Slashdot Mirror

Obviously, no.

Teacher, Mark Berndt, Pleads Guilty To Feeding Students Semen-Laced Cookies In Los Angeles School

Case against ex-Miramonte teacher Martin Springer dismissed

http://nypost.com/2014/05/13/notorious-pedophile-teacher-gave-victims-drug-laced-oreos/

Girl was victim of both teachers charged in L.A. child abuse cases: report

Mark Berndt: Profile of Perversion

Mark Berndt's $40,000 Payoff

LAUSD Molestations Spark Grim Federal Complaint

Berndt allegedly kept a jar of Vaseline on his desk which he used to masturbate in class, and sometimes wore a "freakish" Mickey Mouse costume with women's tights, the parents say. They claim the school's principal Martin Sandoval walked into the classroom as Berndt was videotaping students but let him off with a verbal warning. The parents claim LAUSD ignored those red flags and other instances of "freakish behavior." "LAUSD ignored multiple prior student complaints about Berndt and a district attorney investigation. LAUSD ignored parent complaints and failed to detect the massive number of lewd acts committed by at least three active child predators on one small campus for years," the complaint states.

Anderson Cooper 360 reports on why Teachers' Union killed a bill that would make it easier to fire SEXUAL PREDATORS in the classroom.

Just In: CA Ballot Initiative to Target Sex Abusers in Schools

Teacher puzzler: Part-time porn star fired, semen-feeder paid off

Exactly. Note that there is a scientific study that indicates this appears to be the case with trolls in Internet commenting systems. So it's not exactly a big leap of faith to expect that PvP adherents, displaying similar aggressive behaviour for the "fun" of being aggressive and controlling, have similar tendencies. The big question, as the AC above indicates, is whether trolling, PvP, and violent video games act as an outlet for those urges and help control them or whether they feed and exacerbate them.

A decade ago, I had fun playing Quake III Arena death matches with other members of the development team, and I'm anti-sadistic, not at all Machiavellian, and pretty average when it comes to psychopathic behaviour. It was pretty easy to discern between the game and real life and treat it as an entertaining sport. So I think that even with the more realistic graphics in contemporary games, it's quite possible for normal people to make that distinction. The real question is whether psychopaths would prefer not to make that distinction, pretend the game is real, and in doing so aggravate their condition?

Mass and serial killers often have a history of serious animal abuse, which later escalates into even more serious human-oriented behaviour. So while enjoying bullying through virtualized violence in video games likely isn't a sufficient condition for the escalation of psychopathic behaviour to physical violence, it may prove to be a useful warning sign or even a catalyst in conjunction with other factors. Another significant factor for instance maybe whether the community of enthusiasts tends to and reinforces a distancing, demeaning, psychopathic attitude towards other players and "newbs", or maintains a more sportive approach. The recent Isla Vista shooting by the former PUA and PUAhate adherent Elliot Rodger seems to indicate this is a good candidate for a co-factor.

stop telling little girls that they're pretty, and instead tell them that they're smart.

Telling children that they're smart negatively effects their desire to learn. http://www.psychologytoday.com...

To understand, I suggest reading a couple of articles by Derald Wing Sue found on Psychology Today. They are " Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life and " Microaggressions: More than Just Race ." These two articles outline the modern concept of micro aggressions.

One of the central tenets of the microaggression "theory" is that the intent behind the aggression is irrelevant. It is the how the act causes the recipient to feel. Thus, if you innocently make a joke about something to which I take offense, then it would be a microaggression. Though, presumably, one cannot be aggressive towards me because I am a white, straight male. (His concept is built upon the idea of Critical Race Theory. Within CRT, it's impossible for people to be racist towards whites because racism is viewed as a result of the structures and institutions built upon white supremacy. It also places more value on a person's experience than the facts surrounding the issue.)

This mode of thinking has become so poisonous that last year there was a sit-in to protest a professor at UCLA for correcting grammar along with other things. The argument advanced by the students was that he was correct grammar along ideological lines. Hence, it was a micro aggression.

To understand, I suggest reading a couple of articles by Derald Wing Sue found on Psychology Today. They are " Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life and " Microaggressions: More than Just Race ." These two articles outline the modern concept of micro aggressions.

