Glider

Sorry to be pedantic, but for the sake of accuracy, it says celery "is often used for the relief of symptoms" (of arthritis, rheumatism etc.). It does not mention healing.

The membranes of the afferent terminals are sensitive to deformation. These afferent terminals are 'wound around' the spindles in a spiral. Mechanical deformation of the afferent terminal membrane causes ion channels to open resulting volleys of action potentials (APs). Afferent AP volleys signal two components of an event; duration (length of volley) and intensity (frequency of volley; i.e. number of APs in the volley). So, a slow deformation of a muscle spindle (e.g. raising a glass to your mouth) provides a volley of longer duration and lower frequency than a fast deformation (e.g. ballistic motion like throwing a ball) that will produce shorter duration volleys of higher frequency. It's pretty much the same for all sensory (afferent) fibres. As all APs are the same, regardless of the stimulus type, afferent fibres use length and frequency of AP volleys to signal duration and intensity of the stimulus.

Like foodchain says, it could have been a drone. It's about the right time of year (depending on the weather where you are). Drones live only to mate with the new queens. Afterwards, they die. One way to tell a drone from a worker is the head. Drones have much bigger compound eyes than workers; they take up most of the head.

Why does it need to be really complicated?

Uh huh...and if you or yours get to be the victims, who'll be the first to complain when nothing gets done about it?

In my opinion, it's entirely up you whether or not you choose to tell people. I don't think it's whether or you tell people that's important, I think why you choose to tell them is more important. I think the only circumstance in which you might begin to have problems is if you begin (unconsciously) to use AS as a crutch and a way of avoiding things you find challanging. This is known as 'adopting the patient role', and people can do this with any condition/illness/injury. They get reward from the way people treat them when they are incapacitated or less able for any reason, and start to rely on their sondition to get them out of challanging or difficult situations. They don't do this deliberately necessarily, it just sort of creeps up on them, largely due to the reinforcement that comes from the helpful way people around them act once they know. People who adopt the patient role tend to become more and more helpless over time as they are confronted by fewer challenges and rely increasingly on others. If you choose to tell people for any other reason than to avoid something you find challanging, then I see no problem with it. You seem very high functiong, so as you face more challanging situations and learn by success and failure, you will increase significantly your ability to compensate for any limitations you might have, the same as everyone else does. The key is not to avoid challenging situations. These are where we gain our life experience, social skills etc.. Many people feel the same way when they are trying to work with somebody who loves to talk. We all find different ways to deal with the situation. Some work well, other work less well, but we learn. You do acknowledge that on that occasion, you felt you used it as an excuse. That's ok, but if it becomes habit, then you have the situation I described above. Next time something like that happens, you could try another tactic and see how that goes. Most people, in their own minds, can't tell the difference between a person who seems 'a little weird' and 'a person with that condition'. They just think 'that condition makes them a little weird'. So, for most people it won't make much of a difference whether you tell them or not. As I say, it's really up to you. You'll probably have to make the choice many times, but you'll need to use you're judgement in each case. You could try telling some people, and not telling other to see what difference it makes (if any). That might help you decide in future. I agree with you absolutely. Getting out and doing stuff is the best thing you can do. Social skills are precisely that - skills, and like any skill, they have to be learned and practice in order for people to become good at them. This is true for absolutely everybody. Nobody can be good at any skill they don't practice. Given the time and the practice, you'll probably reach a point where the question of whether or not to tell people you have AS ceases to be an issue. You'll develop you own techniques for coping in random, informal social situations and over time, these will become habit. This is pretty much the same for everybody else too. Those people who don't practice (e.g. the severely shy), never get the hang of it and remain awkward and uncomfortable in social situations, which compounds their intitial shyness.

Probably, and it would almost certainly increase your chances of getting edible fruit. Most crop avocados (as with many citrus and other fruit trees) are specialized hybrids. The plant you get by germinating a seed aren't. The fruit from seed-grown trees is likely to be smaller, harder, less tasty/more bitter and possibly not edible at all. If you can find a tree that you know is a good producing cultivar and take grafts from it, that wood will produce edible fruit. Grafting is a bit of a knack though, and still takes time.

