Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following
(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)
(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."
Autism Spectrum Disorder (new)
Must meet criteria A, B, C, and D:
A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across contexts, not accounted for by general developmental delays, and manifest by all 3 of the following:
1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity; ranging from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back and forth conversation through reduced sharing of interests, emotions, and affect and response to total lack of initiation of social interaction.
2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction; ranging from poorly integrated- verbal and nonverbal communication, through abnormalities in eye contact and body-language, or deficits in understanding and use of nonverbal communication, to total lack of facial expression or gestures.
3. Deficits in developing and maintaining relationships, appropriate to developmental level (beyond those with caregivers); ranging from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit different social contexts through difficulties in sharing imaginative play and in making friends to an apparent absence of interest in people.
B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. Stereotyped or repetitive speech, motor movements, or use of objects; (such as simple motor stereotypies, echolalia, repetitive use of objects, or idiosyncratic phrases).
2. Excessive adherence to routines, ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior, or excessive resistance to change; (such as motoric rituals, insistence on same route or food, repetitive questioning or extreme distress at small changes).
3. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus; (such as strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests).
4. Hyper-or hypo-reactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of environment; (such as apparent indifference to pain/heat/cold, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, fascination with lights or spinning objects).
C. Symptoms must be present in early childhood (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities).
D. Symptoms together limit and impair everyday functioning.
An ex-librarian here - I'd treat it as a special collection and avoid both Dewy and Library of Congress - neither of them tend to be that great for small, narrow collections. I would avoid shelf numbers all together - just do it as: fiction (alphabetical by author), art (alpha by artist) etc. And for non fiction, divide into as many subject areas as you need and then do it by author/editor or year.
As for the cataloguing, I would recommend "Library Thing". It's $25.00 for life - you get an expert level for very little effort. As for the rest of it - I'm inclined to be a little bit alarmed that you are thinking of tagging and lending out what sounds like a valuable (and fragile) collection. I think you'd be better off concentrating on preseving the value by investing in things like acid free non-stick covers and good shelving. If you must lend, then go low-tech (an exercise book with columns like "title" "person who has it" and so on. Or what about cards - I used to love cards). Any type of tagging seriously crashes the value of your books. Apart from that, tagging is what you do when you have large numbers of strangers (i.e. students) who want to carry off your collection. If you are lending to friends then you shouldn't really need that.
I remember finding a young adult fiction book by Louise Lawrence (Andra) utterely bleak. I have never reread it as an adult, but it had the most down-beat ending. I must dig it out.
Once more so it "sinks in" (drink this in and digest it): If you can't gather the meaning of words within the framework of the context they're used in, you're the problem. Incidentally, the topic here is not english grammar you know! Writing style is pure opinion, like who's resume is better or worse. As long as the audience gets the message that is what is most important.
Yes, the audience getting the message is the most important thing. Yes, people can get the message despite spelling and grammar. And yes (although you didn't say it) pedantry about grammar is often just snobbery about education, thinly disguised.
But none of the above dissuades me from prefering to a well-written sentence.
To be pedantic, the Hare checklist isn't used to diagnose psychopaths per se given that "psychopathy" isn't a mental illness under the DSM. I'm not sure that the DSM has it right in this instance.
Psychologists would never diagnose just from a "test" - that's the sort of crap that employers do because they want simplicity and psychology is a complex field. A diagnosis from a psychologist often includes tests, but this information is contextualized into a persons broader life. For example, one thing a psychologist would look at it of you turned up at hospital raving that google was spying on you would be how suddenly this belief started, since this type of paranoia could be a sign of anything (drug use or withdrawal, a stroke or brain tumor, a relapse into schitzophrenia, a personality disorder, chronic stress) all of which have a different pattern of onset. Family history, job history, medical records etc are also looked at. Plus they also ask you questions.
What I take issue with is that someone could be labeled permanently in some database as psychopathic due to a state of mind that is almost always subjective and temporary.
From TFA remember that you are not talking about someone doing this labeling because of an extensive test, but rather due to 1-1024 characters of text. This would remove things critical such as base lines and responses to at least dozens of subject matter areas.
While I do agree with the broad point you are making, I think it is the misuse of science outside of the group of people who really understand the science that is the problem here. The fact that science may be misused doesn't make it bad science.Psychology is quite adept at understanding that (a) everyone is capable of "psychopathic" behaviour at times (b) in some situations behaving psychopathically is the expected, normal and sensible way to behave but (c) this doesn't change the fact that some people behave psychopathically with such consistency across situations, and in such inappropraite situations that a diagnosis is appropriate. While culture, learned behaviour and the environment all play a role, current knowledge strongly suggests that some people are "born psychopaths".
No, this system tries to predict the future by reading posts on twitter..
Why is there always such a knee-jerk reaction against these studies on Slashdot?
It's interesting that people's tweets reflect their personality. And before you say "well, duh!" to that, the way that people with different psychopathologies use language helps give insights into the part of the brain affected and helps map cognitions. There has been a lot of work on schitzophrenia and language, and I for one find it interesting that some personalitiy types might use more full stops when writing. Who knows, that little piece of information may add with other little bits to help psychologists discover something.
Could a certain percentage of people who commit violent crime share the common trait of psychopathy? Certainly. Do all? No.
No, but it's about 40-75% of those who are in prison for violent crimes.
In fact, a rather large percentage of the population are psychopathic, yet lead normal, non-violent lives..
True, if by large you mean 2-7%
Far more people that are not psychopathic commit crimes than those with psychopathy.
The majority of people who commit crimes are not psychopathic, but if you are talking about violent crimes, then I would think the number of people with (a) empathy deficits and (b) exploitative attitudes to others then the proportion would skyrocket.
