Questions of a weird mind

[Savannah]

Originally Posted by Hazzardevil

My question?
If you have multiple personality disorder, would the personalities talk to each other inside their head?

It depends, but it's pretty common for the personalities not to know about each other. (Also, it is quite possible that multiple personality disorder doesn't exist and/or is highly exaggerated.)

Originally Posted by Hazzardevil

Also, is it normal for teenagers to dream about sexual intercourse?

Yes.

[Dsurion]

Originally Posted by Raddish

I believe smurfette was created by someone so I would guess that smurfs are a single gender species with smurfette being a modified version or something.

IIRC, she was created by Gargamel to destroy the Smurfs.

[araveugnitsuga]

Originally Posted by Hazzardevil

My question?
If you have multiple personality disorder, would the personalities talk to each other inside their head?

Also, is it normal for teenagers to dream about sexual intercourse?

Disociative Identity Disorder is not well documented and even recorded cases are debatable. But no, you don't have multiple personalities so much as memory voids coupled with mood swings, so it's just one but different moods and what is done by it sometimes is forgotten. So they cannot really talk to each other.

It's still very controversial, specially due to it being mostly a North American condition and it also springing from psychotherapist suggestions.

Depends on cultural context but the answer is most likely yes for the greater part of the population.

[Yora]

Originally Posted by Hazzardevil

Also, is it normal for teenagers to dream about sexual intercourse?

As pumped up on hormones as you are supposed to be, I think it would rather be worrysome not to.

Originally Posted by Savannah

It depends, but it's pretty common for the personalities not to know about each other. (Also, it is quite possible that multiple personality disorder doesn't exist and/or is highly exaggerated.)

Where did you get that? From what I know, this is mostly an urban myth. Not to say there aren't cases that are sowhat similar to multiple personalties, but the way people think it works seems to be mostly made up because it's a cool story.

[Savannah]

Where did I get what, precisely? The general answer comes from my degree in psychology, although I never bothered with Abnormal Psych, so I'm not as up on DID as other areas in psych.

[Elemental]

There's such a thing as non-abnormal psychology? My world view has been shattered!


Nah, I'm just kidding, but my view is still skewed as everyone I know is crazy.

But now, an interesting question... Why do people befriend animals?

[Savannah]

Sure, social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, experimental psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, evolutionary psychology, personality psychology, sports psychology, cross-cultural psychology, forensic psychology, behavior analysis (my field), behavioral neuroscience, etc, etc, etc. (I realize you were probably joking, but I kinda wanted to point out how much beyond abnormal/counseling psychology there is. Also, this totally counts as on topic because you phrased it as a question )

As for why people befriend animals....hang on, my dog demands tummy scritches before I respond...

*ahem* As I was saying.

Well, in a lot of cases, our relationships with our pets started as mutually beneficial partnerships -- dogs help hunt and provide security, cats kill vermin (dogs do, too), sheep/cattle/goats/etc provide food (actually, in some cultures, dogs do this, too), horses haul heavy loads (hey, dogs can do this one, as well!), etc. As for why we do it now, animals can provide the same help and more (seeing eye/hearing ear dogs, monkey assistants for quadriplegics, heck, dogs are being trained to prevent their seriously allergic owners from contacting foods that can kill them) and animals can provide companionship or something to nurture the same way a spouse or child can (but way, way cuter and less annoying -- oops, I think my bias is showing). ...I swear I had a third reason in mind when I started that sentence, but I can't remember it now.

Edit: Trust me to remember right after posting. Animals can supplement their owner's image -- big tough-looking dogs for manly men, floofy little dogs for girly girls, exotics for the non-conformists, stupid things like tigers for the thrill seekers, and so on. Mind you, this isn't a good reason to get a pet, but it can be a reason.

[Elemental]

It's still strange. I like animals, especially cats, but how I can love creatures that are so aloof and almost never spend time with me, I have no idea.
I mean, I see my cats for a small fraction of the day, and during most of that time, they're sleeping.
It's probably because I've had them forever.

