ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

QuoteU odnosu na Če Gevaru i Marksa svi su POPRILIČNI anonimusi.
Ne apsolutni anonimisu, ali POPRILIČNI da jer 90 % ljudi na ovoj planeti pod levicom podrazumeva prvo njih.

Moronu svjetskih razmjera, ovo nije takmičenje za mis mokre majice pa da laprdamo o tome koga 90% ljudi na planeti zna, nego je pitanje istine i samo istine, da ljevica nije to što ti tvrdiš, lupetaš, kretenizuješ, debilizuješ, imbecilu belosvjetski.

Quote from: Loni on 21-02-2013, 16:12:48
Bata mi uporno nije odgovorio da li bi i žrtvovanje nekog deteta zarad rituala u nekom društvu, mogao da podržava
jer upad helikoptera na sred obreda nekog plemena radi spašavanja deteta, takođe bi se moglo podvesti pod MEŠANJEM u norme tuđeg etnosa.
Gde su granice?

monstrume falsifikatorski, gotovo nigdje nije zabilježeno stvarno ljudsko žrtvovanje, niti već hiljadama godina ima masovnu podršku čak i ako negdje postoji, previše si gledao Cannibal Holocaust i slične izmišljotine raznih eurorasista koji koncipiraju sliku o monstruoznim divljacima iz kamenog doba u nekakvoj džungli Amazona

prekini da iznosiš neistinite činjenice, tupadžijo

Horor

Quote from: Loni on 21-02-2013, 16:12:48
Ok. Meho, razumeo sam šta mi zameraš.
NEPRECIZAN SAM.
Mešao sam debate i dekleracije, a osim toga zavaran sam od osobe koja mi je to rekla, (jedan moj profesor koji je danas poslanik DSS-a).

Ono šta ja očekujem od tebe je i neki lični stav po tako važnim pitanjima kao što je salaćenje dečjih tela.

Da se ne baziramo samo na papirologiju, je li tamo neke 1998 usvojeno da su ljudska prava iznad granica ili je ipak bila samo debeta, a usvojeno nije.
Daj da čujem tvoje mišljenje da li su granice bitnije od prava ili nisu.

Bojim se da ti uopšte ne razumeš o čemu se raspravlja. Meni granice uopšte nisu bitne. Ali ja sam sociopata, ako ne sretnem više od dva ljudska bića do kraja života, smatraću da je i to previše. Ali mi ovde ne raspravljamo šta je meni i tebi bitno već šta su razumni principi međunarodne politike. A oni, koliko god to bilo bolno, nisu nešto što može da se utemelji tako što se sretne dvesta filozofa i za okruglim stolom, od nule izdefinišu kako države treba da se ponašaju na međunarodnom planu. Povijesna zbiljnost u kojoj se nalazimo je rezultat istorije. Istorije u kojoj je suverenitet država uspostavljen kao neprikosnoven princip zaštite slabijih država od jakih. Možda on ne treba da važi u svakoj situaciji? Možda, ali kako se o tome odlučuje? Najpametniji način koji imamo je skupština UN. Ona za sada uglavnom poštuje suverenitet jer većina država shvata da sutra prekosutra i njima može da se desi da ih neko optuži za kršenje ljuckih prava i posle sankcija i političkih pritisaka dobiju i napad na granice i oduzimanje teritorije.

А Скупштина УН нема глас у Савету Безбедности и ту је крај.

Quote from: scallop on 21-02-2013, 16:26:59
ДСС је крива за све.

potpisujem!

Quote from: scallop on 21-02-2013, 19:54:07
А Скупштина УН нема глас у Савету Безбедности и ту је крај.

Tako je. Ali on ne uspostavlja principe nego ad hok rešenja. A Loni, valjda, pokušava da diskutuje o principima. Dakle, princip je i dalje da je suverenitet načelno neprikosnoven, a da ga krše u situacijama kada velike sile - a ne većina država - smatraju da je to oportuno.

Е, јеси ми одговорио.

Nisam ti odgovarao, nadovezivao sam se na tvoju ispravnu opservaciju!!!!!!11

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 21-02-2013, 20:07:55

Quote from: scallop on 21-02-2013, 19:54:07
А Скупштина УН нема глас у Савету Безбедности и ту је крај.

