Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Genecks

  1. First off, I've often considered this thread to target the amateur audience who wants sodium.


    ...Also, in this preparation of potassium tert.butoxide, hexane acts as withdrawing agent to remove water via distillation in place of Mg. So, could one use hexane together with MgO (and possible H2) at higher temperatures to this preparation to form metallic Potassium (Sodium)? A speculation for would be experimentors.

    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.

    The potassium tert.butoxide solution is withdrawn from the bottom of the
    column continuously, preferably through an overflow, and then the
    salt is isolated in a manner known in itself, e.g., by distilling out
    the alcohol in vacuo. It precipitates as a while, finely
    granular, hygroscopic powder of high purity.


    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.





    Also, sodium can be used as a catalyst:


    The Catalytic Properties of Supported Sodium and Lithium Catalysts

    J. Phys. Chem., 1957, 61 (6), pp 756–758
    DOI: 10.1021/j150552a012
    Publication Date: June 1957
  2. I'm reading a book: Art of Drug Synthesis


    It uses an alinine molecule and an attached R-group, which appears to be on the pi-bonds of the cyclical carbon molecule. I don't know what that represents, at least what kind of bond that represents. I've never seen such a carbon-skeleton framework used before. What does it represent?


  3. You should take calculus. If you have stats knowledge in psychology, you should be able to apply that to biology without much of a problem. You do not need to take organic chemistry. I believe biochemistry is much more relevant for molecular biologists. However, students often cannot take a biochemistry series without doing an organic chemistry course or series first. Nonetheless, the organic chemistry courses would not be drastically important. Generally, you'll be reading about chemicals and understanding how they work prior to working with them as a molecular biologists, thus enabling the usage of a protocol or developing a protocol.


    You'll be fine. I would suggest taking calculus, however, and getting at least a B in it. You don't NEED it, but it's helpful for understanding obscure calculus things when you come across them.


    Another possibility is doing neuroscience research and showing your interest and ability to understand the molecular biology of neuroscience in front of the individual who is allowing you to do research for him or her.


    Hmm.... I think because you've taken genetics and cellular biology, then you'll have a fair grasp of much theory behind lab work if not increased ability to understand it. Mastering lab work is something else, however.


    Personally, I have knowledge in parts of neuroscience that involve electronics, mathematics, and physics, such as neural engineering. Because mathematics and physics are involved, a knowledge of mathematics and physics helps me read journal articles involved physics and mathematics. There is also neuromathematics as a field of neuroscience research.


    My simple advice is don't limit yourself. GPA is one thing, so keep it as a concern, but in the future, don't limit yourself.

  4. If this is a school project, thus homework, then I suggest it gets moved to the homework help area. Otherwise, if this is original research that you're doing on your own or for someone else without a letter grade, then it's fine here.


    What kind of research program do you want to develop? Do you want to find other bacteria that are similar to Propionibacterium freudenreichii and how they were able to grow with lacto bacteria and yet inhibit other pathogenic bacteria?


    I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of bacteria. As such, I don't know what bacteria would be similar to the P. freudenreichii, thus allowing similar results. You would have to determine that. The main goal of the article is the utility of the P. freudenreichii in food science. As such, I assume your goals are food science oriented. However, you could attempt to find other bacteria that have a.... ooh, old school ecology knowledge here... mutual? there is an ecology term where organisms get together to help each other... and then yet inhibit others from taking over their territory. This becomes an ecological issue amongst bacteria in their media, then. As such, you would have to research various bacteria, their media, growth amongst other bacterial, and their inhibition amongst other bacteria. Afterward, if you can develop a novel experiment, then you would make a new discovery... but if you use a new media, it may be useful to food science. Yogurt is a nice media. Cheese, perhaps. Various kinds of medias could be used. It's all about being original, despite there being classy expensive medias and whatnot.



