#bioanth

[er-cryptid]

True/False: Primates are very generalized.

True

[chaotic-archaeologist]

Patient Perspectives on Delayed Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Hi All - sharing a recruitment advertisement from the bioanth disability group: Researchers involved in the project "Patient Perspectives on Delayed Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic," led by Dr. Jessica Dimka at Seton Hall University ([email protected]), want to learn about participants’ experiences with unintentional or intentional delayed health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants can do an online interview, fill out a survey, or both. To learn more or express interest, please go to https://shu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9mNVVZv3fy545pk or contact Dr. Dimka.

The most powerful, simple and trusted way to gather experience data. Start your journey to experience management and try a free account toda

[dreamofsnowfields]

10.04.24

It’s Wednesday already! I’m working my way through Bioarchaeology (Larsen 2015) and it is so interesting! Many biomedical details and interesting examples from around the world. We started learning about paleopathology today, I’m so excited about it! Tomorrow we will learn to use Transition Analysis 3, and Friday is all about infections and Caries! So very interesting. I’m getting back into my school flow now. Kinda missing studying petroglyphs and the Bronze Age rn, thinking about wanting two bachelors exams, one in archaeology and one in osteology… I’ll think about it for now.

[somewhatdarkacademia]

Nothing makes me feel smarter than being able to identify a mystery cranium as a neanderthal within seconds.

[doommuffin]

I have a lot of classes that at least occasionally being up Gorillas (being an anthropology major) and every. Single. Time. I mentally hear Greg from Over the Garden Wall yelling "Gorilla".

Please brain, I just want to hear my teacher talk. Stop thinking in meme.

[everydayanth]

My mom always just said that going in and out of such drastically different environments makes everyone sick. Then when I went through bioanth, I asked my genetics professor about a theory because Jake, who is genetically adapted to the highlands/upper elevations of central Europe, is quick to adapt to the temperatures in the spring (though the boy suffers in humidity, but that’s ‘cus he was raised in Chicago, and I was on the east side of Lake Mich, where the humidity hardly falls unless it freezes lol), while I, who am genetically a mutt but pretty consistently adapted to the northern lowlands, particularly of the Baltic region, get easily sick going in and out of AC.

She, a BAMF featured several times in NatGeo specials, leader in her field, and real-life Bones who helps legal forensics teams as a consultant and has a fully certified lab in her garage, just dead-pan looked at me and went “yes, because temperatures in the mountains are faster to change and be variable, so he is genetically more adaptable to short changes, while your body is made for lowland seas and will more wholly adapt to any environment, but it will take longer and more consistency for your physical adaptions to get the message.”

Which has been SO TRUE! 

We moved to California: Jake was fine for a while, I got heat stroke on a regular basis despite drinking plenty of water for like, three months. Then I was fine, my skin figured its shit out, and he struggled with the consistency.

We moved to Washington, Jake was great with the variable weather initially. We lost our tans, but mine took so long, I was craving sun for, again, the first three months. Then, Jake was miserable in the rain (and because of other things like the mess of a start-up he was with at the time), and I was loving it. 

We moved to the Mojave desert of south-eastern CA, and Jake did great once he got the initial sunburns out of the way, he went in and out of AC with ease. But I. Was. Miserable. Utterly miserable. I couldn’t breathe outside, I felt like I was dying inside, the extremes were horrible. But within a few weeks, my body figured out its tan (without burning, I’m proud of it for that lol), and I could hike  and run just fine, I could stay hydrated and no heat stroke! Woo! And then the dessert hit Jake and he was done adapting. The AC started to make him sick, and lucky for him, we moved shortly after. Random fact: my hair got so dark (usually it gets highlights in the sun), that when I went home, my mom was freaking out because I had black hair lol, she just kept repeating “I don’t ever remember your hair being so dark except the day you were born!” 

Then we moved to New England. It’s much more humid here. I seem to be doing okay with the jumpy extremes of spring and early summer, but I did much better with the sudden cold of winter, quick to adapt to cold, but slow to heat seems kind of unfair with climate change, but perfectly suited to an oceanic life at a higher latitude. Jake is struggling with the humidity big time, and we had to put our AC in last week. I feel so guilty about it, but there’s got to be a cost-benefit ratio. 