One of the central tenets of the microaggression "theory" is that the intent behind the aggression is irrelevant. It is the how the act causes the recipient to feel. Thus, if you innocently make a joke about something to which I take offense, then it would be a microaggression. Though, presumably, one cannot be aggressive towards me because I am a white, straight male. (His concept is built upon the idea of Critical Race Theory. Within CRT, it's impossible for people to be racist towards whites because racism is viewed as a result of the structures and institutions built upon white supremacy. It also places more value on a person's experience than the facts surrounding the issue.)

This mode of thinking has become so poisonous that last year there was a sit-in to protest a professor at UCLA for correcting grammar along with other things. The argument advanced by the students was that he was correct grammar along ideological lines. Hence, it was a micro aggression.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201102/selecting-deafness-in-children

Statistically, based on your post you're likely to not exercise.
Since the OP said exercise improves health, and nothing about weight,
Scientists Discover Why Exercise Makes You Smarter.

Otherwise known as "reframing". This isn't a new concept, but it is interesting that it's being taught to executives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

http://changingminds.org/techn...

http://stress.about.com/od/pos...

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

It's a tough thing to analyze since the physiological explanation could coexist (and possibly give rise to) the socialization explanation. Here's another paper that specifically looks at "high-end" SAT/ACT scorers among students who took the test in 7th grade. While the male/female ratio among those who scores 700+ on the math section declined (significantly) over time, it has settled at an approximately 4:1 level. Similar results for the ACT. If socialization is the primary cause then its fairly extreme and its happening fairly early.

This is what you really want them to know about - Semen is an antidepressant.

upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

... issues like "dizziness, heart palpitations, chronic depression". The US RDA for vitamin D for adults is several times too low, and people in solitary confinement indoors are unlikely to be getting enough sunlight to make up the difference. The isolation itself is no doubt harmful to many people too, but the vitamin D aspect could at least be addressed easily even within the current system. The nutrition issue is even larger; see for example:
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
http://www.theguardian.com/pol...
http://www.naturalnews.com/039...

And environmental toxins contribute too:
http://www.motherjones.com/env...

Ironically, corporations get to repent by "restorative justice" (paying reparations or fixing what was broken) while real people are hit with "punitive justice".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

US prison population stats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
"In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole). In 2008 the breakdown for adults under correctional control was as follows: one out of 18 men, one in 89 women, one in 11 African-Americans (9.2 percent), one in 27 Latinos (3.7 percent), and one in 45 Caucasians (2.2 percent). Crime rates have increased by about 25 percent from 1988 to 2008.[18] In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the "war on drugs." Violent crime and property crime have declined since the early 1990s.[19]"

Recent incarcerations for drone protesters, but presumably not in solitary:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...
http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...
http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...
http://www.veteransforpeace.or...

What a difference a nun can make even in prison:
"84-year-old nun sentenced for her anti-nuclear activism"
http://www.catholic.org/nation...
"Rice said she learned in prison to see her fellow inmates, not as perpetrators but as "victims" of a system that gave them few options. Walli says that like Rice, he spends long hours talking to inmates to "instill the idea that human life is sacred. "They know that they are the human fallout and the victims of the profiteering by the elite and top leaders of the corporations that are contracted to make the nuclear weapons. It's (the money) denied to human services that should be the priority of any government," Rice said. "

That all may well have some truth. Also, many decades ago, social roles and courtship procedures were more clearly defined (as "manners", and also religious systems). So, it may have been easier back then for Aspies to marry at a younger age with less unstructured social situations to navigate?

Still, another factor could be that vitamin D deficiency may also cause autism, and I wonder if older parents may spend less time outdoors in the sun and so have their young child outdoors less? Older skin also has more trouble making vitamin D. And certainly many Aspies may have intense indoor hobbies and jobs.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

This recent study somewhat questions the link through for mothers and kids though (except they cite the population mean which itself seems to be low, which may confound the study IMHO):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Contrast with supplements needed to adjust for our indoor lifestyle:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

Maybe also of interest on the implications of living in a world with so many artificial toxins in the air and food (like lead and artificial colors) -- where a lack of things like vitamin D and iodine make it harder for kids to deal with the toxins:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Anyway, a complex topic, with pros and cons about everything relative to different situations.

This is probably true, but I don't think most people have realised this. ... It either doesn't occur them that a reinstall of Windows can fix the problem or they don't have the skills/confidence/motivation to perform the operation.