    are food-grade microorganisms that can suppress undesirable microbes in
    food. Profitability of their application depends on their effectiveness
    against food-spoiling bacteria and on the accessibility of the
    protective product. In this study, the ability of Propionibacterium freudenreichii Pr4 to retard the growth of Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus cereus, Pseudomonas putida and Escherichia coli at neutral pH was proven. The efficiency of P. freudenreichii culture broth against all these bacteria, except E. coli,
    was similar to that of the chemical propionate, taken in the same
    amounts. Consequent cultivation with certain lactic acid bacteria was
    found to be a convenient way to achieve active growth of P. freudenreichii on food-grade media. The pregrowth of Lactobacillus acidophilus 146 in skim milk and milk whey stimulated considerably the growth of P. freudenreichii Pr2 and the production of propionate. The final amount of P. freudenreichii Pr2 and L. acidophilus 146 viable cells in this case was 1.5 and 2 times more than when the bacteria grew separately. Other three Lactobacillus species tested did not provide stimulating effects. Sequential fermentation with Lactobacillus delbrueckii B-3887 allowed to provide the growth of P. freudenreichii Pr4 in wheat flour medium and to get preparation that contains enough propionate for antirope bread protection.


    Now we suggest a solid basis for the use of investigated strains of Propionibacterium freudenreichii
    in food bioprotection; first of all (directly due to our results) in
    bread manufacturing practice. They can be used as growth inhibitors of Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli and some Pseudomonas
    species not only in acidic but also in pH-neutral conditions. The
    two-stage cultivation of specially selected pairs of lactobacilli and
    propionibacteria is an approach for obtaining the
    propionibacteria-containing preparations in economic and convenient way.
    The preparations can be applied for antibacterial protection of some
    other foods: dairy products, surfaces of cheeses, butter, sausages, etc.


  5. We hardly know how the brain works. We still don't have a clear picture as to what intelligence is in the brain. Nor do we know what traits ( memory, wisdom, common sense ) make up intelligence. That is why I find it absurd that we try to measure and grade people's intelligence with a number (or a letter if it's a grade) , when we don't know how it works. It is funny how we try to measure something so varied with the same yardstick.

    What is your take on this ? Is it a wrong practice to be measuring a person's intelligence based on a number/letter ?


    In academia, it becomes more about determining whether a person can accomplish a goal rather than the person's all-around level of intelligence. And the ability for accomplish the goal is dependent on his or her mastery or ability to learn and understand the material.


    Otherwise, if you want to get into the realm of intelligence, then you're going to want to understand that you need an operational definition for intelligence quotient and a research experiment to determine the IQ. This is something you learn when you study research methodology in cognitive science.


    However, as I believe, there is a neurobiological form of intelligence, and that has to do with AMPA and NMDA receptors along with functional and structural components of the hippocampus. Individuals who cannot develop these structures at a particular rate of change upon encountering environmental stimuli are more likely to be less intelligent than others given a particular environmental stimuli and conditions. That whole neurobiology thing is a different story, but AMPA and NMDA receptors have been correlated to "intelligence" or memory and processing speed in animals. The operational definition for intelligence quotient would still be necessary.


    So, go learn yourself some research methodology in cognitive science or cognitive psychology.


    I think it is morally wrong for individuals with a lack of knowledge in modern cognitive psychology and the study of intelligence to be grading others in academia based on their abilities without taking into consideration if their paradigm of pedagogy is enacting to the enhancement of the student's ability to master the material, thus score high as having a high intelligence or knowledge of the material being graded. So, then, yes.

  6. If you want to give a poster presentation... you may want to google stuff like "scientific poster presentation" or similar terms.


    You haven't gone into a far enough description of what kind of undergraduate math class this is. You haven't gone into the details of the assignment. So far, you haven't been very descriptive at all. if you're going to make a poster presentation, you need to be descriptive, concise, and quick to get your point across.


    Pi is a fair irrational number to cover as a poster presentation, unless you're working with recent original research in the realm of mathematics. And if that is the case, you may want to review some academic math journals and give a description of something that is being discussed that you understand to a fair enough degree and can at least explain to the audience. If you can understand what the author is discussing, then you should be able to discuss it to an audience during a poster presentation.


