Biologically, the anatomy of a male and female are very different; from sexual and physical characteristics, such as genitalia and reproductive organs, to the differences in brain organization. Sexual dimorphism, or the difference between the male and female anatomy, is an essential component to maintaining genetic diversity in a population such as the human species. The variation between males and females promotes sexual reproduction and keeps the population constant. A transgender individual’s gender identity does not match one’s ‘assigned gender’ as a male or female. A transgenderist is a person who lives as gender opposite to anatomical sex, for example a person with male genitalia living as a woman (1). More recently, the term transgender has expanded to encompass a much greater range of different types of people, such as cross-dressers, drag queens, androgynies, transsexuals, and many more.

            Pain has been a topic of discussion in lecture on many occasions, perhaps because pain is something that most experience, but want to avoid. Though most experience some form of pain, incidents vary in intensity and people’s reactions are of different extremes, as well. Why? What causes these differences in pain tolerance? It was determined in class that pain is the result of certain pattern generators in the nervous system, so it is only natural that one looks to the brain to get to the root of pain tolerance. Research has been done that claims the source is genetic, psychological, or even gender-based. But in fact, this student believes that pain tolerance is the result of a combination of at least these three conditions.

What makes one human being attractive to another human being: A deceptively simple question that was posed in various incarnations by that annoying Sarah Jessica Parker voice-over at the start of Sex and the City episodes. But can this unconventional neurobiology and behavior student even attempt to find the answer? (Hint: she can attempt it and perhaps make informed opinions but even bona fide scientists in the field can't even begin to make conclusive statements.) I stumbled across a BBC article in the science and nature section dealing with navigating online and print personal ads. Robin Dunbar, a researcher out of Liverpool University studied the British "Lonely Hearts" column in the 1990's, forming generalized conclusions about what traits men and women ranked highest in the opposite sex. Dunbar narrowed his findings down to "commitment, social skills, resources, attractiveness, and sexiness." (1)

Not surprisingly, the findings were mixed between male and female responses, some might even say divided into polar opposites. Women tended to rank "commitment" as the most desired trait they seek in men, while men ranked "attractiveness" as their top pick. I thought about these implications from an evolutionary standpoint. Back when we were covered with a thick layer of hair and our brains were half their modern homo sapien size, attractiveness was irrelevant. So was one of the other criteria, "sexiness." Really, all we were left with (and by we, I mean women) was a strong man who could provide us with the healthiest possible offspring. That would be "resources" according to the BBC study. But what to make of commitment? Dunbar's findings suggest the answer lies in something that ignited my interest, something called The Scheherazade Effect.

Color vision is an evolutionary adaptation that has assisted the survival of vertebrates in many ways. From choosing a fit mate to heeding warning signs to finding food, color vision is a neurological property that has many benefits. In considering specifically humans, the question arises as to how color blind individuals view the world around them, and how their condition affects their perception of reality. From our discussions in class, we have discovered that the notion of reality, when it comes to sight, is very subjective. Our brains see a very different picture from that which is taken in through our retinas. One of the most astounding differences is that the world does not have color until the light that it gives off comes through our retinas and is processed within our photoreceptors. With such a difference between the image of the world outside of the brain and inside of the brain, there can be no question that there is at least some variation between individuals when it comes to color. With that said, I find it difficult to classify anyone as color blind. There are so many degrees of color deficiencies added to the inevitable variation between those with “normal” color vision, that too classify color blindness as a disability seems rather ambiguous.

As someone who went to Catholic schools for the majority of my life, I have never understood God. I can rationalize why people may want to believe in a higher power, it’s the actual believing that has always been beyond my grasp. For this reason, I wanted to look at why humans believe in a higher being. What is it that compels us to find an ultimate cause for everything? I had never heard a scientific answer for this question; I wanted to find out what parts of the brain are suspected to be the cause of humankind’s belief in a higher power.

