Genecks

Then without the usage of the word "right," as used in the original question...

If there is no free-will, is it logical for an individual to attribute others and past events as the causes for his or her current existence and behavior?

If there is no free-will, is it right for an individual to blame others for his or her problems in life?

<h1>And that's why people don't talk about China... </h1> <--- insert HTML code reading sarcasm

Because obviously, China has something going for it with its communist paradigm. Then again, there could just be large amounts of misinformation, as I've talked to people in China in the past, and supposedly their unemployment rates are complete garbage... unless their 4% unemployment rate was the real unemployment rate, yet there were just so many more poor than in America that the Chinese gathered, had a social psychology, and felt like they were more worthless than the poor and jobless during a 4% unemployment time in America.

China has more people, thus there would be more people to complain about poverty than America. I really would like the news to talk more about foreign countries, their unemployment rates, and other things like that. I feel as though the U.S. Government has been specifically barring such things on U.S. television networks in an attempt to brainwash the U.S. republic.

If an individual is generating a thesis and attempting to generate or generating an argument, I do not see too much of a problem with the individual putting a simplified version of his or her thesis in the title. Sure, I dislike threads from time to time that only contain an argument as the body rather than asking some questions. However, generating an argument is another form of communication. Unless the individual is trolling, I do not see anything wrong with an individual generating an argument in the body of a new thread with the title as a simplified form of his or her thesis.

However, trolling can also go along with people asking questions... so, it works both ways. As such, I would argue that people can be biased to think that those who ask questions must be serious. You have the Socratic dialogue, and you have the individual who makes an argument.

I think when an individual makes an argument with other educated individuals, the person is saying, "I believe this! I have evidence for it!" However, it would be kind for the individual to say at the end, "Refute, agree, or compromise!"

In terms of alien life, people could simply say, "We don't talk about aliens here. Seek therapy. Thread locked."

As an educated person, it annoys me when an individual changes the title I have made unless there are spelling errors or I've made some kind of error where I've duplicated a word or something...

Otherwise, I do not like people changing my thread title, as I consider keywords that a web spider may pick-up whenever I generate a particular title.

Can say a bit more what the problem is or what you are expecting to see?

I would prefer to see it in normal/default font size rather than some enlarged font character.

Because, otherwise, I am not sure if whatever I am copying and pasting is going to be turned into a default/normal font size.

Source: Google book

Using the title of the book from the left side of the HTML webpage from gives this...

Maternal, Fetal, & Neonatal Physiology: A Clinical Perspective

... well, it looks like this: (attached)

Something has been bothering me for about the past two years, and it seems to be more of a problem as time progresses. The Homework Help board continues to get more jumbled. It's as if it's turning into a huge pre-med board where people are asking all kinds of questions.

As this current BBS system offers a nice layout for making and showing that a particular main board has sub-boards, I am suggesting that the board be split into sub-boards.

Here is my suggestion for sub-boards:

1) Math

2) Physics

3) Engineering and Computer Science

4) Chemistry

5) Biology

I'm kind of busy right now, but I found this source: Maternal, Fetal, & Neonatal Physiology: A Clinical Perspective

Page 176 and 177 may help.

Hello, all.

I am attempting to read about Focalin XR: d-threo-methylphenidate

- wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexmethylphenidate

I have a few questions:

1. Is it an amphetamine?

2. Is it like an amphetamine?

3. If it is like an amphetamine, then can it give a person delusions of persecution like an amphetamine?

I know the third question goes into the realm of psychiatry, but those three questions are of my primary interest at the moment.

The way I have read about poverty is America is like this: Wealth has increased, but monetary finances have decreased.

In other words, the quality of living has increased, but the financial status of individuals has decreased.

So, people in America are able to take planes, cars, and buses to places. But people in foreign countries with less wealth cannot.

People in America can talk to others on their computers and cell phones, so they can stay in touch with family and loved ones.

So, in a way, people in America are wealthy, but they do not have a lot of money.

