Slashdot Mirror

I'll admit that there wasn't much "hysteria" when I was in college, but you can usually get a good idea of who might make a false rape accusation by just interacting with a person for a little while before having sex with them. Avoid drama queens (who come in both genders, despite the feminine connotation) and don't be an overly aggressive rapey prick and you're almost certain to never be the victim of a false rape accusation. I, like most people of my generation, had plenty of sex in college and were never accused of rape. Most women aren't horrible people who will falsely accuse men of rape, just like most men are't horrible people who will rape women.

In my high school, there was one actual rape and one false accusation of rape while I was there and in both cases the turn of events wasn't very surprising to anyone who knew the people involved on even a cursory level. If you find yourself in a room alone with a violent misogynist or a hysterical drama queen, leave immediately and do not even give the impression of engaging with them sexually.

Many politicians have stronger than average narcissistic tendencies.

That's not the same as being a narcissist.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Many politicians have stronger than average narcissistic tendencies.

That's not the same as being a narcissist.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

What stopped me is empathy, even in my enemies I recognize a shared humanity.

Seriously dude, if you feel that way there's something seriously wrong with you. Although the condition is not too uncommon.

I am dead serious, get yourself tested.

And please don't take this comment as a reason to add me to your enemy list.

The condition is nothing to be ashamed of, in a sense it could be said it makes you more free in your choices than other people. But if you fall onto that spectrum you should know about it.

There was a study recently about going on "autopilot" while walking or driving (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-mishaps/201404/the-dangers-going-autopilot) and how people avoided obstacles, but didn't truly notice them. Part of the experiment was to bend a branch to head height and then place dollar bills on it. People avoided the branch, but didn't notice the money even when it was waving right in front of them. They even a large sign announcing that a psychological experiment that explained what was going on place in the middle of a path. When asked shortly afterwards about the obstacles, people didn't remember them. They just avoided them.
People get into a car and automatically behave as if they've been driving that car or road regularly, even a new one. They zone out, react to a normal occurrence and because of their unfamiliarity with the vehicle/road do the wrong thing.

here is absolutely no reproducible scientific evidence to back that up.

False. From March of 2016:

New research published on-line in advance of print in the journal Psychological Medicine, concludes that continued use of cannabis causes violent behavior as a direct result of changes in brain function that are caused by smoking weed over many years.

Further on the article states:

What makes this new study more compelling than previous studies is that the researchers followed the same individuals for over 50 years from a young age to adulthood. This is precisely what one needs to solve the chicken or egg riddle with respect to cannabis and violence: just look and see which one happens first.

In other words, they weren't doing random shit. They followed the scientific evidence to back up their findings.

Would you like to troll some more and be like creationists and ignore the facts?

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

In fact, in Uganda its "survival of the fattest": https://www.psychologytoday.co...

The more conservative people are, the more they're prone to being scared little shits.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/1...

Why not the egg? Why not before?

Anyone intelligent enough to post on /. is intelligent enough to know that half the DNA isn't enough. (It's also why the Roman Catholic "every sperm is sacred" doctrine is so silly.)

And it's a valid question to ask whether they should have the same rights as a self-aware human being.

Quoting "The Interpersonal World of the Infant", 1985, p. 165: Prior to the age of eighteen months, infants do not seem to know that what they are seeing in a mirror is their own reflection. After eighteen months, they do.

Thus, if self-awareness is the measure of humanity/personhood, it's just as ok to "put down" an eighteen month old human as it is to kill an unwanted dog.

you're not basing your definition of rights on whether someone is a person or not. You're basing it on whether they're human or not

I fail to see the difference between the two. The Wikipedia article just demonstrates a bunch of philosophical BS.

don't see why this is, in principle, any better than denying on a scattering of other genetic markers that correspond to dark skin etc.

Where did I indicate such a thing???

Biology is irrelevant here

It is relevant, because with it you boil the argument down to objective facts instead of philosophical and socio-political arguments.

