Slashdot Mirror
The Personality Traits That Put You At Risk For Smartphone Addiction (washingtonpost.com)
Zorro shares a report from The Washington Post: When the Trump-affiliated firm Cambridge Analytica obtained data on tens of millions of Facebook users, it used the "Big 5" or "Five Factor Model" personality test to target them with ads designed to influence their votes in the 2016 election. The test scores people on five traits -- openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism -- and was used in the election to predict the way a voter would respond to an advertisement. But the Big 5 can predict a lot more -- including how likely you are to even use Facebook or any other social media (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source).
That's because the way you score on the test can tell you how likely you are to become addicted to your screen. Research shows that people who score high on neuroticism, low on conscientiousness, and low on agreeableness are more likely to become addicted to social media, video games, instant messaging, or other online stimuli. Studies have also found that extraverts are more likely to become addicted to cellphone use than introverts. Some of the correlations make sense. Less agreeable people may be more apt to immerse themselves in technology because it does not require the kind of friendly interactions that real life does. Neurotic people have been shown to spend more time online because it validates their desire to belong or be part of a group. Conscientious people are less impulsive and therefore more able to control and organize their time. But then it gets complicated. Because according to a new study out of the State University of New York at Binghamton, specific combinations of those personality traits can mitigate or exaggerate one's propensity to addiction.
That's because the way you score on the test can tell you how likely you are to become addicted to your screen. Research shows that people who score high on neuroticism, low on conscientiousness, and low on agreeableness are more likely to become addicted to social media, video games, instant messaging, or other online stimuli. Studies have also found that extraverts are more likely to become addicted to cellphone use than introverts. Some of the correlations make sense. Less agreeable people may be more apt to immerse themselves in technology because it does not require the kind of friendly interactions that real life does. Neurotic people have been shown to spend more time online because it validates their desire to belong or be part of a group. Conscientious people are less impulsive and therefore more able to control and organize their time. But then it gets complicated. Because according to a new study out of the State University of New York at Binghamton, specific combinations of those personality traits can mitigate or exaggerate one's propensity to addiction.
Maybe why the internet took such a nose dive when smartphones came out
If you buy that load of BS, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas you might like.
It's more like - people with good or bad traits saw Hillary for what she really was and voted for the lesser of two evils. Few people really like Trump, but they were willing to give him a chance. They knew FOR SURE what they'd get with Hillary and rejected her.
When I look at others, I notice they stare at their phones like 18 hours everyday
I tried staring at my phone, and I gave up, after 5 minutes or so
Oh yes, I do have a phone
I can make calls with it
I can even send text messages with it
And that's all
I dunno why I can't stare at my phone longer
Probably there is very wrong with me
Help !!
Progressive-left media like the Washington Post were foaming at the mouth in their attempts to discredit former Google engineer James Damore's infamous memo that made extensive reference to the Big Five Personality Traits, regarding it as discredited and junk science.
No, you're clearly and objectively wrong.
Stupid people voted for either one of them.
The stupidest people didn't vote at all.
Smart people voted for some other candidate, regardless of them having a chance to win.
Don't you get it? 2016 was a no-win scenario for the entire country. Trump may have technically won, but every single American citizen was a big, big loser, whether they realize it or not.
Some of them who voted for Trump are starting to realize it. They're getting addicted to opioids because of that.
Some of the others who started to realize it decided to go on shooting rampages because they lost their marbles; they committed 'suicide by cop'.
Even when Congress finally has had enough, when Mueller uncovers enough dirt about Trump that even the GOP that backed him can't hold their nose anymore, and they impeach him and run him out of DC on a rail, we'll be stuck with Pence, which is at least a full order of magnitude worse in ways I don't even want to think about.
Even if Pence suddenly drops dead, all the way down the line to Speaker of the House and beyond, there's no good replacement to play POTUS until 2020.
So, you see, we're screwed six ways from Sunday. Nothing can save us now. It's a toss-up whether we'll all die in nuclear fire, have our heads cut off by terrorists, or be enslaved by the communist Chinese government.
So drink up while you can. There's no point in even worrying about it now, nothing any of us does or says can alter our trajectory.
are prone to addiction. Congratulations, you've figured out something psychologists have known for ages.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's more like - people with good or bad traits saw Hillary for what she really was and voted for the lesser of two evils.
