believe that as long as something is learned that no time was wasted. However, others believe that teaching kids more “valuable lessons” in school could help us be sure that we learn is usable. Even among the proponents of changing the system so that 98% of what we learn isn’t a waste have differing opinions on what kind of learning we could institute that would accomplish such a task. Parents point to teachers and teachers point back to parents, but that kind of blame game does very little to change what and how we learn. If the changes did occur, would they ensure that we learn more than goes to waste? 98% of what we learn changes More accurate than the idea that 98% of what we learn is a waste is the idea that it changes. Since most of what we learn isn’t from reading books and taking tests in school, the idea that learning is synonymous to education is the actual problem. Every second your brain is processing inputs from all of your senses. It learns something from every single input. The brain learns things and makes associations that we are not even aware of. As humans, we survive by learning. Over the years our research has taught us many things. some things that were useful immediately and some things that were not useful until years after they were learned. What we learn from our everyday interactions is just as important as what we learn in a classroom. Looking at it from that perspective – it is NOT true that 98% of what we learn is a waste.

The post Is it True That 98% of What you Learn is a Waste? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That Video Games are Bad for You?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 17:47:52 +0000

Once an esoteric hobby reserved for computer geeks, videogames have gained massive popularity over the last few decades. Videogames are a multibillion dollar industry now. But many have questioned the effect of videogames on those who play them. Some have said that videogames have a negative impact but is it true that video games are bad for you? Like many forms of new technology, videogames have a primarily positive impact on users but can be abused. There is no link between videogames and violent behavior, however. Where did the idea that videogames are bad for you come from? One reason behind the idea that videogames are bad for you comes from political fearmongering. The Republican party in particular has been quick to blame video games for mass shootings. Rather than examine larger cultural forces at play, as well as the ease with which one can purchase firearms in the United States, it’s far simpler to simply cast videogames as the villain. Another reason many feel videogames are bad from you comes from negative stereotypes of gamers as hopelessly addicted to playing. In this instance, it turns out videogames can be bad for you the same way any potentially addictive behavior could be. Medical News Today “researchers have discovered that video gaming can be addictive – a phenomenon known as ‘Internet gaming disorder.’ In gaming addicts, there are functional and structural alterations in the neural reward system – a group of structures associated with feeling pleasure, learning, and motivation. Exposing video game addicts to game-related cues that cause cravings, and monitoring their brain responses, highlighted these changes – changes that are also seen in other addictive disorders.” Are videogames bad for you? As described above, videogames can develop addictive behaviors and in this way can be bad for you. But this is rarely the case. It’s worth noting that only a minority of gamers develop addictive behaviors. Just as there are shopping, gambling and even sex addicts, the majority of people engage in these behaviors regularly without becoming addicted. Videogames do change the brain and this is often to the benefit of the gamer. Medical News Today goes on to explain how “video game use is known to affect attention. The studies included in the review show that video game players display improvements in several types of attention, including sustained attention and selective attention…. Evidence also demonstrates that playing video games increases the size and competence of parts of the brain responsible for visuospatial skills – a person’s ability to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects.” Videogames are also said to have positive effects on the following mental skills: problem solving and logic; hand-eye coordination, fine motor and spatial skills; planning, resource management and logistics; multitasking, simultaneous tracking of many shifting variables and managing multiple objectives. Overall, videogames are not likely to be bad for you provided you keep an eye out for any signs of videogame addiction.

The post Is it True That Video Games are Bad for You? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That Mascara is Made of Bat Poop?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 17:28:51 +0000