Just what we need, the Google Pinto!

There's a better choice than "Pinto" for the name of the Google Ford:

https://cdn.psychologytoday.co...

I was going to make some snide remark to the effect that you shouldn't offer to define terms you don't understand, but instead I did a bit of reading and discovered that you're actually right about the nature vs nurture thing. So I learned something this morning. Thanks!

Many people have similar thoughts, to varying degrees. Try reading this, it might help.

As for the "you should just smile!' people, it should cheer you up that you're not as ignorant as them. And that at least they want to help you (or whoever they're talking to), even if they have no idea how.

Said the man, oops, the person, whose idea of "articulating" a point is to add curse-words to his/her/its/their speech.

isn't he the excuse you trot out for being allowed to say the n-word?

I don't need no negro's permission to say "negro", thank you very much. The word simply means "black" — as in "Negro Lives Matter" — and, incidentally, that's exactly, how Blacks are called in Ukrainian, Russian, and a whole host of other languages. It is perfectly neutral.

right-wingers need to keep their damn mouths shut when it comes to social justice issues

Oh, wow, maybe, you are articulate, after all! In one phrase you managed to violate all the rules:

• against labeling
• against othering
• against groupsplaining — a general term you haven't heard of yet, but should have no difficulty understanding

I'm going on a hunger strike in protest — until Slashdot editors apologize and resign for fostering an environment, which allowed you to mentally-rape me with your angry speech. Safe Zone! Safe Zone! Safe Zone!!! Please don't hate...

Really? Good God. Almost don't even know where to begin.

Ok, first point - references abound. You couldn't have even tried to look. This is like you telling me you never heard of Google or Bing.

http://science.slashdot.org/st...
https://www.psychologytoday.co... ...
Even the NY Times has an article - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04...
Believe it or not, we really do need each other. We really should be civil to one another. Life really can be worth living.

Second point - you provide some proof! Since when does a faith blind people to evidence? Only when you have failed to prove your point and there is nothing constructive to support your side. Couldn't be YOUR the one that is wrong. Understand that sometimes an individual is just stubborn and doesn't want to admit things. This often has nothing to do with a religious belief. I've found it often has a lot to do with their life experiences, what they believe. Sometimes these beliefs were actually lies fed to them over decades. A very good example of that is the one the left says about women not being paid as much as men are. They know it's a lie, yet they keep repeating it.

Now the last part isn't a lie either, and I think you know it. The Catholic church isn't the entirety of Christianity. The Irish example isn't even representative of the Catholic church. This is almost as bad as saying all black people are criminals or all hippies are dumb and criminals based on Charles Manson (or take your pick of other bad examples of hippies, there are a lot of them). If you don't like it, that's fine too. There's Islam, Hindu, Jewish, ... and so on.It doesn't really matter. Some are lot tougher on you than others. Methodist for example - you're welcome to come on in. Easy to get along. Baptist are a bit more stringent.

Even if they don't volunteer to report dangerous deviations, they may be compelled to do so by the future Department of Justice.

And, given an already existing opinion — not all of it humorous — that certain political convictions are either coincidental to or outright symptomatic of a mental disorder, the future of political dissent is bleak indeed.

The way Google in particular treats their own workforce may be indicative of what may, one day, be in store for ordinary Internet-users — including "lay-offs", as submitting to the monitoring may become a condition for eligibility for the wonderful Google Fiber service.

Even if they don't volunteer to report dangerous deviations, they may be compelled to do so by the future Department of Justice.

And, given an already existing opinion — not all of it humorous — that certain political convictions are either coincidental to or outright symptomatic of a mental disorder, the future of political dissent is bleak indeed.

The way Google in particular treats their own workforce may be indicative of what may, one day, be in store for ordinary Internet-users — including "lay-offs", as submitting to the monitoring may become a condition for eligibility for the wonderful Google Fiber service.

