 Picture of Joseph Wright's "The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus" (Wikimedia Commons) The Pee That Set the World on Fire: Phosphorus and the “Last Alchemist”
By Heath Shive A lot of science has its origins with weird people doing weird things! The mother mold of all modern penicillin was discovered on a rotten melon by a woman named Mary (“Moldy Mary,” as she was called by her jerk co-workers). The so-called “last of the alchemists” Hennig Brand discovered the element phosphorus in his urine – a whole lot of urine – in 1669 in Hamburg. And if “truth is stranger than fiction,” then no wonder science can be pretty weird. To the science of the pee that set the world on fire! The Elixir of Life…and Other Stuff Not much is known of Hennig Brand’s early life, except that he married very well – with a substantial dowry – and then pursued his chemistry research full-time. Water fascinated alchemists; it is after all the universal solvent. And humans created water in the form of urine. Urine happens to have a golden color, and gold just so happened to fascinate alchemists too. Brand boiled and condensed thousands of liters of urine. God only knows what his house must have smelled like. Brand noticed a vapor from boiling urine that had a ghostly glow, and that the vapor could be condensed into a waxy white substance that also glowed. “Phosphorus” means “bringer of light. Brand showed off his new prize to the courts and scholars of Europe, but he kept the secret of its making to himself. After Brand’s death, it was a generation later before other chemists repeated his success. The Recipe The famous scientist Robert Hooke recreated Brand’s work and wrote a recipe – which can be found in Hugh Aldersey-Williams’ book Periodic Tales. The recipe goes something like this: Take a quantity of Urine (not less for one Experiment than 50 or 60 Pails full); let it lie steeping…till it putrify (sic)…in 14 or 15 days. Then…set some to boil…till at last the whole Quantity be reduced to Paste…add thereto some fair Water…boil them together for ¼ of an Hour…strain…boil’d till it come to a Salt… Incidentally, in Periodic Tales, the author does try to create phosphorus from his own pee. Don’t judge. After all, some people play golf. A century later, two Swedes named Carl Scheel and Johan Gahn showed that bones were actually a much better source for phosphorus. About 20 percent of the human skeleton is calcium phosphate. Industrial phosphorus today comes from phosphate rocks, like apatite. The Fire Phosphorus doesn’t just glow with an “inner fire,” it violently combusts on contact with oxygen – which is why phosphorus is usually stored under water. In July 1943, during World War Two, Brand’s hometown of Hamburg was bombed with 1,900 tonnes of white phosphorus incendiary bombs. On the third night of bombing, a firestorm was created that “melted between forty thousand and fifty thousand people.” Since then, phosphorus has been a military staple used to create illumination at night or smokescreens. But dropping phosphorus bombs (on civilian targets) has never happened since. Phosphorus may burn with an inner fire, but so do human beings. Sometimes we burn with eccentric curiosity, like Brand. Sometimes we burn with a violence, like war. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Aldersey-Williams, Hugh. Periodic Tales: A Cultural History of the Elements from Arsenic to Zinc. Viking, 2011. Stwertka, Albert. A Guide to the Elements. 3rd ed. Oxford, 2012.  Picture by Julia_Nova via Pixabay.com Would You Pass the Marshmallow Test? Success and Delayed Gratification
By Heath Shive There are a lot of books and commercials and gurus telling us that we need to be "happy." They tell us how to be happy, how to quest for happiness, how to attain happiness, and what is wrong with us if we are not "happy." They seem to think that the purpose of life is to grab hold of happiness and God help you if you ever let go. But what if happiness wasn't the point? What if happiness was only at the end of hard work - similar to how dessert was at the end of a meal? And speaking of desserts, do you like marshmallows? Scientists at Stanford University once used marshmallows to test the willpower of children. And then the children grew up. What did they find? To the science! The Marshmallow Test In the 1960s, the psychologist Walter Mischel devised "the marshmallow test" to measure the willpower of children. Mischel and other psychologists at Stanford University presented the children with a challenge: they could either eat a marshmallow now, or wait 15 minutes and eat 2 marshmallows. Only a third of the kids were able to resist the temptation. This in itself isn't all that weird. But Mischel and the other psychologists found the same children years later and discovered something peculiar. The kids who showed self-control grew up to be more accomplished both socially and academically. On the average, the kids had higher SAT scores, greater educational attainment, and a lower body mass index. Is there a correlation between success and delayed gratification? Conclusion There was a book - a bestseller 20 years ago - entitled The Millionaire Next Door. The authors Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko found that the majority of millionaires in their study didn't become rich by being doctors, lawyers, and CEOs. The majority of millionaires lived in modest houses and had ordinary careers. The millionaires "next door" became wealthy by a lifetime of frugality and savings. For a middle-class American, it would take 40 years of chronic investment to be a millionaire...but that's precisely how most millionaires acquired their wealth! Not glamorous. Just delayed. Success by constant willpower and self-discipline. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B.; Raskoff Zeiss, Antonette (1972). "Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 21 (2): 204–218. Stanley, Thomas J. & William D. Danko. The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy. Longstreet Press, 1996.  Photo by kgorz via Pixabay.com The Wedding Ring Effect: The Science of “You Ain’t Taking My Man!”
