Glider

They do (generally), but dominance doesn't mean 'used to the exclusion of all others'. It means it tends to be used more frequently or more effectively. It's a bit like hand dominance. Right handed people use both hands, as do left handed people. They just use their dominant hand more often, particularly for fine motor tasks. That kind of lateral dominance is a continuum, from one side dominant to the other side dominant. You can be left side dominant, right side dominant, and (importantly) any point inbetween, including having no dominant side. The same applies to senses. Some are, for example, visually oriented, some aurally, but sensory dominance are continua the same as lateral dominance.

Hold less tightly.

Cytoplasm and interstitial fluid are also roughly the same. We evolved in the sea, and that environment proved highly condusive to the chemical processes required for life. Basically, whilst we evolved and left the sea to colonise dry land, the basic environmental requirements for life remained the same, so we took that environment with us, enclosed in our cells and tissues.

Well, that makes the idea all sort of pointless and...I rather like it. I wonder if there is any way of testing for innate preference.

I like that explanation. I think it has a lot going for it. It's less of a factor when typing though. I think two questions should be asked (and preferably answered) before introducing significant changes though: 1) Is the current system flawed (does it need changing)? 2) Is the new system (whatever it is) significantly better (i.e. would there be a significant improvement or gain by reading text in any other direction than left to right)?

These are osteoclasts. They eat away at the broken surfaces of the bone and dispose of splinters, in effect preparing the way for osteoblasts to lay down new bone in the fibrin and collogen matrix caused by the inflammation around the fracture (bone healing is an inflammatory process).

Ian Anderson manages very well, so it can't be that hard not to sing like an American (which seems to be the default singing accent outside of classical).

I do. I don't know what it is about Psychology, but people feel they can post the most fantastic (as in: - of, or pertaining to fantasy, NOT brilliant and insightful) rubbish in that forum, as long as it contains words like 'mind' or 'mental'. Perhaps it's because they have no understanding of Psychology, or don't believe that it is a science and subject to the same rules of evidence and logic as other sciences. Or maybe they simply don't grasp the basic definition of 'science'.

Interesting, but can you demonstrate the relevance to Psychology?

Several in fact. Through which pass blood vessels, many, many blood vessels. Bone marrow is highly vascular, only the cortex is solid. The periosteum is also highly vascular.

So, what are you saying?

In this case, it is melanin, the pigment that colours eyes brown. Really, there are no such things as 'blue eyes', just eyes that are not brown. All shades of eye colour reflect a concentration of melanin. Brown = lots, green = less, hazel = even less, light blue = none.

Whilst it has not been proven that animals are capable of suffering, they do display autonomic and behavioural correlates associated with a suffering state (particularly the higher animals used in testing e.g. pigs and primates), and they do posess structures associated with the perception of noxious stimuli. In reality, it cannot be 'proven' that humans suffer. Pain and suffering are psychological states (non-observable). We can never 'know' the pain of another, we can only observe behavioural responses and make assumptions based upon our own experiences. In light of this, wouldn't it be more sound ethically to consider reasonable probability, based upon our observations of animal responses, sufficient grounds for caution, rather than requiring proof absolute? If proof absolute is the deciding factor, we could dispense with anaesthetics on mute humans who cannot state explicitly that they are suffering. Computers do not show any correlates associated with pain states, nor do they have any structures associated with the perception of noxious stimuli. Just arguing for the sake of it, rather than driven by any strong conviction

No, they didn't have a population problem. It was an attempt to eliminate certain hereditary conditions from the population.

Unfortunately, rights very rarely come into the equasion. Denmark was carrying out compulsory sterilization on women until 1974.

It's the disadvantage of arguing a point based only on a 'feeling of rightness'. Arguments presented under those circumstances will always be attempts to rationalise a stance, rather than evidence in support of it. One becomes emotionally attached to the argument, as it is based on a personal emotional response (in effect, the argument becomes an extension of one's self), and therefore, very defensive of it.

