Function

Thank you already for your valuable feedback.

Hmm strange, when I calculate the OR myself, I get 4.28:

(37/145)/(168/2819) = 4.28

When I run a crosstabs in SPSS, I get the following results:

• OR for Postnatal ventilation? (Yes / No) = 0.234, 95% CI = [0.158, 0.346]
• For cohort at term = 0.844, 95% CI = [0.784, 0.909]
• For cohort premature = 3.615, 95% CI = [2.617, 4.992]

What's going on? Why doesn't "For cohort premature" give me 4.282 and what should I do now?

EDIT: I now see that 1/4.282 equals the SPSS OR of 0.234. This is due to another set-up of exposure (premature) vs. non-exposure (at term) and of outcome (ventilation needed) vs. no outcome (ventilation not needed).

How do I make it clear to SPSS that premature = exposure and that at term = non-exposure?

EDIT (bis): I managed to get the 4.282 in SPSS by changing the value coding for the variable "Postnatal ventilation required?" from 1 = yes, 2 = no to 0 = no, 1 = yes.

Ergo, everything is alright. Thanks for the help!

So I should include CI? Confidence intervals of the OR themselves? I'll look into it. What will it imply for my tests?

Null hypothesis is that the two measurements come from the same population; study hypothesis is based on a former Swedish study which states and concludes that babies born by means of vacuum extraction are at higher risk of falling victim to cerebral hemorrhages.

CI should be 95%, ergo, alpha should be 0.05.

Hello everyone

For my paper this year, consider a 2x2-table with following information:

37 premature babies needed postnatal ventilation. 168 didn't.

145 babies born at term needed postnatal ventilation. 2 819 didn't.

A Chi²-test conform Pearson (SPSS) has indicated a significant difference in the distribution of the need for ventilation in both subsamples (at term v. premature).

Is it more interesting to report an odds ratio of 4.28, or to report a frequency of 18.05 % in premature babies v. a frequency of 4.89 % in babies born at term?

Thanks!

F

willpower

Seems like another 174 years of fun

 

Asimov, I think.

 

Or maybe not: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/03/02/eureka-funny/

Ah yes, exactly, that's what I meant. "Wait a minute" is also how I should've remembered it (and how I read it first), but my brains obviously interpreted it as "Hmm ... strange"

Thanks, Strange

There's a quote someone made (can't remember who it was), basically saying a scientist hasn't discovered / is about to discover something when saying "Eureka!", but "Hmm ... strange".

Hmm ... strange is something you say when making mistakes, based on current knowledge. Leaving and protesting what is known can only help us in discovering new things. Ergo, making errors is making progress.

No evolution without error.

The hell is going on in here

Even I remember that old rusty fellow.

Thanks everyone for your supportive inputs. This is exactly why I'm doing the formatting of my thesis long before I even begin writing the contents of it: so I won't have to worry about it anymore and I'll be able to fully focus on the contents of it. My university does not have specific standards regarding font choices and when I compare the template I've made with a doctoral thesis one of my professors has written, it is not as distracting as his, by far.

Right now, it looks like this, is it that distracting from content?

I'm not sure about the necessary amount of professionalism it expresses ...

Hello everyone

I'm looking for some advice on font usage in my future thesis. I've got a template of my thesis, and I've 'perfectioned' it thusfar so that even when I'd put it in Calibri, Arial or Times New Roman, someone reading it will think "damn, he put some effort in the aesthetics of this piece", if I dare say so myself.

However, they stay Calibri, Arial and Times New Roman. Old overused fonts giving the chance to give that argument: "oh ... but he was too lazy to pick out an original font".

I'm looking for a font that both expresses professionalism as well as modernism. I've considered Futura, but lots of people find that it doesn't express enough professionalism. I've considered some serif fonts, including Adobe Caslon Pro, Minion Pro, Dolly, Chaparral Pro, Palatino Linotype, but the general problem I have with serif fonts is that they don't satisfy my needs for titles and the front page. As sans serif fonts I've already tried Futura, FF Quadraat Sans Pro, FF Scala Sans (which overall didn't seem fit for the job), Concourse (a font designed by some lawyer) but then I don't know if they express the professionalism needed for a thesis.

