DrmDoc

Apparently, this administration is abdicating it's responsibility to protect the rights of some of it's most vulnerable citizens. Trump has signed orders rolling back protections for transgender students by deferring that responsibility to individual states, which virtually assures unequal protection under the law.

Certain sounds originating from external sources can and do produce an annoying tinnitus effect. There are sounds that individuals over the age of 25 can't hear that those under 25 find particularly annoying. Here's an example.

I agree and that is precisely the point I've tried to convey.

It is tinnitus, which is something we all experience as we age. The damage sound causes to hearing is cumulative over time and tinnitus can begin in early childhood depending on the measure of sound exposure.

That ringing in the ear when there's no sound is called tinnitis and it may have several health related causes not usually consider serious. I hope this helps.

Indeed; I'd be very interested in reviewing it...if it exists.

This forum, where you have posted and continued this discussion, is a sub-category of the Biology Forum. ​Although I'm no biology expert, none of your comments here seem remotely related to any category or measure of biology. You clearly desire to discuss some remarkable mental quality and, if so, this clearly isn't the forum for that discussion. You should consider posting your thoughts to the Medical Forum, under either Neuroscience or Psychology, ​where you may find respondents more sympathetic to your views and, perhaps, more knowledgeable than I on this topic. I wish you well.

If my attempts to correct your imprecise use of terms offend you, please accept my apology. At the risk of further offense, I offer this clarification of the comment you've partially quoted. As I wrote more completely, "dreaming and REM are evidence of brain activity amid an unconscious state of brain function." As you can clearly see, my emphasis was on the latter most distinguishing quality, which specifically regards a state of brain function. Although you would rather adhere to an unstudied colloquial perspective, subconscious is not a state of brain function and, therefore, not a state of mind or mentation. There is no contest here between you and I, if you want to continue to use imprecise terminology doing so is certainly your prerogative; however, for those of us here who are well informed, your continued use of "subconscious mind" in this forum is most telling of the real measure of your professed expertise.

pzkpfw made a valid point...although his name is on the building, it doesn't mean he actually laid the brick and mortar himself. Trump put his name on a lot of things though he was not intimately engaged in their production. What workpsi has read emerged from the experience and expertise of Trump's ghost writer rather than Trump himself. You can research online many of Trump's speeches where he talks about his successes. You should be able to quickly determine that those speeches lack substance.

Your professed biology degree notwithstanding, it's exceedingly difficult not to consider you anything but the latter in view of your prior and subsequent comments here. I gave you that "descriptor" or term in my prior comments. The term, which isn't one I've personally coined, is unconscious and it has been used by knowledgeable scientist, psychologist, and neurologist for many years probably as early as the 17th century. Rather than an example of a supposed "subconscious mind", dreaming and REM are evidence of brain activity amid an unconscious state of brain function. All valid questions but they, unfortunately, expose how little you may understand the terms unconscious and subconscious relative to brain function. Our brain produces just two measurably functional states: conscious and unconscious. Measurably function states are those in which we are able to register detectable levels of brain activity via EEG, fMRI or other applicable methods. Unconscious is that measurable state of brain activation and activity that is diametrically opposite our conscious state. Despite pervasive unstudied colloquial notions, our brain is active while in an unconscious state and even amid coma--albeit not the level of activity we find amid our conscious state. Unconscious describes that state of mentation and brain function that is opposite of that brain state that produces conscious awareness of physical/material reality. When we dream, using your example, we are not subconscious of our physical/material experiences in reality, instead we are unconscious or unaware of those experiences while dreaming. Unconscious is also descriptive of experiences, perceptions, and behaviors we engage that are diametrically opposite those we engage consciously; therefore, brain states like coma and REM are subsets of unconscious brain activity. Subconscious is primarily a term most aptly descriptive of a type of influence rather than an active brain state. As influence, subconscious describes that which discretely affects the mind and behaviors our brain produces. The distinction between the terms unconscious and subconscious is analogous to a person and a package. The person personifies the unconscious, while the package represents the subconscious influence he may either receive or deliver.

Although you've expressed some very real and compelling concerns, you do realize that you are expressing liberal fears rather than the intransient fears that have proven successful for Trump. Unless we focus on what makes America less stabile and secure under this administration, Trump will likely reap a second term. Those 62 million voters have to be shown how his allegiance to Russia, false terrorism claims, self-serving and poorly conceive domestic and international policies are not in the best interest of their stability and security. Trump's supporter have to be convinced that he really doesn't know what he's doing.