Tako je. Ali on ne uspostavlja principe nego ad hok rešenja. A Loni, valjda, pokušava da diskutuje o principima. Dakle, princip je i dalje da je suverenitet načelno neprikosnoven, a da ga krše u situacijama kada velike sile - a ne većina država - smatraju da je to oportuno.

Баш си га надовезао.

Skoro da sam ti i stil skinuo!!!!!!!!!!!

Стереотип. Баш личи.

Sa Batom vređašem više ne raspravljam.

Kad nalazi identitet u vremenu Aristotela, onda je praistorija dobra i nema rok trajanja.
Kad je reč o žrtvovanju u ritualima, onda nema potrebe da pominjemo preistoriju već sadašnjicu.
Ne smemo da pomenemo rituale čak ni hipotetički.

Meho, opet si mi odgovorio generalno.
Ne tražim tumačenje da li je po sadašnjim načelima UN ili bilo koje vlade, dozvoljeno preći granicu ako u određenoj zemlji
neko krši nečija prava (Recimo propisuje smrtnu kaznu za mladiće i devojke koji odbiju ugovoren brak).

Neko će je preći, neko neće.

Mene sada zanima tvoje mišljenje.
Da se ti pitaš da li bi

a) Granice bile bitnije od ljudskih prava. Pa je u nekoj zemlji dozvoljeno sve što vlastima padne na pamet.
b) Ljudska prava su bitnija od granica.

Ne idemo sad u hipotetičke zloupotrebe oba rešenja. Zanima me tvoj generalni izbor.

Budaletina ostaje budaletina.

Ti politiku ocjenjuješ prema godini proizvodnje, idi ubij se, odma.


Koji si ti kurčevi faks završio, filološki? Tvrdiš li da su pisci u 21. vijeku bolji od onih iz 19. vijeka?


Neki ljudi lupetaju, ali ti Loni izgovaraš takve idiotizme da je to strašno.

Loni, pobogu.
Ratovi se ne vode zbog ljudskih prava, već zbog interesa-teritorija, prostora, energenata, rudnog bogatstva i sl.
Priča o granicama i ljudskim pravima je samo prazna priča, izgovor velikih da vojne intervencije lakše opravdaju pred sopstvenom javnošću.
Je li to tako teško shvatiti, i priznati ?
Prosto ne verujem da iko može da misli da se ratovi vode zato što je tamo nekom moćniku i multimilijarderu žao nekih tamo malih naroda koji stradaju.

Quote from: Anomander Rejk on 22-02-2013, 07:55:03
Prosto ne verujem da iko može da misli da se ratovi vode zato što je tamo nekom moćniku i multimilijarderu žao nekih tamo malih naroda koji stradaju.

Žao im je što primitivci krčme naftu i bogatstva koja po Božjim zakonima pripadaju civilizovanom svetu.

Stipane, tvoje tumačenje Božjih zakona je jedno od onih koja guraju ljude u ratove.

Moje tumačenje je, naravno, jedino ispravno.
Zar bi inače bilo ratova?

Tačno.

Quote from: Loni on 22-02-2013, 00:15:43

Da se ti pitaš da li bi

a) Granice bile bitnije od ljudskih prava. Pa je u nekoj zemlji dozvoljeno sve što vlastima padne na pamet.
b) Ljudska prava su bitnija od granica.

Ne idemo sad u hipotetičke zloupotrebe oba rešenja. Zanima me tvoj generalni izbor.

Ali opet ti velim, nema tu "da se ti pitaš". Međunarodna politika nije izgrađivana na stavovima pojedinaca. Da sam ja svemoćno božanstvo, imalo bi smisla da se postavlja ovo pitanje. Ovako kako jeste, možemo samo da poštujemo i ljudska prava i granice, a da putem lobiranja, edukacije itd. guramo sva društva u dosegu u smeru onog modela za koji mislimo da je dobar.

Dakle, smatram da je pitanje besmisleno. Moj generalni izbor je da ljudi budu dobri jedni prema drugima.

Generalni izbor ti je realan koliko i hipi ideologija.

Quote from: Anomander Rejk on 22-02-2013, 07:55:03
Loni, pobogu.
Ratovi se ne vode zbog ljudskih prava, već zbog interesa-teritorija, prostora, energenata, rudnog bogatstva i sl.
Priča o granicama i ljudskim pravima je samo prazna priča, izgovor velikih da vojne intervencije lakše opravdaju pred sopstvenom javnošću.
Je li to tako teško shvatiti, i priznati ?
Prosto ne verujem da iko može da misli da se ratovi vode zato što je tamo nekom moćniku i multimilijarderu žao nekih tamo malih naroda koji stradaju.