A memory aid dog. An acquaintance of my brother has a brain injury, and he uses (and actually trains) dogs to help him around. Might not be practical in an assisted living situation though. Read more about him here. https://www.psychologytoday.co... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

I guess these Ph.Ds need to stop using the term then.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://psychcentral.com/blog/a...
http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

Oh, and they need to remove it from the DSM
http://dsm.psychiatryonline.or...

They're part of the trend in mens watches that say 'I need to assert my masculinity by showing that I can lug a big lump of metal around on my wrist all day'.

It's probably more of a women respond to displays of wealth trend. They really do. The good news is that it's a lot easier to change your socioeconomic status than your physical features.

Being chased out of a bad neighborhood because you're white is not the same thing as institutional racism, not even close.

Slavery and discrimination has had significant effects on black people all the way through the 1950's. That's why the average black household has less wealth than the average white household, even if their wages are increasing. Many white families in America have had generations to accumulate wealth, and were also able to take advantage of government-sponsored housing loans in the early 1900's that were specifically prohibited for people of color.

Black people learned how to be gangsters from white people in the 1920's.

Contact with actual black people will reduce racism, not cause it. If you're a racist, there's a good chance that it's probably because you don't actually know any people of color, other than the ones you see on TV.

The ones I see on TV are mostly doctors, lawyers, executives, politicians, wise religious leaders, etc. If only real blacks were mostly like them!

Being chased out of a bad neighborhood because you're white is not the same thing as institutional racism, not even close.

Slavery and discrimination has had significant effects on black people all the way through the 1950's. That's why the average black household has less wealth than the average white household, even if their wages are increasing. Many white families in America have had generations to accumulate wealth, and were also able to take advantage of government-sponsored housing loans in the early 1900's that were specifically prohibited for people of color.

Black people learned how to be gangsters from white people in the 1920's.

Contact with actual black people will reduce racism, not cause it. If you're a racist, there's a good chance that it's probably because you don't actually know any people of color, other than the ones you see on TV.

No, it's easy for married men to cheat. It's easier than getting laid when you're single.

one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

"The public has often a hard time understanding research and its relevance to society"

What, you mean those dimwitted philistines don't understand or appreciate
Romantic Comedies Encourage Unrealistic Expectations: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2...

Study Shows Rich People Cheat and Lie: http://www.phillymag.com/news/...

Interacting with women generally makes men stupid: https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Cats Usually Do Land On Their Feet: http://www.improbable.com/airc...

Literacy Improves Your Chances at a Happy and Successful Life: http://www.winnipegfreepress.c...

Horses prefer bananas over carrots: https://www.smartpakequine.com...

Not to mention how many times we've been told things like 'eggs are bad for you' 'eggs are good for you' and reversed. ...yeah, I'm astonished people don't always take "science" seriously.

A pitcher with an elbow injury, a retiring player and a 12 year old who was probably afraid he was going to be humiliated by a girl?

Out of 100 years of America's sport, that's all you could find?

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

http://guyspeed.com/famous-ath...

https://youtu.be/DvHpzyWc1kc

George Washington DID NOT WANT TO BE A "RULER". He was relunctant to be president for the two terms he served and he begin the two-term tradition that was codified as an amendment after some doofus disregarded his wisdom.

Two nice quotes about GW:

3. Washington Decided NOT to make himself supreme ruler of the United States. After risking his life to lead the American Revolutionâ"often bravely putting himself directly in the line of fireâ"Washington shocked the entire world by voluntarily returning all his powers to the American people and their elected representatives. It was a decision that even led his recently defeated foe, King George III to comment that Washington was âoethe greatest character of his generation.â

4. Washington decided NOT to forego his salary as president. No goal did Washington worked harder at achieving throughout his life than the goal of becoming a benevolent public servant both in reality and in reputation. So after becoming the only unanimously elected president in U.S. history, he declined his annual salary of $25,000. After all, what would history think about the one of the wealthiest men in the cash-strapped country accepting such a handsome salary?