To say nothing about changes in perception about what a fast computer is. As the MHz/GHz wars were waging on, there was a perceived difference in the responsiveness of the computer, to say nothing about the registry cruft that you're talking about. When someone gets over to their gamer friends house with the latest i7-supershiny 5000+ Turbo under the hood and they see a boot time or application load time that feels faster, they're likely to start looking at their own computer as a slug. Yes, there are differences in OS boot times too, but with the push to more and more cores instead of "faster electrons", the actual numbers I'd wager are getting to be less and less significant. A human being wouldn't be able to tell +/- 1 or 2 seconds of boot time between machines unless they were side-by-side and powered at the same time. The grass is not always greener on the other side.

You contradict yourself.

Are you seriously trying to claim that we have no proven science?

Yes. So are all scientists.

Then in your last paragraph you state.

Absolutely. Math and logic are able to show proofs all of the time. But science never does.

That's repetition, not contradiction. I say there is no proof in science, then I say there is no proof in science. Though, in your defense, I made a typo: I should have capitalized "logic" as "Logic", so perhaps that threw you off.

I think Biology, Physics, and Chemistry have as much proven work as math does. As to Logic, well, I'm not sure you know what 'Logic' is if you are claiming it's a field of science.

They don't, but luckily science isn't based on what you think, only repeatable observation. And no, Logic is not a science, it's an artificially constructed and self-referencing system, therefore it can have proofs. And it does! Scientific theories are never proven because they are observations of nature, which is infinite and always changing (as far as we have so far observed, anyway).

Dog breeding is not the missing evidence for evolution, and neither is a flu virus. I'm pretty sure that they point in the right direction, but that does not get us the missing proof.

There is no missing evidence for the facts or theory of evolution. Dog breeding is one example of the fact of evolution. Flu virus mutation is another. Those facts, plus thousands more, contribute to the body of knowledge we call the Theory of Evolution (ToE). A theory can never be missing evidence, though will always allow for new evidence. There is no one ultimate fact that will finally prove a theory to be true at all times and in all conditions.

I never said evolution was wrong, in fact quite the opposite I stated that I believe the theory will be proven in time. I stated it's not proven, and for some reason you refuse to accept that.

I don't refuse to accept that you said the ToE isn't proven, because you did. I do refuse to accept, however, that it can be proven, since it can't be. No theory can be. The ToE (like all theories) can only be strengthened by new supporting evidence, modified or nullified by new conflicting evidence, or incorporated into new theories as our knowledge of nature expands. Like when Newton's Theory of Gravity was incorporated into Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The fact of gravity never went away while we sorted it out. No one floated into the sky while we looked for the missing evidence. We just learned that Newton's observations no longer apply in all conditions at all times, e.g., at speeds approaching c , but are perfectly valid in "everyday" conditions.

Do I get to burn in hell for not believing like you do?

You are already burning in the hell of ignorance. At this point I'll have to assume you are either remaining willfully ignorant to the formal definition of scientific theory, and are therefore a troll, or you are just incapable of learning anything new. Either way, it's pointless for me to continue to explain it to you. There are plenty of resources online that do a wonderful job illustrating what a scientific theory is, if you ever care to educate yourself about it.

DSM-IV doesn’t include a diagnosis called “psychopathy” or “sociopathy.” Instead, there is antisocial personality disorder, which overlaps with psychopathy but is not the same thing. (source)

. So to refer to psychopathy is to refer to a personality is to refer to a personality trait, not a psychological diagnosis. I also looked up malignant narcissism and found this:

Malignant narcissism is a theoretical, experimental diagnostic category. Narcissistic personality disorder, which is not associated with antisocial personality disorder, is found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), while malignant narcissism is not. As a hypothetical syndrome, malignant narcissism could include aspects of narcissistic personality disorder as well as paranoia. The importance of malignant narcissism and of projection as a defense mechanism has been confirmed in paranoia, as well as "the patient's vulnerability to malignant narcissistic regression".[1] However, projection is not associated with Narcissistic personality disorder.