    Otherwise, you'll be giving a discussion on Pi, introducing its discovery, discussing its uses, talking about some recent develops (even if those are over 100 years old), and potential for future research and understanding (if you can find sources to provide such information to an audience). Perhaps pi could be used in order to compare any new theories to replace what Pi has been used for in the past.

  7. I go dutch on the first date, because I have a particular philosophy about long-term relationships, and it's about the other person being able to foot their own capabilities. I consider relationships to have a level of economics. It shows right away that compromise needs to be met in order for a relationship to occur.


    On one date that I went on in January of 2012 or so, the girl and I went to a bar whereby we started drinking cheap mixed drinks. I was only willing to drink about $20 worth of drinks, but she wanted me to drink more liquor, and I had told her that I only brought so much cash with me: This was also to limit my alcohol consumption. After which, she showed some disdain and contempt, but she kindly was willing to pay for the rest of the drinks.


    However, in one relationship I had, I did sometimes pay for the girlfriend. This often came to situations, such as movie OR dinner. The dating relationship did have a sexual nature to it. I did not pay to have sex. I paid because she would often spend her money to take long-distance trips to visit me. It was an attempt to establish equilibrium.


    Logically, men are not women.

    Biologically, men are not women.

    As such, it is not possible in a social situation for men to be women or women to be men.

    The sexes are not equal. Get over it. Find compromise.

  8. Pais-Vieira, M., Lebedev, M., Kunicki, C., Wang, J., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2013). A Brain-to-Brain Interface for Real-Time Sharing of Sensorimotor Information. Scientific Reports, 3. doi:10.1038/srep01319: http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130228/srep01319/full/srep01319.html
    It's an open article.
    I think I'll read it later at some point. Maybe I'll give some input. I want to do some other stuff at the moment.
  9. If you desire an interdisciplinary approach to furthering your education, thus allowing a synthesis of skills in order to accomplish goals related to mechanical engineering AND high-energy particle and cosmology research, then I would suggest that you go for it. However, a thesis will take time. Otherwise, if you really do not plan on involving yourself with high-energy particle and cosmology research in the future, thus the synthesis of skills is unnecessary, then I would advice against it, as your time will be valuable to finishing your education.


    Then again, the work involved in the research may not be ridiculous. As such, inquire more into the position and ask yourself if you can meet the demands.

  10. I think in the realm of chemistry, you'll often be considering things at room temperature and pressure (standard ambient temperature and pressure: SATP). If there are different conditions, more than likely you will be told the conditions. As such, in a course where memorization of the state of particular chemicals is important, there will be hints by the lecturer (most likely) in reference to the different states of particular chemicals at their varying temperatures and pressure whereby their associated states exist.


    The noble gases are gases at room temperature.. Nitrogen can be liquid at a low temperature or high pressure, which I believe tends to be common for gases, as a high pressure or low temperature slows down the volatility and reduces the kinetic energy of the molecules.


    CO2 can be a gas or solid, which I guess depends on the energy that has been put into it, but as it has a gas form, it can be turned into a liquid, which if you've ever shot a paintball gun and loaded it with the right materials, you would know it it uses CO2 cartridges (for propellant), and thus things are put under high pressure (they have a thick metal casing), which allows the CO2 to be a liquid... only when a person shoots the paintball gun does the liquid turn into a gas, thus allowing the energy (force from the gas) to be transferred to the paintball, so that it shoots out.


    Hairspray is a similar example, which uses various organic compounds under pressure. CFCs were a big problem, so people stopped using those in hair spray.



    Elemental gallium, if I remember correctly, is a metal that is solid at room temperature. However, it can melt in your hand at room temperature, given that heat rises from your hand. I had an interest in high school at my alternative high school for dropouts to buy galium metal or possibly stocks/shares/something in the metal, as I believed it would raise in price from the early 2000s onward, because it's used in computer equipment.


    So, there are some SATP aspects to elements to remember and recall. Water and CO2 tend to be general examples of compounds to know. Hydrogen chloride is a gas, but when it is bubbled into a solution of H2O, it becomes dilute... If I remember correctly, this is due to water solvation (water shells) forming around the ions and cations dissociated from HCl. Nonetheless, if you've ever worked with HCl solutions, then you know the gas can come out of the aqueous solution over time, thus being toxic.


