<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Psychologyresearch.org.uk</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk</link>
	<description>... a resource (not only) for postgradute students!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 19:00:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Inspirational Thinking Threatens Authoritarian Personalities</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/inspirational-thinking-threatens-authoritarian-personalities/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/inspirational-thinking-threatens-authoritarian-personalities/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Psychology Today</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10070</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Most people think that all humans are pretty much alike. They always have been and they always will be. Some even believe that humans are a one-off, made in the image of God. Imagine that...a God that creates a system whereby you swallow and breath through the same narrow tube. Brilliant! One wonders why it took him so long to create Heimlich? In fact, fossils of at least a half-dozen proto-humans have now been identified and a few of those were close enough to us that (give or take a few tattoos) they might well pass as an opening act for the Backstreet Boys. So what, you may wonder, kept them from figuring out microphones and amplifiers and starting their own group? In a word - Inspiration. And yet, how can that be the whole story? Neanderthals were on Earth for twice as long as we've been here and yet the tools they made near the end of their time were almost identical to their very first efforts. They stopped at their "here and now" without ever being inspired to think about their "there and then." Modern man, Homo sapiens, left the rest in the dust only by going beyond immediate reality and creating what might be. We make some of our greatest gains when we see old things in new ways. Newton wasn't the first to see an apple fall from a tree and what did Einstein do if not look at the universe from a completely different perspective? My friend Kort Patterson does this all the time and his most recent column (in a super high IQ Intertel publication) deals with the topic of all those proto-humans and what it was that set us apart. While imagination is pretty much a given in man-like brains, inspiration is far less common. What's more, when it does occur it can be derived from entirely erroneously sources and interfered with at every level. Here are some examples courtesy of Kort: The Italian Renaissance, the foundation of our modern world, came about when the artistic and architectural achievements of the ancients were rediscovered. And yet, that discovery was mostly made-up. The Greeks and Romans would not have recognized what was presented in their name. They would have considered the surviving ruins - the straight lines and bare marble - as being both unfinished and decidedly ugly. And even what did remain intact was subject to censorship. Much of the unfettered sensuousness of Pompeii was plastered over by the sexually inhibited Victorians. Their repressive social order and applied perversity demanded a masochistic rejection of physical pleasure and a pious denial of human nature. The church tried doing much the same with scientific and technological advances but the inspiration of the few eventually created the prosperity now enjoyed by the many. Looked at in this way, much of human history is an account of anarchic creativity opposed by authoritarian attempts to control it. Kort ends with: Paradoxically, it has been creativity that has created ever more effective means for authoritarians to impose their authority. The question we face today is whether we're willing to learn from the mistakes of the past or whether we'll allow the primitive residue of authoritarianism to restrict and repress the imagination and creativity that defines us in the modern world? Visit Kort Patterson's archive of articles at: http://www.kortexplores.com/node_browser/nodes_by_category/vocabu... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/inspirational-thinking-threatens-authoritarian-personalities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gilligan&#8217;s Island and Microsoft Office 03:  Useless Fluff in My Head</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/gilligans-island-and-microsoft-office-03-useless-fluff-in-my-head/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/gilligans-island-and-microsoft-office-03-useless-fluff-in-my-head/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Psychology Today</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10048</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I can still sing the theme song to Gilligan's Island . I'm complaining, not bragging. Talk about obsolete and useless information. I also still know how to use the Microsoft Office 2003 version of Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. Also obsolete, useless, and truly frustrating knowledge since there is limited knowledge transfer to Office 2007. Sometime I wonder if all my experiences and knowledge are buried away somewhere in my memory banks. Perhaps I have never deleted anything. Unexpected recollections convince me that a multitude of memories remain. For example, I can remember and sing the theme songs to a host of TV shows from the era of Gilligan's Island (watched in re-runs on the non-network channels when I was wasting away my youth). I haven't watched TV with any regularity in 25 years but those songs remain. My knowledge of TV theme songs seems stable and long-lasting. In contrast, my knowledge of Microsoft Office programs is currently in transition. Much of my knowledge learned for the 03 version is useless in the 07 instantiation. Finding the pull-down menu for even something as basic as saving the document has changed. Right now these two sets of knowledge are in conflict. I still have the 03 Office programs on the laptop I use, but most of my university's computers have been modernized (or ruined