Okay, seriously? If so many people are going to hate on a field, at least have the decency to hate on the right one.
I'm tired of so many people taking this as evidence that psychology/psychiatry is wrong or over-reactive and therefore we must never pay any attention to it. First, the article's main expert is a sociologist, not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Granted, there's some overlap in the fields, but not enough that I'd trust the guy to start diagnosing or treating people. Second, as the article goes on, the other 'experts' referenced are in order: a nurse (LPN), a neurologist, another neurologist, and whatever the hell you call someone with a PhD in the history of medicine.
You'd think that if this were some sort of conspiracy by psychologists/psychiatrists to drum up legitimacy/business/interest for their field, they'd have the decency to at least provide an expert on their behalf.
Oh, not that this is entirely relevant, but just for the record, psychiatrists are MDs who specialize in mental disorders. Psychologists are PhDs who specialize in mental disorders and human behaviour. Psychologists cannot prescribe medications; so all the complaints about how psychologists are people who do nothing but a front for drug companies and push pills all the live long day? You're thinking of psychiatrists (and in my experience, there are a great many psychologists who would agree with you).
Psychology is a very young science that nevertheless has ended up managing to dominate way too much human activity. It is embarrassing that over two millennia after the birth of Western civilisation,we have degenerated to a point where we still believe that simple indicators can determine whether someone will steal, lie, or be just wonderful.
Really? Maybe you've been reading different journals than I have then. Most of the research I've read has been pretty clear on the complexity of human behaviour and how 'simple' indicators are 1) usually not simple, and 2) only a small part of a greater whole.
The problem as I see it isn't that psychology is wrong, it's that people who disseminate and/or use the information produced tend to oversimplify things and jump to bad conclusions (i.e. a study on the correlations between socioeconomic factors and crime suddenly becomes Poor people will kill you! News at 11!).
I may not be a shrink, but I am working towards that end, and do have postgraduate theraputic training and experience, so I'm going to take a crack at explaining why it's a bit unfair to see the poor girl as "weak" and a "loser".
Generally it's easiest to compare mental and physical capacities. Just as there is a normal distribution of physical strengths and tolerances, there is also a normal distribution of mental strengths and tolerances. The majority have a certain level, while some have either a higher or lower tolerance, sometimes differing from the norm significantly.
Now, for the purposes of argument, let's say your history of surviving abuse places on the high end of the scale. Congrats, you're mentally strong, and there is much to be admired about that. However, your summary judgment of the poor girl would be like Shaquille O'Neal looking at someone who is 5'1" and calling him a loser because he isn't bigger or stronger. From his perspective, it's true, but does it make it a fair judgment? For that matter, is it the fault of the man for not being bigger or stronger?
Yes, you may have survived abuse, and it is an amazing accomplishment (maybe not to you, but to all those who don't, it is). Does it make you an expert on other people's mental strengths and tolerances? No. Just remember, not everyone is as strong as you, nor will everyone be able to "train" to your level, but that doesn't make them a "loser".
Am I the only person here that thinks this result is blown way out of proportion? According to the article, MoGo won by 1.5 points (I don't see where it says what scoring method they used, so maybe someone can help me out with that). I've been playing Go for a while now, and while I'm not a professional by any means, I'm fairly confident that 1.5 point victory would probaby come down to a single deciding mistake (in this case it seems like a mistake by Kim in the lower right hand corder early in the game).
I keep thinking, would this news generate the same kind of buzz if the Kim had beat the computer by 1.5 points? I'm going to say that the victory was insignificant, and that at best, MoGo was playing on par with Kim after a 9-stone handicap (which is probably an achievement in and of itself). With my understanding that the difference in level of rank equals the number of handicap stones, it almost seems like Kim is making an overestimation of the program's strength, in which case the computer should be rated around 1 kyu I believe.