    An acid that is aqueous means that it, the chemical itself (such as pure HCl), has dissociated (been placed in and broken apart by molecular forces into ions and cations) in a solution, such as H2O.




    For a more dangerous example, VX nerve gas is ACTUALLY a liquid, but it has an evaporation rate whereby molecular forces and energy make the VX nerve agent molecules move apart from each other, whereby it becomes a gas. Similar to how water evaporates off a surface.


    Then of course, you get into boiling point.. and that has to do with temperature and pressure...


    It could be that your book sucks. If your book does suck and gives few examples, I suggest you start spending time with your instructor. First-year chemistry is not incredibly difficult, but there is a conceptual and imaginative quality to it.


    I reason there are rules and a physics to understand the state of matter of various chemicals and elements, but that would be a whole science onto itself. In general, it has to do with energy, molecular forces, pressure, and temperature.


    In a tough-as-nails course, you'll more than likely have to memorize the state of various chemicals and elements based on the problems, conditions of the chemical interaction, and whatever aspects occur in lecture in reference to the SATP. Yes, there is a level of memorization involved until you get into the physics of such things, whereby doing the physics requires much more ridiculous amounts of time.


    Think "kinetics."

    Also keep in mind the "conditions" of the experiment... and by experiment, I mean the chemical equations.

    The conditions of importance would be temperature and pressure.





    Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as my chem knowledge is rusty.


    As this is more of a chemistry question than a homework question...




  11. CharonY's question is typical, but I think the reply I have replied fits the norm for people who are interested in Ivy. If it's prestige you want, then Ivy is what you'll be seeking. Again, I think there have been arguments on this website that people say prestige schools are more likely to get grants for research; but that is a post-bachelors things.


    Also, it would appear that the Uni. of Chicago educational thing is either gone, misplaced, not easily found, or integrated into some new organization.


    I did find this, however: http://nces.ed.gov/

  12. I recall reading of a 30-something woman who got into the University of Chicago, but I believe that was related to either medicine or law... Furthermore, Uni. of Chi. will crush people, and I've read that it is well-known for its grade deflation.


    Age becomes more of an issue once an individual reaches his or her mid-30s, as institutions will become very discriminate. Although I do not think an individual who is 28 years old can enter into an Ivy League education, I believe such an individual can network into an Ivy League research group. With such networking, the individual can eventually network and gain enough socio-economic status to become part of the Ivy League network, which is a fair experience with employment. And this does happen to people who work with the right people and network with the right people, despite the research maybe not being so desirable, it gives the individual a foot in the door to further network and join other groups with time, and it shows that an individual is capable of an Ivy League work ethic. An education at an Ivy League is not so fabulous as becoming part of a lab at an ivy League or doctoral student, whereby grants for research are more available.


    As such, I would suggest to the original poster that he or she focus as well as he or she can on grades, networking, and being serious about his or her passions without contempt for asking for guidance, advice, and further knowledge to reach his or her goals.


    I was big on the idea of Ivy Leagues as an undergraduate at a community college. However, what I had come to learn is that you need to work your way up. In other words, when you put out applications for a university, find a university that is high-ranked and will accept you. From there, go to a higher-ranked graduate school (hopefully, it has your research interests).


    It's about moving up the ladder. At first it's slow, but then it picks up.


    There was this one educational statistics database somewhere on the University of Chicago website that told what your future prospects were as a community college student at a particular age, if I remember correctly. It may be around in my old posts... I can't find it... but...


    If I understand your situation, you're more likely to stop at a master's degree because of who you are, and then find employment. Otherwise, hard work and ambition goes a long way.

  13. The answer is business, and the educational centers are aware of it. The educational centers that cater to business demands are considered feeder schools. There are some schools that are scholastic and Jesuit in some ways, but these are private schools. Nonetheless, their high level of standards and education prepare students to compete with those who come from feeder schools.


