Glider

It doesn't happen outside of coincidence (chance). The problem is that where the original premise is flawed, or at least unsupported, questions based upon it have no meaning. This is where the flaw lies. There is no support for the the contention that people can think themselves into trouble. A question that follows the logic "A is true, therefore can B be true?" is meaningless where there is no evidence that A is true. You see? A shot that does not kill cannot be said to be lethal. A shot that results in death is, by definition, fatal. Ok, I won't.

I'm not aware of it in those terms. I am aware of many stress related conditions though, and the finding that significant and protracted stress can make an individual more prone to certain infections (colds usually) through inhibiting their immune function. Aren't illnesses already REAL physiological conditions? I've never heard of that happening. To contract a particular and specific illness through negative thought? Unlikely. I have heard of 'Voodoo death' (as it's known), but victims take many days to die. Usually, this is because they believe they will die, have given up all hope and simply stop eating and drinking. To a degree. A positive attitude has been shown to affect immunocompetence in a positive way. Nonetheless, there are illenesses capable of overcoming immune system defences (if there weren't, then no healthy person would never get ill). Whilst positive thought may increase your resistance, it is unlikely to make you 'bullet proof' and immune to all illnesses. Not significantly longer than you would otherwise. Being free of illness and extending the lifespan are two different things. Assuming you don't die of some pathalogical process, then your lifespan will be more or less unaffected by whether or not you have had the flu a lot (for example).

No, the two are processed differently. When you see an image (e.g. of a tree), you process not only the image (and whatever else the image evokes), but the semantic definition. When you see the word 'tree' you only process the semantic definition. This means that the stimulus presented as an image undergoes more processing and thus forms more traces to aid recall. Therefore people tend to be able to recall more images than words in experiments of that type.

Must be an oversight on the part of the Chinese Government. I'll have a word with them. They said they're sorry, but as it was quite embarrassing for them on the whole, they decided not to tell you online. They asked "Didn't you get our e-mail?"

Probably because (as research methods students seem to do), you are making things a lot harder for yourself than you need to. You would have to quantify some measure of relationships (ignoring the ethical consideration that relationships are a personal subject and may be a sensitive area to some), and social skills (highly subjective). I.Q. measures are easy enough, but in any event, the whole model is very complicated. Cognitive topics are very simple. Why not do something to do with memory? Take a list of twenty words. The words should be of everyday objects; car, vase, spanner, cat, tree etc., etc.. Find images of those words (i.e. pictures of a car, a vase, a spanner, a cat, etc., etc..) You now have two sets of the same stimuli presented in different modes; Semantic and imagery. Recruit a sample of participants (usually other students) and split them by sex (e.g. 10 male & 10 female). Show 5 males and 5 females the list of words for 2 minutes. Give them a one minute distractor task; something like continually subtracting 7 from 1000 (e.g. 100 minus 7 = 993, minus 7 = 986, minus 7 = 979 and so-on). This is a control to prevent rehersal. After one minute, give them a sheet of paper and get the to write down as many words as they can remember (give 2-3 minutes for this). Do the same to the other 5 females and 5 males, this time using the 20 images. This is a simple experiment with a simple hypothesis: "Participants will remember correctly a greater number of images than words" If you wish, you could hypothesise an interaction, e.g. something like; "Females will remember more images than males" The design is 2x2 and the data are tested using a 2-Way ANOVA (which you should have been, or are being taught by now). Factor 1 = sex: levels = male - female. Factor 2 = Stimulus: Levels Words - images.

What module is this for? The topic of the experiment/report will depend mainly on that.

I agree. I think it's safe to say that memory, hypnosis, habitual behaviours and suchlike are all in the mind.

A very good question. I don't think it can be answered without doing it. Personally, I think although the parents would come to accept the clone as their own child, as long as they knew it was a clone, they could not accept it as the original (i.e. awareness of the fact negates the fallacy). So there would always exist the basis for comparisons (as in my previous post).

Yep, but in any international agreement limiting 'offspring output', the US would probably circumvent it by buying the 'offspring quotas' of a few poorer countries.