Oh well... I'll just put it down to humans being weird.

[Raddish]

Why do peoples pets like dogs and cats always seem to come to me in a room of many people.

I always feel awkward around them, like a mix between being really unsure of what they are doing and not wanting to move incase I hit them. Another question, is it normal to feel awkward around other peoples pets?

[Savannah]

Originally Posted by Raddish

Why do peoples pets like dogs and cats always seem to come to me in a room of many people.

Because you don't go "OOH WHAT A CUTE DOGGIE/KITTY! LET ME HOLD YOU!" You aren't comfortable with them, so you ignore them, which lets them get used to you at their own pace and makes you non-threatening.

Originally Posted by Raddish

I always feel awkward around them, like a mix between being really unsure of what they are doing and not wanting to move incase I hit them. Another question, is it normal to feel awkward around other peoples pets?

Yeah (and it beats overconfidence). I generally only get it with species I'm not familiar with, though, so maybe it's a general lack of familiarity with animals for you?

[H Birchgrove]

Originally Posted by Karoht

I can tell you how not to do it, but I think you've got that base covered.

Mentor in a wheelchair-Xavier
Hacker/Coordinator/Support-Oracle
Crackpot inventor-Mostly villains, a few heroes
Wheelchair transform into tank/cybersuit-Too many to list, both hero and villain.

Daredevil was a bold and highly successful attempt at a Blind superhero. Terrible film though. None the less, Daredevil might give you some leads.

This might not help but try this. Place normal person in situation. Ask yourself how this normal person might solve the problem. Now same problem, but in wheelchair. When you get to the point where the wheelchair bound person you imagine can solve problems as proficiently as the non-wheelchair bound person, you're ready. At that point, add some super powers to the mix.


Variant of the Charles Xavier archetype.
Charles is a powerful psychic. Great, awesome.
Variant is a essentially a Bard. Mostly uses storytelling/magic. Highly social character.
Yeah, he can have a cool buttler or servant or assistant or something.
Maybe he's actually even a stage magician?

As for the cause of him being wheelchair bound, pick a medical condition. My advice, stick to severe damage to his legs or even complete amputation combined with severe nerve damage.

So what do we have so far? We have a fellow who was crippled. Due to not having exceptional physical attributes he has come to rely on his wits and charm. Uses lots of actual slight of hand, maybe even nix the 'powers,' reads people and their reactions remarkably well. Stage magic or street magic? Or neither? Maybe this person is actually rather pleasant to be around even, rather than the trope of super genius but abrasive jerkwad.

The companion. It's hard to fill this role without automatically thinking of Holmes and Watson. Perhaps the companion is in fact the abrasive on. Or not. Perhaps he's equally smart but with a different skillset and background. Is the the guardian sort (IE-Bodyguard) or is he merely the faithful servant/friend that will stick with his charge through thick and thin? Or is that too Bruce and Alfred? Darn, I'm having trouble with the companion.
Maybe he doesn't have one?

Thanks! This will help me to avoid (at least some) clichés!

Is it wrong that I've already thought about a companion, who happens to have only one leg, aside from a prosthetic one?

Originally Posted by araveugnitsuga

Disociative Identity Disorder is not well documented and even recorded cases are debatable. But no, you don't have multiple personalities so much as memory voids coupled with mood swings, so it's just one but different moods and what is done by it sometimes is forgotten. So they cannot really talk to each other.

It's still very controversial, specially due to it being mostly a North American condition and it also springing from psychotherapist suggestions.

Depends on cultural context but the answer is most likely yes for the greater part of the population.

I saw a documentary about a Swedish woman with Disociative Identity Disorder. It was quite clear that she wasn't faking it or that she wasn't "delusional" about having that disorder, she really had three personalities. Interestingly, each personality corresponded with the Freudian ideas of the Id, Ego, and Superego. One personality was like a constantly scared young girl, the main personality was trying manage her life, and the third personality was very moralistic and pedantic, especially about the two other personalities.