Whenever you pass through the checkpoint (at least in American airports), you're required to take your laptop out of your bag and place it in a seperate basket. I could understand not noticing a missing item from your bag, but an empty basket would be pretty obvious.
I second that. I travel quite a bit, and I always have at least one of my laptops with me. I travel pretty light, but considering that you're only allowed two carry ons, there really doesn't seem to be a way to be so overwhelmed with luggage that you lose a laptop. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how these laptops are misplaced; the article didn't mention anything about how it happens. Is it really that difficult to put a laptop in a carry on bag and just bring it on the plane?
Of course, if you think that African Americans and the Jewish have nothing to be offended about, then may I suggest going somewhere where you could tell them that to their face.
Yep, most psychological studies just seem to state the obvious.
And most generalizations are bad. Seriously though, you seem to be exhibiting classic hindsight bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias. The point of psychology isn't to study what is already common sense (as most people here on Slashdot seem to think - I just love generalizations, don't you?), but to see if common sense has any factual basis.
Take for example the idea a while back that increasing a child's self esteem would make them better students...which lasted until PSYCHOLOGICAL studies showed (through scientific, empirical observation, I have to point out) that inflated self-esteem made children more prone to frustration and giving up after failure.
The point is, what seems obvious may only be so because you're constructing a rationale ad hoc. If the study had found that intelligence was innate (and this was "obvious" to many people beforehand, hence the study), then I'm sure that people on Slashdot would be tripping over themselves to say "and yet again, psychology comes up with another pointless study on something obvious".
If someone starts to think they're representing more than themselves, maybe they need to look at their own self-image.
The sad fact is, even though you apparently don't agree with it, everybody "is" representing more than themselves. Take a look at any major newspaper, and I can almost guarantee that you'll find a story that shows how society makes judgments on a group based on an individual's actions.
I know a topic that comes up relatively often on these threads is religion. I have seen some pretty vicious posts directed towards any who would believe in the existence of a God (although to/.'s credit, there is usually someone to defend those who do believe). My roommate was one of those who hated religious folk, and when pressed to say why, he gave the example of religious fanatics the likes of Jerry Falwell (may he rest in hell). Obviously, the actions of one individual do not reflect the behaviours of all of that particular group (i.e. not all religious people are crazy fanatics who want everybody to believe the same as them), but here was my roommate, an otherwise intelligent person, extracting what he thought of an entire group from the actions of one, and I am sure he is not the only one.
On the flipside of it was the Virginia Tech tragedy. As an Asian person, my second thought after hearing of the incident was how people would now look at me and think "potential gun-toting loon" instead of "normal person". I've spoken to others about the incident, and I am not the only one who thought that way, however selfish that seems.
The sad truth of it is that no matter how unfair it may seem, the actions of one at the very least influence how people view the group, and maybe even how that group views itself, regardless of self-image.
I think this misses the point entirely. By simply saying "no, they're nuts", we make the mistake of dehumanizing the shooter and by extension, distancing ourselves from them. Despite their horrific actions, the shooter(s) (has any media outlet nailed down the number of shooters yet?) are still people too.
Most people don't realize how capable they are of committing an atrocity, but look at one of the most famous studies in psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment. Obviously, the situations are not the same, as there was no element of authority that we know of in this situation, but nonetheless, we can see that even normal, well adjusted people can commit inhuman acts under the right circumstances.
IMO, we should not be so quick to distance ourselves from the blame. While the shooter was the one who pulled the trigger, we also have to consider numerous other factors: how he got the gun, how he got the gun onto campus, etc., and most importantly, how nobody noticed that he was in need of help. Obviously, this was not solely the shooters' fault.
I'm not suggesting there's some perfect solution where everybody can keep an eye out for everybody else, thereby preventing any further instances. I'm simply suggesting that we need to be wary of setting down a solid dividing line between "us" and "them", because if we do, then we make it even more of a taboo for people to receive psychological help.
That said, my heart goes out to all the victims, and to all the others who are going to get thoroughly scapegoated (i.e. the entertainment industry).
