To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The 'third wave' of variation study, spearheaded by the sociolinguist Penelope Eckert, places its focus on social meaning, or the inferences that can be drawn about speakers based on how they talk. While social meaning has always been a concern of modern sociolinguistics, its aims and assumptions have not been explicitly spelled out until now. This pioneering book provides a comprehensive overview of the central tenets of variation study, examining several components of dialects, and considering language use in a wide variety of cultural and linguistic contexts. Each chapter, written by a leader in the field, posits a unique theoretical claim about social meaning and presents new empirical data to shed light on the topic at hand. The volume makes a case for why attending to social meaning is vital to the study of variation while also providing a foundation from which variationists can productively engage with social meaning.
This textbook is a systematic and straightforward introduction to the interdisciplinary study of creativity. Each chapter is written by one or more of the world's experts and features the latest research developments, alongside foundational knowledge. Each chapter also includes an introduction, key terms, and critical thought questions to promote active learning. Topics and authors have been selected to represent a comprehensive and balanced overview. Any reader will come away with a deeper understanding of how creativity is studied – and how they can improve their own creativity.
The porphyrias are metabolic disorders each resulting from the deficiency of a specific enzyme in the heme biosynthetic pathway (Figure 30.1 and Table 30.1) [1–6]. These enzyme deficiencies are inherited as autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive and X-linked traits, with the exception of porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), which usually is sporadic. The porphyrias are classified as either hepatic or erythropoietic depending on the primary site of overproduction and accumulation of porphyrin precursors or porphyrins (Table 30.2) although some have overlapping features. The hepatic porphyrias are characterized by overproduction and initial accumulation of porphyrin precursors and/or porphyrins primarily in the liver, whereas in the erythropoietic porphyrias, overproduction and initial accumulation of the pathway intermediates occur primarily in bone marrow erythroid cells.
The species–area relationship (SAR) describes a range of related phenomena that are fundamental to the study of biogeography, macroecology and community ecology. While the subject of ongoing debate for a century, surprisingly, no previous book has focused specifically on the SAR. This volume addresses this shortfall by providing a synthesis of the development of SAR typologies and theory, as well as empirical research and application to biodiversity conservation problems. It also includes a compilation of recent advances in SAR research, comprising novel SAR-related theories and findings from the leading authors in the field. The chapters feature specific knowledge relating to terrestrial, marine and freshwater realms, ensuring a comprehensive volume relevant to a wide range of fields, with a mix of review and novel material and with clear recommendations for further research and application.
During the twentieth century, IQs rose thirty points around the world (the so-called “Flynn effect”). These increases led to many positive consequences, such as more efficient burning of fossil fuels and development and use of ever more sophisticated cell phones. But the same habits that have brought many short-term benefits have proven to be powerfully destructive in the long term, as fossil-fuel use compounds global climate change and social media are used on cell phones to spread disinformation and hate-filled propaganda. People’s increasing so-called “general intelligence” seems to have been useless in leading them to guard adequately against the long-term destructive consequences of their behavior aimed at maximizing their short-term gains. They have compromised not only their own lives, but those of their children and grandchildren. Apparently, even genetic ties to future generations are not enough to prevent people from using their general intelligence to engage in species-destructive behavior, such that, ironically, their high levels of IQ may profit them in the short term but ultimately will destroy humanity and the species it takes down with it.
Current societally-entrenched conceptions of intelligence, like hand-shaking, are hard for society to give up. Whole educational systems are based on the use of tests, like the SAT, ACT, PISA, and statewide and local mastery tests, that are highly correlated with and largely proxies for conventional tests of intelligence. But these tests are proving to be as adaptive today as is hand-shaking. People are just slower to realize the full destructive power of the tests based on these conceptions of intelligence.
This book is about how adaptive intelligence needs to replace general intelligence as the construct on which our society focuses, much as our society needs to replace hand-shaking with more currently adaptive modes of greeting. The book describes what adaptive intelligence is; why it needs to replace, or at the very least, supplement current notions of general intelligence; why general intelligence has led to such world-destructive outcomes; how adaptive intelligence can be measured; how adaptive intelligence can be taught for; and how adaptive intelligence applies to the real-world problems of today.
I propose in this book that society and the scholars it supports need to return to the original definition of intelligence as “adaptation to the environment.” Intelligence as adaptation is not, and really never has been about people’s ability to solve trivial, artificial, largely meaningless multiple-choice or short-answer problems on tests designed to measure their intelligence, aptitudes, abilities, school knowledge and skills, or other such constructs. Rather, intelligence as adaptation is about people’s ability to act in ways that help to attain a collective or common good – ways that make the world a better, not a worse place. Many societies’ narrow-minded and compulsive focus on individual achievements, even those attained at the expense of the common good, has resulted in a seriously warped view of intelligence as something of a zero-sum game, where people compete with each other for higher test scores and the resulting outcomes that benefit some at others’ expense. We instead need to think collectively so as to preserve not only our own future, but that of the world as we know it and would want to know it in the future.
Some old, societally-entrenched habits, like hand-shaking, are hard to break. Yet a time may come when they become maladaptive and possibly even deadly. Today, hand-shaking is no longer adaptive: It can lead to the transmission of COVID-19, a serious and possibly fatal disease. Of course, it can lead to transmission of other diseases as well.