It’s well known that many widely used cosmetics throughout history turn out to contain harmful chemicals and sketchy ingredients. Queen Elizabeth famously wore a heavy foundation made of lead as was typical of facial cosmetics at that time. Given the reputation of cosmetics to contain such questionable ingredients, it’s normal to question exactly what’s in makeup and other toiletries. One commonly held belief is that mascara is made from bat poop. But is it true that mascara is made from bat poop? Thankfully, no, it is not true that mascara is made from bat poop. However, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why people believe mascara is made from bat poop. Furthermore, exactly what’s in mascara may still have many questioning using this particular cosmetic. Is mascara made from bat poop? No, mascara is not made from bat poop! So what is mascara made from exactly? According to WebMd “mascara’s ingredients typically include a carbon black or iron oxide pigment to darken lashes; a polymer to form a film that coats lashes; a preservative; and thickening waxes or oils such as lanolin, mineral oil, paraffin, petrolatum, castor oil, carnauba wax, and candelilla wax.” Consumers should still be wary and “be on the lookout for thimerosal, a preservative that can cause conjunctivitis and eyelid dermatitis (a rash). Thimerosal is still used in some mascaras.” So while people can use mascara without worrying about any bat poop in their eyes but perhaps remain skeptical of what they use on their faces. Why do people think mascara is made from bat poop? If it’s not true that mascara is made from bat poop, how would such a rumor develop and take hold? The reputable fact-checking site Snopes.com explains how this misconception originates due to “a similarity between two words that causes them to be confused for one another: guano and guanine. Mascara contains the crystalline form of guanine, a word that derives from the Spanish word guano, meaning ‘dung.’…. The crystalline guanine used in beauty products doesn’t derive from excrement, though, either from bats or from any other critter.” “Yet there is a bit of a “yuck!” factor to that ingredient, as guanine is manufactured from fish scales.” That means mascara is technically not a vegan or vegetarian product as fish scales are an animal product. It’s also worth noting that “guanine is used extensively in the cosmetics industry, where it functions as a colorant and as an opacifying (shimmering or light diffusing) agent. It’s found in bath products, cleansing products, fragrances, hair conditioners, lipsticks, nail products, shampoos and skin care products.” Nor is guanine the only less than appetizing yet FDA approved ingredient frequently found in cosmetics. Lipsticks often contain crushed insects as a coloring agent unbeknownst to most consumers. Vegan lipsticks are specially formulated to use synthetic colorants instead. Meanwhile, some strange ingredients are advertised as an innovative selling point of a product. Many people now buy moisturizers and face masks containing snail ooze and bull semen – but not mascara that is made from bat poop!

The post Is it True That Mascara is Made of Bat Poop? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That Periods Sync?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 17:14:55 +0000

It’s a common belief that people who spend prolonged periods of time together will also end up having the same menstrual cycle and get their menstrual periods simultaneously. This phenomena is known as “period syncing,” “menstrual synchrony” or “the McClintock effect.” But is it true that periods sync? Will individuals who menstruate and live together find that they both get their period at the same time? Would that also mean they both ovulate simultaneously? Do periods sync after time spent together? The scientific basis for the popular belief that periods sync after time spent together originates with a 1971 study published in the influential scientific journal Nature. The study was conducted by Harvard doctor Martha McClintock using a group of 135 women living together in a dorm. The research determined “that over the course of the school year, there was an increase in period synchronization for roommates and close friends, but not among random pairings of women” explains Modern Fertility. But do McClintock’s 1971 findings hold true today nearly fifty years later? Have more recent studies debunked the belief that periods sync after people spend time together? It turns out that period syncing is a myth disproved by subsequent studies. In 1971, the feminism movement was beginning to take hold in Western societies. “I find that sometimes ‘society values’ are hiding in hypothesis,” explains anthropologist Alexandra Alvergne. “From a feminist point of view, the idea that [those who menstruate] would co-operate in the face of [patriarchal] domination is attractive” and hence the willingness for many to embrace the concept of period syncing. After all, cisgender men are the one group who do not ever menstruate. A far more recent study from 2006, however, indicates that period syncing is only a long held myth. Healthline explains how “any period syncing that appeared to occur, the study concluded, was within the realm of mathematical coincidence.” An even more recent joint study from 2017 performed by period tracking app Clue and Oxford University has even further debunked the myth of syncing periods. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics explains how “not only did the study find that periods will not sync over time between those who spend a lot of time together and those who live together, it actually revealed that they are more likely to become more separate.” Periods syncing aren’t the only thing to come from spending time with someone While period syncing and the McClintock effect are only myths without a true basis in biology, there are other ways in which people who spend lots of time together can “sync up.” For example, it’s often said two people who spend a lot of time together over many years “start to look alike.” This is not due to facial features changing over time but because humans naturally adopt the mannerisms and gestures of those with whom they spend the most time. Similarly, humans will often adopt the beliefs, values and tastes of those with whom they grow close. This is why the old adage “birds of a feather flock together” carries real weight.

