Glider

It depends on the context. "I'm sorry mr Jones, there's nothing we can do... I'm afraid you only have three months" "well whatever, we're all gonna die anyway" (philosophical) "Swine! You WILL tell us the Identity and location of your friends in the resistance! If you do not, you will be shot as a spy!" "well whatever, we're all gonna die anyway" (stoic) "This is of vital importance. I can't order any of you to go, and it's almost certain none of you will be coming back" "well whatever, we're all gonna die anyway" (heroic) Or, it could be just a general observation. In which case, it's just accurate.

You're welcome. There is one other thing, if you were to run a One-Way ANOVA, the output would only tell you whether or not there is an effect, but if there is, it won't tell you where the effect is (i.e. [/i]which[/i] group(s) smokes the most/least cigarettes). If you want to find out which group(s) differ the most, you'll need to obtain some descriptive stats, a table of means or a bar chart. The differences should become obvious then. If it's still not obvious, you might need to run some post-hoc analyses (t-tests or something) between the higher and lower groups to find out exactly which differ significantly. Tukey's test of Honestly Significant Differences which can be found in the One-Way ANOVA 'post hoc' analyses box (it's listed as 'Tukey') will run pairwise comparisons, comparing each group with every other group. That tends to be the quickest way I think. Why, thank you sir. You're a gent.

Heh, yeah, that'd be the one.

Bugger all. But it worked out ok.

Ok, then the research question would be 'Is there a difference in the number of cigarettes smoked according to country?' To put it another way, 'Is there an effect of the factor 'country' on the number of cigarettes smoked? So 'country' is your factor (Independent Variable) and it has 9 levels (each different country). Having only one factor (IV) with more than two levels means you need to run a One-Way ANOVA (see below). You cannot compare single values for statistical difference. ANOVA stands for Analysis Of Variance and it basically tests the variance around the means and compares them for each cell (level of the IV) to see if any vary significantly from the others, so you need the raw data. However, it's easy enough to make up. For the sake of the exercise, all you need to do is to make up around 20 numbers for each level (country) where each group of 20 numbers adds up to one of the means you have for each country. In reality, you would have asked 20 people from each country, how many cigarettes they smoke per day. In SPSS, you will need to create two variables. The first is your grouping variable which you would name COUNTRY. In the ‘variable view’ window of SPSS, you would apply value labels in the ‘values’ column. This is where you apply a numerical value to each level of your IV (i.e. each country), for example, 1 = USA; 2 = Germany; 3 = Italy; 4 = Spain and so-on (using whatever countries you used, obviously). The next variable you would name CIGARETTES. This contains the values of your dependent variable (DV). You don’t need to label this variable, it is ratio data so you can just enter the values (no coding needed). Then, switching to the DATA VIEW window (using the tab at the bottom left), you just enter your data. In the first column you enter your country codes, so in this exercise you would enter 20 ‘1’s, then 20 ‘2s’ then 20 ‘3s’ and so-on. In the DV column (you named CIGARETTES), you enter the raw data, where each row (case) is one person’s answer to the question ‘How many cigarettes do you smoke per day?’. There will be 20 people from the USA (in this example), so those values will be entered in the first 20 rows, next to the value ‘1’ in your grouping variable. The next 20 from Germany would be entered in the next 20 rows, next to the value ‘2’ in your grouping variable and so-on. Your data sheet should look something like this (I have cut the groups of 20 to three, just to illustrate). ____COUNTRY____CIGARETTES .........1......................20 .........1......................40 .........1......................30 .........2......................20 .........2......................10 .........2........................5 .........3........................8 .........3......................10 .........3......................15 And so-on, down to 9 (ignore the dotted lines, it's the only way I could get the columns to space out). Then all you need to do is to go to the menu bar and click on ‘Analyse’ – ‘Compare Means’ – One-Way ANOVA’ and a dialogue box will come up. Select the DV (CIGARETTES) and place it in the 'Dependent List' using the arrow. Select the factor (COUNTRY) and place it in the 'Factor' box using the arrow. Then click ‘OK’ and SPSS will run the ANOVA.

Check out the capybara.