So to refer to either is to use a widely publisized media terms and putting perceived labels on someones behavior. Note that neither of the terms have anything to do with "attention seeking". Also, in reading about Narcissistic Personality Disorder, there is nothing to suggest that those individuals are violent or show a lack of empathy toward others. Instead, they are envious, have a sense of entitlement, and crave admiration and approval from others. Getting back to the original article, what he noticed was similarities between his brains composition and that of known some "psychopaths" (those with Antisocial Personality Disorder). He also noticed through introspection that he exhibits some well-known behavioral traits. Does that truly make him a "psychopath"? Probably not. From the first quoted article "Renowned psychopathy researcher Robert Hare notes that “psychopathy is dimensional (i.e., more or less), not categorical (i.e., either or).”

Like one of my psych professors said "Everyone has every psychological disease, it's just to what extent do they have it."

I think the opposite is probably true.

There is no evidence to support your belief. There have been many instances where the availability of pornography in a society changed, either by legal changes or technology (such as the spread of Internet porn). These changes are correlated with a decline in sexual violence. Here is an overview of the evidence.

I have known several guys that watched porn compulsively. They all had no relationships with women. The porn was a replacement for actual sex. I don't know if the same is true for pedophiles, but it seems to me that child porn is as likely to reduce molestation as it is to cause it. It seems reasonable to me to ban any porn depicting an actual child, but banning porn using adults posing as children, or animation, should not be done without clear evidence that it is harmful.

Probably a combination of initial biology and environment, as always.
(e.g. 'Made not Born', and 'nature and nurture')

You're an idiot. Look up studies on punching bags or stress pillows relating to catharsis. I've seen two such studies where people who took the violent release ended up seeing it as a reward and tended to be more aggressive towards other people.
It took me about five seconds to prove that you do not know what you're talking about.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/200909/you-cant-punch-your-way-out-anger
Unless by ""actual" research" you meant shit you just made up to prove a point because you simply disagreed with me.

An almost endless series of scientific studies have thoroughly refuted the null hypothesis. The proportion of homophobes who are homosexual is strongly different from the proportion of homosexuality the general population. Homophobes are several times more likely than the general public to have an erectile response to gay porn, to spend more time looking at gay porn images when given a variety of images, and to have a faster reaction time for homosexual terms when when the test primed them for self-identification.

For example in this study two thirds of non-homophobic men showed no erectile response to a gay porn video, while 80% of homophobic men did have an erectile response.

Homophobes being active or repressed gay is a cliche because it's typically true, especially among the loudest most driven anti-gay crusaders. There is a reason they're driven.

Other research has found that such individuals are also highly likely to have been raised in very authoritarian and repressive homes. In such a home it would be emotionally dangerous or even physically dangerous for a child to express any homosexual inclination. In such a situation it becomes a survival mechanism for a child to develop an intense hostile internal repression of homosexual inclinations. This internal hostile repression is then directed outward at anyone and anything that threatens to evoke their internal repression.

-

To answer your curiosity of whay I encourage people looking at this approach, I'd be curious what your reactions to these three examples of the difference between two approaches to handling negative comments:
"Victim Proof School for Kids (part 2)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_JVojbfNV0
"Victim Proof Your School for Teachers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei7CzlyPJTQ
"Golden Rule in the Workplace"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j3GLS9aKo0

That said, nothing works everywhere. Still, Izzy Kalman says it is rare that physical violence among humans (at least related to schoolyard bullying) is not preceded by some kind of verbal escalation beforehand. If you can prevent the escalation, you probably can prevent the violence.

Anyway, it can be fun to try what Izzy demonstrates at home, He goes into more details on his CD and book, but basically, you get a friend, spouse, child whoever, and say you are going to play a game. The game is they are going to insult you and you are going to make them stop. If they stop, you win, If you give up, they win. The first time, try to disagree with them like he shows, getting upset, and so on. The second time, say it is OK if they think that, and so on, also like he illustrates. See which one they win and which one you win.

Note that as Izzy explains, you need to do these techniques 100% of the time, and you will still experience some teasing, showing, and so on. If you do them 95% of the time and get upset the other 5%, the cycle will continue because the bullying is being randomly reinforced (see operant conditioning).

Anyway, different things work in different environments. Sounds like you grew up in some tough situations. I could believe that what might work in most typical schools with typical bullying won't work in some with a certain kind of entrenched macho culture (without a lot of other changes).