Can someone help me out on this one? If found better, I'm willing to pick a sans serif font for front page and titles, but then I'm left with the following matters of which I don't know if I should put them also in sans serif, or in serif:

• I have 2 pages in my thesis only holding a quote (one of the first pages [i.e. the very first page before the text], and the very last page): quotes in serif or sans serif on these pages?
• I have 1 other quote on a page which is otherwise filled with normal body text. Quote in serif or sans serif on this page?
• After the front page, there's another page displaying the title, author (me), (co)promoters (3) and en examination board, as well as a mentioning of funding and the department in which it was written; this information in (sans) serif?
• Table of contents?

So, I'd love to read some ideas: a full sans serif font option, a full serif font option, and perhaps a sans+serif combination option with a solution to the above questions.

Problem is that every time I find another font probably fitting my needs, I print a pdf and think: this is it. And then another font pops up. And then that one's it. And the previous one isn't. Few weeks later, the former is it again. It's driving me nuts and I don't know what to pick.

Generally, I'm looking for ideas expressing a tight, clean design expressing the necessary professionalism and absence of laziness in formatting.

Strong preference for extended fonts with lots of typesetting options (.ttf is the last I need, .otf is a standard), ligatures are necessary for serif and real italics are necessary for both serif as sans serif, preference goes to fonts with different weights (e.g. medium, semibold, ...) for title typesetting

Thanks everybody!

Cheers,

Function

So we are all dinosaurs from the 20th century.

I am expecting the 21st to show up with fresh ideas.

I feel flattered that you include me in your dinosaur party club, but there're other animals that come into mind when people ask me which one I identify myself with

Hello

Seems like I'm on a psychology thread streak

Allow me to ask for the existance of a certain phenomenon ... I perhaps have the misconception of having to name anything that differs or deviates from what is generally perceived as 'normal' (as much as I hate that term).

In communication sessions, we're taught how to react empathically etc. i.e. naming the perceived emotions of others. And I have the opinion that, when diagnosing someone with something that we consider tragic, dramatic, ..., you may easily go wrong. Especially in patients as the imagined case below.

Imagine this: a 50-year old lady comes to your office with general, vague symptoms: headache, decreased appetite, something she describes as dyspnea, lack of energy, emotionally flattened, ... and she's been having these symptoms for a few years now. The doctors she consulted thusfar have advised her to go and do some exercise, that her symptoms are most likely stress-related.

You perform some tests, including laboratory tests and some scans (let's not be medically correct here, this thread is for the sake of psychology), and you have to diagnose the lady in front of you with metastatic breast cancer (metastasized to, amongst others, liver and brain). You know that she won't have much more time to live and you have to tell her this. She lets a tear and grabs a tissue.

---

You have to react empathically. Let's say you have to name her primary emotion. I'd say please don't crib below, but since this isn't a true-or-false thread, I can't blame you for doing so. I'm just eager to know what you'd, intuitially, say or do.

---

Think with me now, can anyone imagine this lady to be relieved? Instead of dramatically affected with the death warrant you just made her aware of? Instead of the sorrow and pain most of us would have, perhaps even express?

This lady's been having symptoms affecting her life every day for a few years now. Even knowing that she won't have much more time to go, might she even be a bit relieved, knowing that her symptoms are not imagined whatsoever, are now objectively ascertainable and that there is proof that there is indeed something wrong, and that, maybe, with a bit of luck, those symptoms affecting her daily lifestyle, might be tempered with the right medication, allowing her to live a more normal life, for even the short time remaining?

Insights, opinions, points of view, all welcome.

-F.

Hello everyone

I recently posted a status update to which I commented 4 times. I then found it to be interesting enough - if I dare say so myself - to start a thread about it.

Feel free to give your opinions on the matter; there is no true or false here, I'd love to read different points of view.

---

I find it very close-minded, to say the least, when people say that suicide is an act of egoism. Agreed, it isn't very altruistic, but suggesting that it is the most selfish act ever turns me instantly raging.

Because, I think, but I might be wrong, you then remain in an impossible state of foreseeing the consequences it may have for others, only able to perceive your own misery and lack of mental health. So no, I don't think suicide is selfish, and though I acknowledge that it is not the only way out, and remains a wrong, if not the most wrong solution to one's problems (lack of mental well-being), it is perceived as a last resort, as a final solution, and I don't think you can blame someone for trying to solve his/her own problems, be it within the lack of ability of foreseeing the impact it'll have on others.

