The Weekly Roundup is an opportunity to recap a week in news and share recently discovered materials that might be of interest.
PRESENTATIONS
Australia’s Universities: Can they Reform?
Centre for Independent Studies, 2022
Australia: The Road Ahead Conference
Mannkal, 2024 (all presentations from the conference available at the link)
ARTICLES AND ESSAYS
The Making and Un-Making of a Feminist Radical: My Story
The Fiamengo File, 2024
Hysterics for Hamas: Why have young women been so prominent in the recent campus chaos?
City Journal, 2024
The Gleaner, 2024
International Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 2024
Abstract: The purpose of the study was to examine the difference between the current norm repetition-intensity recommendations and the performed repetitions of females at concurrent intensities. Females (n = 17) with six-months of consistent resistance training experience completed five testing sessions. Session-one consists of one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing for the squat (SQ), bench press (BP), and deadlift (DL). Sessions 2-5 involved repetition-maximum testing at 65, 75, 85, and 95% 1RM, in the order of SQ, BP, then DL, with 10-15 minutes of rest between exercises. A 3 (exercise) x 4 (percentage-intensity) Mixed Factorial ANOVA determined significant differences in repetitions performed between exercises at each intensity level. A series of one-sample t-tests were performed to indicate female differences between established target repetitions for each exercise across all intensities (65% = 15, 75% = 10, 85% = 6, 95% = 2). Significance level was set at p < .05. There was no significant main effect (p=0.14) between repetitions completed during SQ, BP, or DL at 65% (26.1±6.8, 21.3±6.8, 23.4±6.3, respectively), 75% (18.0±6.2, 14.4±4.2, 15.7±4.7, respectively), 85% (10.3±3.7, 9.0±4.6, 9.6±4.1, respectively), nor 95% 1RM (4.1±2.4, 2.5±2.0, 3.4±2.0, respectively). No significant difference was recognized (p = 0.09) between current norms and female BP repetitions at 95%. Significantly higher repetitions were completed by females at all other percentages during SQ, BP, and DL. These results suggest different resistance training intensity-repetition ratios should be prescribed for females in comparison to current norms; meriting future research aimed at establishing a sex-specific intensity-repetition ratio.
HISTORICAL ARTICLES AND ESSAYS
Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 2017
Abstract: One of the first instruments to be used by psychologists was the manual dynamometer, which was first used to measure the physical strength of individuals before later coming to be a tool for measuring “mental strength”. In fact, all of the first mental tests to be invented (e.g. Cattell, 1890) consisted in psycho-physical tests of manual strength using a dynamometer. Here we shall present a history of the technical development of the dynamometer, while also taking account of its interest for psychology. By far the best known dynamometer at the turn of the 20th century was the instrument made and sold by the mechanical engineer Anatole Collin. The size, shape and method of this dynamometer were the result of a whole series of improvements introduced since the instrument invented by Regnier (1798) and then transformed, in particular during the 19th century, by the French physicians Burq and Duchenne de Boulogne. As of the middle of the 19th century, the catalogs of many makers, in particular in France (e.g. Lüer, Charrière, Mathieu), were to include dynamometers. However, the instrument that was to become most firmly established was the one made by Collin and used, in particular, in the experimental work of Binet and other psychologists of renown. This instrument was to become an indispensable tool not only for psychologists but also for physicians, physiologists, anthropologists and medical doctors within the context of their work.
RUBBISH BIN
No rubbish this week!
SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER
If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you.
It's been awhile since I was current on the law surrounding paternity testing, which I'm pretty sure used to be illegal without the mother's consent. I found this on the website of a company that does DNA testing: "As the mother’s DNA sample is not required for an AlphaBiolabs peace of mind paternity test, her consent/permission is not needed to perform the test, provided the potential father has parental responsibility for the child being tested (if the child is under 16-years-old)."
https://alphabiolabsusa.com/learning-center/paternity-test-without-mother/#:~:text=As%20the%20mother%27s%20DNA%20sample,16%2Dyears%2Dold).
I don't know what the legal ramifications of the test results would be, though. Some states will order child support from anyone who has ever assumed a significant parental role (even grandparents who helped raise a child for a period of time or boyfriends of a single mother) and I'm pretty sure most states consider any husband the presumptive father.