There are a couple of problems: 1) A t-test will only test for a difference between two samples. Are these means from measures of the same thing over time, or are they measures of different things? To compare three or more samples you need to use ANOVA. You need to give a bit more information to tell what type of ANOVA you can use. 2) You can't dirtectly compare means using a t-test. You need the raw data as t-tests (and ANOVA) need to calculate the variance around the means in order to work out whether the means are significantly different. I'm guessing you have the raw data, but as you only say you have the means, I just thought I'd make sure. I don't know about Excel, but I can talk you through ANOVA or t-test on SPSS if you tell me what these measures are (what has been measured and how).

Hmmm, me too. It was fine yesterday. Just google 'Bereitschaftspotential' or 'readiness potential'. Plenty will come up.

Here are a few relating to the Bereitschaftspotential (readiness potential), which is probably the most commonly cited example of motor cortex activity associated with a voluntary motor action preceding the conscious decision to perform that action: From Interscience. From Wikipedia. And one from a Philosophical standpoint (ASSC publications). You should believe what you decide is the best explanation of the phenomenon after evaluating the evidence. That neurological preparation for a voluntary motor action precedes the conscious decision to perform that action by about 0.5 seconds.

No. Action potential velocity will always be the same in the same fibre (axon), but there are other factors that influence AP velocity, namely fibre diameter and myelination. The larger the diameter of the fibre, the faster the conduction velocity. The presence of myelin (provided by schwann cells) also increases conduction velocity. So it basically breaks down like this: Large myelinated efferent (motor) fibres have conduction velocities of over 300 metres per second. Large, myelinated afferent (sensory) fibres (e.g. A alpha and large C) have conduction velocities of 80 to 120 metres per second, but they're smaller in diameter than large motor fibres at around 13 to 20 micrometres (um). Smaller afferent fibres (A-beta fibres at around 6 to 12 um dia.) have conduction velocities of around 35 to 75 metres per second. The smallest of the myelinated afferent fibres (A-Delta at around 1 to 5 um dia.) are only thinly myelinated and conduct at around 3 to 30 metres per second. The smallest of our sensory fibres (also the oldest in evolutionary terms) is the C fibre. This is non-myelinated and has a diameter of only 0.2 to 1.5 um. Its condiction velocity is only 0.5 to 2.0 metres per second. This is why, when you stub your toe, you get the initial sensation; the immediate sharp shock, followed by the slower dull, agonising aching. The latter is mediated by C fibres. There's bound to be, but it's not my area I'm afraid. I do know that whilst complex organisms tend to have complex systems for detecting external stimuli (e.g. light), for example we have eyes with highly complicated retinae; cone and rood cells etc. At the basic level, our light sensitivity is ultimately based on the sensitivity of single molecules of rhodopsin (opsin and retinal) that respond to light by altering their conformation. Presumably then, single celled organisms having, as the name would suggest, only a single cell, would rely simply on these molecules for their light sensitivity without all the other clutter of rods, cones, ganglion cells and so-on. I would imagine it's much the same for touch. Humans have a complex system for detection/transduction, transmission (to the CNS), integration and interpretation of physical sensation, but the complex bits are only to allow us to 'sense' in a conscious way so we can integrate the sensation into our model of the world. At the most basic level however, our sense of touch depends upon relatively simple molecules in the sensory cell membrane that respond to mechanical deformation. I would imagine amoebae rely upon these molecules (or something like them) without all the other junk necessary for higher processing. I imagine you could find information on amoebae in most basic biology books, or Google.

Interesting question. I don't know of any research on that specific question. There are two possible modes for overstimulation; complexity (in the case of vision this would involve lots of motion and colour and patterns), and intensity. I don't think you could possibly overload a primary sense organ with complexity. It would detect and transduce everything within its physiological capability and, conversly, fail to transduce anything outside of its range. The higher areas of the CNS though would be highly stimulated. I don't think this would be a bad thing as those areas would recieve no more information than the primary tranducers could send, so they'd just be exposed to a very rich stimuli. You'd probably end up with an individual slightly more sensitive to detail (in vision or hearing) than normal. That's not to say their vision or hearing would be more acute, but that the relevant sensory areas in the cortex had developed to handle more complex information. So, the individual wouldn't detect any more than anybody else, but they might [/i]notice[/i] more within it (most people actually notice, i.e. are consciously aware of, very little of what they see or hear). Overloading with intensity on the other hand (very intense light or loud sounds etc.), could be bad. I think this would result in desensitisation of the primary receptor cells and the result would be that normal level stimuli would no longer be enough to trigger 'normative' responses and the senses would be dulled. Yes. There's lots of research on how neural plasticity might be used to counter the effects of cerebral vascular accidents (CVAs, or 'strokes') and degenrative conditions such as Parkinson's disease which involves the degeneration of dopamine producing cells in the substantia nigra. There's also similar research in Alzheimer's. Also, there's ongoing research with the aim of finding ways of regenerating neurons damaged in spinal injuries. The spine is a part of the central nervous system (as opposed to the peripheral nervous system) and a problem is that there is a lot less nerve growth hormone (NGH) in the CNS. Peripheral nerves will regrow under the right sonditions (albeit slowly; about 1mm a month), but CNS neurons won't. I don't think much of that research involves eating lamb's brains though, but I could be wrong. I haven't read the research for a while.