By Heath Shive Among mammals, males battle each other for access to females. Stallions battle for a herd, lions battle for control of the pride, and bucks charge each other for does. Obviously men compete with each other for prized women – even to the point of violence. It is just as obvious – if often unstated – that women compete with each other for prized men. And some women fight dirty. There is cheating - which is a temporary sexual affair. But there is also mate poaching - strategic acquisition of another woman's man. Turns out, it might have something to do with what is called “the wedding ring effect.” A married woman’s greatest competition is a single woman. Don’t believe me? To the science! Mate Poaching Psychology Psychologists Jessica Parker and Melissa Burkley peformed a study on the impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. In their study, Parker and Burkley gathered 184 participants, both male and female, roughly half of whom were “attached.” One male face and one female face were chosen in pre-testing as “moderately attractive.” The women were shown the male face, and men were shown the female face. Participants were randomly assigned to read that the target face was either single or in a current romantic relationship. The participants then rated the desirability of the person. The results? Whether the woman was single or attached, single men showed no difference in their attraction, But single women showed a considerably greater interest in the target when he was attached! Unlike single women, attached women were not more attracted to the attached man compared to the single man. Conclusion The researchers concluded that “single women were more interested in poaching an attached man rather than pursuing a single man.” And that is the wedding ring effect! Oddly enough, that means the single women in the study were more interested in the man that was technically less available. In a way, it makes sense. If a woman is looking for commitment, attached men have already proven themselves capable. From an amoral standpoint, why should a single woman deal with an untested man when there is a proven man right there…with another woman? The writer Tucker Max – and I know he is a polarizing figure – wrote something about this in his book Mate: “Sluts” aren’t derogated because women are uncomfortable with their sexuality; it’s because they’re experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women. Men aren't the only insecure mates in the world. Attached women also have to look over their shoulders. That might be why women always notice dress, styles, and clothing on other women. Have you ever noticed that the Other Woman always has longer hair? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Parker, Jessica, and Melissa Burkley. Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (4) 2009, 1016-1019  Photo by OmarMedinaFilms (via Pixabay.com) A Woman Is the Best Wingman (2): Your Desirability Is Decreed by Committee?
By Heath Shive What did Dean Martin sing? You’re nobody till somebody loves you… We tend to think of the heart as sacred – or fickle – but often the heart is really just a conformist. Romantic desire does not originate solely from inside us – but rather there are external cultural influences on who we want as well. In the last blog, the studies indicated that animals don’t just rely on their instincts to find a mate. Animals also use social cues (external advice) to find out who is the best choice. Are humans any different? To the science! Desirability by Social Decree In an article in Scientific Reports – an online super-journal of science – a team of researchers experimented on the effect of social cues on what a group of women found attractive. It was a small study, involving 49 female subjects. They were presented with pictures of men’s faces…and pictures of men’s hands, and of abstract art too. Faces are a typical reference for desire. The hand-pictures were a way of exploring non-facial attractiveness. The abstract art was used to measure attraction outside the sexual domain (unless that’s your thing?). First, the subjects were asked to rate the attractiveness of the picture. Then – a short while later – subjects were asked to rate the picture again, but they were also shown the average rating of all the other participants in real time. Now the subjects knew what the group thought! The results of the second rating? On average, a participant changed their initial rating of the facial pictures by 13% towards the group rating! They moved in the direction of the group decree. Conclusion It should be noted that the subjects changed their initial ratings on the face-pictures and hand-pictures and abstract art by roughly the same amount (13% for hands, 14% for abstract art). The study was really a reflection of the human tendency to conform. People don’t just conform using their clothing styles or jargon. Our ideas and beliefs conform as well. As noted in the previous blog, we don’t conform to just any old group. We conform to our specific group – whichever group we identify with. Conservative or liberal? Religious or agnostic? Old or young? Male or female? Professional versus blue-collar? Group identity offers many advantages – networking, community resources, solidarity, protection, and support. The group also controls how we will be measured too. So we come back to same old conclusion as last week. Guys, hang out with more women - because other women will notice. And ladies, hang out with men to be seen as more approachable and social. Who knows? We might just learn to talk to each other! LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Street, Sally E, Thomas J.H. Morgan, Alex Thornton, Gillian R. Brown, Kevin N. Laland & Catharine P. Cross. Human mate-choice copying is domain general social learning. Scientific Reports 8, 1715 (2018) – Accessed online 3 Feb 2019 |
AuthorHello! My name is Heath Shive, content manager at ScholarFox. I'll be the author of most of the blog posts. I'm a former geologist and currently a freelance writer. The world is complex and seemingly crazy. Good! Because when you love to learn, you'll never be bored. Archives
April 2019
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed