MonDie

If I can be considered a crackpot to some degree, then this is expert testimony. Crackpotia can arise from an obsessive, OCD-like drive to solve some problem and to feel secure about one's solution. Perhaps they're attracted by pervasive theories because that's where the problems in need of solutions are.

I'd like to see a Fourier analysis on how this thread moves between boorishness and sophistication.

Studiot, the attachment is probably exactly what I wanted, but I'll have time later. btw, your formula doesn't square the deviations. ^{2}

so you're saying they each interact with eachother?

Regarding the Y chromosome idea: Could it possibly involve the lytic vs. lysogenic cycles? The lysogenic cycle involves the viral DNA inserting itself into the host's chromosome, remaining there through DNA replication until triggered to leave and go lytic, bursting the cells. Perhaps the virus only does the lytic cycle in women? Is that possible? In that case, perhaps the men can remain dormant for an indeterminate period until some environmental factor causes the provirus to leave the chromosome.

in vitro I think Can ribosomes function in vitro?

Don't forget "directed evolution". Tons of NIH papers on it. You just keep mutating a protein while selecting the ones that perform their function the best. The result is a better adapted protein that we couldn't have designed manually.

Analytic approaches to twin data using structural equation models. Rijsdijk & Sham, 2002 http://bib.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/2/119.long It's good that I found an authentic source, but I'm very confused. The 1st confusion arises from Falconer's formula. Why are the equations set equal to the square of h, c, or e? For example: [math]h^{2} = 2(r_{MZ} - r_{DZ})[/math] I understand that the difference between the covariance of the mono- and di- zygotes equals the heritability estimate x0.5. What I don't get is why h is squared. This seems to recur later in the paper: "the heritability is given by a2 / (a2+c2+e2)." The 2nd and 3rd confusions arise from Path analysis and structural equations, two topics I know nothing about. Why is D (dominant or non-additive genetic influences) 0.25 for dizygotic twins rather than 0.5? This quote just doesn't make any sense to me. What are paths, and why does A occur twice along its path?

I don't want a proof of the solution so much as I want to understand the problem itself. I don't see what the correction fixes.

That's exactly my point. It's going to exaggerate the standard deviation less if your sample is larger. How is sample size related to the limiting effects of selection bias (if that's what this is correcting for)?

Perhaps I forgot that we're still within a compatibilist framework, acknowledging the influence of prior factors. As far as I can tell, these results don't rule out any role of consciousness in the decision; they merely show that consciousness does whatever it does in a consistent manner such that you can predict what consciousness is going to do. ...If it makes sense to speak of consciousness doing things. Having gone through the paper, however, I would still enjoy a low-level explanation of the brain activation patterns and EEG methods.

But overtone, the decision is made before you are consciously aware that it has been made, which means consciousness does not take part in the decision process. I guess this merely places free will outside of consciousness, but I wouldn't call that free will. I digress. I'm plowing through this research paper because I became conscious of it after deciding to start this thread. Time to edit the OP.

I don't think anyone did. I own none and play less than yearly. The most popular first-person shooter of my childhood, Halo, was not gory at all. First-person shooters are suspenseful, especially online multiplayer ones. You probably enjoy a similar feeling if you watch suspense films or sports. I do none of these. Apparently these r scores (correlation coefficients) are not additive. An r to Z Fisher transformation would probably give us an effect size that can be interpretted as percent of variance.

No free won't either. There Is No Free Wont: Antecedent Brain Activity Predicts Decisions to Inhibit (Filevich, Kühn & Haggard, 2013) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3572111/ Without the power to create options or choose among them, what does consciousness do? Free won't as explained by an outdated blog post: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201004/free-will-is-real-its-mentalistic-not-mechanistic I will try to summarize the research paper while using as much of their words as possible. Introduction and Methods sections: They "operationalized inhibition as a transient process, characterised by delayed responding, rather than as a complete suppression of all behavioural output." Their interface requested the participants to press a particular key. They produced four conditions based on whether the choice was "instructed" or "free" and "rapid" or "delayed". To prevent predecision, they "included a high number of rapid instructed trials to encourage action preparation." Furthermore, "for trials in the instructed rapid condition, participants were rewarded (3p) for every key press that was faster than their average in the previous block." They also used a formal analysis to identify "obvious sequences such as ‘AABBAABB’". (Filevich et al. 2013) Disscussion Section: They further explain that "the variation in RT [Reaction Time] in [their] data was much larger than that expected due to arousal effects alone." This is important because they "classified free-choice trials as rapid or delayed actions based on their reaction times." They go on to explain that a "resampling analysis" was done to rule this out... (Filevich et al. 2013) They also breifly address the low spatial resolution of ERP analysis of EEG results , and the possibility of predecided responses. Filevich E, Kuhn S, Haggard P (2013) There Is No Free Won’t: Antecedent Brain Activity Predicts Decisions to Inhibit. PLoS ONE 8(2): e53053. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053053

Free will is wierd IMO. If free will is limited to the soul or brain, then God is only restricted from mind control. He could still intervene when people intend harm, and he can be blamed for his inaction. Alternatively, if free will is the ability to produce effects, then you must get more specific since we clearly don't have full free will.

If there was an alternate layout without buttons, signatures, avatars, member info, etc., then Michel could just copy/paste the threads. Some sort of "condensed view". It would also help people on slow connections, or people who don't want others to know what they're doing.

John, your link doesn't go to a Wiki page.

It didn't make sense to me either. The sample could be considered a population in its own right, so why treat it differently? My guess is that even the best sampling methods tend to reduce variability slightly, but then why not divide by [math]n-(n/?)[/math] instead?

same meta analysis as other thread Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01AB.pdf While all the cited experiments found an effect, they found varying effect sizes (r+), as seen when they separate inanimate targets. I wonder how long these effects last, however, since gaming is usually a home activity. The effect on physiological arousal was at least as strong, and could account for the inreased aggression.

Are we addressing the question from a sociological angle now?

"Barbie Girl" youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrYis509A

Because a scientist is limited to what the evidence tells them, and they aren't the ultimate authority. Somebody with a divine hotline can make almost any sensational claim they need to in order to establish their power or justify their actions. Many ancient rulers claimed to be godly: Bantu, Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, etc.

Even if his goal is to find the actual flashlight, whatever it may be, he's only really looking for it if he believes he's looking for it (whatever he believes it to be), because the action/pedicate is defined by his subjective intent rather than any physical occurrence. If a word lacks a clearly distinct referent (or any referent at all), it's easy to see how the definition could become muddled by people who think it's something it isn't. We can easily test whether grapes have seeds. It's harder to test whether love hurts because "love" isn't a clearly distinct phenomenon.

They conflict if you're my doctor.

I don't know whether I'll ever get around to reading them, really, Willie. After reading that article, I looked back at the meta-analysis for the correlation coefficients. It was aggressive cognition r+ = .27 (link); physiological arousal r+ = .22 (effect); aggressive behavior r+ = .19 (link and effect), altruism r+ = -.17 (effect) and -.16 (link). It only strongly effected aggressive behavior when the video-game target was inanimate r+ = .41 (.28, .54), versus .14 (.08, .20). Those look like some highly variable results anyway, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I would like to know the sampling differences between studies!! Of course guns are a separate issue. The issue isn't whether guns make people aggressive, but whether they enable aggressive people to do more harm.