The post Is it True That Periods Sync? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That Babies Are Born Without Kneecaps?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:53:30 +0000

Have you ever heard that babies are born without kneecaps? It’s common for people to think that babies are born without kneecaps. This is a belief that is actually true and backed by the science of how the knee develops. As it turns out, babies are born without kneecaps for a very good reason. Babies still have knees but they are born without kneecaps, well the bony kneecaps that we have as adults. Experts say it actually takes a while for kneecaps to develop and they don’t even begin until after a baby is born. This means that babies are born without kneecaps, or the patella bone. Is there a reason babies are born without kneecaps? The reason babies are born without kneecaps is actually about reproduction. Like most things, how babies are birthed evolved with survival in mind. Kneecaps (or the patella) are hard, bony and sharp. This makes them less than ideal for moving thru the birth canal seamlessly. Since babies need to be birthed, they develop in the uterus with cartilage where we have kneecaps. Cartilage is more pliable than bone. That makes birthing a baby an easier task and the reason babies are born without kneecaps a good one. Surprisingly, the patella doesn’t begin to develop right after birth. Instead the cartilage starts to turn into bone when the baby becomes a toddler (or around 2 years old). Babies are born with a lot more cartilage than adults have. As they age the cartilage begins to ossify or turn into bone. This process is not fast and takes the better part of 4 years. This means that babies are born without kneecaps and most kids don’t have a kneecaps until they are about 6 years old. Babies are born without kneecaps It’s beneficial for growth and development that babies are born without kneecaps. This makes it easier for babies to come into this world and learn to navigate around it. The flexibility of cartilage isn’t just good for babies in their kneecaps. Since they are crawling and bumping around, having cartilage in their entire body make babies more able to adapt and grow. Specifically in their kneecaps, the slow progression of ossification helps a baby adapt slowly to moving around, first on all fours and then standing upright. Babies are born without kneecaps but you can’t really tell by just looking at them. If you have ever cared for babies though, you’ll know that they can keep their knees bent far longer than older children and adults. This is attributed to them having cartilage for kneecaps. Babies need to be able to bend their knees up for being in the womb and for soothing once they arrive. Babies are born without kneecaps because they need to fit through the birth canal. In addition to being born without patellas, babies also are born with cartilage in other parts of their body that eventually turns into bone. This cartilage is helpful as the baby grows up, learns to experience life and develops actual kneecaps.

The post Is it True That Babies Are Born Without Kneecaps? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That Victoria’s Secret is Closing?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:43:09 +0000

Victoria’s Secret is closing 53 stores this year. The one time lingerie giant has been taking quite a hit in profits over the last decade. In 2018, the CEO of L Brands (the company that owns VS), announced that Victoria Secret is closing 53 of their locations before the end of this year. Does this mean Victoria Secret is closing? Yes. It means Victoria Secret is closing some stores but they are not shutting down entirely. Executives from the brand said that in addition to closing 53 locations in 2019 they also planned to evaluate everything about what they were doing. After seeing drastic decreases in profits over the last year, the company is closing almost 4x as many stores as it typically does annually. It’s normal for brands to climb up the ladder and then come back down but the dive their stores has taken is a little off trend. According to some business experts, it looks like Victoria’s Secret isn’t doing as well as other more modern and inclusive brands. It’s been reported that they have seen a steady decline and even same-store sales were down by a full 3%. It doesn’t sound like a big difference but in the business world it’s the difference between making it work and calling it quits. Why is Victoria’s Secret closing so many stores? Experts at Business Insider say, Victoria’s Secret is closing nearly 4% of their stores because they don’t seem to be keeping up with trends.Their profits started to take the plunge when they refused to change the models and the ideas behind their runway show. It seems that pissing off the Millennials does eventually have consequences for those who fail to adapt and become more inclusive. Some say this is exactly why Victoria’s Secret is closing so many of their stores. As the profits of VS began to fall, sales for more inclusive (and comfortable) brands like Aerie (by American Eagle) and Lively started to climb. Accused of using only cis-gendered females of a particular stature and look, Victoria’s Secret’s leadership team didn’t do a good job of defending themselves. They did such a bad job of responding that their comments in interviews only created more backlash that did reportedly translate into decreased sales and profits. Victoria’s Secret is closing and it’s because people voted with their dollar. Victoria’s Secret hasn’t yet jumped on board with inclusive models and representation. As their reputation was diminishing online and their competitors were embracing the inclusive future, Victoria’s Secret did the only thing that could have made it worse. They had a runway show using the same old practices they had been called out for. As if that wasn’t bad enough, just before the runway show aired, one of the executives made some controversial comments about plus size folx and transpeople during a Vogue interview. Experts say that since that interview and runway show, the profit for VS has steadily decreased. It’s no doubt that their refusal to evolve and adapt to a future that includes all bodies of all sizes, all colors, all identities, and all abilities is one of the top reasons that Victoria’s Secret is closing so many stores.

