Glider

I'm quite happy to move this thread to general discussion if the participants, particularly the thread starter is happy with that? Discussion of the existence, function or nature of empathy as an observable phenomenon using empirical evidence for or against it might be suitable in Psychiatry/Psychology, but it has been a while since that was the case. However, it's a popular thread and it would be a shame to close it.

I think presentation software is handy if you're teaching to large groups (>100). However, I think it's too often 'overused' and so the information becomes buried in the 'whistle & bells' features; animation, sound effects etc.. I use powerpoint when teaching, but I use it mainly to present images that illustrate what I'm talking about. I use text simply as a 'place marker', i.e. simple headings to show 'This is what we're discussing now'. I don't use powerpoint to present my whole lecture. That's my job. However, I do see others who have written their entire lectures in powerpoint and then they just (more or less) read from the screen. That's pointless. It's overload for the students (nobody can read and listen at the same time, and in this case, it's p[ointless anyway) and makes the lecturer redundant. There are others who think using all the features powerpoint has to offer in the same lecture in some way keeps the students interested (again, that's supposed to be the lecturer's job). It doesn't. It confuses people and buries the information.

I agree with the being comfortable in your own skin thing. People can tell. It's all very well taking part in particular activities like dancing and so-on, but these are just ice breakers. If you feel like an idiot when you dance, that'll come across, even if you're good at it. Any activity you undertake just to meet people will be artifice and that will show. Do things you like doing. Be open. Be honest with yourself, enjoy what you're doing and that will come across. One exception is if you really like conversation. It's generally not a good idea to sit in coffee bars talking and laughing on your own, however much you enjoy it. For some reason, people really don't find that attractive.

Yes, although it's not really to do with recognising the particular 'trigger' behaviour. The brain will always form associations between behaviour and feelings of reward. The faster the onset of the feelings of reward, the stronger and more specific the association (It works the other way too. If the result of our behaviour is aversive, the brain will form an association and we will form an aversion to that behaviour). It's not really a case of recognising the specific behaviour. If the reward has a slow onset, the brain still forms an association, although in this case it will be weaker and more likely to be between the reward and the situation. The resulting behavioural drive will be to put us back into the situation in which we experienced the reward. However, as I said, the intensity of reward depends on the onset time (the speed at which DA levels spike), so where the onset of the reward is rapid, it is more likely to be associated with the particular trigger behaviour and will be much stronger.

It gets on my nerves when they open with "Hi, I'm (fill in as appropriate). Today was really lovely, sunny and warm! Wouldn't you just love to be at the beach today? Here's some film of people enjoying the lovely sun at the lovely beach! (fatuous grin)". How the hell is that a forcast? I was awake! I was out there! And if I wasn't, I have windows!

The physiological definition of 'addictive' is anything which activates (increases the levels of dopamine in) the reward system (medial forebrain bundle, ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens). The definition of 'addiction' is the serias of physiological changes that occur in response to repeated delivery of an addictive substance that result in a withdrawal syndrome (a specific pattern of craving and other negative effects). The psychological definition of 'addiction' is the same, but extends to the psychological and behavioural components: a dependence resulting in feelings of craving and a compulsive behavioural drive (usually toward a maladaptive behaviour). The basic function of the reward centres are to reinforce 'useful' or adaptive behaviours such as feeding, sex and so-on. Artificial stimulation of the reward centres with certain chemicals can 'hijack' them. That's to say that taking addictive substances causes more 'reward' than normal reward driven behaviours, so these get put on the back burner whilst the behavioural drive is switched to the behaviour that provides the greatest reward. This is why people strongly addicted to something will often go for that substance rather than food if they are forced to choose. The degree of reward is not determined by the overall amount of dopamine released, but by the speed with which it spikes. Crack, for example causes an extremely rapid elevation in DA levels, which is why it's so addictive. Nicotine can cause rapid elevation too (taking bolus doses into the blood via the lungs results in a 'hit' in around 6 seconds). This is one reason nicotine is so addictive. If you were to give somebody nicotine without their being aware of it, then they would simply form an association between the reward and whatever behaviour they were engaged in at that time, and that's the one that would be reinforced. For example, if you fed nicotine to someone in chicken sandwiches for long enough, they would develop a behavioural drive towards obtaining and consuming chicken sandwiches. However, as normal chicken sandwiches would not satisfy the craving, the behavioural drive would be extinguished after a short time, although the craving would last several weeks, until the physiologivcal changes had reversed.

