Genecks

For those who are attempting to be frugal yet obtain reading materials on neuroscience, an individual should become aware of the libraries around him or her that offer reading materials. Some public and private university and college campuses allow individuals to visit them, use their resources, and check out materials. From there, if a reading material is not available, such as from the on-site computers that may or may not offer individuals to access databases with eBooks and access to journal articles, a person can go about using interlibrary loan. In my experience with neuroscience education, the academia route brings forth subjective grading routines that may not be representative of the knowledge acquired from learning materials. One of the things that an educational experience in the biological sciences will present is a large amount of memorization. The memorization aspect is not as important as "understanding" the material or at least seeing how concepts relate to each other and making sense of the learning material enough that the learning material can be referenced to again in order to use it as one's foundation of understanding the realm of neuroscience. Memorization tends to be a key aspect in entrance to medical school, at least in the U.S.A., and many educational facilities put emphasis on this when encountering neuroscience-related courses, such as neuroanatomy. Academia, at least in my experience in the U.S.A., focuses on memorization. The method I'm discussing here is for self-education: Being able to interpret the material while having the ability to reference it at later time. That method is more of a relaxed method than one may encounter in academia. From the method I'm suggesting, the materials a person uses become an extension of the person's memory for later retrieval of concepts that were previously learned. For those worried about the necessity of memorization while self-educating, memorization is not as important as being able to encounter, interpret, and have an intuitive understanding of the material to see how many of the concepts relate to each other. As such, as one moves from one subject of biology to another, a person can review his or her foundational knowledge that exists in the material he or she has encountered in the case material is forgotten through time. This is not to say that a level of memorization is not important; but what is more important is being able to quickly review foundational knowledge in order to learn new topics that build on that foundational knowledge. For instance, if a person is studying neuromathematics, a mathematics textbook may be useful to review for its foundational knowledge. A basic neuroscience education does not require more than a knowledge of high school algebra. Calculus and higher mathematics get involved when a person begins to investigate the physical aspects of the nervous system and more intricate systems, such as vision. Mathematics do get involved, but their involvement comes as a person begins to increasingly specialize in a particular field, such as vision or memory. That is not to say that many aspects of neuroscience in relation to vision and memory cannot be understood with higher maths: They can; but there is eventually a roadblock. Another thing an educational experience in academia will present is an ability to become familiar with electronic databases, such as the Web of Science and ScienceDirect, that offer a person an ability to look through scientific journal articles. Although a person may hold an interest in being able to read scientific articles, I suggest developing a wide and foundational knowledge of neuroscience before attempting to read neuroscience articles. From there, a person may be able to identify his or her weaknesses in knowledge, such as genetics or molecular biology, which may lead to further reading in the biological sciences, as there are books that specifically those topics that could be used for a course. Again, libraries are useful when coming to roadblocks. One book that individuals may be interested in is Principles of Neural Science by Eric Kandel and others. Older copies should not be too difficult to obtain. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Neural_Science As of the date of this post, I would not suggest buying a book prior to the third edition. Combined with information an individual can get from the Internet, Internet webforums, such as this, and other websites may be used to generate discussion and learn more. Neuroscience does not stop at understanding the biology of the brain. There is psychology, philosophy, mathematics, and more that is involved. The further one wants to go into the neurosciences, the more one will need to increasingly acquire knowledge and information in those fields. There are other fields, such as neuromathematics, neurology, neuropsychology, neuroengineering, neurochemistry, neurosurgery, and so on. Although specialization can occur, foundational aspects tend to have a critical impact on how one perceives his or her research and its meaning for not only the researcher but the public. And one of my best pieces of advice is this: Ask a lot of questions. Hands-on techniques are more than likely going to be learned inside of a laboratory. As such, a person may want to request an audience with a research group if interested in becoming part of the research collaboration. Research groups exist in businesses and as part of educational facilities. Hands-on techniques can also be obtained when moving up through an educational system. Although it's possible to do some research on one's own (such as electrophysiology), the financial burden may be too much. Furthermore, competition exists in the research world. Personal connections may enable some people to easily get into a laboratory, while a work ethic and a knack for innovation may help others.