    A school who cannot cater of feed their students to high positions of employment are not good schools, as is sometimes argued. There is, however, a different realm of economics involved whereby a continual trade between business and the educational center exists for such a situation. As such, the education at such a school may become more focused to cater to the level of thinking and education found within those businesses that the school is feeding to; and the school may even employ people who worked at those businesses to teach students before they are filtered and fed to the business for later employment. A kind of "you scratch my back; i'll scratch your back" setup.


    I would consider the situation neo-industrializing rather than "technologizing."


    Many educational centers are public, yet they've learned to work with local industries in order to have people employed by those industries. It is a good idea, but eventually people will have to go elsewhere for work, as there will become a maximum capacity unless student size is decreased or the number of people employed are increased.

  14. I like the American Medical Association format. It seems to work well for many things, and it looks aesthetic. Oh, and I use Zotero... but I also check the formatting of whatever I paste to see if it is in line with the proper formatting of the style, such as APA 6th edition. There are, indeed, some technical issues of which librarians need to be asked and referenced to. Librarians are useful for asking questions, such as how to conduct proper citations. Otherwise, the librarians will/can find someone who knows the answer. Whenever there is a particular formatting issue, I'll direct my questions to a local librarian who can point me to a more concrete way of how the citation should occur. There are definitely times when the style guides don't provide the answer but there is an answer. For most undergrad work, these issues do not come up unless an instructor if giving the students a very, very hard time.

  15. I do not think that this is more or less a general problem and not endemic to the US. There are, unfortunately quite a few reason why the system is like that. One simple reason is that people are obsessed with metrics. If you want comparable measures for GPA or equivalent, lots of semi-standardized exams are the way to go.

    Just as a comparison:

    in the former German system it was insofar different as students had to pass certain exams but were generally not graded. Most graded exams were oral and basically in discussion with one or several Profs. The advantage is that you have to be able to use your knowledge in a discussion. Downsides were cries (sometimes justified) of foul play favoritism and subjectivity. Now the system has switched to a bachelor/master system with more exams and the quality in students is really declining.


    There is politics to blame, as universities (and politicians) love to flaunt grades, or the desire of politics to put more people into colleges. This is by itself not a bad idea, but then one should re-evaluate the reason behind grading. Is it, to have a cut-off to select out bad students? I.e. identifying and promoting a kind of intellectual elite by giving them titles and denying them to others? In that case mass-education has an issue because it means you are taking money from many students who are not likely to make it, anyway (here is where I really liked that fact that German Unis were practically free for students).

    Is the goal to provide anyone the best education that they can benefit from (but then why exams in the first place?). Universities have to balance these schizophrenic goals to some extent and I really do not know the final answer to that.


    There is nothing wrong with teaching to the test, as long as the teaching is to master the test. Where instructors fail is teaching people how to master the material. Also, there is a level of elitism involved, thus a barrier to entry into particular trades. People who deny this claim are frauds. Some instructors do teach students to master the material, while other instructors cannot teach people to master the material. I like to recall Organic Chemistry II as my favorite example: There were clearly students who had already mastered or become skilled in understanding organic chemistry, thus they were able to excel where other students were not. I believe one comment from the organic chemistry instructor I had was that there should be two kinds of organic chemistry courses: one for pre-meds/bio and the other for chemistry/eng. majors. The reason for this is because the curves for grades were not curves with normal distributions: they were bi-modal. As such, there were mostly people who understand the material; few who kinda understood the material; and most who did not understand the material.


    The proof is in the statistics. The thing that is not collected in the statistics is the chemistry background and whether or not the students have already studied or mastered the material in some way ahead of time. As such, the classroom teach to the test system had become unfair. The students in the course, however, as slaves of the course. Those who know what's going on will excel and push down the grades of the others. As such, the necessity for a curve (all the time) in such a course shows that the educators have not mastered the ability to teach others how to master the material, thus mastering the material is theoretically impossible for all students given that all students are motivated to master the material.