It should be noted that European psychologists and psychiatrist were first to diagnose and research Disociative Identity Disorder and schizophrenia (I know the relation between those two terms is controversial, since laymen have often confused them), for example Eugen Bleuler, Carl Jung, and Kurt Schneider.

[Dogmantra]

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

[thubby]

Originally Posted by Dogmantra

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

i don't, and it's rather vexing.
or rather, it's vexing that my spoken voice doesn't match the one in my head which i consider "my voice".

[Kobold-Bard]

Originally Posted by Bouregard

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs? One adult female one, remember and she seems not to be the mother of the kidsmurfs...

Turning nightmarefuel on in one ... two ... three

I've been told in te past that there was a village of all female Smurfs to balance the all male one the stories discuss.

Originally Posted by Dogmantra

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

Sort of. The voice in my head is how my voice sounds to me, but I know from audio evidence that it's not how my voice actually sounds.

I also have this weird thing where I can't read properly when it's too noisy, because I don't really read the words, my brain sort of acknowledges them and then speaks them to me in a different voice than my own. So as far as I can tell I listen to books (or even this forum) for example rather than read it.

My turn:

Who came up with the names for things? Who decided that a tomato was called a tomato, rather than a grape or a mountain?

[TheSummoner]

Originally Posted by Bouregard

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs? One adult female one, remember and she seems not to be the mother of the kidsmurfs...

Turning nightmarefuel on in one ... two ... three

Smurfs lay eggs. Think about it for a moment... There's one female and a large number of males. That implies a species that lays eggs.

[Traab]

Related to your last question. How long did it take for early man to figure out what was safe to eat and what wasnt? Did someone pick up say, a carrot, and eat the leaves, then after that was terrible, eat the root? I know there are some edible plants that have poisonous parts, who convinced their buddies to try the rest after the first guy died or got horribly ill?

[Raddish]

Well I expect with things like carrots it was watching an animal of some kind pull it up and eat the root area.

Whats more confusing to me is things like drinking cows milk, whoever decided it was a good idea to pull those dangly things beneath a cow and drink whatever comes out must have been an interesting character...

[Kobold-Bard]

Originally Posted by Raddish

Well I expect with things like carrots it was watching an animal of some kind pull it up and eat the root area.

Whats more confusing to me is things like drinking cows milk, whoever decided it was a good idea to pull those dangly things beneath a cow and drink whatever comes out must have been an interesting character...

See milk isn't a mystery. Seeing baby cows use the udders in the same way baby people use bewbz, the connection probably wasn't that hard to make.

[TheSummoner]

Ok, milk is disgusting but it's still understandable.

Explain eggs. Or for that matter, cheese. What the hell was the first person who ever ate one of those thinking when he did?

[Maralais]

Originally Posted by Dogmantra

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

As strange as this may sound, I sometimes think with the voice of Stephen Fry. Charming, really.

Also, do salaries of academicians(I think that's the word) depend on their field? e.g. are academicians of psychology are better paid when compared to academicians of philosophy?

I actually used "do" instead of "are", what is happening to my grammar?

[Kobold-Bard]

Originally Posted by TheSummoner

Ok, milk is disgusting but it's still understandable.

Explain eggs. Or for that matter, cheese. What the hell was the first person who ever ate one of those thinking when he did?

Eggs: Animals are delicious. Baby animals are especially delicious (the cuteness improves the flavour). Therefore once they saw baby birds hatching from eggs the logical thing to do us eat them because of their inherent deliciousness.

Cheese: Ok, this one was probably an accidental discovery by someone who screwed up but was just that hungry that he'd eat the weird chunky stuff in their milk.

[Traab]

Originally Posted by Kobold-Bard

Eggs: Animals are delicious. Baby animals are especially delicious (the cuteness improves the flavour). Therefore once they say baby birds hatching from eggs the logical thing to do us eat them because of their inherent deliciousness.