First off, I've often considered this thread to target the amateur audience who wants sodium. Lay down some mechanisms, and I might consider giving this some more thought. There are multiple disadvantages that are described due to limiting and excess reagents. However, I'm not sure if using Na-OH would give a similar affect. The energy requirements may be different in attempting to make sodium tert-butoxide. I found a nice video a moment ago on the Internet. I have not tried the experiment, but it looks interesting. It appears to be a simple way for an individual to make small amounts of sodium. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=seSg_GWj1b0 Also, sodium can be used as a catalyst: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j150552a012 The Catalytic Properties of Supported Sodium and Lithium Catalysts Sterling E. Voltz J. Phys. Chem., 1957, 61 (6), pp 756–758 DOI: 10.1021/j150552a012 Publication Date: June 1957

Hello, all. Welcome to the forum.

Eh, I'd definitely need some really good genetic, developmental, and biochemical explanation as to why people would really be that different. We haven't really unlocked the mysteries of the biology of cognition, and we're still working on it. For what we have, though, a person could make some strong arguments, but I doubt a psychologist is going to be able to pull that off. I'd have to see it. You'd really have to start opening a lot of people's brains, running genotype analyses, culturing tissue and doing cognitive experiments, and more. The ethics of it all would surely prevent people from firmly establishing the facts of the matter. James D. Watson was pushing some views a few years ago about race and intelligence. But not enough of it was substantial enough. If I had to throw out (and I've yet to have decent evidence to think Chinese have the highest IQs) and idea as to why China has people with higher IQs, I would have to say that it is due to the social nature of the Chinese. The intricate community-mentality that is provided in Chinese culture provides people with a way of sharing knowledge and achieving new heights rather than the competitive and individualistic model that is followed in America. I'm reading about the psychologist and the work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior Scientists are still researching more about social behavior and genetics, so something might pan out in the future. Then again, given enough time, maybe a few generations, eh, this social genetics stuff might be over-ridden as more races attempt to mingle. We've only started to see how aggressiveness works in social creatures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Thanks. I think it looks excellent. It's takes part of the past color scheme and applies it in a new layout.

That's a biased opinion if I've read one. "Oh, me and a select few rather than the majority of individuals here decided we just didn't like it, so we decided to not instate it." That sounds awfully like rule by the minority. And even regulars like me never saw it. I don't remember seeing it during the testing phase. I think I like the idea of blue more. Perhaps if I think about this too much, I'll push toward black.

If I were to accept the new format, then I'd at least like for that orange to appear blue. But what Zolar V said about the main page is/was very true: Unique, insightful, and a pleasant experience. However, I never really cared for the front page that much and went straight to forum.

Perhaps watching a man have sex with a woman will cause jealousy or a negative response in the male watching the pornography. As such, the male will like lesbian pornography more than male-female pornography. Furthermore, I've read and heard that pornography attempts to remove the face of the male most of the time in order to give the male viewer the impression that he is the one in the scene with the woman. p.s. This would more than likely be better in the psychology board.

How about some wiki articles, too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Welcome! What past experience in the sciences do you have? Any background in chemistry? Perhaps any experiment you have done? Even the simplest count!

Yeah, I'm thinking we all need to do a get together and discuss that SFN rule/issue some more. To continue that process will make SFN an amature science forum, which suggests that people take their scientific abilities elsewhere. If you feel it's necessary to delete this post, then do so. I consider conducting gene therapy much more hazardous than trying to obtain sodium. For what I remember, getting sodium is generally an industrial process. Sciencemadness seems to go into detail with a couple of threads. In general, however, I believe a person needs a "Downs cell" in order to split salt and generate atomic sodium. The process is dangerous, primarily because chlorine gas is created, which can kill you (it was used in world wars) and then there is the exothermic property of sodium which can kill a person, which is another incredible danger. And the temperatures required to do the process are also dangerous, which makes the process of obtaining sodium from a Downs cell more than dangerous; and it should not be conducted unless the person has knowledge in chemistry and industrial safety practices. In general, there is a large danger involved with this process.

Why not build it like Edison did? Why not use something like a sodium vapor lamp? I don't understand the point of this challenge.

I think it would be a good idea to break up the engineering section into a few subcategories: aeronautical, chemical, electrical, etc. I'd really like to see electrical as a sub-section, perhaps genetic engineering if people aren't too shakey about that. Some like playing around with bacteria and changing their genome; glow-in-the-dark bacteria are a new fad.