It's all down to the BPS. A few years ago they decided that as research is the 'bread and butter' of psychology, it made no sense to keep churning out graduates who couldn't do it. The BPS decided that in order for them to recognise a psychology based degree, the candidate would have to have taken and passed two years of research methods (including statistics). As a consequence, all those students who used to opt for psychology as a 'cop out' degree (i.e. a an easy option just to get 'a degree'), suddenly found that their 'easy degree' was contingent upon passing two years of research methods and stats. It makes a lot of sense if you think about the role of a psychologist. I think Norway will probably do the same sooner or later, for the sake of parity. Well done on your test too, by the way. I find so often that by the time it comes to teaching ANOVA (beginning of year 2), students have forgotten what t-tests are for over the summer, and tend to have a hard time of it for the first few weeks of the new semester.

You're right, it couldn't hurt to try. Hypnosis basically involves inducing a state of altered suggestibility. It has been described as a process which allows the subject to reinterpret incoming information on a very basic level. This can have advantages in certain conditions. Mental state can influence outcomes in certain circumstances. For example, two people are bitten by a snake. One panics and runs around looking for help. He speeds the progress of the venom and dies quickly. The other sits, remains calm, applies a tournequet and walks off looking for help. He lives a lot longer (but will still die without treatment). The same applies in many situations. In case of fire, a panic response (elevated respiration) will speed the efects of smoke and toxic fumes. In cases of injury involving serious bleeding, a panic response (elevated heart-rate and vasodilation) speeds exanguination and induces a rapid state of shock. In cases of pathology, any suffering caused by the condition is exhausting and takes up resources that would be better employed in fighting the disease. Reduce or eliminate the suffering and you will increase the chances of recovery. However, if the disease compromises any system required for life, death will occur regardless of mental state. Ultimately, survival in cases of serious illness or injury depends upon a fine balance of many different factors including age, general physical health and fitness, the availability, rapidity and quality of treatment and mental state (which most definitely has an effect). In some cases mental state may 'tip the balance' but, on its own, won't defend against fatal conditions.

We use it too. It's funny, but by strange coincidence data entry and output interpretation are precicely the two areas that students seem to have most problems with

State of mind can result in beneficial effects, yes. As I mentioned, state of mind has been linked to immune function. There is correlative evidence that state of mind can have a significant effect in the presence of pathology, e.g. a type-A personality has been shown to be associated with a more positive outcomes in cases of cancer (However, type-A is also associated with higher risk of coronary heart disease). However, in the absence of pathology, attitude may play a role in extending life expectancy, but that role is most likely to be one of a generally more positive attitude towards health and health behaviours, rather than any mysterious mental ability to delay death. To use the example you provide, if I put a round into somebody that disrupts or destroys structures necessary for continued life, it would bring about a physical state physiologists term 'incompatible with life'. In individuals with such an injury, 'refusal to die' is not a factor. However, in shots that are not immediately fatal (e.g. liver, hepatic artery, renal artery or some such structure), some mental states can induce changes in vasovagal response that would delay the onset of hypovolemic shock. Such individuals may retain consciousness and the ability to function for longer than individuals without that mental state. Nonetheless, without rapid intervention, the end result would be the same for both, and inevitable, regardless of mental state.

It's all relative

Mine too, or David if you include the ID (Damn you Freud!), which nobody (apart from my mother) ever does.

Parascending/paragliding used to do it for me; leaping off mountains with a wing. Then the parascending organization and the hangliding organisation joined up and it got all political with many, many more restrictions I used to dive also, but that's really expensive. My bike has always provided the buzz I like, although with the nutters on the roads these days, just getting from A to B on a motorcyle without getting smashed is grounds for a party.

You're welcome. That was just an example of a simple experiment that is ideal for course work at second year level. Anything along those lines would be appropriate. Nope. I'll be around. Do you use SPSS for analysis?

The latter half of that post boils down to: "Im sure it's possible because it might be possible".