Cheese: Ok, this one was probably an accidental discovery by someone who screwed up but was just that hungry that he'd eat the weird chunky stuff in their milk.

Explain salt then. "Hey, there is some oddly colored dirt! Try sprinkling it over your food. WOW! Thats awesome!"

[H Birchgrove]

Originally Posted by Traab

Explain salt then. "Hey, there is some oddly colored dirt! Try sprinkling it over your food. WOW! Thats awesome!"

Animals like salt too. One of the reasons for road kill are elks and other animals licking off rock salt from roads during the winter.

It's possible that fishermen tasted some salt in their fish, and wanted to try to improve on it. Or they experimented with several methods to preserve food.

Heck, someone might have just liked the taste of seawater.

[Kobold-Bard]

Originally Posted by Traab

Explain salt then. "Hey, there is some oddly colored dirt! Try sprinkling it over your food. WOW! Thats awesome!"

I don't know. I'm a questioner like the rest of you, not some sort of food origins expert.

Maybe they watched an animal do it, maybe animals the ate a lot of salt tasted better, maybe it was a blind accident. Who knows.

Edit: Though I like the fish water theory from the above post.

[razark]

Originally Posted by TheSummoner

What the hell was the first person who ever ate one of those thinking when he did?

"Holy crap, I'm about to starve, so I might as well eat this thing!"

[Archonic Energy]

why does a 500ml mug of tea keep it's heat better than a 500ml mug of mocha ?

[Traab]

Originally Posted by Archonic Energy

why does a 500ml mug of tea keep it's heat better than a 500ml mug of mocha ?

Heat is lost by transfer of energy. Mocha has a lot more random bits and bobs in the water, which makes the heat move all over the place and as it does, more and more is lost in transit. Tea on the other hand has a lot less bits and bobs in it generally, therefore less heat transfer takes place and it holds its temperature longer. I may have some of the details wrong but I think thats the gist of it.

[Yora]

Originally Posted by Maralais

Also, do salaries of academicians(I think that's the word) depend on their field? e.g. are academicians of psychology are better paid when compared to academicians of philosophy?

It's "Academics". And the pay they get mostly depends on the position they have. If you are just some lousy assistant who works two days per week entering research data into a computer, you will get very different pay than the lead physicist who designs a billion dollar mass accelerator.

There's a joke in Germany: What does a philosopher with a job say to a philosopher without one?
"Do you want fries with that?"

Originally Posted by Traab

Related to your last question. How long did it take for early man to figure out what was safe to eat and what wasnt? Did someone pick up say, a carrot, and eat the leaves, then after that was terrible, eat the root? I know there are some edible plants that have poisonous parts, who convinced their buddies to try the rest after the first guy died or got horribly ill?

That's evolution!

At first, people eat everything. Than those who have the weird habbit of not eating small yellow fruit, somehow didn't die like anyone else. So when they had children who also didn't want to eat small yellow fruit, they survived while their siblings who did also died. Repeat that a few generation and you end up only with people who don't try to eat that. At some point they are so many, that anyone who still tries to eat them is regarded as weird and when he does eat them and dies, while everyone else is fine, it's easy to make the connection and from then on you can teach children: "Don't eat those things, they kill you."

[thubby]

i want to know who figured out bread.
it's not exactly something you can accidentally make like cheese or alcohol.

[Traab]

Originally Posted by thubby

i want to know who figured out bread.
it's not exactly something you can accidentally make like cheese or alcohol.

I dunno, unleavened bread isnt that complex, and considering early experimenters would likely try every possible way of making things it makes sense they would create that. As for adding yeast, its possible it was a newtons apple kind of thing. "What the hell is this crap? Hey! Look what it did to the flatbread! Hmm, tastes pretty good too! Dang, now if only it wasnt in such a huge chunk. I KNOW! I can SLICE IT! This is the greatest invention since.... UNSLICED BREAD!"