The years-long interrogations and insinuations by Republicans -- resulting in no actionable charges of any wrongdoing -- that Hillary was corrupt and evil didn't help peoples' perceptions of her. And *regardless* of how one might think about that and her, objectively she was -- by far -- the more qualified candidate for the office of President. Trump has pulled a lot of shady stuff during his business career and I would wager that Trump has told more lies during his candidacy and time as President than Hillary has told throughout her entire life -- or they both may be a tie :-) Sure they both have a LOT of baggage, but Trump is a dumpster fire of a person with no moral compass, and I don't know if he's really the "lesser of two evils". But, more to your point, and from a purely practical standpoint, the Democrats would have fared much better pushing a candidate other than Hillary through to the end.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
if you pay attention to a lot of media from sports news to youtube personalities like casey neistat to pulp like BGR or Ars Technica, they live on clickbait and making enemies for you or complaints how some product is bad or some coach needs to be fired.
You should read the summary more carefully. It doesn't mention any assessment of social ties, it just talks about personality traits.
Sure, there's correlation -- someone who is disagreeable, neurotic, and irresponsible may tend to have weaker social ties. But showing that an easily measurable personality trait has predictive value has significant utility. That's really the whole point of personality psychology, isn't it? To make inferences about future behaviors from readily observable past behaviors.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I run a business. A medium sized business. It's a huge, 24 hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, no-way-am-I-ever-having-kids kind of thing. I'm a very busy person, most of the time. I *have* to use my phone to deal with a lot of different things via email. And, I have to call people and receive calls, etc. It's 100% business. It's what I do.
If I wasn't running a business, I'd have a fucking flip phone, if that. I look around to all of these people *buried* in their phones, all the fucking time, walking up and down the street, in their cars, on buses and trains, and I think, "All all of those people really as busy as I am? Do they all run successful, medium-sized businesses, too?"
A lot of people have some very serious addiction issues with their gadgets. A large percentage of the population. It's pretty fucked up.
Today's NYT Editorial Board:
There's not a word in here that couldn't have been written in 2015.
How Trump Channels the 1970s
Trump didn't invent this, but he's sure taken it to the next level. By "drain the swamp" what he means is "leave no institution in good standing".
When you read the global aid literature, what you discover is that the biggest difference between the wealthy and the poor (at the country level) is the strength of the country's institutions. Shithole countries with tinpot dictators seem to invariable fall prey to the resource curse.
Countries with liberal democratic governments dating back to the Scottish Enlightenment, not so much. (The definition of a "classical liberal" is more or less the right of the individual to pursue happiness, subject only to the rule of law. This equation also subsumes many ideas about the sanctity of personal property, and drawing the appropriate box around the powers of state.)
People are prone to unreasonable cynicism. America, with a modern constitution, and what used to be a very strong moral compass concerning right and wrong (which tended to surprise visiting Europeans), had some of the best institutions the world has ever known.
Trump shits on America's institutions as a routine act. It's a "disgrace" when the FBI follows due process (as it so far appears) in the pursuit of evidence of criminality. The internal paperwork on that is probably stacked a mile high, and will come to light in due time (they could publish it today, if they didn't give a shit about Cohen's presumption of innocence and his right to a fair trial). If there was no justification for this seizure, heads will roll (when Al Franken resigned, I didn't cry a single crocodile tear; there was no defense as a public figure for his frat-house misdemeanor).
Yes, we knew FOR SURE what we were getting with a Trump administration: all our fine institutions ripped a new one. The problem here is that people who don't read history don't fully appreciate that a glass half full is social capital beyond measure.
There are two kinds of country in this world: those that sometimes manage to hold their scum and villainous to account (mostly the rich countries), and those that rarely manage to hold their scum and villainous to account (mostly the despotic, poor countries).
Trump is angry about Syria employing lethal chemicals weaponized. Meanwhile, Trump installed Pruitt at the EPA, which once safeguarded Americans from lethal chemicals, unweaponized, and discharged with callous profit motive into any old brook or stream.
Institutions: can't live with them, can't live without them. But mostly, can't live without them, if you've ever examined the world through a large lens.
There's one institution in America that I despise, and that's the financialization of the America
The years-long interrogations and insinuations by Republicans -- resulting in no actionable charges of any wrongdoing
That's the party line from the D side of the aisle, you know that, right? Think for yourself, don't parrot things you heard.