Transmitted. Nerves conduct action potentials. Sensory 'organs' (specialised cells or nerve endings) transduce specific stimuli; chemical, mechanical, heat and light, into action potentials. All action potentials are the same, regardless of what nerve is conducting them. 'Sensation' is the result of interpretation within the brain and the factor determining what these incoming action potentials are interpreted as, is simply the target area, i.e. where they end up. Signals ending up in the visual cortex are interpreted as patterns of light, because that's what the cells in those areas have evolved to do. The same applies for sound (auditory areas) and touch (primary somatosensory areas) and so-on.

Ah, I see. Well, that's true. The senses are innate insofar as we are all born with the kit required to see, hear, touch and so-on. A battery of different receptor types; chemo, mechano, thermo, and photo, is a part of our basic make-up so yes, your point is inarguable, senses are innate. Ah, I see. Well, that's true. The senses are innate insofar as we are all born with the kit required to see, hear, touch and so-on. A battery of different receptor types; chemo, mechano, thermo, and photo, is a part of our basic make-up so yes, your point is inarguable, senses are innate.

True, but it's not quite as simple as just being born with the necessary hardware. We also need to develop the cortical structures required to interpret the signals. For example, we're all born with eyes and a primary visual cortex, but if the visual cortex is deprived of signals from the eyes for the first few months of life, it never develops the ability to interpret those signals and the individual will be blind. This was shown by Hubel and Wiesel in the 60s. They sutured kittens eyelids closed in one eye (those bastards!) and after three months, removed the sutures and and found that although the eye and cortex were intact, the animals remained blind in the eye that had been closed for the first three months. The majority of cells in the striate cortex only responded to signals from the eye that had been left open. This effect is not seen in adult cats, which indicates a 'sensitive' period of neural plasticity in which incoming signals from sense organs are required for the relevant cortical areas to develop the ability to interpret them. Here is Torsten Wiesel's Nobel lecture (1981) entitled 'THE POSTNATAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VISUAL CORTEX AND THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT'.

Yes, that's how Psychologists think of emotion, as affective-motivational states (different from mood). They form the basis of motivated behaviours (feeding, reproduction, etc.) and learning through operant conditioning. I've never heard of this, nor seen any evidence for it.

I know a little about the normal functioning of the body (as opposed to clinical pathology), but I'm afraid I know nowhere near enough to be able to make diagnoses, especially on-line. The only thing I can suggest is that you make an appointment (perhaps through your doctor) to see a dermatologist. It's possible that you may have developed a sensitivity to something in the environment through exposure to a sensitising agent. However, I'm not sure carpet stain remover qualifies. There are some chemicals which release vapours that can sensitize a person, who may then go on to develop an allergy to some innocuous element in their environment (some anti-rot wood treatments contain such chemicals). However, the use of those substances is usually controlled and people have to move out for 48 hours if it's being used in their homes, so as I say, it's unlikely to be a domestic carpet cleaner, although not impossible. It depends what chemicals your landlord used. In any event, a dermatologist could provide you with a battery test for allergens to find out if you have developed a particular sensitivity. Sorry I can't be of more help.

That's not the made up bit. This is.

It's made up. The etymology is Latin: emovare = 'disturb'. Yes, although not yet completely, but an explanation of emotion would be too long for a post, or even a thread. A pretty good and quite recent book you might like to check out is: Rolls, E. T. (2005). Emotion Explained. Oxford University Press.