Reason for considering a mental health and well-being as the most valuable possession, and not family and loved ones: without mental health and well-being, I'm not convinved you can appreciate the love and care of, and the value of your loved ones.

---

When mentally broken, there is no longer such thing as egoïsm, altruïsm ... Who are we to judge such thing, not knowing what hell they've went through

So ... Opinions, points of view, statements, ... ?

F

I've found myself able to do something I recognize here somewhat as well, for as long as I can remember: it works best when I lie down, but even now when sitting at my desk, I'm able to provoke it, but I have to sit still; I'd see a bit sharper, I'd feel something weird in my thorax and abdomen, radiating towards my limbs and head, and although it does not require total muscle relaxation, it works best when sitting/lying still. When evoking it, I can feel my knees being pulled a bit towards one another slightly. And I have the feeling that my head falls a bit downwards, yet not much.

I'm very eager about knowing what this might be; should be some sort of muscle or msucle group contracting/relaxing at the same time, since the autonomous nervous system won't let itself be activated by our very mind how wonderful would a (functional) MRI of our brain and whole body be to discover the truth behind this weird phenomenon.

Hello

With this thread, I'm looking to find a specific psychological term for a certain type of behaviour or personality. I'm not convinced that it's a genuine pathological condition, but it sure differs from what is generally considered as functional, 'normal' (much as I hate that word) behaviour.

I've got the chance to work with a quite brilliant person. This person has done some amazing fundamental research in human anatomy. However, he's not the type of guy you'd like to work with. At least, not the type of guy I liked working with, nor a lot of people liked working with, apparently.

Daily, he'd tell some anecdotes about himself and his life.

Basically, almost every anecdote came down to this 1 conclusion - at least, that's how I interpreted it, much as sorry as I am for not giving more objective 'data':

"I am brilliant, and there might be others that have the potential of being brilliant, but they're not doing it right. Everyone who I worked with has abandoned me and I'm all alone in my own superior world, and I don't care because I know I am brilliant, I can perform amazing groundbreaking research. No one I ever met has met the requirements of the research I'm doing, and people who do are not interested in it because it doesn't give them enough publications. But that's not me. I'm not the type of guy doing stuff to make lots of publications, no... When I publish, I make sure it's a perfect publication [and some other stuff], and no one has ever righteously corrected anything out of any publication of mine [again some other stuff], and [since he's a peer reviewer of some journals] I always see the same sh*t people come up with, or they make wrong conclusions, or what they say can be interpreted ambiguously [...] in their publications."

About that last one: I gave him an article I fully understood, in terms of his research, for a literature review, and he marked some sentences of which the purpose, the meaning could be easily interpreted. However, he made a problem of every small word in that sentence, making long reasonings on why it might be interpreted incorrectly, ergo making the article quite useless. In his eyes. I felt like: dude, act normal, I'll ask anyone in this building what that sentence means and they'll give you the explanation you want, but you really do have to make a problem out of it, don't you. Because that's what you like. Problems. And dealing with them. Occasionally with success. But hey, it's your research. I serve to please!

Other students performing dissections in the dissecting room he oversaw during a certain time have let me know that, even for quite some hours, they were bothered by his preaches about what he already has accomplished, and his endless knowledge on a specific domain in human anatomy, and all his life stories. When I first met him, asking if I could help in his research, he of course asked me some questions, whereafter he told me:

"You know, I wouldn't mind reject just another student like you ... There's plenty of them yearning for participation in my research ..."

Truth be told: I haven't witnessed any other candidate for his research project.

He gave me the feeling of dealing with a massive god complex and what I like to call a syndrome of one for all, and all for none: he's done everything he could for the world, and it's not giving him anything in return, the poor guy.

I'm biased in that way that he mocked other research I was working on, he declared his own research and the publication it would lead to as "Harvard level", that I could enter whatever university worldwide with my name on that publication, to be honest, I felt quite manipulated in continuing working with him. However, he made me choose between his research and the other research I was going to work on (and still am right now, so guess what happened). I didn't feel the need to continue working with a genuinly brilliant academic with an enormous god complex such as he had. And he mocked me for that, but my personal problems with him aside.