Ok. Anomander ja sam govorio hipotetički.
Neki ratovi se vode zbog jednih, neki zbog drugih razloga.

Međutim da bi smo dobili bilo kakvu praksu (pa i onu, nastalu izvitoperenjem teorije) moramo da imamo i teoriju.

Na žalost Filološki Fakultet sam napustio pre polovine, a završio sam dramaturgiju na BK Akademiji.
Ali ne mislim da se sve svodi na fakultet. Studiramo 4 do 6 godina, a život traje 80 godina. Sve vreme mora se učiti. 

Quote from: Stipan on 22-02-2013, 10:17:58
Generalni izbor ti je realan koliko i hipi ideologija.

Pa, dobro, ti budi loš prema drugim ljudima, ne možemo da te nateramo na suprotno 

Ne možete!

http://youtu.be/zwnipCkNgDw

@Meho, na prvi pogled ti si pojedinac koji se ništa ne pita.

Međutim svet se sastoji upravo od skupa pojedinaca.
Svako od nas na mikro planu može nešto da promeni. Ubedi okolinu u ovo ili ono.

"Ne udružuj se ni sa kim: pisac je sam"

Danilo Kiš

Quote from: Loni on 22-02-2013, 10:35:17
@Meho, na prvi pogled ti si pojedinac koji se ništa ne pita.

Međutim svet se sastoji upravo od skupa pojedinaca.
Svako od nas na mikro planu može nešto da promeni. Ubedi okolinu u ovo ili ono.

Pa ubeđujem sve vreme.

Quote from: Loni on 22-02-2013, 10:35:17
@Meho, na prvi pogled ti si pojedinac koji se ništa ne pita.

I na drugi pogled, takođe...

Previše pasivno gledanje na stvari.

Ja da tako razmišljam ni u jednu raspravu nikad ne bi ušo.

Pa ja i ne ulazim u rasprave, samo u svađe, obračune i pičkaranja...

Quote from: Loni on 22-02-2013, 10:23:09
Na žalost Filološki Fakultet sam napustio pre polovine, a završio sam dramaturgiju na BK Akademiji.
Ali ne mislim da se sve svodi na fakultet. Studiramo 4 do 6 godina, a život traje 80 godina. Sve vreme mora se učiti. 

nisi mi odgovorio na pitanje, stoko

jesu li dramski pisci 21. vijeka bolji od onih iz 19. vijeka?

ili čak 5. vijeka prije nove ere?

Je li Eshil loš i zastarjeli dramaturg?

hajde nalupetaj se pa da se razilazimo

Kad si već pomenuo Eshila, dao si mi šlagvort za sledeće poređenje.

ESHIL = pisao o ljudima kakvi bi trebalo da budu
EURIPID = pisao o ljudima kakvi jesu

Ono što sam uporno tražio od tebe, ali i od Meha je ESHILOVSKI pogled na religiju.
A Vas dvojica dajete mi EURIPIDOVSKI.

Meho pojašnjava da je smisao religija da ujedinjuju ljude, drže narod pod kontrolom. Vidimo svi da je to praksa.
Ali šta po Vama religija treba da bude?

Bar tu se možemo složiti da je njen primarni cilj ISKRENA vera u ono šta se proklamuje, a ne deklerativno poštovanje.
Moji roditelj ne veruju u Boga, a prave velelepnog dvodnevnog Svetog Nikolu (nekad i po tri dana) jer je to prilika da okupe društvo na jednom mestu.
Zovu čak i popa.
To nije prava vera. Već deklerativa.

Šta je prava vera?

ja i dalje nisam dobio odgovor na pitanje

Biće da se Loni loše pripremio. Eshil je pisao više o tragičnim sudbinama i božanskoj osveti, a Sofokle je idealizovao ljude. Ali, Bata će ga već uterati u istinu.

Nisi dobio odgovor jer ne znam šta je poenta tog pitanja.

Naravno da vreme nije ključno u određivanju ko je bolji ko je gori,
ali zašto si onda ti izbegao da odgovoriš za rituale žrtvovanja rečima da toga odavno nema.

Ako su teme bezvremenske stvari, onda su i rituali bezvremenski.

Inače ne mogu se književna dela porediti sa politikom
jer kvalitetna književna dela u principu ne zastarevaju,
dok su politika i nauka nešto što se USAVRŠAVA praksom.