When there are people in America without mental issues who are starving and looking for a place to sleep, then there are serious issues in America.

I analyze the literature and practice recall of the concepts; I also attempt to simplify the concepts so I can abstract and generalize about them. Anything beyond that becomes time consuming, such as application of theory, re-writing something in my own words, or teaching the material to someone else.

Then again, such a paradigm may be from my biology training.

I will concur that time constraints and pressure also tend to give me an edge. But there are periods where time constraints and pressure are too much, and my ability to master something is limited by beginning to understand the material whereas others may have already gained a grasp on the material: Organic Chemistry II..

Yes! I am still mad about organic chemistry II and will never, ever stop being mad for the rest of my life.

College English is another way of developing your writing skills, but it tests your writing skills more than anything. Simple grammar and punctuation take time to master, but they will not be the most difficult thing to master while pursuing and master a post-secondary level of the English language. The focus will be on argumentation, rhetoric, and persuasion. In other words, it's not so much about truth-seeking as it is persuasion: The exception is that you attempt to argue what you believe to be truth through a metaphysical or physical level of evidence in your mode of persuasion.

For example, if you were to study Western and Eastern theology and philosophy, watch the anime AngelBeats, and then analyze it, you could argue that Angel is the Angel of Death and the character who calls himself "God" is Satan. This would be a metaphysical mode of argumentation based on theological evidence. However, you could also claim from a scientific standpoint that the main protagonist is a paranoid schizophrenic, having and extremely lucid dream, etc..

You'll get the hang of it.

Your grammar and punctuation needs work. Consider working on that, but keep in mind that rhetoric and evidence-based persuasion are what are to be mastered by the time you get done with college English.

Because of these aspects of college English, I often say that people should take philosophy and religion classes before attempting to take college-level English classes. The downside is that many philosophy and theology classes may attempt to ask you to argue a point. However, the philosophy and theology classes are suppose to give you the evidence or modes of evidence in order to argue your point. As such, you're given an itnroduction in how to argue and given the evidence whereby you argue for or against a particular point of view.

After such education, college-level English becomes another philosophy class except you're arguing in English.

Most people do not get rich becoming a scientist. If you were interested in money, then you would want to develop a skillset associated with a field that is more likely to develop money than being a scientist. I have a current hypothesis that all individuals who desire to help science should pursue a field that will enable them to make more money than being a scientist, donate their money to science, and pursue research on the side of the job that enables them to donate the money. As such, you cut-out the governments from limiting money to education and research. You bring more money into science, and you're able to progress science and technology faster than usual. Furthermore, if you're an individual who is donating money, it is less likely that individuals will cut you off from their research group or program.

I've only realized this hypothesis after doing research, spending time with many professors, earning a living, and understanding the economics of science and technology progression.

So, in order words, unless you plan on becoming a medical scientist with a M.D./Ph.D., you may want to reconsider your options, desired level of wealth, and goals.

Again, stuff like this is the reason I'm a large supporter of technical training.

I have been attempting to read over literature in relation to why more video games are not made for computers.

I keep finding people giving ideas and clue. However, I feel as though these people are writers more than computer program designers or engineers. In the time I spent reading over how the Playstation 1 and Playstion 2 console system was made, I read into the engineering aspects. Supposedly, the engineering went into depth so that graphics would be more easy to present at a faster rate and speed. As such, a different kind of programming language had to be made for people to develop video games for the video game console.

As such, this makes me wonder if the situation really has to do with engineering aspects. In other words, many modern computer systems are not made to handle video games. I've read once before that computers should to be as good as they can in order to handle flight simulator software, as this can be considered a benchmark how of good a computer is in terms of displaying graphics.

I am under the belief that the reason that more video games are not made for the computer is because the graphics systems in modern computers (such as computer system between 2011 and today) are not capable of meeting the graphics standards that people want to evolve.

The reason I believe that more video games are not made for the computer is because the graphics are not as good. There is a desire for programmers to continually make things more "realistic."