Yet congress convinced him that this ostensibly noble actâ"like everything Washington did as the nationâ(TM)s first president--would set an unshakeable precedent for the office. In this case, if he set an expectation that the president would not accept a salary, he was virtually guaranteeing that only the wealthiest people in the nation could afford to be president. That was something that Father Freedom could not stomach for the new republic, so even at the risk of minimizing his legacy of benevolence in the public eye he accepted the salary.

5. Washington decided to free his slaves. That Washington ever owned slaves to begin with has caused my cynical self to scoff at his supposed âoegreatness.â Yet, of the of the nine U.S. presidents who came from slave-owning families, guess how many set their slaves free? You guessed itâ"only one. Not only did he free them, he also made arrangements for the younger slaves to be educated and he set up a pension fund for the elderly slaves.

To a large extent, we are all products of our time and place.Throughout our lives, we will all be presented with a difficult choice to rise above that time and place. George Washington was great because he decided to do what others merely talked about doing. Regardless of how self-interested Washingtonâ(TM)s motives may or may not have been, itâ(TM)s easy to imagine a bright future for a world populated by people who view every decision as an opportunity to reveal an uncommon strength of character.

Each from:
https://www.psychologytoday.co...

If you have evidence that George Washington was a "RULER" and not a "LEADER", please reply with it.

Fat people eat on the basis of cues not internal hunger. You lose the normal cues to overeat when you eat a new diet and if it satisfies some psychological effect, you feel full while not eating so many calories (if you are fat and your normal cues are really messed up). http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/... and.... is there anything (ok, sex, dope, being proved right) that is more satisfying than chocolate? https://www.psychologytoday.co... so, it would work very temporarily.

Banning things does us no favor, but getting the message out does

http://www.amazon.com/How-Powe...
http://www.computerworld.com/a...
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://www.unc.edu/~healdric/P...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04...

The summary of all of these articles is that Powerpoint has a limit to how much information it can place on a slide, this is largely a function of screen resolution and visible font size

This limit is resolution results in 'high level' 10,000 display of topics that does not adequately represent the subject matter
The result is that people give presentations at a high level and then send out the powerpoint as the notes for the presentation, when in fact any real detailed information would be either omitted or glossed over at that high level

What we really need is to demand improvements to Powerpoint, like
1. displaying at legible resolution on a 6ft high by 30 ft wide screen (remember those old blackboards from college Calculus class, that is the level of information density that we need)
2. Providing linking and drill down like would would expect to see on an executive dashboard. Sure, start at the summary level, but allow the speaker to drill down to the details at any point in the diagram. Also, make this all print out as the 'notes' with footnotes and references to the linked information
3. Train the presenters to not be satisfied working at the outline level

I guess that we should not simply blame Powerpoint for making us stupid, when we are stupid for relying on it as it is

(Incidentally, if people think Hannibal Lecter when they hear "psychopath" then think again, although he had some psychopathic traits (grandiose sense of self), he was really just yet another Hollywood-ised mad killer. The character from Wolf of Wall Street is probably the closest Hollywood has come to an accurate portrayal of a psychopath).

The problem is that the term "psychopath" doesn't mean quite the same thing in colloquial use as it does is psychological use. It's a bit like debating whether food is "Organic," at least a few years ago before the FDA created guidelines, between a member of the general public and a chemist. Even to a psychologist it has a very broad definition and is not a specific diagnosis, but to a psychologist the term "psychopath" means what most members of the general public think is "sociopath."

Here's a good explanation of the difference:
https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long. It is difficult but not impossible for sociopaths to form attachments with others. Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society in general or its rules. In the eyes of others, sociopaths will appear to be very disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard, disorganized and spontaneous rather than planned.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.