Another relate video:
"Victim-proof your School demo"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Txz_BtJV_w

Maybe these techniques would not have worked for you. As Izzy says, when serious physical injuries are involved, you may need to do something else. But they may still work for most bully-victim relationships. One pilot study of that, but it still needs more validating research:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/2610/pilot-study-the-bullies-buddies-program.pdf

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Related: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201105/diet-and-violence

Might be food additives like artificial color or flavor more than the sugar itself? As well as displacing healthy foods.

Good luck getting approval to inject insulin into healthy people to see if it makes them fat.

That's been done before, they even have a word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipohypertrophy

http://garytaubes.com/2012/02/on-the-greatly-exaggerated-demise-of-the-insulin-hypothesis/

Heck, they even use it as a therapy for anorexia:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201206/evolution-and-anorexia-nervosa

Lipohypertrophy simply confirms insulin as the mechanism for fat storage which everyone agrees on.

The anorexia link is more compelling but there's an important caveat "AN [anorexia nervosa] may be caused by defects in the evolutionarily conserved response to food and nutrient shortage associated with reduced calorie intake". If there's a defect in the pathway regarding hunger insulin injections might fix that defect, just like fixing a flat tire makes your car go faster. But that doesn't mean that tires regulate your car's speed.

What you'd need to show is insulin injections can cause obesity (not just lipohypertrophy) in healthy patients. And even then it only becomes a potential mechanism since you haven't proven that's what's occurring out in the wild.

Cultures that eat a ton of white rice? They stay thin.

Um, try Hawaii and obesity levels amongst native Hawaiians, who have a *ton* of white rice in their diet.

You have a citation for that? It looks like rice is their staple starch but we don't know their total carb intake.

Some places is asia hit 80% of their calories from rice. But the real measure is to see what their % of calories from carbohydrates is (which I couldn't find)

Inject insulin into rats? Thin

Again, animal model versus human reality. If the rat model was an accurate depiction, anorexics who were treated with insulin would lose weight :)

Insulin plays the same role in their system, I suspect they'd experience lipohypertrophy as well but couldn't find mention either way.

Either way the rat caveat only weakens it as value against the insulin hypothesis, I still haven't seen any evidence for the insulin hypothesis that isn't already consistent with the current state of nutrition research.

Fat people without insulin issues? Significant portion.

As per my other reply, let's say we stipulate to 30% of fat people without insulin issues...are you agreeing that the other 70%, the vast majority, *do* have insulin issues?

Maybe we already have 70% agreement :)

I agree the other 70% have insulin issues, but I challenge that their obesity is caused by those insulin issues instead of insulin issues caused by obesity.

My central beef with Taubes is nutritionists already know a huge amount of the story of what causes obesity. They know a lot of why people get fat and they know how those people can lose weight. The problem is applying that knowledge and getting people to do it in the modern world where we have a bunch of hyper-palatable foods, sedentary lifestyles, tons of fat and salt, numerous social cues, and a bunch of other stuff. I'd like to be thinner, but I also ate some cookies when I wasn't really hungry last night. The carbs in the cookies weren't the problem, the problem was that they were cookies.

Taubes is part of a long line of fad diets, blame obesity on a single cause (which may or may not be part of the big pictu

The NASA example was obviously just for rhetorical purposes. But I've included numerous links to scientific papers, and the Guyenet links I included all used multiple citations.

Yes, we've addressed the issues with rat models, and conflicting papers :)

And my apologies - I wasn't clear that I was critiquing your rhetorical appeal to unnamed authorities. I do appreciate the *actual* references and papers you've cited!

Good luck getting approval to inject insulin into healthy people to see if it makes them fat.

That's been done before, they even have a word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipohypertrophy

http://garytaubes.com/2012/02/on-the-greatly-exaggerated-demise-of-the-insulin-hypothesis/

Heck, they even use it as a therapy for anorexia:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201206/evolution-and-anorexia-nervosa

Cultures that eat a ton of white rice? They stay thin.

Um, try Hawaii and obesity levels amongst native Hawaiians, who have a *ton* of white rice in their diet.

Inject insulin into rats? Thin

Again, animal model versus human reality. If the rat model was an accurate depiction, anorexics who were treated with insulin would lose weight :)

Fat people without insulin issues? Significant portion.