The first thing I looked into was why humans feel compelled to find a specific cause for things and for the organization of the universe. It has been suggested that this perhaps occurs because the human brain desperately tries to search for order and patterns in a world where these things are not readily observable. Experiments on people who have had their corpus callosum cut have revealed that at our core we are organisms who search for patterns and meaning. These people are shown two different pictures that register in two different sides of their brains. However, only the left side of the brain is able to verbally communicate what they chose and why. When they see the choice of the right side of the brain, the person instantly searches for meaning and finds a way to connect the two pictures (1).

            The circadian rhythm’s independent internal activity is observable when mismatched with separate incoming patterns of activity input from the environment. Circadian rhythm is the body’s internal twenty-four hour clock that regulates biological processes such as wakefulness, metabolic rate, and body temperature. The internal clock is fundamental to a living organism’s daily activity. (1)  Seasonal changes can cause the environmental inputs to be interpreted as different from the circadian rhythms. A person’s daily behavior can modify to the surrounding environment. As a result, the I-function is stimulated by a difference and the person becomes uncomfortably aware of the environmental change.  The body’s circadian rhythms neurological signals go unnoticed until a change creates inputs different from those of the internal body clock.

When the Bryn Mawr yoga instructor begins her session by uniting the voices of the class with the universal sound of ohm, scattered chuckles roll across the floor. Bowing to the light within, centering oneself and falling into the unconditional embrace of yoga is not a fundamental aspect of western lives. The mental facet of yoga falls under the mental training umbrella of meditation. Meditation is a practice that attempts to calm and focus the mind on one subject, releasing all other thoughts. Oftentimes this focus is geared inwards, towards the self. Meditation is gaining respect in western civilizations because a plethora of studies are showing it provides predictable, reproducible and measurable medical benefits. However, meditation is not ingrained in our culture; it is not a lifestyle like it is for monks under the Buddhist religion. Buddhist monks who dedicate their lives to meditation exhibit unbounded mental potential for mind-body control. From the far off peaks of the Himalayans to the Bryn Mawr yoga classroom, meditation is occurring and our minds and bodies are absorbing its side effects, which currently science can’t fully explain. How meditation affects the brain and alters our physiological states is a simple question without a simple answer.

In recent years, our society has been inundated with rapid technological developments particularly when it comes to computers.  Sociologists have noted the impact that the increase in computer use could have (and to some degree already has had) on our society as they begin to replace human contact (4).  Between 1996 and 1999 alone, the number of homes with internet access doubled (1).  On a neurological level, this is concerning because increased computer use may develop habits that strengthen certain areas of the brain and as a result do not allow others to strengthen to their full potential.  This is especially concerning when it comes to children because their brains continue to develop through adolescence.  In 1999, children were spending an average of 24 minutes more with the computer per day than just one year before (1).  How will this technology that previous generations have not been raised with impact the neurological development of children?  This paper is an exploration of the habits that computer use reinforces and the impact this has on the development of attention and chemical responses to emotions in the brain. 

Music is an integral part of human existence. People have made and listened to music for centuries. Different rhythms and tones evoke different responses in different people – while someone may feel nostalgia upon hearing a certain song or piece of music, someone else may feel happiness, sadness, or anger. However, relatively little research has been done until recently regarding how music affects the brain – what parts of the brain process it, if different kinds of music activate different parts of the brain, why music evokes an emotional response – to name only a few questions.

I had originally intended to write about postpartum depression, which had afflicted my grandmother, a mother of ten children, one of whom died at an early age, during the 1950's and 1960's, as well as my aunt, who suffered from it during the late 1970's; however, while researching this topic, I discovered another, and far rarer disorder that debilitates new mothers, entitled postpartum psychosis. While postpartum depression affects one in ten new mothers, postpartum psychosis only affects one in five hundred to one thousand new mothers during the first few months after childbirth (1). What interested me the most was the striking difference between the two disorders; at first observation, postpartum psychosis appears to simply be a more intense version of postpartum depression, but upon a closer look, it becomes clear that it is its own unique disorder, with its own unique problems and solutions.