This is the exact opposite of liberalism btw but you and Turdblossum always attack other people's strengths. You will never PROVE anything related to something as complex as the climate all you can do is get close enough to make an educated guess. Is Earth warming due to non-human activities yes quite probably. We are in an ice-age right now, granted the very end of one. Every time it has started to really end a large scale fresh water even has refrozen the north pole. This has created abnormally uniform temperatures for about the last 10,000 years. Maybe the only reason wee have civilization is due to ABNORMALLY consistent conditions. If if we can't prove anything at all do you want to RISK climate change that makes it unreasonably hard for us to keep doing the things we like? You know like eating, fucking, and watching TV. As for what you think you're talking a out the LONG carbon cycle is controlled by volcanoes, erosion, shellfish and subduction. The reason fossil fuels are bad is because they are artificial volcanoes that are speeding up the total carbon in the system. C02 is a greenhouse gas. Look up a text book from the 1950s before conservatives conflated FREEDOM with fossil fuels and check. What are you defending anyway? FREEDOM! or just the interests of the most profitable system in human history.

The REAL idea of liberalism is"That makes me uncomfortable because it might lead to me rethinking my position, TAKE IT IN AND TEST FOR TRUTH AND REALITY !" Conservatism either American or Religious is the castle keep defense of the intellect. You lake the meta cognition skill to know that the thing you hate the most you are most guilty of your self. That is epistolic cloture, that is FOX. It is also why you lake the nuts to even use an anonymous internet name instead of AC because you will never actually listen to anyone else's answer, you will just wait impatiently for your turn to blather.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Placebo can have physiological effects.

"Physical changes are real. For example, studies on asthma patients show less constriction of the bronchial tubes in patients for whom a placebo drug works."

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

From the "Questions we'll never hear department": "Is she live, or paper tape?"*

* Homage to old Memorex ad.

We do not know any of those things. We do know that trolls are sadists, but it's taking a jump to suggest that the average abusive League of Legends player is a troll. At least by the strict definition of troll used in that study.

A lot of people act like it's just bad luck that League of Legend's player base is so abusive, or they say things like "Isn't it too bad that MOBAs attract such a bad group of people?" I hardly ever see the community blamed on the game itself, but you're talking relatively high stress game where you invest a significant amount of time and where victory means something in terms of unlockables and ranking. Further, a poor teammate not only fails to help you win but can actually aid your enemies. The game creates an environment that's just asking for abusive behavior from stressed out, frustrated players.

It's entirely possible that this stress will come out from players in real life as well as in the game, but I don't think it's safe to jump to any conclusions about whether it will happen more if they're allowed to vent more in game. What you could do if you wanted to address that is give them a little cool down period after a match... Meh. Or just get them to play a different game.

I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.

Methinks you need a bit of perspective here.

I don't. He's absolutely right: Freedom and the constitution are more important than safety.

First, like more than 95% of the world, I don't live in the USA. And yes, I like my gun control laws.

Second, the "1000 terrorists go free than see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated" line is self-contradictory, because 1,000 free terrorists are sure as heck going to violate the security and civil liberties of a lot more than one person.

You are engaging in "black and white thinking" (aka splitting), which is characteristic of people with orderline personality disorder and/or narcissistic personality disorder. It's a form of cognitive distortion, but the problem is that people who suffer from it don't see it as such, but as a "good thing."

Well, with 70% of divorces filed by women and who knows how many filed by men because women left (my own two divorces were filed by me but my wives were the ones who wanted the divorce), is it any wonder more women are heads of households?

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Plus with the divorces, men need the jobs in order to continue to pay child support and alimony. So technically men are still supporting the family but not a part of the family any more.

[John]

The stereotypes are wrong and harmful, on both sides of the fence

To which stereotype are you referring? This OP is not about a stereotype; it's about immersing people into the body of someone of another race so they can experience the subtle differences that others exhibit firsthand.

Racism ends when we stop judging people by race - full stop.

Numerous studies have shown that this is impossible for humans to do. The best we will ever be able to do is work to surface our unconscious racist impulses to the conscious where the biases can be moderated.

