Glider

Paint, or any bitmap editor would be a pain to use. It sounds like you need vector graphic software. I use CorelDraw.

Paint, or any bitmap editor would be a pain to use. It sounds like you need vector graphic software. I use CorelDraw.

It's not a mutation, it's a structural problem cause by the chromosomes not separating properly during meiosis. This may or may not happen, but the probability increases with the age of the cell. There is no allele for it, it is a congenital condition, not an hereditary one.

What? Where did that come from? Are you testing my lateral response capabilities or something?

When you look at porn, you are exposed to images that evoke a very basic response (one of the three Fs - Fighting, Feeding and Reproduction) mediated by the hypothalamus. In the case of the sex drive, this also has a strong input from the dopaminergic reward system (one of the systems reponsible for addiction). So, more or less in order of events: 1) Information from a sexually valenced image undergoes primary processing in the thalamus. The reticular activating system (via recursive feedback loops from the thalamus and limbic areas) causes elevated levels of arousal (not sexual, just conscious awareness), and causes you to orient to the stimulus. 2) The image undergoes further processing in the limbic system engaging a positive affective-motivational state (you become motivated to approach the stimulus). 3) Processing in the hypothalamus engages appropriate systems and results in autonomic changes consonant with the evoked affective-motivational state. 4) Further limbic processing involving the hippocampus (linking the information to pre-learned memories) and the anterior cingulate gyrus (response selection) adds an overtly sexual context to the original basic state and further autonomic changes occur in preparation. This involves physical sexual arousal and activation of the reward system. All this occurs automatically and without volition, which in itself is a strong argument for determinism. This is an exremely over-simplified model, but then I do have to get to work at some point today.

This avenue might be relevent to Alzheimer's and possibly strokes, but bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, autism, and stupidity? I don't see how synaptogenesis/neurogenesis would be of any use in these.

Both the above are right. Down's is the result of nondisjunction of chromosome 21. This occurs because females are born with all the eggs they will ever have (unlike males who constantly produce sperm). The longer the amount of time before the egg undergoes meiosis, the harder it is for complete disjunction to take place. This is why the risk increases with the age of the female. There is no allele for Down's. Down's is one of the conditions amniocentesis detects.

'Will' would be a reasonable term to describe it. It takes an effort of will to concentrate on a particular topic for periods longer than ~40 minutes (the actual time depends on your attention span). You're welcome

Attention span, attention and concentration are all different things. Concentration refers to directed, volitional thought on a particular topic. Attention span refers to the length of time you can maintain a focus on one subject or object, for example, in a lecture. Attention refers to your point of focus, the object or matter you are mentally attending to. As for 'unheightening' emotional arousal, we in the trade call that 'relaxing'. Your difficulty in focusing may or may not be due to states of arousal. It could just as easily be due to a short attention span, where your attention wanders from the subject/object after a short period of time. I takes effort to bring it back, but it gets easier over time.

My thoughts exactly.

They are different things. Concentration requires deliberate intent, whereas heightened states of arousal occur without deliberate intent. Moreover, they are often mutually exclusive. Not really, or at least only insofar as heightened emotional arousal can disrupt concentration. Attention is directed by arousal, but concentration is more often disrupted by it.

Well, 'can't be moved without pain' is still a lot better off than 'can't be moved.' It does sound like nerve compression, probably due to inflammation. Things should improve over time, but only time will tell.

Two days sound about the right amount of time for post-operative inflammation to have exerted pressure on the roots of the C5-6 spinal nerves. Soft tissue inflammation can take a long time to go down, but it will go down. Is the paralysis complete, or is there still partial function? How about sensory function? Is there still feeling in the arm, or tingling. or nothing?

In a way, but it has more to do with your state during the event. Highly 'charged' situations, i.e. those leading to heightened states of arousal increase learning. so-called 'Flashbulb' memories occur as a result of being in heightened emotional states. Your emotional state signals that the event is salient, so your brain tries to record more of it, to help you learn to deal with similar events in the future. Best thing when people start talking about it again is just to tell them to shut up. It's pointless getting involved in 'If only' trains of thought regarding past events anyway. Learn from the experience by all means, but exam post mortems are of limited use.

Not typos, errors. But by having them pointed out, I have learned something (even if it's only to take a little more care when typing 'opponent'). Had I used a spell checker to automatically make corrections for me, I would have learned nothing. PS. The errors are corrected.