    I can recall, however, a quiz at the beginning of one of my classes, cellular biology (200-level), where the instructor gave us quizzes during the first week. This was to test our current knowledge and get an understand for the class' intelligence, thus affecting the level of education, quizzes, and examination difficulty given. However, as it was transparent to me what they were up to, I may have biased my results. As such, students may be keen to lying on any pre-liminary exam/quiz in order to make the course easier, as pre-meds simply want a higher GPA.


    Part of it is also the student's fault.



    Uh, the students are determined by their previous experiences, whereby instructors often do not collect the statistics in order to determine what further level of education the students need in order to master the material of the course by each consecutive testing period...


    I have yet to come across an instructor who will give students the exams and quizzes from the semester before, simply change little aspects so things look different but are solved the same, and then have students take the exams and quizzes that are similar (but different from past exams) but solved exactly the same way... Sure, things can be out of their original order, as in what problems come first and whatnot... but what is the real difference if students can solve the problems?


    Given such a paradigm and where students are taught generalizations to abstract from throughout the classroom discussions, I don't see why students should not be able to master the material and exams, as they would have been given well enough priming. Only the apathetic students will be left behind. Those with a work ethic will be allowed to move on, and as they've mastered the critical thinking involved, they've mastered the material. Everybody wins except those without a work ethic.


    I've dealt with instructors who "tried" doing such a thing, but when it came to their exams and quizzes, they were very much different and not of the same layout (and I don't mean that the problems, despite similarities and contrasts, were re-arranged throughout the pages) as their alleged past exams and quizzes. *rolls eyes*


    It's too bad students don't generate a class-action lawsuit and sue educators for misrepresentation.


    If asked, most would prefer engaging lessons where they have to think, apply their knowledge, have exams that make them thing, etc. However, in truth this usually leads to half of the class failing and students being dissatisfied. Critical thinking and applying knowledge is simply hard work and not easy (as compared to memorizing).


    I do not mind critical thinking. What I do mind, however, are instructors who lack knowledge in cognitive science, thinking they understand how to teach students to critically think in the instructor's subject when they really suck due to their knowledge of educational psychology, and the whole aspect of "critical thinking" being missed throughout the coursework education. Truth is, many educators continue to study educational psychology and how to better it for their particular classroom and coursework. However, they seem to lack understanding how to understand enough cognitive psychology in order analyze their material (omg, critical thinking at work!), generalize it, and find ways to abstract from it; then taking that same level of thinking and showing students how to have that level of thinking. I believe many educators fail to really look for basic fundamentals and generalizations in the material they teach, building blocks and simplest levels of knowledge to memorize, so that these memorized generalities can be abstracted from. And the reason is because these alleged masters of their field suck at understanding how to teach their field to others, despite being paid quite well and understanding the material quite well, to break it down to simpler terms for things to be abstracted...


    These people seem little more than autistic when they cannot find a simpler way to teach people so that abstraction (part of critical thinking) can occur.


    And quite frankly, it is extremely unlikely that you can engage and interest students in all topics. You will always have some that are good in a certain area, but at best average in others. It is just a matter how much they like a particular subject. But if good students see bad grades (for whatever reasons) they get discouraged.


    I will agree.


    It is easier to make an exam that just requires a bit of memorization since it appears to be much fairer than other kinds of evaluation.

    I know faculty that tried really engaging lessons, where memorization is insufficient to get by. And guess what the result is? Half of class failed and the student evaluations were abysmal. Since they were not tenured yet, they did not try it again.


    Then the individual failed to properly understand how to social engineer the students to master the level of material required. Again, the instructors are poor at understanding the cognitive science involved and bringing the critical thinking knowledge out of the students.


    This leads to the other part that is to blame: faculty. Now for that you have to know that the average faculty has a lot of responsibilities. You have to create lectures/courses, engage in research, lead your own lab, compete successfully for grants and fulfill faculty duties. Realistically there is hardly any time to that. Each hour of lesson requires several of preparation.


    I will agree. However, there is something to be said about presentations: A good one will never need to be re-written and it can be used over and over again. I find that some of the best instructors do not change their material, especially when the classroom grades are good and in line with what the instructor wants the students to master. If the instructor cannot teach, then the instructor should not teach. As such, the instructor would become little more than a grant writer and bench monkey. There are plenty of other individuals who can be paid indirectly from student tuition and teach at a higher quality.


