admiral_ju00

i'm still trying to understand the reason for such an experiment. i can see that due to the similarity between our genetic makeup and especially after recombination, are they trying to push the evolution in the ape(offspring)? the pendulum could swing either way still. assuming the offspring is an 99.x% ape, non-detrimental and the ape is evolved sufficiently from the rest of it's species(descent with modification ) then it's great. but should it come out lookin' more human, then someone's gonna get jacked.

i think that linky adds more confusion as not even those guys seem to have more or less a definitive answer plus they contradict each other on various points but it all comes down to this: you are unique with respect to finger prints, genome, eyes, etc.

keeping in mind that IQ tests measure your past academic knowledge and not real-life knowledge or should i say knowledge pertaining to one's survival abilities. that and what Aegir said

wow, i've skipped this thread so many times thinking that it shouldn't be this complicated to answer ( a generalization, if you will ) to the diff's 'tween dna and rna, but i did not expect to find posts like this. ^ ^ ^ | | | lol lol rofl

amounts of UV one is exposed to(or lack thereof), can do it quite well

great site. thanks for the linky

that's a shame. those are great books and a definite plus as it no longer has the empire as the main enemy -- but i didn't mean to hijack the thread

clinical psychology is not all about 'weekly therapy sessions', it involves quite a bit of research (R&D), sharing their findings with other psychologists, etc and the whole 'spontaneous thing' is not really spontaneouls. you got to take into account that each individual is unique and naturally so is their psyche, issues, etc. i'm defending psychology, because it is important, but i just can't see myself doing it anymore.

who, what and when did someone said this? if they aren't controled by the genome, they by what? i'm sure you've taken into the account the whole process of meiosis, pleiotropy, polygenic traits, principle of independent assortment, principle of segregation, dominant genes, co-dominant genes, recessive genes, etc.....?

u're absolutely right, Glider about the fact that most people don't know about various branches of psychology or what they really do other then to guess or should i say make calculated risks and educated guesses. and other then the personal diferences, all psychologists are exactly alike. can you blame them? i'd say no, but i'd lay all or most of the blame on the pop. media and the image it spins on it.

huh? i wish it were true. all the MD schools i've researched are just as hard to get in as much as the Ph.D schools. i will still continue my study of anthropology, and while YT is right about spreading oneself too thin, i still want a dual degree, so i will still attempt to apply to the MD school. surprisingly, yes and yes. i wanted that too, but lately, everything about psychological sciences started to urk me. while i have much appreciation for the neuroscience, other fields are what i'm having problems seeing myself, especially the cognitive psychology, which i think is a waite of time and a degree, unless one simply wants to teach college courses all life long. since you're into cognitive aspects of psychology, and i must appologize for my ripping it apart, tell me what keeps you going in that field of study? what prospects of it do you see interesting and worth persuing/researching/working with, etc..?

this is all very debatable. for instance: if the animal(human or otherwise) is bigger, then it's a mere instincts at play dependency for food and support and nurture jealousy of what? anger of what and why? and what are all these other emotions you're refering about?do these emotions pertain to All the animals or just certain kinds? what behaviours are we to look to that will help us understand these other behaviors, and explain them? you're right, using strictly human approach maybe a flawed way, however, isn't this how we solve most if not all of our other problems concerning the world?

a bubble does burst when it hits various surface structures, does it not? there are some exceptions, but most things that will touch the bubble(or vise-versa) will cause the bubble to burst

that was what i always assumed. i'm eager for your completion with the experiments, and the shared findings.

well, like i said earlier, i really wanted it. i wanted to go into clinical psychology with the neo-freudian theory but now as i progress, i just can't see myself involved in it. another major deciding factor was the fact that Psychiatrists are better off then Psychologists, but here's the kick, a Psychiatrist is Mainly an MD who specialized in Psychology. Well, take that in mind, if the Med school will accept me, then I'll do something that's more fun and has better clientele, such as a OBYNG-Gynecology, or even a General Practician who gets to meet and work with a very broad category of clients some of whom may be fun to socialize during the visit,etc, as opposed to work in a Psychiatric hospital and deal with patience who may ramble gibberish all day long or harm the staff simply because they think they can, etc. another one is that an MD can generaly fix the problem, where as a psychologist/psychiatrist may work with the same clients over and over, using the same methods that sort of patch some of these mental states for a while but never completely correct them, etc.

emotions also go quite happily along the same symbolic significances. the implications of this are mainly philosophical and symbolic - aka: abstractions, and our increased information processing capacity and it(they) are defined by a society. only we have them. for example: i can say "i'm hot" w/o actually being 'hot' - temp-wise. here's a question for you that i think has bearings on this question of yours: let's define 'murder' in these cases and the reasons behind it: accident, done on purpose, war. "we convict the (willful) murderers, we acquit the accident clauses - lets say a diabetic who's blood sugar dropped way below the norm and she/he fell asleep behind the wheel, struck and killed a pedestrian. we pin a medal on a soldier for killing the enemy". these are subject to change from society to society. for example, in us, and most other 'civilized' societies, sexual relations with a 13 year old is almost always an automatic jail sentence, because that particular society deems this behavior 'devious'. this is not true with some Hunter and Gatherer societies/tribes, in some, such behavior is actually encouraged. Symbols are negotiated and renegotiated by the society and the prevalent ideology at the time as opposed to: when an animal kills something else, none of the above examples bear any significances. it does it either for food or for it's survival/competition. It does not care for things that hold sentimental values or may pay off in the future, etc.

this again is strictly due to our symbolic abilities. a plausible explanation will take me a few minutes to conjure so bear with me

i suppose that the more one reads the exact same materiel, the more he/she will remember the finer and easily forgettable points in the texts. also considering that much of scientific text can be very hard to read, let alone grasp on the 1st time, reading it a few more times if possible make it easier. plus some points won't make any sence immediatly after reading the materiel. therefore after some time it'll sinc in - more or less to the effect of a light-bulb suddenly lightning over one's head and he goes - 'oh now why didn't i think of that before' that and when reading yet another time helps as it would only reinforce the matter

loving every second of it. and a big thanks to all that replyed. i'm done with psychology i'll just need to go and cry for a while about the waisted time and money now.

i'm currently going for a duel-major in Psychology and Anthropology(Paleontology) but i'm starting to have 2nd thoughts on psychology. my original intent was to go into grad school into a clinical psychology using specializing with the neo-freudian theory/approach but numerous things just don't seem right anymore. first of all are these redundant reiterations of dead and useless theories, secondly there is no neofreudian school in my state, and i no longer see myself dealing with patients and going : "well, i believe you're stuck in the falic state" or "tell me more about your childhood and the influence your parents had on you" , etc......... and if i can get some of your reasons behind the judgement, it would be even better

what do you guys think about the theory that the cosmos(i like that word:) ) as we know it, only makes 5% the rest is either superhuge black objects(machos) or supersmall particles(wimps) do you think we'll ever find these wimps or machos? is that research fruitless?

star trek? bleh. i think you should switch to star wars:D

i need to stock-pile on these items, please tell me where i can get them!!!! :D:D:D:D