I live IN New York City (Brooklyn) and travel extensively through OUT the USA. "Nicer" and Chicago do not belong in the same sentence in my opinion. To me, Chicago is just SCARY. I've traveled to Chicago several times (never on purpose, believe me), and when informing people that I was born, bred, and schooled (for some reason being schooled in New York is particularly scary) in New York, they reacted much the same way you do, thinking that New York is so much more unsafe than Chicago. Meanwhile, here's a dose of reality for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_stree t_gangs/. And no, those aren't community service groups.
I think one of the reasons that New York politicos don't like the parallel is the simple fact that it perpetuates the same stereotype that you're spewing. New York is much much safer than most people give it credit for, and while I have personally made jokes about how unsafe it is, it usually is only to scare people like you away from dirting up my city.
And the reason Chicago is generally not used in games? It is completely overshadowed by New York in sheer GRANDEUR.
Cheers to your massive inferiority complex.
Oh, and by the way? You were at a PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT...and unless you think the entirety of New York is made up of those, you should probably think a little about why it SEEMED so unsafe (yours aren't much better, if at all).
The problem here isn't the people who can't think of their country as anything but the greatest, the problem here is the survey/study itself. The majority of the cognitive dissonance on the comments so far seems to be the definition of intelligent. I, for one, did not grow up being told that my intelligence would be measured by my ability to spread the wonders of broadband, and honestly, if I had, I would've filed for a restraining order against whoever did, because they're obviously dangerous. At best, the list (or the title at least) is misleading. At worst, it's biased.
It seems to me that not only does refunding the money not change the overall situation, it's also going to indoctrinate those who were the original victims with the idea that "oh, now I don't have to worry about future attacks, because if anything happens, the bank will just reimburse me."
While I realize that it's not the customer's fault, there must be something else that can be done to make customers more aware of phishing attacks. Honestly, reviewing the bank's security features may be helpful, but it completely ignores the other problem, namely the gullibility of the customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, seriously? If so many people are going to hate on a field, at least have the decency to hate on the right one.
I'm tired of so many people taking this as evidence that psychology/psychiatry is wrong or over-reactive and therefore we must never pay any attention to it. First, the article's main expert is a sociologist, not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Granted, there's some overlap in the fields, but not enough that I'd trust the guy to start diagnosing or treating people. Second, as the article goes on, the other 'experts' referenced are in order: a nurse (LPN), a neurologist, another neurologist, and whatever the hell you call someone with a PhD in the history of medicine.
You'd think that if this were some sort of conspiracy by psychologists/psychiatrists to drum up legitimacy/business/interest for their field, they'd have the decency to at least provide an expert on their behalf.
Oh, not that this is entirely relevant, but just for the record, psychiatrists are MDs who specialize in mental disorders. Psychologists are PhDs who specialize in mental disorders and human behaviour. Psychologists cannot prescribe medications; so all the complaints about how psychologists are people who do nothing but a front for drug companies and push pills all the live long day? You're thinking of psychiatrists (and in my experience, there are a great many psychologists who would agree with you).
Psychology is a very young science that nevertheless has ended up managing to dominate way too much human activity. It is embarrassing that over two millennia after the birth of Western civilisation ,we have degenerated to a point where we still believe that simple indicators can determine whether someone will steal, lie, or be just wonderful.
Really? Maybe you've been reading different journals than I have then. Most of the research I've read has been pretty clear on the complexity of human behaviour and how 'simple' indicators are 1) usually not simple, and 2) only a small part of a greater whole.
The problem as I see it isn't that psychology is wrong, it's that people who disseminate and/or use the information produced tend to oversimplify things and jump to bad conclusions (i.e. a study on the correlations between socioeconomic factors and crime suddenly becomes Poor people will kill you! News at 11!).