This is when many people form their first strong relationships. Not necessarily permanent' date=' but strong. Me too, but then in my case, marrying her would have been the wrong thing to do as the relationship was dying anyway. Marriage is only a state/church sanction for a relationship that should already exist. It won't create or save a non-existant/dying relationship. They exist, but you have to look. They won't come to you if they don't know you're there, and you won't be able to tell which are the caring ones if you don't get to know them. Me neither. But then, you don't have to. In a relationship, you only have to really trust one person. Why? I've found that in the company of the right person, I'm so much more full of energy and ideas and enthusiasm. I think even if what you say is true, you're much more likely to accomplish it in the company of the right kind of person. Me too, but I'm beginning to realise that I'm not really an awful person either. However, it's a lot easier to talk to a person because you like something about them, than to talk to a person with 'a relationship' on your mind, because then there's no agenda and you have nothing to lose. That's a bit like saying "Im not going to practice the piano until I can play it properly". Jealousy comes from a fragile self-esteem, i.e. one that is too easily threatened. The first person you really have to trust is yourself. In a bizarre irony, your self esteem can be hugely enhanced by sharing the company of the right kind of people. If people you like and respect like you, then you can't be that bad. It happens. It just means they were not who you were looking for. It's all part of the search. If you're looking for your keys, you don't take a book simply because it was the first thing you found. You put it down and keep looking. Sounds like you have a need to justify yourself all the time (that would be the self-esteem thing again). I'm a bit like that. It's not actually true though. Just emotionally eviscerating yourself at the slightest opportunity can be very scary in itself. It doesn't necessarily mean there's anything awful about you to be scared of. You have to people some credit. Many can understand you. Those that really don't or can't will either ask, or go away. Those that just go away are not such a loss. It doesn't mean they're bad people, it just indicates that they're not really 'your kind' of people. You can't be everybody's friend, and nor should you try. It's a lot easier to become paranoid in isolation than it is in good company. Things in your own mind can get a little out of hand when there is no external feedback coming in. Again, this is something that comes from isolation. People you don't know will always seem one-dimentional. You have to know a person for them to become real. It's only when you get to know them that you're in a position to decide whether or not you like them anyway. Is it wisdom? If you have grit in your eyes, does it make more sense to get somebody else to look for it, or to try to find it yourself with no mirror? I'm not saying you should be looking for a realationship with a surrogate therapist, but we are social animals. We are defined as people to a large extent by those around us (it's a kind of reciprocal feedback thing). If you find someone you respect and trust, their objectivity and alternative perspectives will help you. You might even find that your 'issues' really aren't that big a deal. That's one option and it is your choice, but things will not improve in isolation and for the most part, people are not really 'designed' psychologically to be alone. Trust me, I know this. And where is it written that you have act the way they do? Only two people define any given relationship; those involved in it. Why would you define your potential relationships by what other people have done?

I don't dance. I look like like a badly stuffed sofa doing an impression of falling down the stairs. It's a shame, but some have it and some don't. I have to rely on my luminous personality, sparkling wit, eclectic humour, scintillating conversation and my dark flashing eyes... ...dammit! maybe that's where I'm going wrong! Maybe I should just get a big fast car.

Yep. It's not supposed to be difficult. The problem is that the Stroop test has two conditions (congruent and incongruent). The purpose of the test is to show the difference in time it takes to read out the two lists, but only the incongruent condition is presented here.

People with bulimia don't always purge. They go through 'binge - purge' cycles. On a binge they can consume truly amazing amounts of food before they purge. The fact that most bulimics maintain a more or less normal BMI is a part of the risk. They are very hard to spot but chronic purging leaches electrolytes from the system and during severe binge-purge episodes they are at high risk of sudden death. The heart fails due to low potassium.

Where two variables are completely independent, there will be no correlation. Rolling a pair of dice and recording the values will, after a sufficient number of trials, yield no corelation (r = 0 or a value close to zero).

Not really, but the people who buy it deserve some serious contempt.

