JillSwift

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess against a macaque. No matter how well you plan your game, study the masters of the art, and arrange your strategy, the most you can hope for is not to get hit with a thrown chess piece.

Evidence of the efficacy of the techniques described, evidence of the phenomena these techniques are supposed to address, and evidence of the mechanisms described that give rise to these phenomena and the efficacy of the techniques. The peer-reviewed studies of the above would do for a start.

Unsupported crapola like this is why people question whether or not psychology is a science. Grrr, I say, grrr.

Well, beware the excluded middle. An old study of the same phenomenon you describe suggested as mechanism the muscle tensions against the skull from common facial expressions as the person grew up. This would be a good way for "mind" to effect "body". Interesting idea, but really hard to study. I'm afraid I don't know what became of the idea.

You would have to - "obvious" isn't always "true". Assumptions are dangerous. You've already noticed a correlation or you would not be postulating about it. So, priority one is evidencing a meaningful correlation.

Yes, save for the fossil record, the DNA evidence, etc. Woo, one of my favorite straw-man arguments.

Yus, I'm a facetist.

#!/bin/bash echo "Hey there, HelgTours!" exit 0

A hypothesis must grow from observation. By this definition, any testable hypothesis comes with evidence. (This is why a hypothesys can "transform" into a theory, it's a first attempt to explain facts and observations.) Applying that to this situation, it appears that the hypothesis is indeed based on observations. As it is also testable, it makes for a scientific hypothesis. That said, the criticisms leveled against it are not invalidated but this fact. At the moment, the observations are very loosey-goosey and the conclusions that lead to the hypothesis may have some bias, and an important question - correlation or causation - isn't addressed. As I see it, anyhoo.

Not that it matters. World ends in 2012 anyway.

*winces*

Yus

Nah. (OCD tends to be about tight loops and a sense of order anyway, rather than single-subject obsessions.) Another facet that may be a genetic predisposition is introversion. The geeky/nerdy set also has an unusually high number of introverts who have otherwise working social skills/instincts but have a predilection for internalizing their decision and learning processes. Mind also that there are plenty of scientists, researchers, techies, etc. who socialize just like any other neuro-typical human. It's not until the unusual social behavior comes into play that the geek/nerd label is applied. I think that gives the idea of geeks & nerds a serious case of confirmation bias.

Could be. Have a look here: http://www.aspergers.com/ Geeky/Nerdy groups have a significantly higher percentage of Asperger's folks. Though it's clear that for many the behaviors are far more environmental or choice based. Full disclosure: I'm an Aspie.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to say "The movie is by Roland Emmerich"?

Don't think of species as being a line of absolute demarcation. Taxonomy is a far fuzzier business than most people think. As the two groups of animals diverge, in the given example, they will eventually reach the point where they can no longer mate and can be considered separate species by that criteria. This conclusion has been reached by way of the fossil record as well as broad documentation of genomes. I believe there is another class of evidence as well but it escapes me at the moment.

Given that this stuff is all couched in the larger system of energy available to us - any energy spent in creating the device makes it a net loss to the overall system even if you can manage a subsystem that breaks even.

Well, I'm not going to second guess 'em == The brain sure is an interesting organ. Heh. It's an organ that finds itself interesting. Hmm. Does that mean that a neurophysiology researcher is someone with a really bad case of narcissism?

First, we need some evidence that it works. Do the experiment. Build the little booger. I predict you'll find four letters swimming about: H O A X

I wish his sample size were larger. I think there are two more things that would illuminate the seats of belief that I hope will get this kind of attention. Authoritative belief - what's the brain doing when it evaluates new information comming from folks ranging from "just some guy" to someone introduced and showing all common "signs" of being an expert. Agnostics - and this would need a really large sample. What's going on in a brain that's not quite pinning down a belief. I would speculate a finer balance between hippocampus/parahippocampal gyrus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity. Were the sample size larger - and I expect other studies of a similar nature will eventually give us a substantial sample - I'd call this some of the strongest evidence for religious proclivity.

I'm not so sure they didn't, if you were seeing things. If they were trying to induce a grand mal, perhaps not. Perhaps something akin to a petit mal. *shrug* I don't know enough about the situation.

I'm madly curious now: What were the conditions under which this EEG and visual stimulation occur, if I may ask?

Yes, that is so. I was speaking more generically.

Wow. Edmond Zedo, may you have learned to be much more calm about criticism and disagreement before you offer your first paper for peer review.