Um, no. It's an objective fact, not hearsay, ding-dong. Contrary to the chants of "Lock her up", she has never been charged or convicted of anything. The whole point of the years-long smear campaign by the Republicans was to tarnish her so badly so as to prevent her from becoming President. Worked pretty well too.
Stop watching Fox News and reading Breitbart and think for *yourself*.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Nobody forced the Clinton crew to bankrupt the Democratic Party, cheat their voters and criminally spike the primaries to keep Bernie Sanders out. Not to mention a corrupt legal system is all that kept the Clinton's out of prison and that was on full public show. Don't brag about not getting convicted in the US, insiders do it all the time with out any problem what so ever, regardless of the crime. Torture, no conviction and everyone knows. Start an illegal war no WMDs and everyone knows. False flags in Syria repeatedly and everyone knows.
The only thing most people are not aware of, it was not the US leading the UK to war, it was the cunning bastards in the UK skulking in the background leading the US to war because the UK is actually generating a profit out of the war on terror, whilst the US is generating massive losses. It appears the UK has been playing a rather sly game from the Blair era on, they have been the instigator in the shadows, rather than the claiming to resist the US and only following the US reluctantly.
The US wanted out of Syria and what happened the UK Tory government strove to keep them there, a little too publicly (eyes are now focused on them). I wonder if those personality traits in politicians are causing them to become addicted to the game where they play with us, make us fight and kill each other and they get off on it and don't want it to stop. Perhaps it is better that those arseholes are addicted to phones rather than playing with our lives.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Oh, you are an emotional partisan, too. What was Trump ever convicted of?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not charged does not equal innocent. Oh it does in the eyes of the Law but not in reality. Let's take the Email server.
For that alone she should have been charged with 100+ counts of negligent mishandling of classified information. I would posit that intentional mishandling would be more appropriate but at a minimum she should have faced charges for negligence. When Dir Comey had his press conference in July of 2012 (just days after the infamous Arizona Tarmac meeting between his Boss Lynch and Bill Clinton) he described what the FBI investigators had found.
He detailed over 100 email conversations that contained information that was classified at the time it was put into those emails. Then he tried to waive it off saying it was mere negligence and nobody would prosecute.
Except that one of the crimes outlined in the Espionage Act is Negligent mishandling of Classified information: Which is allowing classified information to be exposed to possible access by non-authorized persons through negligence. It's a Felony charge with up to 5 years in prison per instance. When handling the classified information of this country you don't get to be negligent. Saying oops I didn't mean to leave that classified document unsecure on my desk is not an acceptable answer.
He detailed 100+ email conversations that did just that. And even if every single instance was purely accidental inclusion it's still a Federal Felony. And contrary to Comey's claim yes people do get prosecuted and convicted of that crime. Usually for a single instance conviction is very unlikely. But for an extensive pattern of such negligence, yes people do get prosecuted and convicted for far less than what he waived away.
I don't really want to see an old woman go to jail for such, but she needs to face the charges. If she can beat the charges outright, or plea it down to a public apology fine. But she needs to face the charges. Yet due to the corrupt political machine she and her husband head, the fix was in and she got off scot free.
This is my professional opinion after a 20 year career in Army CounterIntelligence, investigating and recommending people for prosecution for just such crimes. Just as the FBI should have done in her case.
I've been rather pleased with what President Trump has accomplished, yes his twitter account needs to be shut down. But he wasn't my choice for the GOP nominee. But anyone else who ran would have been a better option than she was. Even openly socialist Bernie was a far better option. I didn't vote for Trump. I voted against Hillary.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Prime Traits of those at risk:
- being a fat lonely awkward average frustrated chump
- being a beautiful but nevertheless unfathomly insecure inexperienced girl/young lady living off selfies
- being latently bipolar/adhd
- being ugly
- having not discovered the joy of going outside
- being a nerd / wuss / wannabe
- not having a regular job or non-computer passion
Do I get my PhD in Psychology now?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Smart people voted for some other candidate, regardless of them having a chance to win.
That's every bit as stupid as not voting
I always loved this:
https://i.redd.it/ramn68p9csdz...
The point of negative ads isn't to get people to change their vote.
Negative ads are used to discourage voters from supporting their party's candidate. Hillary was an easy target for negative ads, every time dirt was tossed her way it stuck. Plus, she never had much support outside of the DNC. Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama in 2008 stayed home in 2016 because Clinton wasn't who they wanted for President.
