Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
gib65's Profile
Reputation: 18
Neutral
- Group:
- Senior Members
- Active Posts:
- 981 (0.35 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Quantum Theory (145 posts)
- Joined:
- 23-October 04
- Profile Views:
- 3,493
- Last Active:
May 25, 2012 - Currently:
- Offline
My Information
- Member Title:
- Protist
- Age:
- 35 years old
- Birthday:
- December 29, 1976
- Gender:
-
Not Telling
- Location:
- Calgary
- Interests:
- writing, drawing, philosophizing...
- College Major/Degree:
- B.Sc. computer science & B.A. psychology
- Favorite Area of Science:
- quantum/relativity/modern... the deep stuff
- Occupation:
- web/software developer
Contact Information
- E-mail:
- Click here to e-mail me
- Website URL:
-
http://www.shahspace.com/art
Posts I've Made
-
In Topic: Where do taste and smell information converge in the brain?
6 May 2012 - 10:44 PM
Xittenn, on 6 May 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:I don't believe it is sufficient to say that they are companion senses as a cause of their both evoking emotional responses from the amygdala. My opinion on this would be, that in fact what we mean by 90% of our taste comes from the smell, is to say that most of what we sense from our food is in fact the smell. If one does not breath while eating the taste decreases, what in fact we are experiencing is a decrease in the use of smell in amusing our brains with our food.
So are you saying that they really don't converge in the brain (at least not at a spot that corresponds to a single experience we call "taste")? That we really experience taste and smell separately but confuse the two for one experience? -
In Topic: looking for selective rearing studies
28 April 2012 - 01:17 AM
Thanks for the link Ringer. -
In Topic: are men really more rational than women?
7 April 2012 - 09:07 PM
This is all very stimulating conversation, but I'd like to get back to the original question: is there any evidence in the psychological sciences that supports the theory that women, being the more emotional sex, are thereby less rational, and also whether they have better emotional management skills than men. -
In Topic: are men really more rational than women?
6 April 2012 - 01:35 PM
StringJunky, on 6 April 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:I suspect, from the perspective of either gender, the other is less rational than they are.
I second that. My guess is that it's always been an obvious fact (to both sexes) that women are more emotional, and it was therefore assumed that this made them less rational (i.e. heightened emotion = clouded rationality). But this is probably men projecting upon women what happens to themselves under emotional duress, and it was an easy excuse to claim proof that their perspective of women's irrational ways of thinking (because of what you just said--that either sex is irrational to the other) is accurate. Not implausible, if you ask me, but still just an assumption. This is not to say that emotion doesn't cloud rational judgment for the female sex, but that there may be no grounds to assume it happens to the same degree in women as it happens in men. -
In Topic: 2 questions on neutrinos
28 October 2011 - 08:23 PM
Thank you Mystery
Friends
gib65 hasn't added any friends yet.

Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
Find My Content
Display name history
Comments
gib65 has no profile comments yet. Why not say hello?