#i'm sure this will be disproven in three weeks but what if...

[thelvadams]

SKYWARD SWORD ➤ TEARS OF THE KINGDOM

[pokemon-researcher-alexander]

Adding another researcher to the long tally of RoTumblr users; nice to meet you! Firstly, how are the studies? Studying to become a professor can be quite tedious, especially under Rowan, haha. Secondly, more relevant to academia, how is the formation of Shedinja from Nincada possible? Does this imply that Nincada has sentient skin (or at the very least the ability to instill sentience into its molt)? How does Shedinja automatically inhabit an empty Pokéball?

Nice to meet you as well, sir.

The studies can be tedious, but that's true of almost any scientific profession. I'm sure you know just how much data it takes to draw any reasonable conclusions, but I usually find it to be worthwhile. (Except when three weeks of work need to be thrown out because of a faulty sensor. That's a bit frustrating.)

I'm actually not studying under Professor Rowan right now, though his lab is on the shortlist of doctoral programs I'd like to apply to next year, once I finish my Master's. I suppose that, as a student at CU, I'd technically be adjunct to Professor Oak, though I've never met him. I did meet Rowan at a League luncheon once, when I still lived in Sinnoh, and I think he's perceived as being much harsher than he actually is. It was subtle, but he definitely does have a dry sense of humor.

As far as Shedinja goes, I'm assuming that you've read research papers on your own time, and are asking which hypothesis I support, but I'll give some background for other readers.

The evolution of Nincada is essentially a black box function; we know what we start with and end with, but lack sufficient instrumentation to determine how the results are achieved. This has lead to anyone with any interest at all in evolution putting forth a hypothesis of their own.

While some, such as Shedinja spontaneously appearing from another dimension (Lund, 1997), are generally met with skepticism by the community at large, it is important to remember that they have not been disproven, and could be true, however unlikely they may seem.

That being said, three possibilities are currently perceived as the most logical, all stemming from the original assertation that, as no other Pokémon evolves into two separate organisms, Nincada must actually be two Pokémon themselves (Quackenpoker, 1995).

First is the idea of the theoretical Pokémon which evolves into Ninjask being a parasite inside Nincada (Badel, 2000). This is typically thought of as the least likely of the three, given the clear visual similarities between Nincada and Ninjask.

Second is the 'sentient skin', as you referred to it, which assumes a symbiotic relationship between the two (Entsy, 2003), where the Nincada inside gains an additional layer of protection, and the other Pokémon a more effective means of locomotion. While providing a better explanation for the aforementioned similarities, it, at least in my eyes fails to address Shedinja's typing.

Fewer than 10 Pokémon gain the Ghost type upon evolution, and of those, Decidueye and Skeledirge are the only ones to do so purely through accumulated experience. Thus, the third hypothesis, which I view as the most accurate, treats Nincada as a single Pokemon, evolving into Ninjask. However, the energy involved as evolution nears then attracts an as-of-yet undiscovered Ghost-type, which makes use of Nincada's shed skin to evolve itself, in the same vein as Karrablast using Shelmet's armor (Temin, 2004).

Shedinja automatically inhabiting a Pokéball honestly has more to do with the Pokéball than the Pokémon. As the balls are tied to your Trainer ID, they detect the genetic material from the discarded exoskeleton, and, assuming that this is still your Nincada, whose ball must have broken, automatically recapture them. It is possible to override this by releasing Nincada immediately prior to evolution, but as Shedinja prefer to remain near the Ninjask that they are tied to, they almost always allow themselves to be caught by the same trainer.

[themomsandthecity]

