Podcast appearances and mentions of jeffrey french

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? We had high hopes for Jessica's diary, which promised to reveal all about Jessica's steamy antics with Jeffrey French behind Liz's back. But unlike Liz's secret diary, which featured a whole romance with Ken, this is basically just a recap of SVH books 30-40 with a few references to #poorjeffrey shoehorned in! Join us for a trip down memory lane featuring highs (Jessa Fields! Tofu-Glo!) and lows (pretty much everything else). But the book manages to take us by surprise in the end... Remember, if you can help us expand our SVU collection, which we would really appreciate, you can see what we need here and mail us at svhpodcast@gmail.com : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wgq5a-0C3zoTC065tOzJmSkI2kNBBe2K38Hu8jn8qg8/edit?usp=sharing  This show is part of the HeadStuff Podcast Network. For more, go to HeadStuffPodcasts.com, where you can also become a member of HeadStuff+ and get exclusive access to bonus material and lots more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frutopia mornings, business casual afternoons, and makeover weekends…Kaycee introduces Ashley to the best of Sweet Valley, which mean talks about black shampoo-in hair-dye, Jeffrey French romances, and Jessa Fields. Follow us on Instagram @toalltheya www.instagram.com/toalltheya You can find citations, notes, and further reading on this episode at our website  kayceeracer.com/toalltheya Theme Music by Slip.stream - "In And Out Of Love" 

Shey Zanotti is back, and memories of (the very much still alive) Jeffrey French abound. Remember the time he scared away those thugs who wanted to steal Ronnie's car? Remember the time Elizabeth thought he was falling in love with Enid? Or perhaps the time she thought he had fallen in love with Olivia. So many memories! This, and some fresh new ideas for The Creek, in today's Extra Drama! Media referenced in today's episode: Beverly Hills, 90210 Clueless Gilmore Girls Dawson's Creek New Girl Cheers

#1 Jeffrey French fan Shey Lyn Zanotti is back, and she's not the only one! Remember Todd Wilkins, Elizabeth's first love, who moved away to Vermont...at some point earlier in junior year? Can you believe that was 35 books ago? Now the Wilkinses are returning, and richer than ever. So what does that mean for Liz and her new longtime beau (yes, it's still junior year, but don't get hung up on that) Jeffrey? Well, the title of the book may give us a clue...   Young Paul Newman thirst trap Eric Stolz Flowers in the Attic Baby-Sitters Club Club/Sweet Sweet Valley Guys #10 Shey's previous appearance, FAMILY SECRETS SPECIAL CHRISTMAS with Dad

Hello Sweet Valley fans! I (Emily) am so sorry for the delay in uploading this week's episode but it's worth it! Our very long time friend, Kristen, joins us to share her ideas and thoughts on this crazy world with Liz, Jess and their friends. Books discussed:#31 Taking Sides#32 The New JessicaIntro/Outro music

If he can’t tell which twin you are, he’s probably not The One. Tim Redmond (the new voice of Jeffrey French) is back to talk twins, reminisce about juvenile fiction, and reveal relevant secrets about his past. 

SEASON 4 PREMIERE! The podcast is still here! Unfortunately so is Jeffrey French. Or, wait...is Jeffrey French actually kind of a catch? Marissa comes to terms with her raging case of First Romantic Coupling Loyalty Syndrome (FRCLS) while guest reader Tim Redmond is more concerned about what Mr. Collins is getting up to. Its Jess & Lila vs Liz and Enid but the real hero is a fearless 15-year-old booklover named cousin Jenny. Also, the "dance of the month" is a canned food auction. Welcome back, everybody.

It's Wakefield versus Wakefield when the twins become rival matchmakers in a book that turned out to be WAY more entertaining than we expected. Will Liz be able to unite Enid with hunky (but increasingly problematic) new boy Jeffrey French or will Jess manage to fix him up with Lila? Spoiler:the answer to both questions is no! Meanwhile the twins' cousin shows up to make a show of Jessica, questions are raised about the lack of public spending in Sweet Valley, and there's a very special charity auction that no one - least of all us - will ever forget. You can follow us on Twitter at @svhpodcast and follow the Headstuff Podcast Network on @HSPodnetwork and @ThisHeadstuff