I may not be a shrink, but I am working towards that end, and do have postgraduate theraputic training and experience, so I'm going to take a crack at explaining why it's a bit unfair to see the poor girl as "weak" and a "loser".
Generally it's easiest to compare mental and physical capacities. Just as there is a normal distribution of physical strengths and tolerances, there is also a normal distribution of mental strengths and tolerances. The majority have a certain level, while some have either a higher or lower tolerance, sometimes differing from the norm significantly.
Now, for the purposes of argument, let's say your history of surviving abuse places on the high end of the scale. Congrats, you're mentally strong, and there is much to be admired about that. However, your summary judgment of the poor girl would be like Shaquille O'Neal looking at someone who is 5'1" and calling him a loser because he isn't bigger or stronger. From his perspective, it's true, but does it make it a fair judgment? For that matter, is it the fault of the man for not being bigger or stronger?
Yes, you may have survived abuse, and it is an amazing accomplishment (maybe not to you, but to all those who don't, it is). Does it make you an expert on other people's mental strengths and tolerances? No. Just remember, not everyone is as strong as you, nor will everyone be able to "train" to your level, but that doesn't make them a "loser".
Am I the only person here that thinks this result is blown way out of proportion? According to the article, MoGo won by 1.5 points (I don't see where it says what scoring method they used, so maybe someone can help me out with that). I've been playing Go for a while now, and while I'm not a professional by any means, I'm fairly confident that 1.5 point victory would probaby come down to a single deciding mistake (in this case it seems like a mistake by Kim in the lower right hand corder early in the game).
I keep thinking, would this news generate the same kind of buzz if the Kim had beat the computer by 1.5 points? I'm going to say that the victory was insignificant, and that at best, MoGo was playing on par with Kim after a 9-stone handicap (which is probably an achievement in and of itself). With my understanding that the difference in level of rank equals the number of handicap stones, it almost seems like Kim is making an overestimation of the program's strength, in which case the computer should be rated around 1 kyu I believe.
Whenever you pass through the checkpoint (at least in American airports), you're required to take your laptop out of your bag and place it in a seperate basket. I could understand not noticing a missing item from your bag, but an empty basket would be pretty obvious.
I second that. I travel quite a bit, and I always have at least one of my laptops with me. I travel pretty light, but considering that you're only allowed two carry ons, there really doesn't seem to be a way to be so overwhelmed with luggage that you lose a laptop. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how these laptops are misplaced; the article didn't mention anything about how it happens. Is it really that difficult to put a laptop in a carry on bag and just bring it on the plane?
For examples you might actually understand, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastica and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger.
Of course, if you think that African Americans and the Jewish have nothing to be offended about, then may I suggest going somewhere where you could tell them that to their face.And most generalizations are bad. Seriously though, you seem to be exhibiting classic hindsight bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias. The point of psychology isn't to study what is already common sense (as most people here on Slashdot seem to think - I just love generalizations, don't you?), but to see if common sense has any factual basis.
Take for example the idea a while back that increasing a child's self esteem would make them better students...which lasted until PSYCHOLOGICAL studies showed (through scientific, empirical observation, I have to point out) that inflated self-esteem made children more prone to frustration and giving up after failure.
The point is, what seems obvious may only be so because you're constructing a rationale ad hoc. If the study had found that intelligence was innate (and this was "obvious" to many people beforehand, hence the study), then I'm sure that people on Slashdot would be tripping over themselves to say "and yet again, psychology comes up with another pointless study on something obvious".
The sad fact is, even though you apparently don't agree with it, everybody "is" representing more than themselves. Take a look at any major newspaper, and I can almost guarantee that you'll find a story that shows how society makes judgments on a group based on an individual's actions.