It depends entirely upon what test you are running. For example, a t-test requires only two groups, but ANOVA generates cells, each of which holds a sub group of your overall sample. So, a 2x2 Two-Way ANOVA has four cells, but a 2x3 Two-Way has six cells and your sample size need to be increased. Sample size is one factor influencing the power of your experiment (to detect the effect it is testing for). The other factors are effect size and Alpha. One of the uses of power analysis is to help researchers calculate their samlple size, e.g. they are looking for a large effect (0.8) at Alpha 0.05 and you want an experimental power of 0.9 using a t-test; power analysis would tell you how large your sample needed to be to achieve that experimental power. I think Coolican covers power analysis. If not, look in Howell (Statistical Methods for Psychology). As for the issue of different sized groups, if your data are parametric (and of at least interval level of measurement), having different sized groups should not matter, as long as the smaller group has at least the minimum required. Increasing a sample size when taking parametric measures simply means that the sample mean and SD will more closely match the population mean (and SD). If you a sample size which adequately represents the population mean, then increasing the sample size will not increase the experimental power. If your sample size is smaller than that, then the sample mean will be further from the population mean and your experiment will lose power. By this principle, the issue in your experiment is not that one group has n = 100, but that the other group has n = 19. If this value is lower than that required, then your experiment will lose power. Coolicans' recommendation refers to group sizes not overall sample sizes; he means ~20 per group, so for an independent groups t-test you need 40, in a 2x2 Two Way between subjects ANOVA you need 80, in a 3x2 Two-Way (between subjects) you need 120 (and so-on). However, his recommendation is an extremely broad 'rule of thumb' as sample size requirements depend upon the required experimental power (0.8 is acceptable), the size of the effect you are looking for, (large, medium or small), where small effects require a much greater sample size than large effects, and Alpha (set by convention to 0.05). The larger the value for Alpha, the smaller the sample needed (it's never a good idea to increase Alpha though). I just ran a power analysis (out of interest). I set required experimental power at 0.8, Alpha at 0.05 and effect size at 0.8 (large). For a t-test (2-Tailed), the total sample (N) needs to be 52 (i.e. 26 per group). However, if your hypothesis is 1-tailed, the required total N drops to 42 (21 per group). I would say you need to add a few to your smaller group.

It could easily have been both, yes. The blurring of perception due to the alcohol, plus the traumatic nature of the event, could both have contributed to a kind of learning suppression/memory repression effect. As you have recalled the incident, it is clear that encoding (to some degree) took place.

There won't be just one section. Incoming sensory information goes through so many levels of processing and integration to produce your ultimate experience. Disruption to any part of the process will affect the outcome.

Considering what the brachial plexus is, it's more likley that a brachial plexus injury will result in nerve compression causing (hopefully) temporary paralysis. It's highly unlikely that restricted blood supply could cause a brachial plexus injury.

Slightly off topic, but in my experience, the mere existence of spell-check facilities has led to an over reliance on them especially in terms of what most people think they will do for their work. Every semester I have to tell students to proofread their work rather than relying solely on their word processor to do the work for them, as (for example) "Dear Sir or Madam" and "Dead Sod or Moron" are equally acceptable to a spell checker.

I seriously doubt it's a disorder. It probably has more to do with your proximity to the issue. You studied for the exam, and you sat it. You were directly involved and for that day, the exam was all there was, so it looks disproportionately larger than it really is, compared to the rest of your life. I went out on a Canarian fishing boat once. We went out just before dawn, and whilst we were fishing, the boat seemed huge (there were four of us on board) and there was us, the boat, and the ocean (couldn't see land). When we got back and offloaded our catch, we were walking to the market and I looked back at the boat. I could not believe how small it was (5m). It really had seemed so much bigger when that's all there was. I suspect your view of the exam is much the same. Being so involved in it will have changed you perspective a bit. The further away you get from it, the smaller it will appear. Post exam deflation is mainly a function the highly aroused state many people are in when they sit exams. Once it's all over there's generally a sense of anticlimax, however well you think you did. If you have a generally pessimistic outlook, obviously that won't help either. Nonetheless, as I say, the further you get from it, the smaller it will seem.

I've never actually fought a friend (nor felt the urge to) The worst it ever gets is raised voices and I can't remember the last time that happened. As for random guy in a bar, the same rules apply; whatever it takes to preserve your physical integrity. Having seen some 'Friday night, binge-drinking fueled town centre' type brawls, I think my opponent would still fare better losing to me than I would losing to him. As soon as he ceased to present a threat, I'm away on me toes. Most people these days seem to like to hang around offering to fight everyone else whilst stomping on the other guys' head (often joined by two or three of their friends). I suppose that kind of drunken macho BS is what people here mean by 'dishonourable'. Well, my way is no more honourable. I just don't think there is any honour in fighting. It's something you only ever do if you really have to and absolutely can't find any other way out. If you do have to do it, do it properly. You can't afford to lose to random guy in a bar. You don't know whether or not he'll stop if you go down.

Sherbet is supposed to be quite good a killing roaches. Apparently their gut has a series of valves that won't allow them to release pressure, so something sweet and fizzy should do do the trick.

I agree with you. 'Honour' (or more realistically ethical practice), enters into it when you talk about armies or structured bodies of men fighting under rules of engagement. Adherence to those rules of engagement and the ethical guidelines/laws laid down (e.g. the Geneva convention) equals military honour. Things like not firing on a white flag, accepting the warrents of surrendered soldiers, ensuring POWs are given medical treatment and are treated with respect, not engaging or involving civillians and so-on. All these things are components of fighting with honour. My point is that when it comes to close quarters, and you are engaged, there is no honour (until or unless your opponent surrenders). Until that point, by definition, the force you apply must exceed the force being applied against you, or you will lose. Whatever gives you an advantage is acceptable. Once he is no longer a threat, or surrenders then you can afford to be honourable (e.g. not kicking him when he's down), but until he goes down (or surrenders), anything goes. As I said in my first post, there are no points for second place.

Your main problem is the automatic progression from "You think you did badly [in] an exam" to "Your future is ruined". Even actually doing badly in an exam can't ruin your future. It can only change it. In what way is up to you. As it stands, you don't even know that you did badly. I'd wait until the evidence is in before worrying about ruined futures and stuff.