Glider

Exactly. And if you post such a 'stream of consciousness' in the psychology sub-forum of the medical sciences page (especially when the theme appears to be depression), you have to accept that it's probably going to be evaluated critically as a comment on depression (i.e. dysthymic disorders) as opposed to a general theological/philosophical muse. Sorry about the dribbling moron thing by the way. Tough day...idiot students..etc...etc... and I obviously picked up the smelly end of the stick regarding your post.

Ohhh yeah...I forgot about them Yeah...that sounds about right. It is a problem though. I have to teach people how to write scientific essays and research reports and stuff. It's always easier to do, than it is to explain. Think (for example), about making a cup of coffee...easy peasy huh? Now try to write instructions on making a cup of coffee whilst assuming that your reader has no prior knowledge of kettles and taps and things. That's where it gets tricky (and very long winded).

AHA!....:slaphead:

I suppose in principle it could be seen that way, yes. Strictly speaking though, poking snails in the eye (although a fascinating hobby) works on a different and simpler principle; habituation. This is usually demonstrated on aplesia (sea slugs). If you touch the gill of an aplesia, it will retract it. If you continue to poke it, eventually it will cease to retract it; the neuronal circuit associated with the withdrawal reflex becomes habituated. As aplesia has no brain to speak of, this is just a neurological function (non-associative learning). Learned helplessness on the other hand, requires a degree of cognitive and emotional processing in order to lay down the association between any and all attempts to alter or improve your situation and abject failure (associative learning). If you stop poking the gill of aplesia for a while, the withdrawal reflex will reestablish. However, in cases of learned helplessness, the dog never tries to escape the shock on repeated trials, even if you lift it out of the stall between shocks to show it that it is free to escape. Have you ever seen film of the freeing of the death camp inmates by allied troops at the end of WWII? Did you ever notice how, even when the allied troops entered the camps, threw open the gates and offered food and water, some of the inmates just stood there? They didn't move or try to get out or reach for the food or water or in any way attempt to improve their immediate condition. Due to their experiences, they had learned helplessness; that nothing they did would change anything therefore doing anything was futile.

I thought so too, which is why I tried to respond a bit more gently to it when it appeared in the 'Depression' post in the psychology/psychiatry forum. I have done, in the above mentioned forum. However, if you're not a 14 year old before your first highschool English class, then you must be dribbling moron. If this was anything like a reasonable essay, the central issue would have been clear. There IS no central psychological issue in that 'essay'. The theme may be depression, but all the essay does is demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject. Moreover, as the readers, it is not our job to 'try to deduce' what the crap you're on about. It is your job as the writer to make it clear.

Do you mean the ANS (Autonomic Nervous System)? PNS stands for 'Peripheral Nervous System' (as opposed to Central Nervous System, or 'CNS'). In any event, 'psychokinesis' still refers to the supposed ability to move objects by mental effort alone. It's ok, I've seen the ceremonies in which people pass long spikes through their cheeks. The ANS controls our non-volitional bodily functions. The sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions of the ANS work in tonic opposition to maintain homeostasis. Neither mediates pain, nor is pain a bodily function. The PNS (peripheral nervous system) refers to all afferent (sensory) and efferent (motor) pathways outside of the brain and spinal cord. By reducing the amount of pain, one feels less pain? I can't really argue with that, now can I? I don't know what a 'pain pill' is. If you mean "through more frequent exposure to pain we may begin to control our responses to it" I would agree, up to a point. However, the Thai child (and those others who pass things through their cheeks) apparently felt no pain. The absence of pain in the presence of trauma that one may resonably expect to be painful (like the Indian hook swinging ceremony) is a very different thing from controlling one's responses to pain.