I know a topic that comes up relatively often on these threads is religion. I have seen some pretty vicious posts directed towards any who would believe in the existence of a God (although to /.'s credit, there is usually someone to defend those who do believe). My roommate was one of those who hated religious folk, and when pressed to say why, he gave the example of religious fanatics the likes of Jerry Falwell (may he rest in hell). Obviously, the actions of one individual do not reflect the behaviours of all of that particular group (i.e. not all religious people are crazy fanatics who want everybody to believe the same as them), but here was my roommate, an otherwise intelligent person, extracting what he thought of an entire group from the actions of one, and I am sure he is not the only one.
On the flipside of it was the Virginia Tech tragedy. As an Asian person, my second thought after hearing of the incident was how people would now look at me and think "potential gun-toting loon" instead of "normal person". I've spoken to others about the incident, and I am not the only one who thought that way, however selfish that seems.
The sad truth of it is that no matter how unfair it may seem, the actions of one at the very least influence how people view the group, and maybe even how that group views itself, regardless of self-image.
I think this misses the point entirely. By simply saying "no, they're nuts", we make the mistake of dehumanizing the shooter and by extension, distancing ourselves from them. Despite their horrific actions, the shooter(s) (has any media outlet nailed down the number of shooters yet?) are still people too.
Most people don't realize how capable they are of committing an atrocity, but look at one of the most famous studies in psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment. Obviously, the situations are not the same, as there was no element of authority that we know of in this situation, but nonetheless, we can see that even normal, well adjusted people can commit inhuman acts under the right circumstances.
IMO, we should not be so quick to distance ourselves from the blame. While the shooter was the one who pulled the trigger, we also have to consider numerous other factors: how he got the gun, how he got the gun onto campus, etc., and most importantly, how nobody noticed that he was in need of help. Obviously, this was not solely the shooters' fault.
I'm not suggesting there's some perfect solution where everybody can keep an eye out for everybody else, thereby preventing any further instances. I'm simply suggesting that we need to be wary of setting down a solid dividing line between "us" and "them", because if we do, then we make it even more of a taboo for people to receive psychological help.
That said, my heart goes out to all the victims, and to all the others who are going to get thoroughly scapegoated (i.e. the entertainment industry).
I live IN New York City (Brooklyn) and travel extensively through OUT the USA. "Nicer" and Chicago do not belong in the same sentence in my opinion. To me, Chicago is just SCARY. I've traveled to Chicago several times (never on purpose, believe me), and when informing people that I was born, bred, and schooled (for some reason being schooled in New York is particularly scary) in New York, they reacted much the same way you do, thinking that New York is so much more unsafe than Chicago. Meanwhile, here's a dose of reality for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_stree t_gangs/. And no, those aren't community service groups.
I think one of the reasons that New York politicos don't like the parallel is the simple fact that it perpetuates the same stereotype that you're spewing. New York is much much safer than most people give it credit for, and while I have personally made jokes about how unsafe it is, it usually is only to scare people like you away from dirting up my city.
And the reason Chicago is generally not used in games? It is completely overshadowed by New York in sheer GRANDEUR.
Cheers to your massive inferiority complex.
Oh, and by the way? You were at a PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT...and unless you think the entirety of New York is made up of those, you should probably think a little about why it SEEMED so unsafe (yours aren't much better, if at all).
The problem here isn't the people who can't think of their country as anything but the greatest, the problem here is the survey/study itself. The majority of the cognitive dissonance on the comments so far seems to be the definition of intelligent. I, for one, did not grow up being told that my intelligence would be measured by my ability to spread the wonders of broadband, and honestly, if I had, I would've filed for a restraining order against whoever did, because they're obviously dangerous. At best, the list (or the title at least) is misleading. At worst, it's biased.
It seems to me that not only does refunding the money not change the overall situation, it's also going to indoctrinate those who were the original victims with the idea that "oh, now I don't have to worry about future attacks, because if anything happens, the bank will just reimburse me." While I realize that it's not the customer's fault, there must be something else that can be done to make customers more aware of phishing attacks. Honestly, reviewing the bank's security features may be helpful, but it completely ignores the other problem, namely the gullibility of the customers.