This is more a psychology or word play topic than one of biology, which is where you've posted this discussion. Nevertheless, as Strange alluded, subconscious mind is an invalid description of the mental quality you want to discuss here. There is no evidence that our brain produces a "subconscious mind". The terms most descriptive of the mental divisions our brain function produces are conscious and unconscious. What you are discussing here is how we are able to unconsciously decipher or unscramble jumbled letters into words, which is descriptive of what we do mentally without conscious direction, perception, or focus. If the intent of this discussion line is to offer proof of a subconscious rather than unconscious mind, you will need to provide some distinction in brain function as can be provided relative to the unconscious mind should you want to continue this discussion.

His rise to the presidency and hold on power resides in his ability to stoke the fears of weak minded individuals who are blind to his tactics. At almost ever turn, Mr. Trump has demonstrated his ignorance of real governance and statesmanship. It's my hope that he remains true to his nature and doesn't somehow become more circumspect, thereby assuring no second term for his administration.

According to Donald Trump, a terror attack occurred last night in Sweden. Given Sweden's investigation and response to the president's claim, the only evidence of that attack appears to be Mr.Trump's imagination. It appears Mr. Trump has become the bane of his administration, a source of fake news.

Here's a surprising revelation, Mr. Trump actually selected a man of integrity and character to replace his fired national security adviser. It seems that retired vice-admiral Robert Howard, being a man of integrity, effectively declined the position after watching Trump's recent news conference debacle. I think admiral Howard should be admired for his decision to keep his distinguished career in service to our country unsullied by a position in Trump's administration. No doubt, Mr. Trump will now disparage admiral Howard and say he was never a serious consideration.

Ditto. It was an astonishing farce. Throughout, Trump's comport was frequently immature, vindictive, and undignified for an American president. Unfortunately, this is the person he was as a presidential candidate and I doubt his extraordinarily narcissistic displays will change the opinion of his supporters.

Mr. waitforufo has a habit of vanishing from discussions when asked to answer multiple questions, which is something he essentially confessed to me in a prior post. He's sort of a Kamikaze commenter, who frequently flames in and out of discussions. So, you may want to keep it short if you want a reply before Christmas.

I agree with SJ; if your friend was right, caffeine consumption in the form of highly potent energy drinks would virtually assure early incidents of graying among young people, but that hasn't happened. Cultures throughout Asia and other lands have provided caffeine through teas and coffee to their young for several centuries without creating populations that seem to gray unusually early. To-date, I've reviewed no credible evidence specifically suggesting the effects of caffeine on hair coloration. Unless your friend can provide studies that directly and empirically link caffeine consumption to lower melanin production or nutrient absorption, he's completely wrong.

As expected, you completely ignored my question and answered one of your own creation. Essentially, I asked when is it ever appropriate for members of a presidential campaign staff to have continual contact with Russian officials, intelligence or otherwise? I await what will probably be a spectacularly disingenuous response. Convenient; where was this particular sentiment during your discussions of Hillary's emails? C'mon, you don't really believe in that requirement, do you?

It certainly seems they had no need for servers or email. Why bother with silly emails when Russian intelligence was just a phone call away.

So...are you or someone close to you a hermaphrodite? I ask because your comments suggest you may have recently experienced some personal offense and because there doesn't seem to be a topic of ethics involved. Is there a point of ethics or ethics question?

In the entire political history of American presidential campaigning, when was it ever necessary, appropriate or electorally favored to have contact or rumors of contact with Russian intelligence? Feel free to take your usual month or two to answer or not at all--some of us here have come to expect nothing less from those espousing unsupportable positions.

Yet more evidence that America has elected a wolf to its highest office. It seems that Trump's campaign had closer ties to Russian influence than Trump attested. Trump's campaign surrogates had frequent contact with Russian intelligence no less. Where is the indignation of the Republican electorate over this flagrant fraternization with America's staunches opponent on the world stage. Ron Reagan is most certainly rolling in his grave. It seems American has elected Russia's version of the Manchurian Candidate.

I think your friend is on the wrong side of this argument. Hair color is produced by two types of melanin: eumelanin and pheomelanin. I've found no link between the production of melanin and the absorption of any particular nutrient other than vitamin B12 deficiency. I would refer your friend to this Wikipedia page for more details and links to further studies. It seems genetics is indeed a primary factor.

I haven't had a drop of caffeine in any form for a number of years and have an abundance of gray and graying hair; therefore, I doubt caffeine is the cause graying unless it has a cumulative effect from earlier use. What I've read, however, is that graying has a genetic factor that causes an accumulation of hydrogen peroxide (HP) in hair follicles, which produces oxidative stress leading to discoloration. As this NBC article reports, scientist have determined that younger people abundantly produce a catalase enzyme that reduces HP to water and oxygen. As we age, this enzyme's production decreases and we become increasingly gray. I am not aware of any report suggesting caffeine as a cause of catalase under production. I hope this helps.