Any other competing opinions in relation to the science and engineering are welcomed.

I am attempting to steer away from an economic standpoint, unless the economic standpoint has to do with the cost of engineering and programming.

@ SamBridge,

SFN has been a nice website for experts to get together and talk on a webforum. It has been pretty good at doing that. The thing about becoming an expert is that you often become busy and do not have time to get on this website and discuss things. SFN is a community project, and it's nice that people are willing to contribute as much as they already do. Nonetheless, it's a great place for people to argue about stuff. Also, I'll be damned if someone tells me I can't argue about biotech companies or various scientific protocols and their efficacy. There are other places on the web, however, where people go to argue about molecular biology protocols as I've learned in the past year... This is not the only forum, and to limit oneself to only this forum is to short one's self. One must learn to drink from many water sources.

As somewhat of an expert, I'm busy talking to other experts. However, I like to spend time in the academic learning parts of this forum, because I feel it helps accomplish more than answering specific topics. If I tell someone how to become a neuroscience student or biology student rather than answering one biology or neuroscience question, then I feel like I have accomplished a lot. Also, I like to analyze some aspects of sciences and discuss what I have learned: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=45761

Organic chemistry is difficult for many students. I sometimes wonder, however, that even if people find better ways to understand and memorize the material that instructors will just increase the level of difficultiy, because it acts as a 'measuring stick' to see how prepared a student may be for medical school.... Always a pain.... Can never win... ugh..

But yes, do not short yourself by only sticking to one part of the Internet. It would be great if SFN had more scientists with at least their master's degree. However, that would more than likely benefit someone like me, as I'm at the graduate level of education. Personally, I think it would be great if there were more Ph.D-level individuals with research experience on this web forum, especially if they had a lot of background in teaching people their trade, knowledge, critical thinking skills, and discuss employment prospects for all levels of individuals. That would be super...

I am still waiting for CharonY to offer me a paid research position.

I do not think a graduate-level educated person would be necessary to teach others the introductory aspects of various materials.... combine that with the fact that many graduate-level persons SUCK at teaching... then you can only hope you find someone who is GOOD at teaching graduate-level or lower topics to others... A person who has recently encountered and mastered the material would be a good teacher (an assumption), because the material is fresh, the required level of mastery is recent (mastery levels increase as years pass), and the person has a level of confidence... Although, such a person would be biased in their personal experiences, if they can understand your learning style and implement a paradigm of teaching to you, that makes them all the better: I have a background as a cognitive neuroscientist (but I've moved toward bioregeneration as of late).

Grab someone who had their education 50 years ago, and unless the person avidly teaches the materail to many other people, I'm doubting their integrity... These are from personal experiences that I've had.

So, SamBirdge, although I can understand where you are coming from, I believe your argument lacks in your personal experience in dealing with the many problems people have in order to obtain higher education. As such, I am under the assumption that you have failed to go about learning about the many personal experiences people deal with in obtaining a higher education.

Although people here may disagree with me on this, there is also the whole "trade secret" aspect to it. The "trade secret" aspect is not teaching other individuals your "trade," thus generating a "barrier to entry" into your trade. As such, there is an economic aspect deterring individuals from freely teaching their knowledge to other individuals. AKA: Take what you get and like it.

I'm a philosopher first and a scientist second. I'm a transhumanist. I believe through science that a new age of knowledge and understanding can be made. As such, I am often interested in contributing to science so that other people can become scientists. It's a self-destructive act, but I find in the self-sacrifice that more can be obtained. It is egoist and yet altruistic: a middle-ground for me. I like a challenge, and I like equilibrium.

@ Bignose, I disagree.

You cannot get an accredited degree without proving yourself.
There are standards...

If someone is a crackerjack BS'er, it'll be figured out in time.

Also, if someone is doing serious science without an education, the person is more than likely doing something illegal: At least in the realm of biomedical sciences. If someone is doing some serious chemistry without a degree, I will have to wonder what their goal is... thus making me consider the person is either a terrorist, freedom fighter, or planning criminal activity.