Medicina od pre 1000 godina ne može biti bolja od današnje medicine jer je iskustvo sadašnju medicinu usavršilo.
Politika je više uporediva sa medicinom, a ne sa književnošću.

Scallop, bitno je da je Euripid specifičan po karakterizaciji.
On piše o ljudima kakvi jesu.

Dok ih ostala dvojica tragičara tog doba (I Eshil i Sofokle) idealizuju.

Odnosno idealizuju glavne junake (Sofokle Antigonu, pa čak i Edipa; Eshil recimo Oresta i svakako Prometeja).

U poređenju s bilo kim od ove dvojice, Euripid je realista.
(Mada je Medeja daleko crnja od realizma)

Bitno je da ne želim euripidovski odgovor šta je religija.
Već smo ga dobili od Meho-a.

Quote from: Loni on 22-02-2013, 14:45:29
dok su politika i nauka nešto što se USAVRŠAVA praksom.

a to jebeno rekao Aristotel!

QuoteI dosta s tim da l sam čitao Bibliju?
O jesam. Čitao više puta i požalio jer je reč o vrlo slabom književnom delu.
Odsustvo jasne fabule, odsustvo uzročno-posledične veze,
obilje suvišnih likova, manjkavost na poentalnom nivou...

Don't Help Your Kids With Their Homework

Quote
One of the central tenets of raising kids in America is that parents should be actively involved in their children's education: meeting with teachers, volunteering at school, helping with homework, and doing a hundred other things that few working parents have time for. These obligations are so baked into American values that few parents stop to ask whether they're worth the effort.
Until this January, few researchers did, either. In the largest-ever study of how parental involvement affects academic achievement, Keith Robinson, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and Angel L. Harris, a sociology professor at Duke, mostly found that it doesn't. The researchers combed through nearly three decades' worth of longitudinal surveys of American parents and tracked 63 different measures of parental participation in kids' academic lives, from helping them with homework, to talking with them about college plans, to volunteering at their schools. In an attempt to show whether the kids of more-involved parents improved over time, the researchers indexed these measures to children's academic performance, including test scores in reading and math.
  What they found surprised them. Most measurable forms of parental involvement seem to yield few academic dividends for kids, or even to backfire—regardless of a parent's race, class, or level of education.
Do you review your daughter's homework every night? Robinson and Harris's data, published in The Broken Compass: Parental Involvement With Children's Education, show that this won't help her score higher on standardized tests. Once kids enter middle school, parental help with homework can actually bring test scores down, an effect Robinson says could be caused by the fact that many parents may have forgotten, or never truly understood, the material their children learn in school.
Similarly, students whose parents frequently meet with teachers and principals don't seem to improve faster than academically comparable peers whose parents are less present at school. Other essentially useless parenting interventions: observing a kid's class; helping a teenager choose high-school courses; and, especially, disciplinary measures such as punishing kids for getting bad grades or instituting strict rules about when and how homework gets done. This kind of meddling could leave children more anxious than enthusiastic about school, Robinson speculates. "Ask them 'Do you want to see me volunteering more? Going to school social functions? Is it helpful if I help you with homework?' " he told me. "We think about informing parents and schools what they need to do, but too often we leave the child out of the conversation."
One of the reasons parental involvement in schools has become dogma is that the government actively incentivizes it. Since the late 1960s, the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on programs that seek to engage parents—especially low-income parents—with their children's schools. In 2001, No Child Left Behind required schools to establish parent committees and communicate with parents in their native languages. The theory was that more active and invested mothers and fathers could help close the test-score gap between middle-class and poor students. Yet until the new study, nobody had used the available data to test the assumption that close relationships between parents and schools improve student achievement.
While Robinson and Harris largely disproved that assumption, they did find a handful of habits that make a difference, such as reading aloud to young kids (fewer than half of whom are read to daily) and talking with teenagers about college plans. But these interventions don't take place at school or in the presence of teachers, where policy makers exert the most influence—they take place at home.
What's more, although conventional wisdom holds that poor children do badly in school because their parents don't care about education, the opposite is true. Across race, class, and education level, the vast majority of American parents report that they speak with their kids about the importance of good grades and hope that they will attend college. Asian American kids may perform inordinately well on tests, for example, but their parents are not much more involved at school than Hispanic parents are—not surprising, given that both groups experience language barriers. So why are some parents more effective at helping their children translate these shared values into achievement?
Robinson and Harris posit that greater financial and educational resources allow some parents to embed their children in neighborhoods and social settings in which they meet many college-educated adults with interesting careers. Upper-middle-class kids aren't just told a good education will help them succeed in life. They are surrounded by family and friends who work as doctors, lawyers, and engineers and who reminisce about their college years around the dinner table. Asian parents are an interesting exception; even when they are poor and unable to provide these types of social settings, they seem to be able to communicate the value and appeal of education in a similarly effective manner.
As part of his research, Robinson conducted informal focus groups with his undergraduate statistics students at the University of Texas, asking them about how their parents contributed to their achievements. He found that most had few or no memories of their parents pushing or prodding them or getting involved at school in formal ways. Instead, students described mothers and fathers who set high expectations and then stepped back. "These kids made it!," Robinson told me. "You'd expect they'd have the type of parental involvement we're promoting at the national level. But they hardly had any of that. It really blew me away."
Robinson and Harris's findings add to what we know from previous research by the sociologist Annette Lareau, who observed conversations in homes between parents and kids during the 1990s. Lareau found that in poor and working-class households, children were urged to stay quiet and show deference to adult authority figures such as teachers. In middle-class households, kids learned to ask critical questions and to advocate for themselves—behaviors that served them well in the classroom.
Robinson and Harris chose not to address a few potentially powerful types of parental involvement, from hiring tutors or therapists for kids who are struggling, to opening college savings accounts. And there's the fact that, regardless of socioeconomic status, some parents go to great lengths to seek out effective schools for their children, while others accept the status quo at the school around the corner.
Although Robinson and Harris didn't look at school choice, they did find that one of the few ways parents can improve their kids' academic performance—by as much as eight points on a reading or math test—is by getting them placed in the classroom of a teacher with a good reputation. This is one example for which race did seem to matter: white parents are at least twice as likely as black and Latino parents to request a specific teacher. Given that the best teachers have been shown to raise students' lifetime earnings and to decrease the likelihood of teen pregnancy, this is no small intervention.
All in all, these findings should relieve anxious parents struggling to make time to volunteer at the PTA bake sale. But valuing parental involvement via test scores alone misses one of the ways in which parents most impact schools. Pesky parents are often effective, especially in public schools, at securing better textbooks, new playgrounds, and all the "extras" that make an educational community come to life, like art, music, theater, and after-school clubs. This kind of parental engagement may not directly affect test scores, but it can make school a more positive place for all kids, regardless of what their parents do or don't do at home. Getting involved in your children's schools is not just a way to give them a leg up—it could also be good citizenship.