I think you are probably right. I think depression is unlikely to be a defence mechanism as it is maladaptive (results in maladaptive behaviours and impaired coping abilities) and in the long-term causes more harm than it would defend against. The 'decision' to stop trying is the result of learned helplessness. Seligman (1967) and Overmier (1967) developed the idea of learned helplessness in studies using dogs. As you might expect, if you put a dog in a stall and apply an electric shock to the dog, it will jump out of the stall to escape the shock. Seligman showed that if you prevent the dog from escaping (e.g. by placing a restraint over the stall), eventually the dog will enter a stoic, helpless state and will give up trying to escape the shock. This persists even after the restraint is removed. In principle this applies to humans who, after repeated failed attempts to improve their circumstances or alleviate a negative state, will eventually give up. Depression can't really be considered an optimal solution, not least because it doesn't actually solve anything. In fact, as far as the individual is concerned, it causes more problems by reducing that person's ability to cope with normal, every-day events. Small things that everybody else takes for granted; paying bills, family demands, work demands etc., become percieved as insurmountable problems. Not quite. Anxiety itself is a negative affect, and depression is associated with increased levels of anxiety. As I said above, small daily problems that a person would normally just deal with are percieved as 'overwhelming' and threatening to depressed individuals due to their reduced ability to cope, and so result in increased anxiety. This is true to a degree. After a time, negative cognitions and reinforcing behaviours can become entrenched. At this point, whilst the individual does not actually want to be depressed, they will often resist change. Again, due to the significant impaiment of coping skills, the processes (and effort) required to induce positive change are often seen as overwhelming and (thus) threatening, which is a result in part of learned helplessness (cf Seligman; Overmier). Introspective/melancholic states are normal, but on their own do not really equate to depression (see DSM-IV). In the same way, whilst one may expect a person to become depressed at (e.g.) the death of a relative or spouse (normal reactive depression), one would not expect this degree of depression as a result of losing a basketball game. What is more likely here is (acute) disapointment/frustration. There are many proposed aetiological factors in depression (bilogical and psychological), and there are many types of depression. Whilst these factors may lead (or contribute) to depression, they can't really be said to be a 'reason' for depression (i.e. as a rationale). An external event (e.g. the death of a relative) may be a 'reason' for depression, but this does not count as a depressive episode, because it reflects the 'normal' grieving process, and not a psychiatric disorder. References: Seligman, M.E.P., & Maier, S.F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1-9. Overmier, J.B. & Seligman, M.E.P. (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 63, 28-33.

Not sure how you could prove an axiom to be true as it is, by definition: "A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted or self-evidently true" (New Oxford dictionary).

I heard about Lindows, but know very little about it. I would LOVE an OS that is more stable than windows though! However, the only MS stuff I have is the platform itself (Win 98 2nd Ed). None of my 'working' software is MS (I use WordPerfect word processor, SPSS spreadsheet, Corel Graphics & presentations applications and so-on). Does anyone know if Lindows is compatible with these and other non MS applications, or could give me any other salient information about it? If it's compatible, I'd love to give it a go (REALLY fed up with windows!).

Must be murder trying to whistle. I can't see how, as the ANS doesn't mediate pain, it is responsible for functions such as heart-rate, vasodilation/constriction, pupillary response, peristalsis; yer basic homeostatic functions and so-on. The two divisions of the ANS (sympathetic and parasympathetic) exist in a sort of tonic balance. Increased activity in the sympathetic division results in elevated heart-rate, vasocostriction, pupillary contriction etc., whilst activity in the parasympathetic dividion results in the opposite (reduced heart-rate, vaso and pupillary dilation etc.). Noxious stimuli, on the other hand are detected, transduced and transmitted by afferent fibres of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) to the central nervous system (CNS) for processing. The ANS don't enter into it in any significant way. It's true to say that the ability to detect and respond quickly to noxious (potentially harmful) stimuli evolved to protect us from physical damage, and in the presence of damage, to encourage us to favour the damaged area in order to promote healing. However, pain itself is the subjective psychological experience associated with activity in that system. cool! though I can't quite see the link between self-training in pain control and pill popping. ...er...:scratch:

My mother, who was a midwife, had a book called 'The Miracle of Life'. It was a really old book on Natural History. I remember it had a blue, cloth-bound hard cover with only black and white images and it smelled funny (nice, the way old books do). Before I could read (according to her) I was fascinated by all the pictures. As I learned to read, I began finding out what all the pictures meant so I'd go over the book again and again as my reading improved. Then I discovered the Natural History Museum (London). This almost became my second home and my parents would took me to visit it every sunday until we had covered every inch of it. It is still my favourite bulding as it happens, both for architecture (beautiful!) and content. So, if I had to state the one thing that sparked my interest in science, it would have to be 'The Miracle of Life'.

