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.
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.
You may be quite normal. They're the ones with a problem.
It's really bad when you're in the break room with 15 other people and there's no conversation because they've all got their noses in their phones. You look around and wonder if they're actually humans or bizarre copies of the people you thought you knew.
If 95% of the people "have a problem", can you really be considered normal?
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 95% of the people "have a problem", can you really be considered normal?
Way more people are dead than alive. Perhaps the former is the "normal" state. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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. . . .
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.
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".