@ SamBridge

Seek knowledge from multiple sources. The problem with having all kinds of experts on here and all kinds of people asking questions would be that there would be so many more questions and answers to occur. As such, the forum would need to be adjusted to compensate for such. I understand what you mean, SamBridge. However, the forum board layout keeps a general trend. Were admins to really expand on each of the boards, I question how powerful this web forum could become. Because of how long the web forum has been around, it could possibly swallow up the other science boards on the Internet. It already did swallow up hypography if I understand correctly. However, the administrators do not appear to have a competitive spirit. The website would get really gaudy really fast, thus losing its artistic feature.

Also, in reference to more sophisticated aspects of higher sciences, many scientists don't want to talk about what they are working on. The reason for that is COMPETITION. There is an economic aspect to all of it: Hence why there exist "weed out" courses in higher education... they're meant to show academia's and science's capitalist nature rather than its communistic nature.

Economics... think about that for a while.

I think that not only should there be just more experts in general, and not only of a wider variety, but with a much higher standard. I'm not doubting the knowledge of any specific individual, but as a passive observer in many topics, I think that there needs to be more of an effort to bring in more experts who have a Masters degree or higher in every field this site has, because so far I haven't seen an "astronomy" expert or a "psychology" expert, but also need to display a level of maturity such as that they never put in their personal opinion or emotions except in the philosophy, speculation or brain teaser, lounge and politics sections.

There is probably at least one astronomy expert around here. Also, there 'is' a psychology expert around here... some liberal individual of whom has his/her master's, as the individual claims. The person made me question if nuns are mentally ill, which I guess you could argue they are when becoming detached from any religiosity view: This was in reference to the old question if homosexuality is a mental illness (not for discussion on this thread).

Science in a lot of ways has a lot to do with "opinions." There is a whole philosophy of science.

I keep my eye on neuroscience, psychology, and biology experts around here.

Ok, I did a search on my username in relation to the search bar at the top of the forum. As such, I was able to find posts prior to 2010.

aka I'm happy

However, the flood control is somewhat of an annoyance. I am not sure what can be done about that.

Ditto on things running slow.

I've noticed at times things turn into code right in front of my face.

I'm not sure if that is some aspect of the server or if I'm in the Matrix.

Hello,

I've noticed that many old posts and topics of mine are gone. The ones before 2010 appear to be absent. Is Dave or any other admin working on this issue?

So, I really think some code should be written in order to get that stuff back on this forum. For one, many of us have gone into talking about various scientists, articles, and other aspects of scientific enterprise. I am not sure how valuable much of the old data is. However, I do know that I have talked about various things, such as cryogenics in relation to biology, and looked for the information more than once for hours in order to present it and talk to people about it.

I am really hoping this stuff will get put back on.

Looks like I found my answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_memory#Causes_of_false_memories

I recalled the wrong memories during the report due to source confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_memory#Source_Confusion

Afterward, I questioned my own memory, but ignored the idea that I was wrong. As such, a false memory was generated.

I have been spending the past couple of weeks reviewing what I know about myself, my memories, and so forth.

Back when I made the report, I was under time pressure. I think I made the report that day (within hours of being threatened).

I had my organic chem I final studying to do.

In addition, the two women held similar names.

It's always funny that I start to find the answers myself once I start to ask others questions.. hmm.

Now I have to pin down why I repressed the memory and how. My best guess from my examination of my own forgetting curve is that I fell in love with another woman (that's when I started to forget about the Venessa person and not think about her at all). Interestingly, the repressed memory affected the relationship I had with the woman I was dating at the time I repressed the memory.

Never thought that I, as a neuroscientist, would ever get caught in a cognitive trap like this.

Mental breakdown?

1) Insomnia

2) Paranoia

3) Megalomania

4) Abnormal or illegal coping behaviors

5) Anger

6) Social isolation

7) Depression

It's similar to the dying process.