Absolutely true. However, the term 'intelligence' makes no such assumption. Hehehe...Position in the food chain apparently isn't a good indicator either. I used to have rats which showed a startlingly high degree of intelligence, they used to surprise me constantly with their ingenuity (especially where food was involved). However, I now have a cat who apparently can't tell the difference between a mouse and a volvo. He's spent the last 6 weeks recovering from a fractured pelvis.

Are you likely to get any blood on your hands, boy? You sit there baying for war and presume to know what's in the minds of those opposed to it (some of whom have marginally more experience with the realities of armed conflict than you do), when most of what you have said suggests you have no idea, because you either aren't listening or don't want to hear? Does Iraq need to be disarmed? Yes. Does Hussein need to be removed? Yes. Therefore some intervention is required. Does this require a full-out war? No. Most people realise that to engage in war before exhausting all other options is a failure.

You really have to be careful with them there blanket terms. I'm against this war (for reasons I've expressed in other posts), and I agree with Sayonara, but pacifist? I served five years in the British Army (Royal Artillery). I was well trained and prepared to fight (kill) to defend this country, as were all my oppos. The problem is, it's never as simple as that any more. It stopped being simple with Viet Nam. The so-called war against terrorism has similarities to that. Who is the enemy? Terrorists. Yes, but who and where are they? They move around. They mix with innocents. They don't wear particular uniforms that allow us to tell them apart from civilians. We can't easily identify them; apparently we can't even find them. Are we defending our country? Not by attacking a country which presents no specific threat to us. We were sent to Cyprus shortly after the Turkish invasion. We were based on the Greek Cypriot side, in Dekelia. But for peace keepers on the line between the Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces, who was the enemy? Were we defending the Greek Cypriots? Were we defending Britain? Or were we defending a militarily useful tactical base we may have lost if the Turks had overrun the island? It's never as simple as taking up arms to defend your country against an invading force any more. War is mostly politics now; manoeuvrering for political, tactical and (particularly) economic advantage. There is a large difference between 'National Security' and 'National Interest', and it seems to me that open warfare is usually used now simply as a lever to achieve some other (less well publicised) agenda. We only ever get involved if there is something to gain; if there is 'something in it for us'. We never seem to worry too much about the millions who are suffering under similar or worse despotic reigimes. We trot out the same old "We cannot interfere with that country's sovereign right to inedependent government" or some such crap, which, it seems to me, usually translates as "there's nothing in it for us". This demonstrates double standards and is unethical. This is the core of my objection.

Absolutely. Numbers like that still present a high probabilty for intelligence.

Exactly. And students who the teacher expected to perform worse (based on randomly assigned IQ results), did perform worse. This supported the hypthesis that teacher expectation (as manipulated by randomly assigning IQ results) was at least as reliable a predictor of student performance as actual IQ test results. IQ is supposed to equate to potential. However, there is debate concerning the validity and reliability of tests used to measure it. The value for the intelligence quotient is reached by: (mental age/physical age) * 100. Therefore, any person whose mental and physical ages are the same will have an IQ of 100. IQ is normally distributed, and the population mean is 100 (SD :sim:15), so 70% of the population have an IQ between 85 and 115. All that is pretty straightforward, but the problem is, how do you measure 'mental age'? People have been shown to achieve significantly different results on different tests of IQ, and also to have achieved significantly different results on the same test taken at different times. If IQ tests were both 100% valid and reliable, this couldn't happen. Much of the problem stems from attempts to define intelligence. You cannot hope to measure something accurately until you can define exactly what you are measuring. For example, tests that require knowledge are measures of learning, not potential (intelligence). The results of tests given in English to someone whose 1st language is not English can be influenced by that persons's grasp of a second language (which is not a valid measure of intelligence). Tests that include cultural references will disadvantage those who come from a different culture than the one in which the test was designed, and so-on and so-on. There is a lot of work going on addressing these issues, but IQ tests, though widely used, are neither 100% valid nor 100% reliable. Until it can be demonstrated that they are, the results of any such test should be viewed as an indication of potential in the broadest and loosest sense only, not as a definitive measure of a person's intelligence, and they should only be employed only by people who are aware of their limitations in order to avoid the serious negative consequences of false labelling. Arguably, but again, you have the problem of reliably and validly identifying the smartest students.

um...can only Bible thumpers answer this?

