Glider

Yep. It only takes about four minutes without oxygen to do irreparable damage (longer with cooling).

living in so much fear that people feel their only option is to own firearms to protect themselves agains the people around them. Is that freedom?

Yeeees. The 'extra' in 'extra sensory' means 'outside of' or 'other than' (as in the difference between intra- and extracellular), not 'another'. Being able to touch or smell colours is unlikely to be an enhancement of any existing sense. Did you do a search for blindsight?

ESP stand for Extra Sensory Perception. Do a google search on 'blindsight'.

You're welcome It's odd that it's taught as an 'add on'. We give two full years of research methods, each as a year long module. I try to show how the knowledge gained in all other areas of psychology, and that is taught in the other modules (e.g. cognitive, forensic, biological, neuro, developmental, clinical etc.) was gained through the application of research methods, and so research is the heart of psychology, and the common denominator in all the other modules. It's understandable that people have a dislike for it. I hated it as an undergraduate. But I think a vivid memory of that helps me teach it now. I try to keep it real and show how it is applied in the more interesting areas of psychology. I also use smarties as a teaching aid.

And so you should. Psychobabble has been used to mislead too often. With the example of phobias: You're right, a fear of snakes is arguably not baseless, but may still be irrational (a defining characteristic of a phobia). A person with a severe snake phobia will show extreme fear (and associated autonomic responses) to a picture of a snake. Nonetheless, people can learn a fear of snakes (though not a phobia) by observing others being harmed by snakes (either in reality or in films, documentaries etc.). (some) snakes are dangerous, there are real grounds to fear them. Now, take for example a moth phobia. Moths are harmless. Fear of moths has no basis in reality. We cannot have learned the fear by observing another being mauled or fatally bitten by a moth. The percept of a moth held by a person with a moth phobia is baseless in reality.

Advertising. That's a very good example.

I agree. Very bad idea.

that makes sense. Thanks.

By 'Baseless in reality' I mean simply that the beliefs held are ..er..well, baseless, unsupported, wrong, in reality. For example, somebody believing they are useless at what they do, would not be baseless if they are in fact useless at what they do. That would be a rational and supported belief (i.e. there would be some objective evidence in support of that belief). If they were in fact very good at what they do, but believed they were useless, then such a belief would be baseless in reality and only 'evidence' for it would be the irrational, biased and selective perceptions in the mind of that individual.

Good plan. I like it.

Good protocol Cookie. Would you use the same method if you wanted to test the degree to which mouthwash inhibited bacterial growth, rather than killed existing bacteria? I.e. many mouth washes claim to inhibit plaque-causing bacteria for 12 hours, so if you wanted to test that, would you still use an established culture?

Well said.

The term 'syndrome', in medicine, refers to a group of symptoms which consistantly occur together, particularly where the underlying cause or problem is not well understood. I'm guessing, but I suppose the term complex could be used in the same way in psychology, to describe a set of behaviours or attitudes that occur together due to some poorly understood aetiology, but which extend beyond the rational. For example, 'inferiority complex' which is characterised by a set of beliefs and attitudes concerning one's worth and self esteem and is manifest in behaviours concordant with those beliefs. For it to be a complex, these beliefs are irrational and baseless in reality, and the underlying cause of the complex is unknown (initially at least).

Yes, and we all do it, most of the time.

The Oedipus complex is a Freudian term which refers to a (usually) sexual fixation on one or other parent, and is characterised by a range of loving and hostile wishes by a child passing through the so-called phallic stage of development (at 3-5 years of age). I suppose it is termed a complex due the characteristic constellation of emotions that defines the condition. Beyond that, I have very little idea. I don't know much about Freud or Freudian psychoanalytic thoery (I come from the 'other end' of psychology).

The oestrus cycle refers to the cyclic building up and then shedding of the endometrium, and the associated hormonal changes.

No idea, but its a complex, not a syndrome.

It can do that because although the liver is a complex, multi-function organ, in structure it is homogenous. Every part of the liver is exactly the same as every other part (consisting of lobuli). To regenerate, all it has to do is to create more lobuli. In this, the liver is unique. No other organ is homogenous in structure.

He's talking about visuo-spacial ability; the ability to abstract three dimentional objects and mentally rotate them in a way that remains applicable to reality. Males have a small but significant advantage in that ability.

You might add a control sample (e.g. exactly the same as the others, but using a drop of distilled water instead of maouthwash).

You're right. If you want to know what's likely to happen to your hair, look at your mother's father, rather than your father or his father. This will only provide a probable outcome though, not certainty. There are other factors involved.

The retina is highly vascular, and the sclera is vacular, but the cornea (as Faf says) gets it oxygen from the air.

Yep. There is also known to less functional lateralisation in the brains of females to begin with.

You actually gave warning points for that?