    Unless you only have fantastic people in your lab you will spend a lot of time figuring out what went wrong the second you were not watching. Unless you are a micromanager, of course. In that case it is probably your fault that nothing works out. You do not only have to do science, but also lead and mentor your people (if you want your lab to be sustainable, unless you area already established, then you could do whatever). In some cases you have to deal with breakdowns of postdocs and students (yepp, lots of fun). And then you have to worry about money. Constantly. If just one of the things is weak during your tenure-track, you may be denied tenure. This does not mean that your job got less cozy, it means you are out of job and generally have a hard time finding a new one (unless you enjoy competing with fresh hotshots that are a decade younger than you).


    In addition, many enthusiastic young faculty have been crushed under the combined amount of disinterest and lethargy of an average undergrad course. Under these conditions, it is understandable that most junior faculty prefer to play it safe. And that means providing simple questions with simple answers that do need not or little interpretation.

    Does it create the best and brightest? No. Most of us reserve that part of the training (and effort) to those that come into our labs. This is also the reason why grad students see a sudden shift in their learning from undergrad to grad studies.

    Just my 2 cents, of course (also subject to change, as always).



    The simple answer is to pay people to be instructors and leave the other science to those who do the science and get the money for it. There are some people who do not mind being instructors, as long as they get eventual tenure.



    ALSO IN THIS THREAD: Critical thinking needs to be defined, which many educators do not do.


    Oh, yes, there is definitely a way to describe critical thinking. In many ways it involves abstraction from generalizations, which have become memorized. So, duh, you have to memorize something during the course. However, many instructors fail to bring their view of "critical thinking" into a science.


    For instance, when I was in Organic Chemistry II, I had found ways to generalize various organic chemicals by using "R" rather than other carbon-chain branches. I found in doing so, I was able to simplify various reaction mechanisms. However, the instructor never covered such, despite thinking she was teaching us critical thinking. What a fool. When I had attempted to argue with her about critical thinking, she became extremely annoyed and angered at me. It just shows that there needs to be instructors who are there to teach the material.


    I can also recall being at my community college as of late to take a class. A student came up to the instructor to ask how to study the material, and the instructor said she wouldn't teach the student how to study. At the instructor saying that, I turned my head. The instructor froze for a moment, because I had noticed she was doing something that she shouldn't be doing as an instructor: Not teaching. I got into it with that instructor, and a bunch of admin-figures started ganging up on me real quick once they noticed I had my bachelors, because I started to point out the problems with my old comm. college to the students. Admins and directors got really ticked.


    It is true that there are times when all you can do is memorize something in a course, such as a particular bone or name of an organism. However, in chemistry, physics, and math, there are definitely things you can memorize, thus allowing an individual to have generalizations, whereby they can abstract from those generalizations. The trick is in finding what things to have students memorize, thus generalize from in order to abstract. And there is also a reverse engineering process involved, such as retrosynthesis.


    I think where I ended up messing up in organic chemistry was the workload and the amount of memorization that was required. Furthermore, the exams were of a ridonkulous length. The ability to understand the critical thinking involved was mastered... the memorization of large amounts of material and other chemicals as catalysts, bases, acids, etc. was not. So, in a sense, mastering the course became mastering a large knowledge of the reagents to have already been memorized, and I found that many of the students who did well were working in chem labs already...


    Excuse any typos or mistakes, as I've been up for over 24 hours.

  16. I see what you mean, but I think small amounts of brain trauma can be miscategorized as bipolar disorder and give the symptoms you describe.

    The reason I say that, is because a person who has brain trauma may have those feelings and be diagnosed as bipolar.


    The ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY feeling is part of a confabulate line of thinking.

    Both are found in brain trauma and bipolar disorder.


    Then again, it would appear that psychoneuroimmunology in relation to something like this would be cutting edge.

    I have not read nor looked for any research related to this issue of people misdiagnosing brain trauma as bipolar disorder.