Two-thirds of smokers will die early from smoking-related illness. Tobacco smoke has been linked to at least thirteen different types of cancers. Smoking a half-pack a day doubles one’s risk of death and smoking a pack a day quadruples it. Two-thirds of smokers will die of smoking-related causes. A close relative of mine, anytime she sees someone smoking, does not hesitate to point out how stupid they are. Really, how could anyone be stupid enough to engage in behavior that is more likely than not to kill them, probably in what will prove to be a slow and painful death? Although fewer and fewer people smoke, at least in the United States, one in five deaths is smoking-related.
“Wait!” my colleagues in the intelligence-testing business might say. “We have a test; you don’t. And it’s the intelligence test that has single-handedly created the field of intelligence research and testing as it is today.” It is a stunning piece of technology. It is also being shown to be utterly useless for saving civilization as we know it.
To examine associations between diet and risk of developing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)
Prospective cohort with a median follow-up of 15.8 years. Baseline diet was measured using a food frequency questionnaire. GERD was defined as self-reported current or history of daily heartburn or acid regurgitation beginning at least two years after baseline. Sex-specific logistic regressions were performed to estimate odds ratios for GERD associated with diet quality scores and intakes of nutrients, food groups, and individual foods and beverages. The effect of substituting saturated fat for monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat on GERD risk was examined.
A cohort of 20,926 participants (62% women) aged 40-59 years at recruitment between 1990-1994
For men, total fat intake was associated with increased risk of GERD (OR 1.05 per 5g/d; 95%CI 1.01-1.09; p=0.016), whereas total carbohydrate (OR 0.89 per 30g/d; 95%CI 0.82-0.98; p=0.010) and starch intakes (OR 0.84 per 30g/d; 95%CI 0.75-0.94; p=0.005) were associated with reduced risk. Nutrients were not associated with risk for women. For both sexes, substituting saturated fat for polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat did not change risk. For both sexes, fish, chicken, cruciferous vegetables, and carbonated beverages were associated with increased risk, whereas total fruit and citrus were associated with reduced risk. No association was observed with diet quality scores.
Diet is a possible risk factor for GERD, but food considered as triggers of GERD symptoms might not necessarily contribute to disease development. Potential differential associations for men and women warrant further investigation.
We aimed to investigate associations of poor oral health cross-sectionally with diet quality and intake in older people. We also examined whether change in diet quality is associated with oral health problems. Data from the British Regional Heart Study (BRHS) comprising British males aged 71-92 years, and the Health, Aging and Body Composition (HABC) Study comprising American males and females aged 71-80 were used. Dental data included tooth loss, periodontal disease, dry mouth, and self-rated oral health. Dietary data included diet quality (based on Elderly Dietary Index (BRHS), and Healthy Eating Score (HABC Study)) and several nutrients. In the BRHS, change in diet quality over 10 years (1998-2000 to 2010-2012) was also assessed. In the BRHS, tooth loss, fair/poor self-rated oral health and accumulation of oral health problems were associated with poor diet quality, after adjustment. Similar associations were reported for high intake of processed meat. Poor oral health was associated with top quartile of percentage of calories from saturated fat (self-rated oral health, odds ratio (OR)=1.34, 95% CI 1.02-1.77). In the HABC study, no significant associations were observed for diet quality after adjustment. Periodontal disease was associated with top quartile of percentage of calories from saturated fat (OR=1.48, 95%CI 1.09-2.01). In the BRHS, persistent low diet quality was associated with higher risk of tooth loss and accumulation of oral health problems. Older individuals with oral health problems had poorer diets and consumed fewer nutrient-rich foods. Persistent poor diet quality was associated with oral health problems later in life.
A prepackaged mixture of desmedipham + phenmedipham was previously labeled for control of Amaranthus spp. in sugarbeet. There are currently no effective POST herbicide options to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet growers are interested in using desmedipham + phenmedipham to control escaped Palmer amaranth. In 2019, a greenhouse experiment was initiated near Scottsbluff, NE to determine the selectivity of desmedipham and phenmedipham between Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet. Three populations of Palmer amaranth and four sugarbeet hybrids were evaluated. Herbicide treatments consisted of desmedipham and phenmedipham applied singly or as mixtures at an equivalent rate. Herbicides were applied when Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet were at cotyledon stage, or two true leaf sugarbeet stage and when Palmer amaranth was 7 cm tall.
The selectivity indices for desmedipham, phenmedipham, and desmedipham + phenmedipham were 1.61, 2.47, and 3.05, respectively, at the cotyledon stage. At the two true leaf application stage, the highest rates of desmedipham and phenmedipham caused low mortality in sugarbeet, resulting in a failed response of mortality. The highest rates of desmedipham + phenmedipham caused a mortality response of sugarbeet and a selectivity index of 2.15. Desmedipham treatments resulted in lower LD50 estimates for Palmer amaranth compared to phenmedipham, indicating that desmedipham can provide greater levels of control for Palmer amaranth. However, desmedipham also caused greater injury in sugarbeet, producing lower LD50 estimates compared to phenmedipham. Desmedipham + phenmedipham provided 90% or greater control of cotyledon size Palmer amaranth at a labeled rate, but also caused high levels of sugarbeet injury. Neither desmedipham, phenmedipham, nor desmedipham + phenmedipham was able to control 7 cm tall Palmer amaranth at previously labeled rates. Results indicate that desmedipham + phenmedipham can only control Palmer amaranth if applied at the cotyledon stage and a high level of sugarbeet injury is acceptable.