The post Is it True That Victoria’s Secret is Closing? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That 80% of Weight Loss is Diet?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:27:52 +0000

Is it True That 80% of Weight Loss is Diet? More and more people are trying to lose weight. Not only are New Years’ Resolutions right around the corner, but overall, the world has a weight problem. For aesthetic and health reasons, more people are trying to figure out how to lose weight. One common belief is that Is it 80% of weight loss is diet. But is it true that 80% of weight loss is diet? Scientists have been researching if it is true that 80% of weight loss is diet and we now know the answer. Is weight loss mostly about diet? Gaining weight seems so easy but weight loss is very difficult. What is the secret to losing weight? Is weight loss mostly about diet or is there another major factor that could explain how to lose weight? To understand the answer, it’s important to understand how the body gains and loses weight. The Mayo Clinic explains how weight gain and loss works very concisely. “Your weight is a balancing act, but the equation is simple: If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. And if you eat fewer calories and burn more calories through physical activity, you lose weight. Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, it’s estimated that you need to burn about 3,500 calories to lose 1 pound.” So, in order to lose weight, the human body needs to consistently consume less calories than it uses, or operate at a caloric deficit. Unfortunately, although exercise is extremely important to good health and proper muscle tone, it does not burn very many calories! As a result, weight loss is mostly about diet since that is the easiest way to operate at a caloric deficit. How much does diet play a part in weight loss? Diet plays the biggest role in weight loss. With the exception of the most elite athletes or those who perform hard physical labor for hours every day, it is extremely difficult to burn off very many calories through exercise. Humans evolved in an environment in which finding and preparing food was extremely difficult and labor intensive. That has all changed since the industrial revolution 200 years ago. Now it is easier and more convenient than ever to find highly caloric foods while remaining very sedentary. But the human body is still operating the way it evolved over thousands of years. As a result, it is difficult to burn many calories while leading a modern lifestyle. Even many gyms will have banners reminding patrons that “it’s impossible to outrun your fork.” So diet plays a huge role in weight loss. The best way to lose weight is through a diet that operates at a caloric deficit.

The post Is it True That 80% of Weight Loss is Diet? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That the Bigger Your Shoe Size…

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:00:50 +0000

You know what they say, the bigger your shoe size the bigger your… other things. Men have stressed about this old saying for years. It’s commonly known that a man with bigger shoes may be packing a bigger friend in the downstairs department, but is it actually true? Kids use this phrase to tease each other about the size of their penis and it’s even a dinner party joke well into adulthood. While men stress over if their shoe size gives away how big or little their johnson is, many women still believe that size doesn’t actually matter. Do bigger shoes mean a bigger penis? The bigger the shoe size the bigger the… It’s common misconception that shoe size indicates penis size. This means that no longer do men with small feet have to worry about being sized up before they take off their pants. So if the bigger the shoe size the bigger the penis isn’t true – what does shoe size indicate? Shoe size actually indicates the size of a foot. Influenced by height, weight, genetics and other factors the size a person’s feet has absolutely nothing to do with their penis. Sadly, this particular saying, and others is still used to humiliate and make people feel not good enough sexually. But haven’t we all felt not good enough, enough times already? A bigger shoe size means a bigger… sock size A bigger shoe size means a bigger sock and pretty much only that. It could also mean difficulty finding a pair of new shoes and usually makes store bought dress shoes a thing of the past. In truth, even smaller shoe sizes don’t indicate smaller sized penises either. This means that the size of person’s shoe doesn’t tell us anything about what is in their pants. And that’s the way it should be. Sayings like “the bigger the shoe size the bigger the penis” don’t really bring any helpful things to society. They only give others something to use to tease and judge. I think small shoe wearing men would agree that these old adages aren’t exactly funny when you’re the butt of the joke. Even worse is when the teasing you get is because of something outside your control that you can’t change – like your feet. And what does it matter if bigger shoes mean a bigger penis anyway? For years, it seems penis size has been equated with macho and manly. During those years the obsession with penis size let to terrible jokes and men feeling insecure in their own bodies. But all bodies are good bodies and all penis sizes are good too. In a world where everyone thinks the bigger the shoe size the bigger the penis, it’s hard to walk around with feet that look small – especially as a teenage boy in the locker room. However the time for redemption has come. The bigger the shoe size DOES not mean the bigger the penis and we need to stop talking about it.

The post Is it True That the Bigger Your Shoe Size… appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.

Is it True That Kissing Burns 6.4 Calories?

Makayla — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:41:44 +0000

Kissing does burn calories. How many calories kissing burns actually depends on a few factors but experts say that it a good make-out session could be as beneficial as a brisk walk in the park. Does kissing burn 6.4 calories? It could! And the good news is the more passionately you do it, the more calories it could burn. Kissing burns calories and has health benefits Whether or not it’s true that kissing burns 6.4 calories doesn’t change the truth about it’s health benefits. Laying one on someone we care about actually stimulates our mood and helps improve our immunity. It also just makes us feel cared for. Everyone knows that after a good session of slobber swapping on the couch they feel giddy. That doesn’t just go for teenagers in puppy love either. Even older adults who are kissing for the 5,000th time still get a head rush and a racing heart when they get into it hot and heavy. Experts say the more we get into it the more we will get out of it. The excitement from a good kiss increases our heart rate and blood flow. We start to get amped up and sometimes aroused. Getting winded while lip-locked is also a good sign that kissing is burning more calories. Obviously a peck on the cheek isn’t a kiss that will burn 6.4 calories but a deeply passionate kiss could. On average, a kiss actually burns between 2 and 3 calories per minute. That means for a kiss to burn 6.4 calories, it would have to be over 3 minutes long. Does kissing burn 6.4 calories? 3 minutes doesn’t sound like a lot when it comes to kissing but it’s actually longer than you may think. 3 minute kisses usually involve a little tongue and hopefully a lot more action. According to experts, the extra action is a good thing when it comes to burning calories. The more intense and passionate a kiss is the more likely it is to burn 6.4 calories. When couples make out and include heavy breathing and touching, maybe even some additional stimulation, the number of calories that kissing burns does go up. Can kissing burn 6.4 calories per minute? It could under the right circumstances – but usually it involves more than just kissing. Bryant Stamford, a professor at the University of Louisville says that if things get really really hot and heavy and you’re thrashing around, you may burn the same amount of calories while kissing as a brisk walk, which is about 4 calories per minute. Even though kissing burns calories, it is unlikely to burn 6.4 calories per minute. Unless you’re passionately involved, headed to the bedroom and slamming each other into walls on the way, kissing probably only burns about 3 calories per minute. However, kissing for a while leads to other intimate acts like foreplay, sex and orgasm. Combined with the calories from kissing, a half hour romp with a partner could burn more than 7 calories a minute. Kissing does burn calories but to burn 6.4 calories a minute you’d have to do quite a bit more than play tonsil hockey.

The post Is it True That Kissing Burns 6.4 Calories? appeared first on Encyclopedia.com.