Cosmetic companies base most of their sales strategies on psuedo-scientific babble. That's why they use terms like "Contains Rejuviyouthwrinkle-eliminaticol!" (for example). The terms are meaningless in the context of actual substances (which will be mainly an oil-water emulsion with colour and perfume), but it does evoke in the minds of the target population the words 'youth' , 'rejuvination', and 'wrinkle elimination'. The more realistic scientific terms are included principally to provide credibility. Every couple of years or so, studies are carried out which show these things do not do what they claim to do, the advertising standards people warn the cosmetics companies, they readdress their ad strategies for a while, then the whole cycle starts again. A dictionary definition of 'cosmetic': "Improving something only outwardly". That should be the guiding principle when evaluating the claims of these companies.

Good idea

I have worked with liquid nitrogen. I even used it to cool new valve seats to insert them into pre-heated heads (nice tight fit). It's a low pressure medium which can be kept in a thermos. It's not particularly dangerous (although I wouldn't dip a finger in it), and it's actually very good at freezing and shattering chewing gum from pavements. Give it a little spray, the apply a steel scraper and it comes off very cleanly.

As so many of the characterstics that form a personality are learned and formed through experience, I think it's fair to say that personality cannot be cloned. I think it would be a bad thing to clone a 'replacement' child. Not only would it serve to "remind [the parents] of who they lost", but it would mean the new individual being exposed to a preexisting set of expectations by the parents. The parents would expect the 'replacement' to behave in the same way as the 'original'. Whenever the replacement displayed a behaviour that did not meet, or deviated from these pre-determined criteria (even if the new behaviour was valid and 'good'), the parents could not help but show, on some level, dissapointment ("that's not what our son/daughter would have done"). This would be extremely confusing (and possibly damaging) to the replacement. The whole non-conscious parent-child reinforcement dynamic would be out of whack.

Another theory of memory (the 'leaky bucket' theory) proposes that older memories are extinguished and 'overwritten' by newer memories. However, since Wilder Penfield demonstrated the existance of very early memories that could be evoked by direct electrical stimulation of temporal regions, most people tend to believe that memories are never really lost, but the traces to them can be. I suppose the term extinction could apply to the traces. However, I'm most familiar with the term extinction in the context os learned behaviours rather than memory. There is some evidence that learning takes place at a very low level; for example, even under anaesthesia. Episodic (flashbulb) memory seems to require only an emotional trace rather than 'higher level' traces such as semantics. As for remembering things when you were born, this is unlikely for several reasons: Firstly, in order to encode a memory that can be retrieved, we need existing points of reference, sort of 'cognitive hooks' to hang them on. A newborn has none to speak of so much of the incoming information makes no sense and therefore could not be meaningfully encoded. Another reason is that whilst in an adult brain, memories may not be over written, the brain of a newborn undergoes significant changes in the first 6 months of life; the formation and reinforcement of synaptic connections and the extinction of redundant ones, programmed cell death and so-on. In all probability, the 'neural matrix' (for want of a term) is too unstable at that time to hold onto memories and any incoming information that either is not constantly reinforced, or makes no sense will be 'physically over written' (like a low level format) by the plastic changes taking place. This of course is not to say that learning does not occur during that period, it does, but mainly information that is reinforced day after day. We generally cannot recall anything much before 2 - 4 years of age.

You're welcome. I hope it's sorted for you soon.

To a degree yes. It's called context dependent (sensitive) learning. There have been studies on it. The results of such studies are a bit abivalent as it seems to depend on what you are trying to learn. Emotionally 'coloured' or valenced memories are the ones most sensative to the effect. 'Dryer' memories e.g. academic stuff is less prone the the effect as it is harder to associate that material to the original stimulus (music or whatever)..

The technical term for it is memory. Current theory of memory states that trauma and pathology aside, we never lose a memory, only the traces to it. If these traces are triggered, the original memory is evoked (Wilder Penfield demonstrated this using microelectrodes). Smell is the only sense which does not pass through (and undergo primary processing in) the hypothalamus. It is one of our oldest senses, and projects into the limbic brain and into areas associated with memory (e.g. medial temporal regions, hippocampus etc.). Smells are particularly evocative. Sounds, particularly music works on an emotional level (again this involves the limbic brain) and for that reason, is also particularly evocative. Both these stimuli have the ability to re-evoke emotions that we felt when first exposed to them (a particular smell or piece of music). This is particularly pronounced if the original emotions were strong. As memory is reconstructive, once having triggered the original emotional state, event memories laid down at that time (and in that emotional context) are much easier to trace, and thinking about one thing (one memory) which comes to mind under those circumstances will trigger the traces to others laid down at that time.