As per my other reply, let's say we stipulate to 30% of fat people without insulin issues...are you agreeing that the other 70%, the vast majority, *do* have insulin issues?

Maybe we already have 70% agreement :)

Here's the broken one: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible

Very cool! Here's that broken link to read more: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible

Heh -- well, it's probably been about a decade since I spent serious time on here. Kinda odd that while in the firehose the url changed 3 or 4 times, at least it ended up with this one, instead of the one instance where it was the url below concatenated 3 times in a row Again: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible

Nice. Broken link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible

Should go to: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/can-video-games-make-you-smart-or-least-more-flexible Thanks for the comments!

This is a perfect example of why left-wing politics are so unsuccessful.

No, the reason why left-wing politics are unsuccessful is that people are easily scared, and conservativism is the politics of fear. Good policy is based on logic and evidence, not emotion and rhetoric. But emotion and rhetoric are what move people.

The ability to learn new tricks is not really age related.

Old dogs that can't learn new tricks couldn't learn them when young either.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201001/old-dogs-and-people-and-monkeys-can-learn-new-tricks

I see I accidentally double pasted in my previous post. Woops.

Some summary sources suggest that spicec and herbs have been in use since early hunter times, with documented uses as early as roughly 2000 BCE ([1] [mccormicks...titute.com], [2] [wikipedia.org]; and I'm half of Chinese descent).

I guess the general use of spices and herbs from around the world does go back a bit further than I thought. Thinking about it a bit more, the use of potent plants for medicinal purposes also seems like something that has been around for quite a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_medicine
There also does seem to be evidence of genetic adaptation to certain herbs, such as coriander: http://www.nature.com/news/soapy-taste-of-coriander-linked-to-genetic-variants-1.11398

I guess all the evidence points to using copious amounts of herbs is a good idea, health-wise. On the other hand it doesn't really make a case for avoiding synthetic preservatives. In fact, if we focus on the anti-microbial properties of herbs and spices, synthetic (anti-microbial) preservatives should also sound like a good idea. If on the other hand herbs and spices are beneficial due to vitamin and mineral content, synthetic preservatives lose out completely.

I don't really know either. I've heard about things like red-meat cravings for people with mild anemia

You seem to have mentioned the 'one' exception :) ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/food-cravings_n_1940299.html )
They mention sugar and its connection to serotonin, which I found interesting and related, and that lead me to this:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201105/sunlight-sugar-and-serotonin (most interesting bit in the last paragraph)
Also, interestingly, other mammals tend to seek out (crave for) umami food:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867403008444

Returning to the point about evolution and nutrients, one wonders what humans generally consume in a primitive society. From what I can find, modern day tribes in Africa and the Amazon mainly hunt animals, grow starch-rich 'vegetables', and pick fruit, nuts and some herbs. Apparently, growing leafy vegetables isn't all that 'natural'. On the other hand, if herbs are beneficial to health due to vitamin and mineral content, it kind of makes sense to cultivate something that is almost all leaves and easily edible. As much as I like herbs, I'm not going to eat 200 grams of them each day.

I didn't mean that present nutrients would be less absorbed or that other nutrient signals wouldn't still exist, just that those signals would get bundled up with there always being a sugar reward no matter the food source, and we might learn to seek out food largely on this anticipated reward.

This argument would work if we would experience rewards from eating things with certain other nutrients (vitamins, minerals and such), which I believe is not or hardly the case. I.e.: I'm not so sure those other signals even exist.

Well if you want to go ahead and taste-test corn-starch slurries with varying degrees of starch and salt, you go right ahead. And tell me the results :-)

I believe that means we have arrived at a stalemate here ;-)
We need a volunteer to test this for us. For science!

Another idea that I've heard that I guess may be related to the taste inhibition idea (maybe you've alre

The presence of a Y chromosome is highly correlated with a tendency to violence. According to:

Why Are Men So Violent? Men perpetrate about 90 percent of the world's homicides

While it is a proven biomarker, it is totally useless, as I predict all other biomarkers that they might find would be.

You are calling him delusional but you are actually exposing your own delusions.

Liberal bias among university professors has been confirmed in too many papers to mention, I'll let you google it yourself but here are a few examples

We are talking over 90% of professors in certain fields identifying themselves as 'liberal' or 'progressive' and a similar bias in donations to the two parties.

