Living in England, I've spent the last few months in very dreary weather. It rains a lot, it's cold, and it's often cloudy for a good portion of the day, if not the vast majority. It's just a part of living here — when you decide to move to England, it's something that you're aware of. People make jokes about the English weather being bad, but in the winter, they have it right.
As an aspiring neuro- and cognitive scientist, one of the things that really irks me is when people try to use scientific data to support their claims about a particular group of people. Generally, this happens with an "out" group, and the "in" group claims to have discovered some neuroscientific evidence to prove that the "out" group is fundamentally and irreversibly different, usually with some negative implication.
Ever since the somewhat magical concept of the G-spot appeared in the 1950s, laymen and scientists alike have been on a blind chase after it. In 2012, Dr. Adam Ostrzenski created a media circus with his reported discovery and dissection of a specimen of the G-spot. In order to understand the true motives of the quest for the G-spot, it is essential to go back to the time where it came from.
It seems like everybody is worried about bullying. The media is replete with stories about bullying and the negative effects it has on its victims -- effects that include anxiety and decreased self-worth. It has been suggested that victimization by bullies has led to self-harm, suicide and even school shootings. Often, bullying is treated as pathological. The bully has a disease that needs to be cured. According to this view, the way to stop bullying is to discover the cause of the bully's “sickness” and then eliminate this cause. Perhaps this is the wrong approach.