No, the study of Psychology (i.e. to study Psychology) is the study of scientific method as applied to the study of human behaviour and cognition. Psychology itself is the study of human behaviour and cognition from a number of perspectives, including, but not limited to: Developmental, social, personality, perceptual, emotional, biological, neurological and pathological. Students of Psychology study Psychology. Psychologists study human behaviour and cognition. I would have thought it was key, given that the study of morals and morality without recourse to religious philosophies is ethics. This is not clear. I think if you were to provide a clear definition of 'disinterested knowledge' it might help. This relates more to Epistemology than Psychology. No it isn't and yes it would. Psychology (the discipline) does not help a person 'know themselves'. One thing a Psychologist learns is that the scientific study of human behaviour is limited to the study of others. Attempting to study oneself is pointless as there is no way to objectify oneself from observations of one's thought processes and behaviour. So it's way too subjective. That's why there are therapists and counsellors. They provide objective observations and interpretations that an individual can then attempt to integrate into their awareness. Yes, a fuller understanding of one's self will bring about changes, though not necessarily dramatic. Most people are generally content the way they are, so a greater understanding of 'self' is unlikely to result in significant change, especially in the absence of an objective norm. I think yours is. We'll have to see what the evidence says. First, YT did not make the comments to which you refer. I did. Second, your conclusion is premature as it seems to be based solely upon the fact that my comments on Psychology and Psychoanalysis differ from your beliefs concerning them. We have yet to establish whether my comments or your beliefs are closer to the truth. Third, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that your understanding of Psychology and Psychoanalysis is any greater than that of anyone else here. Fourth, Psychoanalysis is still an interventional approach and not a science. Interesting. Did you know that a person who employs the duck test can also fail it? The duck test relies upon an understanding of the qualities that define a duck. If you do not have that knowledge, then when confronted by a duck, you will fail to recognise it. By extension, the duck test as you have applied here it relies upon an understanding of the qualities that define Psychology and (therefore) Psychologists. If you don't have that knowledge, then, when confronted by a Psychologist, you are likely to fail your own test, aren't you?

Hmmm... The usual practice when aiming for a nice rounded avocado 'bush' is wait until the seedling is about a foot high, then cut it back to 6". This triggers side shoots from the buds that form in the leaf axils. However, if your plant has got to four feet without any side shoots forming, even after pinching out the leader, then something is wrong. The main reason for this kind of growth is either not enough light, or an imbalance between light & heat. Avocados need a lot of light when grown indoors. If they don't get enough light, they will shed their side buds until they find it, resulting in long, leggy plants. They do this because it's a waste of energy to put out side branches if there's not enough light to feed the tree. The light/heat imbalance is when it's a bit too warm and a bit too dark. I.e., it's light enough that the tree would grow well, but high temperatures encourages rapid growth and there's not enough light to support that. Then you get the same symptoms as above. You often see this in houseplants in the winter. Loads of central heating, but very poor light. To grow an avocado indoors you need lots of light and a cool[ish] room to maintain the balance. The alternatives are a conservatory (if you have one) or a greenhouse. Both are warm, but they both have enough light. They also provide the cooler night temperatures which helps to moderate growth. Increasing the pot size won't help unless it's rootbound, but that gives a different set of symptoms; pale leaves, general failure to thrive, very weak growth/dieback and leaf loss. Having said that, a repotting might help with general vigour, if you prune the roots to encourage the growth of fine feeder roots.

I disagree. For a start, of the two, only Psychology is a science. To understand Psychology is simply to understand scientific method as applied to the study of human cognition and behaviour. Studying Psychology doesn't change a person in any significant way. It doesn't make a person not susceptible to psychological flaws, in the same way as studying medicine doesn't protect an individual from illness. Psychoanalysis is an intervention, not a science. Undergoing psychoanalysis might help an individual understand themselves and others a bit more (or it might not), but studying it most likely would not, for the same reason as I have outlined above. In this case, I think the study of ethics would be more useful. Define 'fragmentation of knowledge'. What does this mean? Do you mean 'specialisation'? If so, just say so. If you do mean specialisation, then I agree, it has its drawbacks (people learning more and more about less and less), but with the explosion of information over the last couple of hundred years, it is no longer possible for any one individual to know everything about everything.

I think we need to define branch. If you take a terminal shoot and root it, it becomes a trunk and has no branches (i.e., a stick) and will not fruit. If you take a primary branch from a tree that only fruits on tertiary branches and manage to root that, then asuming that branch had secondary and tertiary branches (and used to fruit), then once it has rooted you would have a trunk with only primary and secondary branches which would not fruit until it had developed the next set of branches. Trees do respond to the number of ramifications they have. It affects the distribution of auxins and other hormones which determines which parts of the tree are which (i.e. which is a trunk, a primary branch, a secondary branch, a leading shoot etc..), how each part grows and the likelihood of fruiting. Taking cuttings affects the distribution of these hormones. This is why a cutting even one taken from the finest twig, furthest away from the trunk after many ramifications, once rooted will become a trunk and will not bear fruit, but will take on the physical and physiological characteristics of a trunk and begin to form primary branches. It really is amazing if you think about it. Anyway, things are a bit more complicated with avocado as, to guarantee fruit, you need to have two different varieties growing in proximity. See here.

Could somebody (prefereably Coburst) tell me how this relates to Psychology?

If the branch is mature enough, it should start producing fruit as soon as it is strong enough (depending on root development).