Ono što svi vidimo oko sebe, ako već i sami ne radimo je globalni trend: deca dobijaju tablete i smartfounove u ruke da bi bila mirna, a da to ne zahteva da se roditelji mnogo angažuju oko njih. Rezultat?
Children can swipe a screen but can't use toy building blocks, teachers warn

Quote
Teachers call for research into effects of tablet addiction amid concerns computer habits are hindering progress at school
    Children are arriving at nursery school able to "swipe a screen" but lacking the manipulative skills to play with building blocks, teachers have warned.
They fear that children are being given tablets to use "as a replacement for contact time with the parent" and say such habits are hindering progress at school.
Addressing the Association of Teachers and Lecturers conference in Manchester on Tuesday, Colin Kinney, a teacher from Northern Ireland, said excessive use of technology damages concentration and causes behavioural problems such as irritability and a lack of control.
"Teachers talk of students who come into their classrooms having spent most of the previous night playing computer games and their attention spans are so limited they might as well not be there," Kinney said.
"I've spoken to a number of nursery teachers who have concerns over the increasing numbers of young pupils who can swipe a screen but have little or no manipulative skills to play with building blocks – or pupils who can't socialise with other pupils, but whose parents talk proudly of their ability to use a tablet or smartphone."
Mark Montgomery, who teaches in Northern Ireland, added that when information is always instantly available to students, "there is less need to learn and retain knowledge". He told of how pupils at his school were struggling to learn lines for a play, something which had not proved difficult in previous years.
Teachers gathering in Manchester called for research into the effects of tablet addiction, and for advice on dealing with the issue among students.
Earlier in the day, the ATL passed an emergency motion expressing concern that the government has spent £637m on its flagship free schools programme, as well as millions more to help convert schools into academies.
Mark Baker, senior vice-president of ATL – the most moderate of the three teacher unions – told the conference there was a "culture of cronyism" underlying the academy and free schools programme, which he warned was "allowing corporate greed to destroy England's education system".
Referring to last month's TUC report, Education Not for Sale, he said: "We hear of the conflicts of interest, with at least three of the biggest academy chains being linked to the Conservative party through donation; the Harris Federation, the ARK Schools and the David Ross Foundation."
He added: "Private companies are thriving on the spoils of consultancy fees, legal and accountancy bills. Some £77m of taxpayers' money which could otherwise have been available for children's education."
The shadow education secretary, Tristram Hunt, told the conference a future Labour government would scrap the free schools policy, but keep existing free schools open.
Hunt said: "We've always said that we would keep open existing free schools and those in the pipeline, but because we have a highly politicised Department for Education there's a fear they're ramming the pipeline."
An ARK spokesman said: "As a charitable organisation, with no political affiliation, we're lucky to have support from a range of individuals and institutions. Some are politically affiliated, some not, and we have supporters from all the major parties.
"The money they raise for ARK is put into our schools and educational projects working in economically disadvantaged communities. The only interest we have is in delivering for the children we work with overseas and in our schools in England – all of which are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted."
 