True. We are walking around knowing we're going to die. This difference is, we don't know exactly when. Not knowing is what allows us to live and make plans and think about the future and all the good stuff like that. As for swallowing the fact that 99.99999% of the population won't give a damn that I'm dead...well that's easy. It just means that 99.99999% of the world agrees with me, because when I'm dead, I won't give a damn either. Personally, I see the future stratching out before me like a long stretchy thing with lots of days, but not enough ice cream and almost no magic fish.

Hmmm....tricky. If a concept exists only to describe itself, how can it be said to state anything concerning the nature of an idea or object objective to itself? As a result, how can it be said that it is not entirely subjective? I think I just popped an anurism :uhh:

I had to take the 11-plus at school. At that time, schools here had a 'streaming' system (thanks a bunch Cyril Burt!), and the 11+ was a test which determined which 'stream' you would be in throughout your school life. There were two flaws with this system: 1) The assumption that you can predict scholastic ability from an exam taken by an 11 year old. 2) Cyril Burt was found to have made up his data in the research that led to the introduction of the streaming system, based on his own prejudiced beliefs. As it turned, out the streams that pupils were put into as a result of their 11+ results were more robust predictors of scholastic outcome than the 11+ itself. This was due largely to the expectations of the teachers. After all, if you are given 'slow' kids to teach, what's the point in trying too hard? Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy there. Shows the power of 'labelling' though. I think IQ tests are excellent tests of one's ability to take IQ tests.

I agree. I think this is much more likely (but for 'early form of life', read early form of 'pre-life'). Mitochondria are interesting in themselves; an excellent example of symbiosis. Living organisms didn't evolve mitochondria, mitochondria evolved on their own and were incorporated into other single celled organisms millions of years before multicellular organisms evolved. Without them, it is unlikley that multicellular organisms could have evolved at all. But having evolved independently, they still retain a degree of functional independence. They carry their own DNA and can reproduce independently of the cell they occupy. They provide the cell with the energy it needs and in return are provided with all they need by the cell. Yay for mitochondria! The best friends we have.

I think that one of the many lessons that should be learned from all this is that politicians and their pet lawyers need to stop using weasel words and ambiguous phrases in cynical attempts to cover their own arses. What the hell does 'serious consequenses' mean? What is the semantic and legal definition? Should this war go badly with many allied and civilian casualties, those who drafted the resolution can say "oh...by 'serious consequences' we never meant war...if we'd meant war, we would have said so" and if it is a quick, clean and successful strike (and I really hope it is) then they can say "Oh yes...war...that's exactly what we meant by 'serious consequences'". 'Serious consequences' could mean anything. If, when drafting 1441 they meant 'military action' or 'lethal force', then they should have f&@*&ing well said so...gutless bastards. Arguments for or against war seem purely academic now. I just hope it is quick, as clean and with as few casualties as possible (civilian and military, on both sides) and that this time, the objective (the removal of Saddam Hussein and his cohort) is achieved.

I'm guessing you won't have to look too far.

A bit like a signpost stating "this is a signpost"?

This is true. There is research to show that (with respect to external symmetry, obviously) people are most attracted to those who most closely approach physical symmetry (particularly facial symmetry). It is thought that we have evolved to percieve (on a non-conscious level) symmetry as a sign of health and (evolutionary) successful and viable stock, whereas asymmetry is percieved as a sign of poor genetic stock or an indication of some underlying pathology or defect in the individual. Having said that, if you have ever seen a photo of somebody you know made symmetrical (i.e. two left sides or two right sides, one inverted and pasted together), one of them will be shockingly hideous and one will be really quite attractive. Odd that, huh?