In the middle of the article, there's this marvelous link:
[ Are you in danger of online addiction? Take the Big 5 test ]
So, in the middle of a story about how a company used quizzes to harvest data, we have a link to the quiz that would most help them. *sigh*
(I removed the hyperlink itself... you can go read the article if you want to click on it.)
A Democrat Administration refused to investigate Hillary until being embarrassed into it and even then doing everything they can to give her a pass.
Comey had to go out of his way and apparently had to violate FBI procedures to keep from labeling her actions regarding emails as criminal.
Not to mention failed attempts at a clandestine meeting between the fucking AG and Bill Clinton.
If someone had been appointed to investigate Hillary in the same way that Lavrentiy Beria Mueller Trump, she'd probably be on Death Row by now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
>And *regardless* of how one might think about that and her, objectively she was -- by far -- the more qualified candidate for the office of President.
This is a frequent claim by her supporters. And, on the surface, she does have a fairly impressive pedigree. Professional career as a lawyer, wife of a governor and President, US Senator, and Secretary of State. And if were just going on the jobs she's had, she would be a shoe-in. But only if you refrain from looking at the effectiveness and her judgement while in those impressive sounding roles.
What did she manage while being first and foremost the wife of Bill Clinton, the candidate and officeholder? She handled his bimbo eruptions. Secondarily to that, she was in charge of the 1993 Healthcare Reform effort, which was a political failure. And not even close to lastly, let's not forget Travelgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy). The reality is her time as "First Lady" was marred by continual scandals and a spectacular lack of judgement leavened with quite a bit of vindictiveness.
After Bill Clinton left office and the fortuitous death of John Kennedy Jr. (who had been planning to run for NY Senate), Hillary Clinton was elected in a "gimme" race for NY Senator. What did she accomplish in her time as a Senator? Well, she voted for the Iraq war - she was for it before she was against it. But really, she had a completely lackluster and ineffectual performance as a Senator.
Then in 2008, she ran for President. Had she won the nomination, she almost certainly would have won the race due to the headwinds Republicans were facing at the time from Bush fatigue and Iraq war fatigue. But Obama usurped the nomination, and she got the consolation prize of Secretary of State. What did she accomplish as Secretary of State?
Well, there was Fast and Furious. There was the Russia "reset". There was the failure to secure the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement, which led to the US pullout, which helped lead to the rise of ISIS. There was the Gaddafi overthrow, which turned Libya into a failed state and a safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists. Then there was the mis-management of consulate security which led to a dead US ambassador and 3 other Americans. Then there was the intentional trafficking of Libyan weapons to Syrian militias which helped armed ISIS. Oh and let's not forget her home brew email server where she was conducting official government business along with personal business, and sending and receiving classified information in violation of policy and law. Oh and let's not forget Uranium One and Pay for Play access at the State Department.
And then there is the campaign where she called half of Trump supporters an "irredeemable basket of deplorables". Where she raised 3x as much money as Trump but never bothered to campaign in Wisconsin. And managed to lose.
So, in summary, a lot of people looked at Hillary Clinton's resume and concluded she's been continually plagued by spectacularly bad judgement calls, bad politics, bullying behavior (see Travelgate again), and not really any notable positive accomplishments when she was in positions of influence - and they said, no, I'm going to vote for someone else.
After her loss, her behavior has pretty much confirmed that the US made the right decision. She's been bitter, vindictive, and failed to take any responsibility for the loss on her actions. Note, that had she won, she wouldn't have been any different. She's still be bitter, and vindictive, but she would have the full power of the US government to punish her "enemies".
Neither has Trump, but how many like you are watching CNN and reading HuffPost and saying Lock up Trump! Treason! Russia! Impeachment!
Hillary supporters are every bit as bad as trump supporters with their ill wishes and jumping to conclusions.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
At least heroin and addicts of other opiods go somewhere to shoot up. You damn mobile addicts are shooting up ALL THE BLOODY TIME.
And if you've *ever* texted while driving, or on a date, you're a fucking addict, and need to go cold turkey, and get into rehab.
(And I have and use my flipphone, so don't think I'm a hypocrite).
There's a similar test to see if you use the media platform Slashdot:
1. Do you masturbate chronically?
2. Do you play computer games chronically?
3. Are you over 300 lbs.?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm sure Trump's secret police are coming for you any day now.