You wouldn't go for a job as a psychotherapist if you were a clinical psychologist anyway. They are two entirely different things. As it stands, the job market at the moment (in the UK at least) is screaming for clinical psychologists. The first thing to do is to find out what a clinical psychologist is or indeed, what a psychologist is (most people cannot define psychology and have no real idea what a psychologist is, or does). You could start by logging on to http://www.bps.org.uk which is the website of the British Psycholoical Society (if you are in the US, look for the American Psychological Association (APA)). A clinical psychologist is not subordinate to a psychiatrist. They are different jobs and have different roles. It's a bit like saying the Marines are subordinate to the Paras. Before deciding a course, you should find out more about the roles and functions of each.

I can't answer that. The only thing it can be said that you "really do have" is secondary amenorrea (the absense of menstration for > 3 months). The point is, amenorrea is usually a symptom, not a condition in itself. Your weight gain may be a factor in amenorrea, but then the weight gain may also be a symptom of something else. For example, something like hypothyriodism may be responsible for both the weight gain and the amenorrea. I am not a physician, and and I said, 'online' is not the place to make medical diagnoses even if I were qualified to do so. Your best option is to see your doctor. They will be able to answer more accurately any questions you have and should be able to provide an effective treatment (if necessary). For example, if the underlying cause is hypothyroidism, then they may prescribe thyroxin, which should stabilise things for you.

You have secondary amenorrea. This is a condition where women who used to menstruate normally, stop for more than three months (primary amenorrea is where women of repproductive age have never had a mentrual cycle). As to the cause, that could be any number of things. Often the cause is hypothalamic and related to changes in the release of cyclic hormones. However, causative (aetiological) factors are many. For example, certain medications, particuarly mood stabilizers, e.g. clozaril, phenothiazines and some narcotics can cause amenorrea. Also, sudden and significant weight gain or loss can interfere with the menstrual cycle. Anorexia nervosa is usually acompanied by amenorrea. Cushing's disease (over active adrenal glands) and hypothyriodism can both cause amenorrea, as can oestrogen defficiency and exessive levels of androgens. However, don't get too worried as without an examination, there is no way of knowing whether any of the above applie to you. In any event, 'online' is not really the place to make diagnoses, and I don't think anyone here (including myself) is qualified to do so. The best advice is to see your doctor. S/he should be able to pinpoint the cause quite quickly and in most cases these conditions respond to treatment quite well.

What about negative feeback?

I agee

Nope, you're not wrong. The behaviour of individual channels is unpredictable, but the behaviour of neurons is more influenced by the action of the behaviour of large numbers of channels. Temporal and spacial summation of many incoming signals dictate whether or not a neuron fires rather than the random action of its ion channels. i.e. it requires a relatively large 'net influence' to depolarise or hyperpolarise a membrane. The random behaviour of individual channels will largely cancel each other out. Even if (as randomness dictates is possible) all channels suddenly opened and the cell fired, the AP of one cell in the CNS is rarely enough on its own to trigger the next cell, though it may increase or decrease its membrane potential a little.

I don't really like cars. A lot of people get behind the wheel and are suddenly 10 foot tall and bullet proof, but they're a bit like shellfish really. Hard on the outside, but once you lever the thing open and extract the contents, it's usually a bit wet and jelly like. It's been quite some time since I've asserted myself all over a cage pilot. I must be getting old.

That looks like a nice phone. I had to get a new phone myself a few weeks ago. I was happy with my old triband motorola V66i, but needed to connect with stuff, so I got a Siemens S55 that has Bluetooth (and IRDA) and GPRS capability so I can connect and sort my mail and stuff using my T2 PDA. It's a bit handy being able to carry my office in my pocket as I'm doing some consultancy work at the moment and don't have a 'base of operations' at the moment.