    I assume individuals could be gathered who kept daily diaries of their lives, who were later in life diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and that no biological or chemical pathogens were encountered before or during the symptoms of bipolar disorder, then I could believe that bipolar disorder is not an immunological disorder caused by trauma to the brain from pathogens.

  17. In the case that the original poster is not trolling, then the ideal thing to do is separate the water. However, the color is off, so obvious the water company should have something to say about that. If the water company does not have something to say about that, then a professional plumber may be able to help. If the plumber cannot help, then you may want to talk to your neighbors about the water issue. Afterward, if they have the same issue, then report the issue to the federal government, such as the EPA.

  18. I've been attempting to understand some differences between bipolar disorder and brain trauma.


    In bipolar disorder, people have mood swings; they can feel as though time has passed and they have not recognized that time has passed; they can be somewhere different than they were before, thus having a form of dissociation.


    However, this is similar to brain trauma. People have mood swings (their behavior is different than it was before the trauma). They'll have some form of amnesia that can alternate and be indeterminable. Time can pass without understanding why or noticing, thus dissociation.


    It appears that the major difference between trauma and bipolar disorder is the depression and suicidal idealization. However, with trauma, I could see the person wanting to commit suicide from all of the confusion and suffering they begin to experience in life from forgetting the past, their personhood, and having lost many social relationships and knowledge of social relationships.


    Another thing that is common between bipolar disorder and brain trauma is confabulation.


    As such, I'm having difficulty understand what the STRONG differences between bipolar disorder and brain trauma are.




    What are the strong differences between bipolar disorder and brain trauma?


    I've been reading up on brain trauma and bipolar disorder.


    For instance, there is an article that is entitled "

    Study suggests bipolar disorder may cause progressive brain damage."

    source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/uoc--ssb050603.php


    It seems like there is the hypothesis that bipolar disorder causes progressive brain damage.


    However, I'm starting to believe that bipolar disorder does not exist.


    What I'm starting to think exists is that there is compounding damage to the brain over time, along with plasticity over time, that eventually leads to structural changes in memory and personality. As such, that is later translated to psychiatrists labeling someone with "bipolar disorder." In trauma, the individual plasticizes from the trauma and eventually adapts. However, there can be behavioral changes with the
    adaptation to the trauma.


    In other words, imagine that there is some external influence, such as a virus, that can cross the blood brain barrier, cause damage to the brain, thus causing damage to memories and personality, thus influencing the individual's behavior. If an individual gets this trauma, which then affects short-term, working, and long-term memory, the individual has a higher probability of dissociating at times, because of trauma to the brain, and appear to have a "mood swing."


    However, I hypothesize that is not really a "mood swing."


    I hypothesize that in fact the situation is that the individual has dissociated due to brain trauma to memory and personality, thus leading them to have a form of temporary insanity from their baseline personality.


    You see, the article says BIPOLAR DISORDER LEADS TO BRAIN TRAUMA.



    Get it?


    The article argues that X --> Y.

    While I argue that Y --> X.


    Brain trauma and bipolar disorder seem similar.


    However, I'm starting to think that people are wrongfully being labeled as bipolar. Instead, I think the medical community needs to label individuals as amnesiacs who are susceptible to behavioral changes and further trauma due to a psychoneuroimmunological deficiency in the CNS and/or PNS. For the CNS, that would more than likely be the peripheral nervous system.

  19. thank you..actually i am finishing my pg in another subject this year.. so i dont know if i will be eligible to do pg in psychiatry again. but i still feel my idea would be important so i am not sure as to what to do...


    Well, as with any idea, you want to do research on the idea that ties your idea into being a strong argument, as such a valid and sound thesis. Despite you have an "idea," that does not mean it is much of an idea without research or other observations to back it up.


    Yes, you can go back to the medical school and describe the idea, but it would be wise to attempt to do research on the idea to see if anyone has had the same idea or something similar. Another idea is to see if someone has had the opposite idea. And in finding similar ideas, you can build up research, sources, and references if they exist. If they do not exist, then you have a genuine idea, and you have to explore and design a research program for it.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.