Racism will end when there is only one race left. Of course, we'll invent plenty of other -isms to keep us divided, so there won't really be any change to the status quo ante.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
http://www.parenting.com/artic...
Also, a documentary that examines and discusses the subject in depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"Please stick to the science."

That prompts a few points.

1. It might be the case that variation in "intelligence" between human populations is greater than the variation within human populations, but I personally would want really convincing evidence for that, and proof that the tests are *really* measuring intelligence, *and* that that intelligence is in some way fixed in the different populations.

But assuming, for now, that there *really* are differences in average "intelligence" between human populations, even then:

2. You correctly say "None of this means there are not individual Northeast Asians with low IQ or blacks with high IQ. Of course there are both. Averages are averages, they are not indicative of individuals. Everyone should be treated like an individual".

3. Then follow that with "but we shouldn't blind ourselves to scientific reality". The problem is that if you/we are not *very* careful with how we present scientific "reality" - and any uncertainty in that "reality" - it gets rapidly distorted into unscientific unreal "certainty".

As a simple example, the average height of World War 1 British soldiers who survived was 1.inch greater than those who died, and this difference was highly statistically significant. http://www.psychologytoday.com... But selecting soldiers purely on the basis of height would be really stupid, as any American or Australian or British soldiers that fought against the Japanese in the Pacific could testify.

4. Lee Smolin in "The Trouble With Physics" (2006): in chapter 19 "How Science Really Works" he states that he believes the reason why there are not more women or blacks in physics, compared with equally challenging fields such as mathematics or astronomy is blatent prejudice, points out that women have less difficulty in getting hired as pure mathematicians, probably because it is clearer in mathematics that you have done something good, and adds "In all my experience, I have never seen a woman or an African-American hired through an affirmative-action program who didn't strongly deserve it - that is, who wasn't already arguably the best applicant".

5. I'd be more impressed by advocates of "conclusive" evidence of racial differences in intelligence if the "race" they considered the most intelligent wasn't the one they happened to belong to. And I'd be really impressed if they then went on to argue that any of their policy implications for races less "intelligent" than theirs should also apply to them in relation to the races more intelligent than theirs. But I won't be holding my breath.

As an actual example of the first position, Richard Lynn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... at least has the guts to take his findings seriously, and I look forward to Caucasian advocates of racial differences between Caucasians and Africans making the same advocacy for East Asians being more intelligent than Caucasians.

Hey man. Here ya go.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/f...
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/A...

Not that I think it will alter your view or anything. And I don't think science or differences in genders is something to upset us- diversity has always been a strength of any species.

B-but everyone else is getting shook down by the protection racket!

Monkey Experiment Banana

MICA is an acronym for Mentally Ill Chemical Abusers, and also the Maryland Institute College of Art in Baltimore. Some say this is no coincidence.

Neither you nor the GP offer any evidence to back up your claims. I'm not interested in preparing a thesis about the correlation of political orientation and intelligence. I'll just offer this,

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

and share my own personal experience, which us that there are smart and dumb people across the political spectrum.

'Those who oppose funding for behavioral science make a fundamental mistake: They assume that valuable science is limited to the "hard sciences"'

No they're not, they're absolutly right, psychology and the entire DSM is just a psuedo scientific cult.

It may not be a 'good' idea. It may simply be less bad that keeping them criminalized. Addiction is a medical diagnosis and it makes more sense to keep it in the medical sphere than the criminal one. Being addicted to anything is bad for you (that's inherent in the term). The consequences of that addiction can be modified by decriminalizing the drug (but keeping it regulated). Nobody but nobody is suggesting that we just drop cocaine packets from the sky. Well, perhaps a few folks might like that.....

I'll buy that. Arresting people for merely using drugs is probably not a good strategy. They should be enrolled in addiction prevention programs instead. But dealing such drugs should remain illegal, IMO. If it's illegal to buy penicillin or ketamine without a prescription from a doctor, I don't see why it should be legal to purchase drugs such as heroin.