I think the problem is that since the 50s, the precise understanding of what constitutes a formal situation has been lost. Before then, it was always 'Good morning Major!'...'Ah...Mornin' Doctor!' and so-on, until/unless they became friends, then 'on a first name basis'. There were quite clear conventions of etiquette concerning introductions and the use of titles. Since the 60s however, many began to distance themselves from 'old school' etiquette and convention (it's 'uncool') and teachers started saying things like 'Call me Dave' (I'm one of you...cool and rebellious...daddio), so schoolkids grew up not knowing the social conventions concerning titles. Some, however, preferrred to stick to convention.These are the ones that can get uppity if their titles aren't used correctly. The fault isn't theirs though, they have a right to their title. But the lack of consistency between individuals, some with the 'call me Dave' approach and others with the 'that's doctor Williams' approach means that now, nobody knows what to call anybody in any situation. All titles do now is make most people uncomfortable because they don't know whether or not, or when, to use them appropriately and nobody likes being made socially uncomfortable. Ugh! That's the most horrible combination of the two: 'I'm a doctor and so require your respect yet, I'm still one of you cool dudes...just better'. It's nauseating.

I'd go with Phi's advice. A family counsellor will be able to help. The work will need to be done by the family, of course, but a good counsellor will know what needs to be done.

I think it's slightly different in the US. I believe that in the US, any Ph.D. who teaches is called professor. In the UK, Ph.Ds are never called Professor. Only professors are, i.e. those who have been awarded an institutional or personal chair (we have five in our department). As for using the title 'doctor', I think it's only really necessary in formal situations that require the use of any title, Mr. Ms. Dr. Prof. Sir, M'Lud, Your Honour, etc.. I don't really mind at work though. I have a few students who insist on using the title, and many who don't, but it's ok either way as far as I''m concerned. The only thing I find a little irritating is the habit of those few students fresh from school that insist on calling me 'sir'. Perhaps it's a hangover from the army, but I find myself thinking 'Don't call me sir, I work for a living!'

No worries

Not so much 'wrong' as 'less appropriate'. As you were comparing the pH values from different samples a bar chart is more appropriate as each of the bars represents a discrete sample. Inherent within a line chart is the suggestion that each point represents a repeated measure of the same sample over time. Hermanntrude is not quite correct in the statement that bar charts are rare in science. They are used specifically to compare the summary statistics (measures of central dendency and dispersion, e.g. means and SDs) from different groups/samples and are quite common, particularly where there are many values to present. However, Where there are fewer values to present, tables are more common. The tree is quite right: "scientists use graphics that convey information in the most representative and helpful way that they can think of, rather than following exact rules.". However, they do conform to general convention (for the sake of consistency) and conventionally, line charts represent changes in a repeated measure over time (i.e. longitudinal) and bar charts represent measures of several different samples all at once (i.e. cross sectional).

Not really, as your experience (in its entirety) is also the result of biochemical processes.

If you want detail, the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication manual is quite good. It gives detailed instructions on presenting written work and also tips on acceptable grammar and syntax. However, as hermanntrude says, correct syntax is preferrred. As a general rule, academic prose is written in the 3rd party, and journal articles are written in the past-perfect tense (because you are writing up a study that you have already done). Within the paper there are exceptions. The results section for example. It's common to see people start of 'The results showed a significant (whatever)'. The past tense is not appropriate here because unless you have committed a type I error, then you are demontsrating an effect that still exists (and re-analysis of the same data would still show the effect). The other exception is, obviously, when discussing possible future research. If you are referring to the model (if it is still popular) then you should use the present tense. If you are writing about the experiments then it depends. If you are writing about the procedure then (as it already happened) past tense. However, if you are writing about the results, use present tense, unless the results of the experiment have been refuted. If the results of a study show A > B, then those results will always show A > B unless the study is refuted. Not if it is correct grammar and syntax. I tend to advise my students to keep to the passive voice. Whilst it may be acceptable these days to use personal pronouns when referring to the experimental procedure (e.g. 'we connected the electrodes to the participants ...'), it is just as easy to say 'The electrodes were connected to the participants ...', and as it is not usually relevant who wired the participants, it prevents irrelevancy creeping in. The area of Psychology is still quite strict on the use of personal pronouns, except in qualitative studies. Not using personal pronouns at all prevent them from using them inappropriately, e.g. 'As we/you can see from the results...', or 'We all accept that...' and so-on. As mentioned, the APA publication manual (now in its 5th edition) is very detailed and should be helpful to you. Although sections of it won't be relevant to your area, it does cover general rules that are universally applicable.