So, When Do Babies Become Conscious? A Child Psychiatrist Explains

I have a question for everybody: who wants to know how a baby understands what the Four Seasons Orlando is? Because my hand is raised. If you've been on TikTok the last week, you're likely already familiar with the video I'm referring to. In the viral TikTok that has since gained over 45 million views, content creator Stefanie O'Brien records an interaction with her family where someone offscreen asks, "I have a question for everybody: who wants to go to the Four Seasons Orlando?" and the baby responds "me" while raising her hand. The baby in question has since been dubbed "conscious baby," with many viewers wondering when babies actually do become conscious. In other words, when can babies understand what's being asked of them or what's going on in the world around them? Child psychiatrist Howard Pratt, DO, explains. --- Experts Featured in This Article Howard Pratt, DO, is a children's psychiatrist and board-certified medical director at Community Health of South Florida, Inc. --- When Do Babies Become Conscious? It's difficult to know when exactly babies begin to understand the world around them, Dr. Pratt explains. "Generally, a baby becomes conscious or aware of itself as early as five months of age, but most of the earliest memories we can access as adults are formed between the ages of three and four," he adds. When babies start making eye contact and responding to their name, that's a good sign the baby is becoming conscious. However, Dr. Pratt notes it's hard to know for sure if the baby is responding to their name or the sound they hear. "That's not something you can determine with certainty," he says. That said, a baby will most likely start interacting with their environment and understanding their consciousness as early as five months of age. In this specific TikTok, however, Dr. Pratt doesn't believe this baby (who is 13 months) actually knows she wants to go to the Four Seasons. Instead, the child may be "mirroring behavior that she's seen" as many kids do, he adds. Sorry to all of you who thought this baby was a travel prodigy. What's most concerning to Dr. Pratt, however, is the amount of attention this baby is receiving - not because the video is harmful or not entertaining, but because it can lead to unhealthy comparisons. "A lot of people are likely now comparing this child to theirs while none of this can be proven or disproven," Dr. Pratt reiterates. "Developmental milestones, such as when a child can walk or begin to speak, are far better measures of our children's growth and development." Even though this conscious baby may not fully know what the Four Seasons Orlando is, let's hope she gets a free stay for life. Related: Baby Helmets Are Becoming More Common - but Are They Really Necessary? --- Taylor Andrews is a Balance editor at PS who specializes in topics relating to sex, relationships, dating, sexual health, mental health, and more. In her six years working in editorial, she's written about how semen is digested, why sex aftercare is the move, and how the overturn of Roe killed situationships. --- https://www.popsugar.com/family/when-baby-become-conscious-49365011?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

[tommydoesntpayforsuits]

Hi! I was wondering, did they teach you critical thinking at school? Thing is, I notice that western people are more opinionated(?) than eastern people (generally speaking). Most of you have a broad knowledge on things and able to discuss things and share your opinions.

So what I'm trying to say is, how do I learn to be more critical and not afraid to show my opinion on things, be it a light conversation or more serious discussion.

I really admire the way you think especially your post about the Spencer movie, cause I watched it and if I got asked how was it, I'd probably say I don't like it and can't offer a more explanation.

Marina, I hope you understand what I'm asking <3

I'm not gonna lie, I read the first sentence and laughed out loud because I thought this was going to be a very long insult paha

I honestly don't know about opinionated differences between East and West, so no comment on that as I have no idea what to say.

As for do we learn it at school: I'm not sure? I mean, there isn't a "Critical Thinking" class, but in school you were expected to draw your own conclusions. School pretty much for me was teachers lecturing about fixed information, and then asking us about our opinions or using logic to decipher following events (I mean, don't think we didn't have to do boring stuff too). There were often heated debates in class about who's character's side you're on, or who had the rightful claim to X throne, etc. So, you could say we were kind of forced to think critically, unbeknownst to us. I used to have to write minimum 3 essays a week around my subjects for homework. So analysis is pretty much something I can do in my sleep.

Honestly, the only advice I can give you is that you need to inform yourself on the subject, once you know what you're talking about, then you decide on an opinion. As long as you understand that opinions are not set in stone, and can change should you receive new information, you should be okay (i.e. don't defend something that has been disproven or get into a fight about because the whole thing is about pride/embarrassment, because I promise it's not worth it). There's also no shame in not having an opinion on something, just because you can't seem to settle on a coherent ideal or because you have no strong feelings on the matter.

Also, you can like what you like! You don't have to defend your taste! I like stupid French shows and semi-realistic historical dramas— it's my trash, I love it.

That's the end of the advice, I'm just going on a Spencer tangent now:

As for Spencer, I feel like maybe about 25% of the audience hated it. A lot of people complained that it didn't have a plot, which I think is a silly criticism, because it does have a plot: about Diana's suffering in the span of two to three important days for the Royal Family. We see her slowly decend into her own depression, and I found that fascinating, because it's essentially a dramatic tragedy as the audience are aware Diana will die (though the film never touches on her passing) and her suspicions are correct. Not to mention the symbolism and the foreshadowing was geniously placed. Once you realise the piece is about emotion, one can view it differently. But also, I am a Film and English student— my entire academic career is based around analysing stories and how they're constructed, so I do overthink when I watch movies.