{"id":9215,"date":"2011-04-19T11:05:33","date_gmt":"2011-04-19T18:05:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/?p=9215"},"modified":"2019-12-23T15:42:20","modified_gmt":"2019-12-23T23:42:20","slug":"new-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/2011\/04\/19\/new-research\/","title":{"rendered":"New Research"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Today, the Seattle PI&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.seattlepi.com\/thebigblog\/2011\/04\/19\/what-the-hell-study-says-swearing-helps-the-pain-msnbc\/\" title=\"The Big Blog: What the hell? Study says swearing helps the pain (MSNBC)\">Big Blog linked to<\/a> an <a href=\"http:\/\/bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com\/_news\/2011\/04\/18\/6489832-swearing-really-is-a-powerful-painkiller-study-shows\" title=\"MSNBC: #@*! Swearing really is a powerful painkiller, study shows\">MSNBC story<\/a> about how swearing can apparently help lessen how much pain is felt.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\n  &#8230;the researchers had thought that swearing would make the cold water feel much colder, lowering the participants&#8217; tolerance for pain and heightening their perception of it. &#8220;In fact, the opposite occurred &#8212; people withstood a moderately to strongly painful stimulus for significantly longer if they repeated a swear word rather than a nonswear word,&#8221; write the team&#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>What caught my eye was the opening paragraph of the MSNBC story&#8217;s description of this as &#8220;new research&#8221; &#8212; I was sure that I&#8217;d heard this before. A quick search of the website of the Neuroreport journal where the study was published quickly finds the study&#8230;and reveals that it was <a href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/neuroreport\/Abstract\/2009\/08050\/Swearing_as_a_response_to_pain.4.aspx\" title=\"NeuroReport: Swearing as a response to pain\">published in August 2009<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Admittedly, this is just a bit of a fluff piece on a slow news day. But really. Since when is research almost two years old &#8220;new&#8221;? It may well be the most <em>current<\/em> research on the subject, but new? That seems a bit of an overstatement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Admittedly, this is just a bit of a fluff piece on a slow news day. But really. Since when is research almost two years old new? It may well be the most _current_ research on the subject, but new? That seems a bit of an overstatement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2028],"tags":[39],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9215"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9215"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9215\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}