Citation please.

"It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users." So I was a bit off. It's more like 1.5x. And you are right, nicotine is more addictive. But according to a survey of psychologists and medical providers, heroin is 2x as physically harmful to the user as alcohol or tobacco, so I still think that it deserves special status.

If I were you, I wouldn't be so sure of it.

Let's get this out of the way. Search tactics using dogs is always going to be prone to abuse. However, dogs have been sniffing out electronics for years now. Additionally, and this should be obvious, the dog isn't sniffing out hard drives that contain child pornography, it's merely sniffing out all hard drives. In this case, the dog was deployed as the result of a search warrant that undoubtedly allowed for the seizure of all electronic devices within the home. Use in this manner is much less controversial than using the dog to find the drive, thus establishing probable cause to bypass a warrant entirely.

It appears to be in dispute. I was going to reply to this and I kept running into 60% to 70% of people are introverts figures.

Like here
http://www.marshallparthenon.c...

"Extroverts make up between 60 to 70 percent of society and introverts account for 20 to 30 percent, according to Dr. Ed Diener from the University of Illinois."

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
"Researchers estimate extroverts make up 50 - 74 percent of the population. These âoesocial butterfliesâ thrive under social stimulation. "

(the very lowest end in line with your example).

I guess it depends on how you define it and it may have changed over time.
Myer's brig has gone from 75e/25i to 49.3e/50.7i that you list.

the negative correlation of attractiveness with high intelligence.

Nope. Attractiveness and intelligence are positively correlated. Many attributes of attractiveness, such as facial symmetry, clear complexion, etc., are indicators of good health and good nutrition, which also lead to healthy brain development.

There's all kinds of psychological research showing that people's perceptions of what motivates them is wildly different from what actually motivates them:

Why People Choose Coke Over Pepsi

In a study of exactly that question, four French and four German wines, matched for price and dryness, were placed on the shelves of a supermarket in England. French and German music were played on alternate days from a tape deck on the top shelf of the display. And indeed, on days when the French music played, 77 percent of the wine purchased was French, while on the days of German music, 73 percent of the wine purchased was German. Clearly, the music was a crucial factor in which type of wine shoppers chose to buy, but when asked whether the music influenced their choice, only one shopper in seven said that it had.

In another study, subjects were given three different boxes of detergent and asked to try them all out for a few weeks, then report on which they liked best and why. One box was predominantly yellow, another blue, and the third was blue with splashes of yellow. In their reports the subjects overwhelmingly favored the detergent in the box with mixed colors. Their reports included much about the relative merits of the detergents, but none mentioned the box. Why should they? A pretty box doesn’t make the detergent work better. But in reality it was just the box that differed – the detergents inside were all identical.

If obesity is a disability, and the legal definition of maiming is to disable or disfigure, will McDonald's advertising -- particularly when it materially misleads about health issues, like their Olympics sponsorship campaigns -- be ruled negligent maiming?

Forget about advertising. Just about everything about the McDonald's experience is designed to be mildly "addictive." Previous studies have shown that various aspects of fast food are often subtly tweaked to stimulate our brain or digestion in such a way that we crave more.

I'm not saying McDonald's should be held responsible for "maiming" either, but food scientists get better every year at finding ways to "trick" our bodies into enjoying their designer foods more. Obviously "making good food" has been the goal of cooks and chefs from the beginning of time, but there were some practical chemical limits on things that could be accomplished with traditional cooking techniques. You could always add a little more sugar or fat or whatever, but there was a limit before the food became unappetizing.

"Designer" foods have fewer limitations. Using various additives, stabilizers, flavor enhancers, etc., you can pack loads of terrible things into a complex processed formulation that are designed to cause a physiological response of targeted cravings and pleasure rewards that is different from anything we could do in the past.

If this trend continues, at some point it will be possible to manufacture foods that are actually as "addictive" as other substances that are highly regulated. And at some point we'll have to think about the implications of that.