When it comes to empathy and social interactions:

During a break from work with him, to go and eat (those breaks usually lasted for 2 hours since he drove home and ate and then drove back), I met a good friend of mine I hadn't seen for quite a time. During those breaks, the man expected from me to do some literature research. Admitted, I should have, but I didn't, since I talked a lot with that friend of mine. The conversation I had with the man afterwards:

"So ... Have you got anything new?"

- "Erm well, truth be told, I don't ... You see, I encountered this friend I haven't seen for a long time and-"

- "Oh ... You wasted your time on social interaction ..."

And this is something he genuinly meant: he is convinced that social interaction is a waste of time and mind, something a professor of mine, who introduced me to him for the research, warned me for: "He can be a bit ... awkward in social interaction, but he's brilliant"

Is there, in psychology or psychiatry, a certain term for the kind of behaviour he expresses? The "one for all and all for none" syndrome, the "me against the world" phenomenon? From what you've read, do you think his type of behaviour is somewhat disturbed? It surely is problematic, since it undermines his professional relationships (and although I'm not going to outspeak myself on that indisputably, perhaps even personal relationships). It's a kind of behaviour/personality trait that I have witnessed on these forums too, from time to time (exceptionally): the idea of being brilliant (while basically, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it's the behaviour that's being expressed that I'm focussing on here), all the rest being wrong and not having anyone listening to you, being alone, not getting any gratitude from what you're doing (which is a misunderstanding they have), ...

In conclusion, actually, he made me feel sorry for him. Only thing I could think of when I left his research, and him along with it was, poor bastard, you have no idea what you're missing (since I'm convinced that he hasn't got any love that every human being deserves, for a very long time), and I genuinly feel sorry for you and the life and situation you've landed in, but I don't know if that's your fault or not. Last thing I thought: I must make sure not to end like this. Believe me, I feel horrible when thinking such things. In my eyes, what's left of him is a pauper, a miser.

Makes me think a bit of histrionic personality disorder, however, it shows some differences (based on Wikipedia):

• Provocative: yes
• Relationships more intimate than they actually are: no, perhaps even a bit restrained and mistrusting
• Attention-seeking: perhaps, but not in a very open and exclamative way, rather attention-wanting
• Influenced easily by others: no, again, rather mistrusting
• Speech wants to impress: yes
• Speech lacks detail: absolutely not, rather more detailed than wanted by conversation partners, often appearing as yammering
• Emotional lability and shallowness: perhaps
• Make-up: he did have an extravagant look, but not to say that he put much effort in it.
• Exaggerated emotions: perhaps, emotions of loneliness and abandonment, that is

Feel free to tell me if you believe there's something psychologically wrong with me, too

Thanks

Function

What has India got to do with it?

Just another lame stereotype.

It would be interesting indeed to make 2 sperm/egg cell nuclei fuse and form a new nucleus and to have it undergo some mitotic divisions, followed by the eventual meiotic divisions, and have natural course and coincidence decide about the portion of each individual's chromatine included in the new sperm/egg cells ... 50% would be very hard, if not impossible to acchieve, but imo, you don't need 50% to be satisfied.

Sometimes, in these cases particularly, I think I'd appreciate and embrace ignorance on how much of each individual is included in the new 'product'.

If still, you'd want 50%, you'd have to individually pick the genes of yourself you want to 'include' in the future child, and those of your partner, making sure they each add up for an equal total amount of nucleotides etc., which seems overly complicated to acchieve satisfaction.

Not to mention the genome of the female donating an egg cell for insemination and undergoing the pregnancy.

I will share my raper's title directly

Am I the only one who chuckled at this?

Principles of Neural Science (Kandel et al., 5th ed.)

Nederlandstalig? Je bent "depolarisering" vergeten te vertalen. Herexamen?

Not really on-topic but in English: should be moved to homework section.

On-topic and in English: question 1 already doesn't make sense.