The word 'English' should be capitalised. "I know how to write English well "...yet they are, you are not smart enough, you must still take it..." This is not a sentence. "Yet they tell me I am not smart enough, (so/ therefore) I must still take it" is better.

This principle is not strictly true. Alcoholic drinks came in liquid form, but alcohol is an effective diuratic, so if you're having a 'session' drinking say, beer, you will always excrete more than you take in and will become dehydrated. The reason this doesn't tend to happen with coffee is not because it comes in liquid form, but because it's a less effective diuretic.

The parasympathetic system is not strictly a part of the CNS, it's a part of the ANS (Autonomic Nervous System). Saliva secretion is controlled by the sympathetic and parasypathetic divisions of the ANS, which work in balance but opposition to each other.

Oh yeah...that helped.

Good approach I think knowing what you're looking for is a very good start. It'll come

Hmm...interesting. I suppose it's possible. Thing about that kind of armour is that it's so close fitting that you're never aware of wearing it, nor necessarily even where it came from, so dealing with it is that much harder. Something for me to think about anyway

For me, I have absolutely no idea. I suspect there is an entire world going on to which I am blind though. I like people mostly. At least, those who are interesting and have something to say. I'm sure most of you are the same in this I like to talk, I like to listen and I'm very sociable in good company. I have female friends who describe me in such terms as 'gorgeous', 'funny', 'brilliant company' 'attractive' etcetera, but they may just being kind as female friends tend to be. It came back to me through another female friend that a (lovely) woman I used to work with really found me very attractive. She (apparently) used such terms as 'wonderful bloke, really nice, funny, really good to talk to, really attractive' and so-on, sufficiently that my friend remembered it and told me all about it (much) later. Unfortunately, this (lovely) ex-colleague is married now , but that's how it tends to go. I always find out about things like this well after the fact. I suspect I have a sort of self-blindness. I can tell easily when one person is attracted to another, but I can't tell if, or when a person is attracted to me. I just can't seem to see it I find it often happens that after a night out friends will tell me things like 'oooh, she really liked you!' and I will have missed it all together. Some time ago, one of my best female friends was a bit miserable as she had split up with her boyfriend. I didn't like to see her miserable, so I introduced her to a male friend of mine, just for the company. As soon as they met I could see the 'spark' between them immediately. They're married with a daughter now (Yay!) and she's very happy (result!) But I do wonder why can I never see the same 'spark' if it is directed at me? I have been alone since 1996 and I must admit, it is becoming more than a little wearing.

I grok it. May you never thirst

I think things have changes too much to (re)introduce such species. Cheetah, for example, need savannah populated with large numbers of comparitively small prey animals (e.g. Grant's and Thomsons' gazelle, impala kind of size). Lion need the same (although larger, e.g. gemsbuck or kudu kind of size). The ratio found in Africa is about 800 grazers for every lion. This provides a good balance. The wild horses and asses would be good prey (might be a bit large for cheetah), and would probably do well enough, but there would need to be a lot of them. to create a stable Elephant poulation would take quite a number of animals and they eat a huge amount. I doubt there's enough free (non-agricultural) space in North America for a viable population. At least in the areas that do not drop below zero in winter. I doubt the plan is viable and it wouldn't benefit the animals. The most basic clue is to compare maps of North America and Africa. Compare the "155,000-acre property in the foothills of the Gila Mountains that contains a mix of ecosystems ranging from desert grasslands to pine forests" to something like the rift vally or the serengeti. In my opinion, we would do better to work harder on conserving what'e left than trying to recreate an innacurate reproduction of something that existed before the last ice age.

Most journals will, once they have accepted your paper, ask you to sign a copyright release. This gives the journal full rights. I finds that a good way of deciding which journal to target is to read your own reference section. The journal(s) cited most frequently there are the ones publishing work that is most related to your own.

I didn't think anything could be 'scientifically proven'. Scientific method is not set up to prove things. It is set up to disprove. The best you can hope for is to fail to disprove, in which case the hypothesis is 'accepted', not proven.

Not really. I know that as an individual, I will stop, one day. After that, who cares? The species can go to hell.

Yes, measures of IQ are normally distributed. The mean is 100 and the SD is around 15 as far as I remember. I don't know what my IQ is. I've never had it formally measured, and I probably won't. I don't have an awful lot of faith in their validity.