depending on one's perspective). Sometimes I can't perform seemingly simple tasks on any computer. There's a crucial distinction between Office 03 and Gilligan's Island. Soon I will forget how to use Office 03. I may, however, be doomed to hum Gilligan's theme song forever. With the Microsoft Office products, I am replacing the knowledge. I am learning the new ways to save, change paragraph formatting, and add error bars to graphs. Each time I perform a task in the 07 version, I strengthen that new knowledge. When I strengthen the new knowledge, I gradually weaken the connection to the old information. My knowledge is updated by new experiences. The updating takes the form of changing the use of a retrieval cue. With those Microsoft Office products, the retrieval cues might be: How do I change the spacing between paragraphs? In Word 03, I had one response to that cue that involved using a pull down menu. In Word 07, the method of finding that dialogue box is quite different (and quite frustrating at this moment). As I re-use the same retrieval cue, I lose the ability to recall the items that were once associated with that cue. I suspect that when I finally master the updated programs, Microsoft will release a newer version and my hard-earned knowledge will once again be obsolete. Interference is one common explanation of forgetting. My transition from Microsoft 03 to Microsoft 07 is a form of interference known as retroactive interference - new usage of knowledge makes it harder to recall the old information connected to the knowledge. I experience the same interference with students' names. As I learn the names of my current students, remembering the names of students from previous terms becomes more difficult. The difficulty is much greater if I re-use names (how many Jennifers have I known in 20 years of teaching?). For students with more unique names, I can remember them and their names more easily for longer periods of time because there is less interference - that is, I haven't re-used those names as frequently. Back to Gilligan's Island, from which I may never be rescued. I've gained no new knowledge during the intervening years that interferes with my ability to recall that theme song. With the right retrieval cue, such as the tune or the first line, I'll start singing that song ( Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale ). Some obsolete knowledge, such as how to perform tasks in Office 03, gets replaced by new knowledge. Some useful knowledge, such as students' names, also gets replaced (much to my dismay). But some obsolete knowledge sticks around, never gets updated, and becomes the fluff in my head. So is everything in my head somewhere? Maybe. The knowledge may be there waiting for the right retrieval cue. When that cue gets re-used and strongly connected to new information, however, the old knowledge may become impossible to retrieve. Unfortunately, nothing is going to replace Gilligan. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/gilligans-island-and-microsoft-office-03-useless-fluff-in-my-head/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Friday Cephalopod: In flagrante [Pharyngula]</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/friday-cephalopod-in-flagrante-pharyngula/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/friday-cephalopod-in-flagrante-pharyngula/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ScienceBlog</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developing Intelligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I swear, half the photos I have of cuttlefish are of two or three or four animals getting it on . Sepia pharaonis Figure from Cephalopods: A World Guide ( amzn / b&#038;n / abe / pwll ) , by Mark Norman. Read the comments on this post... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/friday-cephalopod-in-flagrante-pharyngula/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Friday Sprog Blogging: dreaming of snakes. [Adventures in Ethics and Science]</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/friday-sprog-blogging-dreaming-of-snakes-adventures-in-ethics-and-science/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/friday-sprog-blogging-dreaming-of-snakes-adventures-in-ethics-and-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ScienceBlog</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developing Intelligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Dr. Free-Ride: So, you know how sometimes you have nightmares ? Younger Offspring: Yeah. Dr. Free-Ride: I had a nightmare the other night.* Younger Offspring: What was it? Dr. Free-Ride: Well, I was supposed to be picking up snakes with two sticks and moving them from one place to another. Younger Offspring: Why? Read the rest of this post... &#124; Read the comments on this post... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/friday-sprog-blogging-dreaming-of-snakes-adventures-in-ethics-and-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Do Breasts Mezmerize?</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/why-do-breasts-mezmerize/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/why-do-breasts-mezmerize/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Psychology Today</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ In recognition of "Boobquake" being celebrated around the world Monday as liberated women shake their breasts (figuratively) in the face of the Iranian cleric who recently blamed earthquakes on female sexuality , a few words on the mysterious allure of the human female breast. Considering its almost total lack of muscle tissue, the female breast wields amazing power. Curvaceous women have leveraged this power to manipulate even the most accomplished, disciplined men for as long as anyone's been around to notice. Empires have fallen, wills have been revised, millions of magazines and calendars sold, Super Bowl audiences scandalized . . . all in response to the mysterious force emanating from what are, after all, small bags of fat. One of the oldest human images known, the so-called Venus of Willendorf, created about 25,000 years ago, features a bosom of Dolly Parton-esque dimensions. Two hundred fifty centuries later, the power of the exaggerated breast shows little sign of getting old. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgery, 347,254 breast augmentation procedures were performed in the United States in 2007, making it the nation's most commonly performed surgical procedure. What gives the female breast such transcendent influence over heterosexual male consciousness? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/why-do-breasts-mezmerize/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appreciate, Don&#8217;t Judge</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/appreciate-dont-judge/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/appreciate-dont-judge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Psychology Today</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology Today]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10071</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Ever see someone with a scowl on their face, thought to yourself "Wow, what a jerk, wonder what I did to make them mad?" only to speak to them and find out they're not in a bad mood at all ? We tell ourselves stories about people we meet, even only briefly, and form judgements about them every day. Judgements we make about others can change our body language when we're around them without our conscious knowledge. For example, how would you sit if you knew you were talking to a convicted murderer, like Scott Peterson? You would probably be pretty nervous, disdainful, and even angry, and your body language would reflect that mindset. If you were nervous, you would most likely close off your body language, making yourself a smaller target. Your hands would be in your lap or across your throat, your knees would be together, your posture would be slumped. If you were angry your face would tell the tale. Your eyebrows would lower and furrow, your lips would be pulled in tightly, and your lower and upper eyelids would be pulled up. Now imagine you're sitting with someone you admire or respect, like Lance Armstrong. You'd probably open up, smile, put your hands on the table, and angle your bellybutton towards him. When speaking, you'd probably gesture with your palms up, say his name, and ask open-ended questions: "Lance, what was it like winning all of those Tours de France?" Because we're prone to making judgements about people and because our body language reflects our opinions of others, it's important to be aware of both our preconceptions and our body language at all times. This is especially true in a sales situation. If you go into a pitch when you've already talked yourself out of a sale by deciding the potential client is too closed-minded, too shy, or too angry, your body language is going to scream it. Be aware of your negative preconceptions and consciously adjust your body language to make whomever you're speaking to feel like Lance Armstrong and not Scott Peterson. Remember to start each day with an attitude of gratitude. Cataloguing everything you're grateful for is an excellent way to begin the day on a positive note. Before you know it, you'll soon have plenty more to add to the list! Photo credit: althouse's photostream . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/appreciate-dont-judge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Weekle Dose of Cute: Baby Meese [Observations of a Nerd]</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/weekle-dose-of-cute-baby-meese-observations-of-a-nerd/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/weekle-dose-of-cute-baby-meese-observations-of-a-nerd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ScienceBlog</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developing Intelligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I know, I know - it's not meese. Moose is singular and plural. But it should be meese, so that's what I'm sticking with. Here is a truly cute video of a couple young meese enjoying a sprinkler: H/T Lilian Read the comments on this post... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/weekle-dose-of-cute-baby-meese-observations-of-a-nerd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drive-Through or Eat Out? How An Octopus Decides [The Thoughtful Animal]</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/drive-through-or-eat-out-how-an-octopus-decides-the-thoughtful-animal/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/drive-through-or-eat-out-how-an-octopus-decides-the-thoughtful-animal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ScienceBlog</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developing Intelligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ It's amazing how much you can learn about an animal's mind by a simply watching it. Video 1: Gratuitous video of octopuses never hurt anyone. Maybe this will sate the Pharyngulites. Read the rest of this post... &#124; Read the comments on this post... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/drive-through-or-eat-out-how-an-octopus-decides-the-thoughtful-animal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The strange sex lives of bone-eating whaleworms [Laelaps]</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/the-strange-sex-lives-of-bone-eating-whaleworms-laelaps/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/the-strange-sex-lives-of-bone-eating-whaleworms-laelaps/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ScienceBlog</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developing Intelligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ For at least 30 million years , bone-eating worms have been making their homes in the bodies of decomposing whales on the seabottom, but the rotting cetacean carcasses are not just food sources for the polychaetes. The term "worm" immediately conjures up images of the red, squiggly things which crawl all over the sidewalk after it rains, but this imagery does not fit the boneworms of the genus Osedax . These worms start off life as sexless larvae, and the timing of their arrival at a whale corpse makes all the difference as to whether they will be male or female. If the larva lands on the bones of a whale first, it will grow into a large female which will digest the bone with the help of endosymbiotic bacteria which comes to live inside the worm. Once this starts to happen, the larvae which fall on the already-established females will have a different life history. They will become males and will remain tiny (0.2-1.0mm long) for the rest of their lives, accumulating in crowded harems inside the tube of the larger female and living off stored yolk from their younger days as they have no mouth or digestive tract to speak of. Read the rest of this post... &#124; Read the comments on this post... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/the-strange-sex-lives-of-bone-eating-whaleworms-laelaps/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dreaming and Remembering [The Frontal Cortex]</title>
		<link>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/dreaming-and-remembering-the-frontal-cortex/</link>
		<comments>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/dreaming-and-remembering-the-frontal-cortex/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:18:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BrainAndBehaviour</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brain & Behaviour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.psychologyresearch.org.uk/archives/10083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Ed Yong has a typically great post on a new Current Biology paper that investigates the link between dreaming and memory consolidation: The last decade of research has clearly shown that sleep is one of the best aide memoires that we have. During this nightly time-out, our brain can rehearse information that it has picked up during the day and consolidate them into lasting memories. Wamsley's new study supports that idea but it also shows that dreaming while you nap can strengthen our memories even further. She asked 99 volunteers to learn the layout of a complex virtual maze so that they could reach a specific landmark after being dropped at a random starting point. Five hours later, they were tested again. Those who had stayed awake in the intervening time beat their previous times by 26 seconds, but those who had had a 90-minute nap improved by a whopping 188 seconds. But those who dreamt about the task fared even better. Wamsley either asked her recruits directly about whether they dreamt about the labyrinth, or asked them to give an open-ended report of everything that was going through their mind while they were asleep. Either way, those who had thought about the maze during their short nap improved far more than those who didn't. They also beat those who mentally replayed their training again while awake. These striking results suggest that there's something special about the mental rehearsals that happen during dreaming sleep. However, the dreams weren't straightforward replays of previous experiences. When the volunteers described their dreams, they didn't mention specific objects, locations or routes through the maze. Instead, some talked about isolated parts of their experience, like the music or the prospect of a re-test. Others discussed tangential memories, like other mazes or being stuck in a bat cave (heh). Interestingly, scientists have found the same thing in rodents. A sleeping rat will show similar brain activity to its prior bout of wakefulness, but the two patterns won't quite match up. Last month, I wrote about some related research in the New York Times. So why are dreams so much more than literal playbacks of the day just passed? Why the non-sequiturs, the long forgotten characters and the unexplained state of public undress? Wilson speculates that dreams are also an attempt to search for associations between seemingly unrelated experiences, which is why it's so important for the controlling conscious self to disappear. What does this maze have to do with that maze? How can we use the lessons of today to get more food pellets tomorrow? This suggests that the strangeness of our nighttime narratives is actually an essential feature, as our memories are remixed and reshuffled, a mash-up tape made by the mind. In recent years, scientists have discovered that R.E.M. sleep isn't just essential for the formation of long-term memories: it might also be an essential component of creativity. In a 2004 paper published in Nature, Jan Born, a neuroscientist at the University of Lübeck, described the following experiment: a group of students was given a tedious task that involved transforming a long list of number strings into a new set of number strings. This required the subjects to apply a painstaking set of algorithms. However, Born had designed the task so that there was an elegant shortcut, which could only be uncovered if the subjects saw the subtle links between the different number sets. When left to their own devices, less than 25 percent of people found the shortcut, even when given several hours to mull over the task. However, when Born allowed people to sleep between experimental trials, they suddenly became much more clever: 59 percent of all participants were able to find the shortcut. Born argues that deep sleep and dreaming "set the stage for the emergence of insight" by allowing us to mentally represent old ideas in new ways. One of the main remaining controversies for sleep researchers is whether or not REM dreams are a mere side-effect of a subterranean process - this would suggest that the narratives themselves don't matter - or are actually a core feature of the sleep-remembering cycle. This is an academic question with plenty of practical relevance, as it will determine whether or not it's worth recounting our dreams in polite conversation. Read the comments on this post... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mu.psychologyresearch.org.uk/blog/2010/04/23/dreaming-and-remembering-the-frontal-cortex/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