This election certainly feels stressful. As Amanda Aronczyk from WNYC's Only Human podcast told us in Episode 7, it's possible to measure the election's effect on us biologically. This bonus episode explains more about Only Human's experiment with the stress hormone, cortisol.  Every day another article comes out about how voters are stressed by this election. But we wanted to know: what is the election doing to our biology? The American Psychological Association recently found that more than half of all Americans — 52 percent — say this year’s presidential election is a “somewhat” or “very significant” source of stress in their lives. The survey was self-reported, meaning respondents answered a few questions online and the APA took their self-assessments at face value. Anecdotally, those assessments probably ring true for many of us, but it turns out there’s a way to measure the physiological effects of election stress.   Over the last few years, a group of neuroscientists and political scientists have pioneered a new field called biopolitics, the study of biology and political behavior. Professor Kevin Smith is a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a co-author of the book, "Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences.” He often collaborates with Dr. Jeffrey French, who runs a lab at the University of Nebraska-Omaha and studies cortisol, a hormone we release when we’re stressed.   One of Smith and French’s recent studies looked at stress and voting. They wanted to know if cortisol levels influence whether people vote. The easiest way to test cortisol is through saliva, so they collected spit samples from a bunch of participants and got their official voting records for the past six elections. The researchers found that people with higher cortisol levels vote less. And that finding correlates with another one of their studies, which found that people who voted absentee experienced less stress than people who went to the polls. So we asked French and Smith to help us design an experiment of sorts. We’d use the presidential debates as a proxy for the election. Our team would go to debate watch parties and collect saliva samples from viewers to measure their cortisol levels. We’d also ask the participants to fill out a survey about themselves: their party affiliation, age and self-reported stress level. And we’d see who had the biggest changes in their cortisol over the course of the debate. During the first two presidential debates, we went to watch parties in Times Square, Midtown Manhattan and Northern New Jersey. Participants spat three times into tiny tubes: before the debate, to get a baseline sample, midway through the debate and after the debate. We over-nighted the samples to Omaha, where Dr. French processed them in his lab. A few weeks later, he had the results. We all agreed that the debate watch parties seemed stressful. At a bar in Times Square, we talked to young Republicans unhappy with their nominee and worried about their party’s future. Others were terrified at the prospect of a Clinton presidency. In Midtown, a group of Democrats had gathered to watch at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank. A few of them brought their own alcohol, to temper their anxiety (French and Smith took alcohol and caffeine intake into account in their analysis) and a number of them worried about Trump’s popularity. But the results surprised us: cortisol levels stayed close to normal levels throughout the debates. Clinton supporters had a small spike at the midway point, but not by much. Overall, the stress levels for liberals and conservatives didn’t really change — with one exception. The researchers looked at cortisol levels based on whether participants had someone close to them who planned to vote for the opposing candidate. And for Trump supporters who had a conflict with a person close to them — a parent, a sibling, a spouse — cortisol levels actually went up after the debate. They probably found the debate more stressful. French and Smith warned us that this wasn’t a pristine study. In fact, both professors laughed when we asked if they’d submit our work to a peer-reviewed journal. But they agreed that this finding was statistically significant. And they didn’t find it for Clinton supporters, or voters who supported a third party candidate. The other significant finding related to baseline cortisol levels — the participants’ stress level before the debate. The researchers found that Trump supporters had much higher baseline levels compared to Clinton voters. Smith, the political scientist, couldn’t tell us why Trump voters had two times as much cortisol in their saliva compared to Clinton supporters. But he did say that our experiment served as an interesting pilot study — one that made him think differently about what he hopes to study next: tolerance. Here, Smith made a comparison to same-sex marriage. Opposition to it shifted when researchers found some biological or genetic basis for being gay — when it started to be considered innate. Smith wonders if the same is true for political difference. As he told one of our reporters, “If you're a liberal and I'm a conservative and I believe you're a liberal because you're genetically predisposed to be, then am I more tolerant of you or less tolerant of you?” In other words, if political difference is related to our biology, maybe we’ll be more tolerant of each other. And therefore less stressed. And therefore more likely to vote. At least, that’s the hope. If you liked Amanda Aronczyk's piece on this week's episode of "The United States of Anxiety," be sure to check out "Only Human," the health podcast from WNYC Studios.

