Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 March 21

= March 21 =

Hyperinsulimenia-like conditions
Could someone please reference me to articles who deals with Hyperinsulinemia-like conditions?, for example: a case when a person has a normal level of Insulin but still produces much more energy from glucose\cellular-sugars compared to to Muscle, fat, and other intra-cellular components (also, correct me If I'm wrong, but some amino acids, for example, play a role in such processes).

Sorry for my ignorance. I haven't chose to write this in a simplistic way you know. I just want some reference to know what to read about. I ask here for references because I want to lower the chance that I'm missing anything. Thank you so much guys! 79.179.100.213 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled Hyperinsulinemia and also has links from there to external references. That may give you a start.  -- Jayron  32  02:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article is surprisingly okay. Here is another article:  Note, from linked site: "Information provided on this site is for informational purposes only; it is not intended as a substitute for advice from your own medical team. The information on this site is not to be used for diagnosing or treating any health concerns you may have - please contact your physician or health care professional for all your medical needs. "  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I mean to Wiki-articles that deals with Pathologies\syndromes which are not Hyperinsulinemia, but also relates to too high utilization of sugars, instead of Muscle\Fat\other sources. these are the references I look for (I have already read in the article Hyperinsulinemia itself and only looking for names of the described conditions). thanks again! 109.64.137.68 (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You might try Symptom Checker from WebMD, then check for articles based on results (if that's what you have in mind). —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference between the terms allergy & anaphylaxis?
149.78.22.156 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at allergy and anaphylaxis? Richard Avery (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. But so far I've not got the real difference.149.78.22.156 (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anaphylaxis is only one type of allergic reaction. All anaphylactic reactions are allergic, but not all allergic reactions are anaphylactic. Allergy is a more or less non-medical term for a hypersensitivity reaction. Hypersensitivity reactions all involve the immune system, but sometimes when a person uses the non-medical term "allergy" they mean something else, which is why it's best avoided in a medical context.  Hypersensitivity reactions can be divided into four types, called type I, II, III, and IV.  Anaphylaxis is a type I hypersensitivity reaction, mediated by IgE.  Type II hypersensitivity or cytotoxic hypersensitivity is mediated by IgM or IgG and complement, and various immune cells. Type III hypersensitivity is caused by deposition of immune complexes.  And finally, Type IV hypersensitivity is cell-mediated. - Nunh-huh 09:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The symptoms of an allergic reaction can range from something that is is just an annoyance, such as itching or sneezing, to more severe symptoms, such as swelling, difficulty with breathing etc. Anaphylaxis is the most severe form of allergic reaction which can often lead to death fairly rapidly if not treated. Richerman    (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cuteness
Do humans generally have a tendency to select mates that look cute so that childlike faces on grownups seem to be very abundant in the human populations? 140.254.227.92 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. We're wired to like round faces and big eyes in babies - but "like" isn't the same thing as "tendency to select as a mate".  This love of cute is more likely to engender protective instincts than mating desire.  We are evolved creatures - our brains have come to be the way they are because that's the way evolution drove us.   So we are hard-wired to want to protect babies (which means we also tend to want pets with round heads and big eyes) - but we're also hard-wired such that men want women with child-bearing abilities (hence the obsession with big boobs and larger hips) and women want men with physical strength and endurance for hunting (or whatever) - hence broader shoulders, etc.   It follows that what we're hard-wired to prefer depends on the situation.   It cuts both ways - if we really did prefer mates with big eyes and round heads, then by now, we'd have evolved to look like a cross between Charley Brown and a Bush Baby!   Since that would (presumably) be a bad thing for survival in other ways, instead our brains evolve to prefer the mates who are most likely to be able to help us reproduce.  SteveBaker (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not endorsing this, just throwing it out there. It claims things. Relevant things. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article on neoteny 140.254 piped to does mention some specific traits that have been discussed and theorized over, though some is quite controversial and the section on neoteny and evolution closes with: "On the balance, an all or nothing approach could be regarded as pointless, with a combination of heterochronic processes being more likely and more reasonable (Vrba, 1996)". I guess we could search for more studies on certain traits or possibly meta-studies, but I don't think we can answer your question definitely and generally. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So, that means "That guy/girl looks cute," has no connotation in courtship, right? 140.254.227.92 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see at all how that follows. Your question was on humans' general tendency of selecting mates, not on attributes used when discussing potential mates with close friends in the English speaking world. And of course it can mean many things. A 25-year old man can be cute without having a baby-face. You linked to neoteny (not to cuteness), so I assumed your question was about neoteny, not some ambiguous shifting concept of cuteness. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To my ears, this is "cute", and this is "mating cute". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, this is the nature-nurture problem all over again. When we say that something is evolutionary or that it is genetic or something like that, some people want to say that it falls outside of the realm of free-will or outside of the influence of context and environment.  Human behavior is a hopelessly complex melange of environmental influence, genetic influence, social context, and personal choice, and to say "Well, that settles it.  We only are attracted to people with X traits because that's what our genes/evolution/whatever forces us to be attracted to" fails to be a workable theory because it doesn't explain the fullness of the human sexual response and human mating behavior with any reliability.  A good theory should adequately explain phenomena.  The theory that "you are only what you have evolved to do, and thus you must behave X" but fails to account for all of the people with behaviors Y, Z, and P and C as well, isn't a useful theory at all.  "Why do people choose the mates they do" has components that are genetic, socially constructed, environmental, and probably some bit of chaos/randomness as well.  -- Jayron  32  21:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Blaming genetics for everything we do, particularly things we do wrong, is kind of the high-tech equivalent of "the devil made me do it" - hence letting them off the hook for any blame (or so they think). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If humans are indeed become neotenous relative even to Neanderthals, which is quite a short span of time in evolutionary terms, it does seem possible that there is selective pressure favoring it. One well known hypothesis might be that neoteny has some advantage in developing intelligence, but sexual selection supplies another potential explanation.  Differentiating between the two can't be easy, and I don't see anything in PubMed about "neoteny" "sexual selection" in a quick search.  Even in the grossest cases in our own time, it is hard to be sure that the driving force (as opposed to the outcome) is really genetic - the explanation for pedophilia seems elusive, and certainly there is no genetic screen for it.  I can readily imagine (but there is no evidence for this example!) that a virus infecting the nervous system such as from the herpes family could interfere with age updating of the optimal sexual target, thereby inducing anything from pedophilia to a mild preference for neotenous characteristics in those affected - in this way the virus, should it persist for a few tens of thousands of years in the human population, might markedly change its appearance, despite the lack of any evolutionary benefit at all! Wnt (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It does seem like in the US, at least, the "ideal woman" has lots of neotenous characteristics:


 * 1) Lack of facial and body hair.


 * 2) Lack of body odor.


 * 3) Slight build.


 * 4) No wrinkles.


 * 5) No gray hair.


 * 6) No menstruation.


 * 7) Big eyes with (relatively) long eyelashes.


 * 8) Red lips.


 * 9) Rosy cheeks.


 * Of course, some will disagree with this list, and there are also a few adult features which remain popular in women, like big breasts and butts. StuRat (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With the possible exception of item 3, you're describing a Barbie Doll. Maybe cute to look at, but I wonder what sane man would actually want to marry a Barbie Doll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Judging from the models in ads going for sex appeal, I'd say quite a few. StuRat (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes you think those ads are directed at men? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If Standards and Practices were easier on advertising, you'd see a fundamental difference. A real-life Barbie is a monkey's paw wish. Or this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are conflating signs of fertility common to both males and females, such as full flushed lips, lack of wrinkles and grey hair; signs of femininity; and signs of immaturity, such as relatively larger heads and extremities, which are not themselves signs of femininity. There is some confusion because, except for secondary sex characteristics like wider hips and prominent breasts, females tend to be more similar to  paedomorphic humans than do mature males with broad shoulders, prominent chins, etc.  There are at least three issues here, age, fertility and sex.  Young boys don't need to look like young girls to be cute, any more than chicks and baby bunnies need to look like playboy bunnies to be cute. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a difference that men remain fertile longer, and also tend to be richer and more powerful, say, in their 50's than 20's. So, age markers like a bit of grey hair can actually be attractive in men, hence products like Touch of Grey hair dye for men. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that trying to infer beauty standards from ads is a common and harmful mistake. Advertisers need to sell products.  So they need to push a model of women shaving hair from all sorts of places that look nicer with it, just as barbers used to lobby so heavily to keep men under their thumb on a practically daily basis even though they look nicer hairy.  (And while it doesn't have to do with paedomorphic form, the pressure on women to paint their eyes is a veritable crime against humanity, when you consider their natural beautiful expressiveness)  I bet that what people want is very much different from the ads. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * While advertisers may be pushing that image, they have largely succeeded in setting the standard. The number of men who prefer fat, hairy, smelly, menstruating, gray-haired, gray-skinned, thin-lipped, wrinkly, short eyelash, women with no breasts or butts is vanishingly small. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless you count the ones who are married to them. :) But this criticism wasn't meant as a package - obviously advertisers do promote innately desired looks whenever they can, but they'll promote looks that require product sales because they must. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Succeeded in setting the standard? That would only be a valid inference if that number was considerably larger before advertisers were around. —Quondum 19:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that certainly is true in some of those cases. For example, women who would be considered fat by today's standards were once idolized as examples of the perfect women, and body hair was considered more desirable in women previously. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)