Dad tricks kid using reverse psychology

Bilo je slučajno. 

Inside the Growing Movement of Women Who Wish They'd Never Had Kids

Pregnancy alters woman's brain 'for at least two years'

Quote
Pregnancy reduces grey matter in specific parts of a woman's brain, helping her bond with her baby and prepare for the demands of motherhood.
Scans of 25 first-time mums showed these structural brain changes lasted for at least two years after giving birth.
European researchers said the scale of brain changes during pregnancy were akin to those seen during adolescence.
But they found no evidence of women's memory deteriorating.
Many women have said they feel forgetful and emotional during pregnancy and put it down to "pregnancy" or "baby" brain - and, it seems, with good reason.Hormone surgePregnancy is characterised by extreme surges of sex hormones and involves drastic physiological and physical changes in the body, the researchers say.
During those nine months, women experience a flood of oestrogen which is greater than for the whole of the rest of their lives.
Yet research on the effects of pregnancy on the human brain is scarce.
This study, from researchers at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona and Leiden University and published in Nature Neuroscience, looked at the brain scans of women before they became pregnant, soon after they gave birth, and two years later, to see how the brain changed.
And they compared these women's brains with those of 19 first-time fathers, 17 men without children and 20 women who had never given birth.
The researchers found "substantial" reductions in the volume of grey matter in the brains of first-time mothers.
The grey matter changes occurred in areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks.
The researchers thought this would give new mothers an advantage in various ways - help them recognise the needs of their child, be more aware of potential social threats and become more attached to their baby.
Just by analysing the brain images, computers were able to pick out the women who had been pregnant.Bonding with babyIn one task, women were shown pictures of their own babies and other babies and their brain activity was monitored.
The parts of the brain which lit up when they saw pictures of their own babies closely matched the areas where grey matter had been reduced or "fine-tuned" during pregnancy.
The same areas did not light up when pictures of other babies were viewed.


Elseline Hoekzema, study author and postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Psychology at Leiden University in the Netherlands, said: "We can speculate that the volume reductions observed in pregnancy represent a process of specialisation or further maturation of this Theory of Mind network that, in some way, serves an adaptive purpose for pending motherhood."
The study found that pregnant women were all affected in similar ways, regardless of whether they conceived naturally or underwent IVF.
And there were no changes in first-time fathers' grey matter in the study when their brains were monitored before and after their partners' pregnancy.
The research team also found no major changes in white matter in the brain.

False.

Alters woman's brain for life.

pa dobro, kažu 'at least two years'

....kao oženjen čovek, ajm vid Lilith

Ženama se redukuje siva masa, a muškarcima?

Zašto oni koji nemaju decu raspravljaju više na ovu temu od onih koji ih imaju (ne važi za Uglyja)?

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 22-12-2016, 13:15:44
Ženama se redukuje siva masa, a muškarcima?

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 22-12-2016, 08:42:32

And there were no changes in first-time fathers' grey matter in the study when their brains were monitored before and after their partners' pregnancy.
The research team also found no major changes in white matter in the brain.

Saće žene da nas zaebaju da je veća šteta da mi gubimo neurone na tolku oskudaciju