A person learns to die a specific way; and if the person lives through it, they become a different person in the end.

Been there; done that.

Hello, all.

As of late, I have been attempting to understand how false memories are generated. Of interest is a false memory I generated some time ago of an individual. The individual's name is Venessa. I had psychological transferred episodic memory attributes from a woman named Vanessa to another woman named Venessa. As such, I have been attempting to find any documentation of events in people that exist like this.

In my situation, I was under a stressful event when dealing online with the woman named Venessa. I had an intimate relationship with both women, Vanessa (ex-girlfriend) and Venessa (friends-with-benefits), at different points in my life. In 2012, I came across the woman named Venessa, and she pointed out to me that I had false memories of her: I had attributed episodic memories of the Vanessa to Venessa.

Both women were involved with drugs, such as dealing and usage.

Both women were latina/hispanic.

Both women held deviant personality aspects (were criminals).

To my best recollection, the first point during which I attributed the episodic memories of Vanessa to Venessa was in 2010 whereby my time in dealing with Venessa was within a three-hour time window (I reported her to the FBI on drug allegations, because she was going to try and throw me in jail and conspire against me for alleged stalking/harassment charges (I hadn't talked to her in over 1.5 years; I had a girlfriend/friends-with-benefits relationship for about 7 months of those 1.5 years); from what I believed, her desire to throw me in jail only came after I figured out that she left me in order to do drugs with a boyfriend and hustle them for him). This is really old-school stuff for me, as I'm living in my hometown again

I foolishly went on the Internet to start talking to her in 2012, and she slammed a legal case on me within two days: I had completely forgot I was the person who threw her in jail. The case was civil with no fines. The case is "over," but I am fighting it, as I am able to fight it. i believed I was talking to an old friend, and I started an argument with an old friend: I assumed her to hold characteristics of Vanessa.

I have spending the past three weeks trying to figure out why I confused the two, held a false memory of Venessa, and repressed my memory of Venessa. My best guess has been in line with repressed memories that my memories of her were traumatic: After reviewing my memories, I had associated many traumatic memories from 2007 to 2010 in relation to her. When I was asked about her, I could only recall good memories, which more than likely was a side-effect to forget the bad and remember the good as I repressed my memories from 2007 to 2010: Many other bad memories in relation to people were not repressed, because I was on social networking websites and friends with those people (I know two women with semantically similar names: Brandy and Brandi).

I cannot find much research on this, at least in relation to my situation.

The more interesting aspect is that I had come across Venessa in person at her place of work during the summer while I was with a new girlfriend: The girlfriend wanted to go to a clothing store. Venessa asked if I was who I was, which freaked me out and surprised me, and then she let me know that her and I used to talk online. I could not recall such facts, but I took her word for it, and I then went to lunch with my girlfriend at the time. I ignored the situation and passed it off as nothing to think about ever again until I started to notice that I held a false memory of Venessa, as she so willingly pointed out to me.

Either way, I've managed to psychologically separate Vanessa and Venessa apart from each other. However, I am still attempting to understand how the false memory was generated of Venessa and the episodic memories of her were repressed. I am starting to believe that I had some form of dissociative or retrograde amnesia when I started to talk to her online, which would best explain why I could not recall many details about her person while seeing her at court. I surely did not forget that she gave me a beer when I was a minor (I surely am an Irish Catholic).

I'm attempting to describe different aspects of variables in a paper.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1360865

Association Between Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration and Obesity Prevalence in Children and Adolescents

It listed different ranges of urinary bisphenol A, which I determined to be the independent variable. As such, I considered these different ranges, which there are four ranges described, to be four levels of the independent variable.

I'm having trouble identifying the dependent variable. I would be quick to say it's body mass outcome, because the paper attempts to limit other things as confounding variables. The paper states that it considers obesity to be the primary study outcome and being overweight as a secondary study outcome. In the table, it crosses each range of the independent variable against obesity and being overweight.