The position you take is one that is "fearful" of guns

No it's not. Your theory is wrong.

No one really claims to be motivated by fear. Everyone claims that other are motivated by fear to delegitimize their position. This whole argument of who's position is the "fearful" position is not a logical or objective one. It's completely subjective and adds nothing to the discussion.

It's not subjective. It's been scientifically studied. I already gave you the link.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

You just don't want to believe it. So you disregard the science. And that's another conservative trait.

It has nothing to do with conservatism.

Of course it does. Go to a shooting range and take a poll and you're going to come up 99% Republican or Libertarian. At an NRA meeting, 99.9%.

Of course there are examples of liberal gun owners. And there are even conservatives that vote Democrat. People are individuals and most don't hit a certain category in some way or another. But statistically, the set "gun owners" is almost entirely contained in the set "conservatives".

But my comment on conservatism being the politics of fear is far wider than just gun ownership. And it's not my opinion, that says it, it's science:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Conservatives brains work differently. Their genetics make them concentrate on fear responses.

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201101/controlling-angry-people

The main thing to do when you have to learn when someone's out of control, in your face angry is 'don't react' to them. All that does is escalate things and makes the situation worse, and now you have two fools arguing. Don't be one of those two fools! Sometimes being an adult means walking away, even when you know you're 'right'. There's a lot of people in jail or graves because they were 'right' at the time, and they should've walked away at the time, but they wouldn't or couldn't let it go, and they allowed their anger and righteousness control them. And an adult needs to know how to control their emotions, not the other way around.

You know how people will say, "She/he made me so MAD!"? I come right back at them and say, "No, you 'allowed' them to make you mad!" No one should be able to dictate any emotions you feel but YOU. Because if they do, then you let some fool determine YOUR mood, and how dumb is that? For hours and days later you're still mad, while the other person has likely forgotten all about it and is somewhere whistling a happy tune somewhere, but you are still holding that feeling. Get what I'm trying to say here? Don't allow some a@@hole 'rent space in your head'. Shit wipes off of you IF you do the wiping off yourself. You have to do that, because the other person won't do it for you, that's for damn sure.

And the more you practice this concept, the easier it gets to do, it becomes 'second nature' to you. I've done it enough by now that I can recognize an angry fool right away, and (mostly) don't let them affect me or my mood for the rest of my day. It's great, actually, to see how confused they get when I don't get angry back in kind, like they're expecting. Trust me, it works, but I didn't get like this overnight, took a lot of practice of not reacting to jerks to get this far. And while I'm not 100% perfect at it, I'm MUCH better at handling angry people than I used to be. :^)

Good luck to you sir, and yes, change that phone plan as soon as you can. That's something you can control, just maybe not right now. S.F.

Ah, but a doctor is only as good as the information he gets and a machine can take in far more information. It's all about pattern recognition whether you're using a biological brain or a silicon chip. Of course people might be more comfortable if the machine wore a white coat.

People with kids are less happy? I find that hard to believe - definitely citation needed. My kids make me far happier than anything else in my life and most parents I know feel the same.

Here's one.

From my own experience, I can say that children primarily make your life full of worry. They prevent you from fulfilling your own goals and shatter the relationship between the parents.

But of course, I would never say that aloud.

I can counter your anecdotal evidence with both more anecdotal evidence and a link from a legitimate source. A few people I know smoked pot every day and they never did dream and their memory was so poor. It was only when they went into treatment for their addiction did they quit. Once they did they were flooded with dreams. This was years before the article that was posted on Psychology Today, which was on June 22, 2009. It only confirms my anecdotal evidence.

However, I do agree about the laws which treats users and dealers of any drug as a federal criminal. We need to treat anyone that is somehow involved in illegal drugs (illegally distributed prescription drugs included) to receive treatment and rehabilitation so they can either become or get back to being productive citizens.