However, I must note that the answer on these questions can't be given so easily: it all depends on the state of the N, K and Ca channels, of which a lot their closure/opening depends on the cell membrane potential, e.g. Ca-channels tend to open more after a depolarization, allowing for a Ca-influx into your cell, making it possible for Ca to bind to synaptotagmin (I'm not very sure anymore about this, but it's what remained in my mind) and allow for vesicle ejection

Do you know the phenomenon of "action potentials"? You should know what happens to Na, K and Ca channels in function of the cell membrane potential. That is undeniably important in understanding the genesis of action potentials. I need you to look up a few things: Na channels and their m- and h-gates; K channels and their n-gates; voltage dependent/voltage gated Ca-channels; action potentials; open probability (Po).

The third question sounds like a question that'd sound from my very professor in physiology. Say no more if his name starts with an L (please do tell me if it does ).

If Na were allowed to dominate, what would happen to the cell's membrane potential? If not considering K-channels and their n-gates, what would you expect to K-ions, thinking very logically? Then considering K-channels and their n-gates, what would happen?

and say that's how you like it...

Festinger's cognitive dissonance!

I feel you - I'm doomed to walk the path of baldness too.

"It is common in our Western society to believe that the death and suffering of a child is more severe, more emotionally touching, more radical, than that of an adult."

Nope. We are just more upset about it because it seems more unfair somehow.

As far as I can tell, neither side of this is strictly logical.

Which is my point, as I found myself quite unable to formulate it that clearly.

Hello everyone

I'd like to discuss something concerning our thoughts on disease and death when it comes to age.

Today, I was in the operating room, witnessing a biopsy of a brainstem tumour in a 12-year old girl, predicting not much good.

One of the interns told me: "I always find it terrible to [have to] perform surgery on a child. You know, especially when you have kids yourself ... I always try to do that little bit more for a child."

And I have a fundamental problem with such statements. It is common in our Western society to believe that the death and suffering of a child is more severe, more emotionally touching, more radical, than that of an adult. And yes, I do have a problem with that and I do hope that there are people here sharing my visions, in more or less way.

I don't have any child (I find that not so astonishing since I'm 19 years old), but allow me to state that that makes me less biased in my opinion than parents on these forums.

So here it is: no, in my opinion, a child's life is not worth more than that of an adult. To me, it is not worse when a child dies, compared to when an adult dies. When an adult dies, it's equally (potentially) a child's mother or father that passes away, as when a child dies, it's a parent's child who passes away. And yes, psychologically seen, considering the points of view of young children concerning death, it may seem, and that I am convinced of, that the younger the child, the less negative impact the death of its parent should have (or am I wrong? Weird to say, but I'm convinced that I have been lucky that my grandmother died when I was only like 4 years old).

And of course, when a child dies, everyone experiences it as devastating, especially the parents. Rightly so, of course.

But does that make it worse when a child dies, compared to when an adult dies? "A child has a whole life in front of him", is the most common argument I hear. True, but that doesn't mean the adult's life is over, or even fulfilled in that way that it satisfies that adult; in his/her eyes, he/she may have wanted to accomplish lots of things and he/she may think that he/she hasn't acchieved anything, leaving the remaining (let's say) 45 years to do so.

Consider four families. Both families consist of a maried couple (sorry for being traditional, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say husband and wife) and one child, let's say a boy of 12 yeard old.

In family 1, the husband is terminally ill, let's say from a very agressive brain tumour (e.g. GBM), and you know he'll live for about 1 month.

In family 2, the child was hit with a car, has severe internal bleedings, including cranial and brain damage, and you know he'll live for about another hour.

In family 3, the child is terminally ill, let's say from a very agressive brain tumour (e.g. GBM), and you know he'll live for about 1 month.

In family 4, the husband was hit by a car, has severe internal bleedings, including cranial and brain damage, and you know he'll live for about another hour.

You're a health worker involved in the devastating misery of all families. But, you're new to the department and you don't know any of the families and just happen to hear about them on a staff meeting. Which case affects you more? Which less? Why? Consider in all occasions the impact it may have on the mental well-being of the family members, in particular the mother.

What's your vision on statements such as "it's worse when a child dies/has cancer/a tumour", and "I try to do more for childs", and "A child has a whole life in front of him, making him more valuable than an adult".

That makes this thread an interesting discussion, rather than a Q and A thread. No opinion is wrong, and I'm very willing to hear your thoughts on these problems, as well as on my points of view.

Thanks.

Ta-ta,

F.