My main issue of considering body mass outcome as the dependent variable and the variables "overweight" and "obese" as levels of the dependent variables comes with the fact that the researchers tabulate "yes/no" options to both of those levels, so it's like there are sub-levels to the levels of the dependent variable. At least, I'm interpreting it that way. The p-values of the research were generated from a chi-square analysis.

Hello, all.

I'm reading through a recent research paper entitled: Association Between Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration and Obesity Prevalence in Children and Adolescents

The article is from the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Attached)

Page 2, the last paragraph is of importance, as is the information going to page 6 with table 3.

I know it seems like a lot. The most important thing to me is understanding what kinds of statistical tests are being used, how, and how the p-values and prevalence values are being calculated.

I'm having a major problem understanding how the authors computed their data and performed statistical tests on the data. I suspect my background in statistics just isn't enough when looking at this kind of thing. My only other option would jump on a stats package and brute force it, hopefully on something like Stata 12, and try to get the same values back that the authors got by trying various tests until I get the right ones.

I know the following about it:

1. It's listing variables and running tests against them to control them and see if they're related to other variables, particular the variable(s) of interest, which are "overweight" and "obese."

2. It's giving a P-value based off some kind of chi-square value. I can't say this is really a chi-square test, but I'm thinking it's some kind of multiple regression test. I'm still not sure.

3. It's found that the levels of the independent variable, which is BPA concentration, are against variables, which some may be confounding or not.

4. I think table 2 is a z-test, but I'm not sure about that.

5. I know it's multivariate, but I can't figure out much beyond that.

I've spent a lot of time trying to figure this out, so I figured I would ask others about this.

Advice: Focus on your current coursework. If possible, test out of your current highschool/middleschool coursework as soon as possible. From there, free up your time to focus more on what you're interested in.

It's great to see people with ambition. However, you have to be realistic... You need to focus on the task at hand. I'll be straight with you. If you're dead serious, and I mean dead serious, the level of coursework you're dealing with at your age should be no sweat. Simply setting social life aside and hammering down current school work should free up enough time for you to study what you want.

Anyway, I can't finish this post. I'm being asked to leave my current building. Sorry. Anyway, someone else can go into these details.

 

In the old days (B.C: before computers) when calculations were done by hand, analysts would use the normal distribution if the degrees of freedom were greater than 30 (for 30 df, the proper multiplier is 2.04; for 60 df, it's 2.00). Otherwise, the t distribution was used. This says as much about the availability of tables of the t distribution as anything else.

 

Today, tables of distributions have been replaced by computer programs. The computer thinks nothing about looking up the t distribution with 2351 degrees of freedom, even if it is almost identical to the standard normal distribution. There is no magic number of degrees of freedom above which the computer switches over to the standard normal distribution. Computer programs that compare sample means use Student's t distribution for every sample size and the standard normal distribution never comes into play.

 

We find ourselves in a peculiar position. Before computers, analysts used the standard normal distribution to analyze every large data set. It was an approximation, but a good one. After computers, we use t distributions to analyze every large data set. It works for large non-normal samples because a t distribution with a large number of degrees of freedom is essentially the standard normal distribution. The output may say t test, but it's the large sample theory that makes the test valid and large sample theory says that the distribution of a sample mean is approximately normal, not t!

My stats knowledge is old. I keep forgetting the stuff, because I never use it, despite using it plenty. Whatever. Anyway, I think the logic of that website's author is acceptable. This may be a historical issue rather than a mathematical issue... But as a mathematical issue using more than 30 df could be considered labor intensive, thus not economical without a CPU to crunch data.

Don't take the following as truth:

If I remember stats correctly, something having a 30 df is darn close to a normal distribution curve in shape, thus you can really use a normal dist. curve past 30 df. Something like that. The point is that computers are enabled to crunch data real fast and keep things within the realm of a t-test rather than make-shifting things over to a normal dist. curve for ease of data analysis I took a look at this thread about 10 hours or so ago. But now there is the best answer I can give you at the moment unless another math nerd pops in.