Could boys perhaps be more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency and mitochondrial dysfunction? http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

One of the reasons we homeschool/unschool is that school especially these days push intense academics on all kids way too early, and boys especially suffer for that. Echoing your point, at least one study I've heard of shows that the focus on early academics is depriving children of the early experiences they need in nature and with water and sandboxes that kids need to later have an intuition about scientific and engineering things (so that they know what the symbols for mass, force, volume, rates of change, and so on actually physically represent).
http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/services/recreation/gb/gb-playessentials.html
http://www.chrismercogliano.com/childhood.htm
http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/
http://susanlemons.wordpress.com/category/early-academics/

And then the schools push parents to drug the non-compliant children...
http://www.thewaronkids.com/

Almost any school is filled with large numbers of well-meaning good-hearted hard-working adults who really care about children. The problem is they and the children are trapped in "an abstraction that has escaped its handlers":
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html

Here is a psychologist saying the only reason affluent kids do better on math is that their parents teach it to them since most schools are terrible at teaching it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-schools

The iPad has a lot of math-learning games for it that your son might like. We just got several for our kid. Here is one:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/motion-math-wings/id508228412?mt=8

See also:
http://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-apps
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/tech/gaming-gadgets/ipad-autism/index.html
http://www.squidoo.com/ipad-for-autism

The directness of the interface is probably a big win for that situation.

There are lots of interactive online resources for learning math of course, and PC simulation environments like "Scratch", and lots of other such tools you can use together with your kid (like geometry related ones).

Just watch out from becoming even more vitamin D deficient by being even more inside using fascinating computing gadgets. A focus on early academics instead of outdoor play also harms kids in that sense. My speculation about that:
http://p2pfoundation.net/backups/p2p_research-archives/2009-October/005083.html

See also the writings of John Holt and Seymour Papert on math education, including Papert's idea that to learn any foreign language, whether French or Math, it is best to be im

Yes, government eugenics programs are evil. I especially abhor your description of the banality of evil that came from the juxtaposition of bureaucracy and eugenics.

However, I still assert there are people who shouldn't breed. For example, why can't people get the hint after they have one child with a lethal mutation—do they *really* need to have three in a row? "But there was only a 1/64 chance of that outcome!" rings hollow, when each new instance of procreation had a 1/4 chance of suffering a lingering, painful death as a toddler.

I don't wish to deny regular people (ie. noncriminals, nonpredators, capable of living on their own, etc) the joys of parenthood, should they so desire. However, in some cases it seems nothing more than pure hubris to breed. I mean, get over the fact that your genes are defective and adopt.

Tell you what, I'll see your armchair "science"/layperson opinion and raise you commentary from an actual psychologist:
Narcissism: A Fad Diagnosis that Lacks Scientific (Empirical) Support

...oh, and what do we have here?
Online and Other Distance Diagnosis of Mental Illnesses

Go online on any given day and it is easy to find laypeople and worse, even licensed mental health professionals who should know better attempting to run to the media and proclaim that some celebrity or even some ordinary person who did something they did not like, has a mental illness.

You are deluded if you believe you are competent to diagnose personality disorders via posts in an online forum. Licensed professionals—those who deserve the "gravitas" you extol—do not engage in online/distance diagnosis, especially from a single data point. You, on the other hand, rush in where experts fear to tread.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect? You may find this to be an enlightening read:
When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect

The parent isn't suggesting that the fault is with the victim. The parent is suggesting that being a victim of bullying may be indicative of their personality type. Just like there are bullying personality types, that is, there are certain types of people who are more likely to bully others, so too are there types of people who are more than likely to be bullied. There is an article in Psychology Today that goes into a bit more detail http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/big-bad-bully Looking at the examples you cited, there are certain personality types who are prone to being the beaten wife just as there are those who are more likely to beat their wives. There are those who become the abusive boss and there are those who are they type to work for them. Often these two types will attract each other. And why shouldn't they? Bullies want someone they can pick on, preferably without having to do anything. The victim type will just sit there and take it so why wouldn't the bully pick on them if he knows he can get away with it? It may be wrong for the bully to punch another (assault). It is wrong for a husband to punch his wife but if she keeps going back to him and makes excuses for him how can anything be done? If the subservient employee keeping going back into work no matter how bad things get and they keep denying there is a problem, how will things improve? Does it pay to know and understand bullying behaviour? Of course. Likewise, it behooves us to know and understand victim behaviour as well. I don't agree with the parent that we have to show the victim that they are doing it wrong, but understanding victim behaviour is just as important as understanding the bully's. Understanding the victim isn't blaming them. As a parent, I certainly would like to know what victim behaviour looks like, just as I would want to know what bullying behaviour looks like, so it can be recognized and handled.