Anyway, my whole point is that your individual adaption capability is probably encoded in you, and some people are more quick to adapt than others because at one point in their genetic history, that was such a beneficial thing that the body focused on preserving those adaptive qualities. People from nomadic or migrating genetic histories, or from areas of quick sudden change will probably be less bothered by AC, while those from more consistent regional genetics will probably have a more difficult time adapting to such quick temperature changes. Which is not the super-scientific way to say it, but if you struggle with AC like me, it can be miserable, so try for a gradual change, don’t jump from 90 to 60 degrees, but from 90 to 80 or 78, move the air around, fill your house with plants, keep the sun out during peak hours, and try to work with what your body is built for ^-^

[kaijutegu]

I found human evolution washi. 😍😍😍

[askacambridgestudent]

(1/2) Hi! I was hoping to get some advice for the eternal arts vs science dilemma. I initially applied for engineering as I'm very good at maths and physics, and thought that this meant that I should go into sciences by default. However, I can't bear the thought of no longer studying arts/humanities. I get the best grades in English lit, history and geography in my class and would equally love studying history or geography at uni...

(2/2) So now I’m trying to choose between studying natural sciences, geography and history & politics! I know that studying a science subject ‘opens more doors’ after your degree, and just because I’m really good at sciences, everyone expects me to study them rather than an arts… I love the thought of studying both sciences and humanities at Cambridge, and almost feel that I might be *a bit* more passionate about arts… What should I do? Do you know anyone who has been in a similar position?

This is definitely tough! So I think that there are a couple of things you should consider: 

#1: Whatever you pick, you’re going to be studying it at a very high level and you’re going to be studying it pretty constantly. From your message, it seems like you’re very good at maths and physics, but do you enjoy it enough to spend around 8 hours a weekday in labs/lectures/supervisions revolving around maths and physics? Same for arts/humanities -- do you enjoy history/politics/geography enough to spend 8 hours a day in lectures/supervisions/the library reading about the topics and constructing arguments? I’d suggest checking out the Kings’ reading lists for the subjects you’re interested in if you haven’t already -- they’re HERE and are a very good way of taking a look at the kinds of things that you’ll be reading/studying should you pursue that subject at Cam.

#2: What do you want to do in the future? I know, I know this is kind of an unfair question considering that you’re not sure what you want to do at uni, but it’s relevant. If you go into an arts subject, you’re pretty much shutting the door on any science-related careers in research/engineering. If you go into Natsci, you’re not cutting yourself off from going into one of the Big Three (law, banking, consultancy) or even other artsy careers, like journalism or heritage. That being said though, there are a number of skills that you’d learn in an arts degree that you wouldn’t have as much experience with in a science degree (particularly understanding lots of different arguments and bridging across them to create your own). If you’re not cool with giving up the possibility of going into a science field, then it’s probably best not to choose an arts subject, but at the same time, definitely have a think about what you really want to do both in terms of interest and the lifestyle that you want to have -- ie. going into academia isn’t as glamorous as people think it is (it involves a lot of moving around and low paying jobs), and research positions can be hard to get; likewise, the Big Three are high stress and long hours, and will require you to live in the city (read Sarah’s post HERE for more). 

#3: If you’re really, really stuck, pick a compromise. There are a number of subjects that combine both arts and sciences -- they involve both stats and scienc-y related fact learning, and they involve reading + essay-writing. You’ve picked out geography, which is definitely a good bridge between the two, as are certain routes in Natsci (Earth Science, for example, involves physical/biological sciences and you do a fair bit of essay writing too, although less than you do in a proper arts subject -- then again, you do more of the sciency stuff, especially in first year where you can only do Earth as one of your papers). BioAnth and PBS are also good ones for bridging between arts and biology-based stuff, but I don’t think they’re relevant here as you say that you like maths/physics. 

If any helpful experts have been in a similar situation and can offer anon some advice, please do! x