I'm proud of this answer:
which has found 5 downvotes. I don't really know why. The reason these votes are wrong is:
-its was well cited with direct references from psychiatric manuals giving the two most common diagnosis to which i'm familiar with. I basily only sum up the sdnos and what baily has taught me thus far.
-The answer isn't ethnocentric as I include the possibility that this dsm listing wouldn't apply to certain societies and cultures. Not all dsms diagnosis have the exception to the rule.
-Burki's and Massod's paper outline what I said. Burki is a practicing psychiatrist at a university so I doubt that you could call into question their expertise.
-The consequences of SSRI's being unable to sense pleasure in the gential or orgasm (commonly called whiskey dick by LMFAO) are just widely published but for some reason not well repeated. Decreasing dosage is well published and lessening the sexual side effects with viagra is also widely published. If you need specific citations for such general knowledge thats fine but i mean i think everyone knows bob dole takes viagra.
I didn't have much to say about this question
-My response is not long but I don't see any point in belaboring the fact that they were ignorant of what we understand and we are ignorant of what we don't understand. I could have simply marked the question as a duplicate but I thought that the focus of this question on sensory integration could stand alone as it asked about packet mitigation and the other paper focused on the eye itself.
-Nerves work by passing neurochemicals (represented by water) and electrical impulses (which are passed on salts) along what's basically a tube. So rather than conceptualizing something digital I was trying to point to a more accurate but still very basic organic and fluid nature.
-Nick said that one of the reason's he downvoted me is because of a rule he and his friends are unsuccessfully attempting to make on meta against citations. I mean I think the people who visit this cite are intelligent and able to read a paper's abstract and draw their own conclusion or learn something from a relevant wikipedia article.
I'm pretty proud of this answer as well
It has five negative votes though.
-The answer is factual.
-Stories help people learn and in this case it offers anecdotal evidence to support the fact that not all science is rational in the way in which nick purports.
-I found the methods of the paper as indefensiable but i think i was biased against it. Though the conclusion they draw from it about something happening in the brain while something external to the brain outside the abilities of perception seems consistent with intuition. "It was concluded that instructions to a healer to make an intentional connection with a sensory isolated person can be correlated to changes in brain function of that individual." I should have no knowledge of your happenings but somehow i have irrational knowings is intuition which i used to validate his feelings and explain possible alternative less valid origins.
This question has 4 negative votes
-the citations explain the concepts of music being ethnocentric. there are no other non-ethnocentric theories of music.
-culture is fluid, culture shock and culture transition are two examples
-the concept of a subconscious connection to between music and the brain is proportionally relational to the connection between the brain and the face and muscles. It shows that on a very basic level there is large amounts of cultural diversity.
continuing on my quest to rid cogsi se of the music questions i answered the other two uniquely
-association is known to govern many aspects of our lives without question.
-The paper on meditation was to point that yes external stimuli can cause beta wave activity then i tried to correct the assumption that beta waves make you positive.
-finally i attack the viability of the concept that target sound waves result in fixes to the brain shifting it out of a state of hyperactivity into normality. I left the ending open enough to allow for the fact that these sounds might have some utility to other states of mind.
This answer is a regurgitation of what dr. bailey has taught me. and a synthesis of wikipedia expert opinions. there are no factual inaccuracies.
-what tried to use my comments to say paraphilia was moral, clinical diagnosis were not of great value and normality as defined by Alice Dreger was wrong for some reason
-this answer is a simple regurgitation of facts from a book and another public document which wasn't peer reviewed but its based in observed science rather than corollary
-basic explanation of short term long term memory natural forgetting and how it works against us higher levels of long term memory found through Skilled Memory
-explanation of what life is like on adhd and dementia
-basic question about memory span basic answer about memory span...wish i would have remembered 80 things on the WAI
-i cannot promise that research will make your topic look good. in this case it didnt and i think the question shouldn't have been asked because the answer is so obvious.
-so for good measure i extracted from wiki the general descent of societies.
On this question I attempted to rationalize my understanding of the question to nick but since we disagreed on fundamentally what was being asked he dismissed my answer and said i wasnt taking his criticism when we completely disagreed on the nature of the question. he keeps bringing up my abeyance of him in this instance as if it was some great tragedy. that is not exactly a factual statement but i'm getting tired.
so thats my justification from the facts of the questions of why they are accurate and i do not deserve bullying. ie -60.