Terms that are relevant to the phenomena are 'conversion hystera', 'Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures' and 'neurocardiogenic syncope'. When some people are exposed to emotionally charged situations, they undergo a number of changes; elevated heart rate, elevated BP and respiration (hyperventilation) and increases in hormones such as adrenaline (epinephrine) and cortisol. In some cases, these changes lead to a homeostatic 'feed forward' loop where the puturbations in homeostatic baselines begin to feed on themselves and increase. The results can be a number of things. For example, neurocardiogenic syncope, a temporary loss of consciousness and postural tone (falling down), sometimes accompanied by minor convulsions. Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures are also possible, but they tend to be more severe. Essentially, if you take a susceptible person and excite them beyond a certain level, they will undergo seizures. The type and severity of these seizures depend on a number of factors, the psychology of the individual, the nature of the situation and type of arousal etc..

Coburst, this is the third thread you have started that, on the face of it, makes no real point. This is very likely why you recieve no responses to them. These are discussion forums. What is it you want to discuss?

Perhaps you have an impervious layer of clay under part of the yard. That could affect localised drainage characteristics. I think you might need to extend the hole a bit. If you widen it, you might be able to tell if the water is coming from a particular direction, or just seeping up like a water table. If you deepen it, you might find out why it's not draining as the other hole is.

Concrete will go off under water. It's a chemical process, not 'drying'. Put together a fairly dry mix. Bail out the hole. Put in you post and pack down the concrete. Stake the post and leave it overnight. It'll go off ok.

On the contrary, the relationship between humans and their environment pervades many areas of Psychology. In perception and cognition they talk of perception in terms of 'the carpentered environment'; the effects that a geometrically structured environment has on human perception. In Health Psychology we talk of reciprocal determinism, the bi-directional influence between people and their environment. It is a keystone of the biopsychosocial model. The same can been found in many areas of Psychology. This is very vague. "Our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part" is an extremely broad statement and it doesn't really define any terms. 'Our releationship with nature' in terms of what? Our effect on it? It's effect on us? Environmental concerns? Attitudes towards recycling? Spiritual connectedness? What specifically are you looking for?

In many cases. the fever is not produced as a defence against infection, it is caused by the infecting agents (known as pyrogens). They cause fever because it suits them, and so heating the blood would not be effective against them. More important is the temperatures required to kill many bacteria would also destroy white cells and denature blood proteins. It's the same for viruses. The HIV virus (a particularly wussy virus, compared to say Hep C), is destroyed at 60 degrees C. That is easily enough to render blood useless and you really wouldn't want it pumped back into you.

There are many names to describe powerful emotions. Even so, these are often mixed to define a particular, unique feeling. The reason is that complex emotions are usually combinations of more basic feelings. These more basic elements are named, but none alone are adequate. The problem is that emotions are entirely subjective, so any name given will be descriptive and the names that exist usually define only universally recognised elements of a feeling. For example, imagine you are trying to describe the flavour of a new sauce. You have to use a mixture of 'fixed' or objective and largely basic terms that are universally recognised, e.g. "It's lemony, with a hint of cinnamon and honey and it has a creamy texture". The terms 'lemon', 'cinnamon', 'honey' and 'cream' are widely recognised, but none alone accurately or adequately describe the new taste. However, when used in combination and with reference to relative strength, others can get a rough idea of the experience. Without such 'objective' references, where would you begin?

This is not true, at least, no more true than of any other occupation. Psychology is a huge field and only one end of it involves one-to-one communication in a professional (i.e. theraputic) sense.

Suspect away. There's no restriction on that.

I can see nothing offensive in your post. I don't see anything wrong with voluntary donation, but I do think the lack of donors is largely due to idleness; people can't really be bothered to register. I think a way forward may be to adopt the policy of a few of the European countries who register everybody on the donor list and people can ask to be removed. It's just as voluntary; anybody who asks is removed, but in this case, generic idleness works in the favour of the recipients. I think people selling their own organs is a lot worse than prostitution. That is not to say the people who are in such a bad position are worse. It's not their fault. It's the act. Exchanging an organ for money is a lot worse than exchanging sex for money. It takes a long time to run out of sex, but we have only 2 kidneys, 2 eyes, 1 liver etc. These things are finite and living with one kidney, contrary to poupular belief, is very different from living with 2. Your life will be shorter, and throughout the remainder of it, your diet and fluid balance will need to be controlled carefully. People tend to have the idea that because we have two kidneys, one is a 'spare' . This is not true. We do actually need and use both.

The OED is very broad in its definition. The 'ear' is not an organ. The outer ear (pinna and external auditory meatus) only direct sound to the timpanic membrane. The pinna is just a flap pf folded cartilage, fat and skin and is not necessary for hearing. The middle ear is where the auditory ossicles (malleus, incus and stapes) mechanically amplify the movement of the timpanic membrane, passing the pressure waves through to the inner ear. The inner ear is where the cochlea and vestibular mechanism lies. The organ of sound reception is the cochlea as it is this structure that contains the organ of Corti; the mechanism that transduces pressure waves into electrochemical signals. Careful now.

Hell of a coincidence to have the same sig also.