Every day another article comes out about how voters are stressed by this election. But we wanted to know: what is the election doing to our biology? The American Psychological Association recently found that more than half of all Americans — 52 percent — say this year’s presidential election is a “somewhat” or “very significant” source of stress in their lives. The survey was self-reported, meaning respondents answered a few questions online and the APA took their self-assessments at face value. Anecdotally, those assessments probably ring true for many of us, but it turns out there’s a way to measure the physiological effects of election stress.   Over the last few years, a group of neuroscientists and political scientists have pioneered a new field called biopolitics, the study of biology and political behavior. Professor Kevin Smith is a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a co-author of the book, "Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences.” He often collaborates with Dr. Jeffrey French, who runs a lab at the University of Nebraska-Omaha and studies cortisol, a hormone we release when we’re stressed.   One of Smith and French’s recent studies looked at stress and voting. They wanted to know if cortisol levels influence whether people vote. The easiest way to test cortisol is through saliva, so they collected spit samples from a bunch of participants and got their official voting records for the past six elections. The researchers found that people with higher cortisol levels vote less. And that finding correlates with another one of their studies, which found that people who voted absentee experienced less stress than people who went to the polls. So we asked French and Smith to help us design an experiment of sorts. We’d use the presidential debates as a proxy for the election. Our team would go to debate watch parties and collect saliva samples from viewers to measure their cortisol levels. We’d also ask the participants to fill out a survey about themselves: their party affiliation, age and self-reported stress level. And we’d see who had the biggest changes in their cortisol over the course of the debate. During the first two presidential debates, we went to watch parties in Times Square, Midtown Manhattan and Northern New Jersey. Participants spat three times into tiny tubes: before the debate, to get a baseline sample, midway through the debate and after the debate. We over-nighted the samples to Omaha, where Dr. French processed them in his lab. A few weeks later, he had the results. We all agreed that the debate watch parties seemed stressful. At a bar in Times Square, we talked to young Republicans unhappy with their nominee and worried about their party’s future. Others were terrified at the prospect of a Clinton presidency. In Midtown, a group of Democrats had gathered to watch at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank. A few of them brought their own alcohol, to temper their anxiety (French and Smith took alcohol and caffeine intake into account in their analysis) and a number of them worried about Trump’s popularity. But the results surprised us: cortisol levels stayed close to normal levels throughout the debates. Clinton supporters had a small spike at the midway point, but not by much. Overall, the stress levels for liberals and conservatives didn’t really change — with one exception. The researchers looked at cortisol levels based on whether participants had someone close to them who planned to vote for the opposing candidate. And for Trump supporters who had a conflict with a person close to them — a parent, a sibling, a spouse — cortisol levels actually went up after the debate. They probably found the debate more stressful. French and Smith warned us that this wasn’t a pristine study. In fact, both professors laughed when we asked if they’d submit our work to a peer-reviewed journal. But they agreed that this finding was statistically significant. And they didn’t find it for Clinton supporters, or voters who supported a third party candidate. The other significant finding related to baseline cortisol levels — the participants’ stress level before the debate. The researchers found that Trump supporters had much higher baseline levels compared to Clinton voters. Smith, the political scientist, couldn’t tell us why Trump voters had two times as much cortisol in their saliva compared to Clinton supporters. But he did say that our experiment served as an interesting pilot study — one that made him think differently about what he hopes to study next: tolerance. Here, Smith made a comparison to same-sex marriage. Opposition to it shifted when researchers found some biological or genetic basis for being gay — when it started to be considered innate. Smith wonders if the same is true for political difference. As he told one of our reporters, “If you're a liberal and I'm a conservative and I believe you're a liberal because you're genetically predisposed to be, then am I more tolerant of you or less tolerant of you?” In other words, if political difference is related to our biology, maybe we’ll be more tolerant of each other. And therefore less stressed. And therefore more likely to vote. At least, that’s the hope. In the spirit of encouraging less stressful conversations with the other side, here's a video with some tips for talking politics with your loved one — who's wrong about everything.    Thanks to the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism students who helped out: Vicki Adame, Priscilla Alabi, Gregory Alcala, Christina Dabney, Jesenia De Moya, Robert Exley, Jeremy Ibarra, Meeran Karim, Alix Langone, Pauliina Siniauer, Anuz Thapa, Maritza Villela and Katherine Warren. And special thanks to the Young Republicans of New York City, The Roosevelt Institute, the Union County Young Republicans and the Montclair Republicans Club for allowing us to attend their debate watch parties!   We've been on hiatus, working on some new stories. If you're joining us for the first time, here are some of our favorite past episodes: Keep the Baby, Get the Chemo Your Sanity or Your Kidneys Patients and Doctors Fess Up Who Are You Calling 'Inspiring'? Your Brain on Sound Bacon, Booze and the Search for the Fountain of Youth How to Stop an Outbreak A Doctor's Love Affair with Vicodin The Robot Ate My Pancreas I'd Rather have a Living Son than a Dead Daughter

Stress is a part of everyday life. But in this election filled with bombast, disregard of all sorts of political norms, and multiple October Surprises, the road to November 8th often appears overwhelming. Join WNYC Studios and The Nation as we explore the burgeoning field of biopolitics and uncover how our bodies respond to 2016’s political circus. WNYC’s Amanda Aronczyk sits down with neuroscientist Jeffrey French and political scientist Kevin Smith, as we perform an unusual test to find out just what in this election is causing voters’ stress. Plus, learn how our bodies’ natural response systems can indicate where we locate ourselves along the political spectrum. Afterwards, Kai Wright and Arun Venugopal sit down with political scientist Jonathan Weiler, co-author of the book "Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics," to talk about voter psychology, and why certain personality types are allured by authoritarian leaders. Listen to The United States of Anxiety on WNYC, airing Thursday evenings at 7pm, and stay tuned for a live call-in Episode Contributors: Kai Wright Arun Venugopal Amanda Aronczyk Karen Frillmann Joseph Capriglione