The end result of this research is rather clear: Watch what you say on the internet, the FBI might flag you. And that's a far more dangerous threat than a few psychopaths walking around. If you look at the biggest mass murders in human history, every single one of them was a government official. Think about that for a while.
Damn, it's that self-depricating voice in my head again. It sounded like something a very sarcastic teacher used to say to me when my work was substandard: "You worked hard on that, didn't you?" Another one was "You always try hard, don't you?" And then she would look at what I had written and sigh.
Other planets? That's nothing. I read an article by a journalist who had gone undercover to audition for Australian Idol. According to her the waiver for the copyright on the footage extended to "this universe, any other universe and beyond".
Thanks you for explaining that. Just to point out, though, that in Australia you can still sue someone who knows they have an STD but does not disclose it to you.
It's not a crazy law. The problem isn't the law, and the problem for Assange isn't facing the charges - even if he is guilty it won't be a big deal. The problem is that there is still some chance that Sweden will extradite him to to the US. And Assange's fellow Australian's will miss out on a chance to vote him into the Senate.
But don't blame the Swedish law; it's just a more advanced country in regards to the human rights of women in this area.
"Egoism" and "egotism" are distinct words, each of which have more than one meaning. Definition three for egoism is "sytematic selfishness". Definition four for egotism is "selfishness". So, despite the difference in their meanings, the two have definitions which overlap to mean "selfishness".
Egoism and egotism therefore can be use interchangably if you are descibing a person in a state of selfishness. In other uses the words would not be able to be used interchangably (i.e. an "egoist" is a person who holds with a particular ethical theory (egoism). An egotist is not.)
Parisite is in mouse, wants to be in cat, parisite biologically iteracts with mouse so mouse it is attracted to cat urine, parisite successful.
Burger is in McDonalds, wants to be in you, burger biologically interacts with you so you are attracted to Mcdonalds, burger successful.
"Burger" is a species. They act with a group mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Aspergers:
Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction (B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level (C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people) (D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following
(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus (B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals (C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements) (D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)
(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."
Autism Spectrum Disorder (new)
Must meet criteria A, B, C, and D:
A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across contexts, not accounted for by general developmental delays, and manifest by all 3 of the following:
1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity; ranging from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back and forth conversation through reduced sharing of interests, emotions, and affect and response to total lack of initiation of social interaction. 2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction; ranging from poorly integrated- verbal and nonverbal communication, through abnormalities in eye contact and body-language, or deficits in understanding and use of nonverbal communication, to total lack of facial expression or gestures. 3. Deficits in developing and maintaining relationships, appropriate to developmental level (beyond those with caregivers); ranging from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit different social contexts through difficulties in sharing imaginative play and in making friends to an apparent absence of interest in people.
B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. Stereotyped or repetitive speech, motor movements, or use of objects; (such as simple motor stereotypies, echolalia, repetitive use of objects, or idiosyncratic phrases). 2. Excessive adherence to routines, ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior, or excessive resistance to change; (such as motoric rituals, insistence on same route or food, repetitive questioning or extreme distress at small changes). 3. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus; (such as strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests). 4. Hyper-or hypo-reactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of environment; (such as apparent indifference to pain/heat/cold, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, fascination with lights or spinning objects).
C. Symptoms must be present in early childhood (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities).
D. Symptoms together limit and impair everyday functioning.
Plenty of people with brain tumors live.
As for the cataloguing, I would recommend "Library Thing". It's $25.00 for life - you get an expert level for very little effort. As for the rest of it - I'm inclined to be a little bit alarmed that you are thinking of tagging and lending out what sounds like a valuable (and fragile) collection. I think you'd be better off concentrating on preseving the value by investing in things like acid free non-stick covers and good shelving. If you must lend, then go low-tech (an exercise book with columns like "title" "person who has it" and so on. Or what about cards - I used to love cards). Any type of tagging seriously crashes the value of your books. Apart from that, tagging is what you do when you have large numbers of strangers (i.e. students) who want to carry off your collection. If you are lending to friends then you shouldn't really need that.
That doesn't give them an excuse to completely avoid or ignore natural pregnancy.
Why should women need an excuse? I think it's great that women might one day be able to have children without having to go through pregnancy.
I remember finding a young adult fiction book by Louise Lawrence (Andra) utterely bleak. I have never reread it as an adult, but it had the most down-beat ending. I must dig it out.
Once more so it "sinks in" (drink this in and digest it): If you can't gather the meaning of words within the framework of the context they're used in, you're the problem. Incidentally, the topic here is not english grammar you know! Writing style is pure opinion, like who's resume is better or worse. As long as the audience gets the message that is what is most important.
Yes, the audience getting the message is the most important thing. Yes, people can get the message despite spelling and grammar. And yes (although you didn't say it) pedantry about grammar is often just snobbery about education, thinly disguised.
But none of the above dissuades me from prefering to a well-written sentence.
Sounds great to me.
Thanks for that link.
To be pedantic, the Hare checklist isn't used to diagnose psychopaths per se given that "psychopathy" isn't a mental illness under the DSM. I'm not sure that the DSM has it right in this instance.
Psychologists would never diagnose just from a "test" - that's the sort of crap that employers do because they want simplicity and psychology is a complex field. A diagnosis from a psychologist often includes tests, but this information is contextualized into a persons broader life. For example, one thing a psychologist would look at it of you turned up at hospital raving that google was spying on you would be how suddenly this belief started, since this type of paranoia could be a sign of anything (drug use or withdrawal, a stroke or brain tumor, a relapse into schitzophrenia, a personality disorder, chronic stress) all of which have a different pattern of onset. Family history, job history, medical records etc are also looked at. Plus they also ask you questions.
What I take issue with is that someone could be labeled permanently in some database as psychopathic due to a state of mind that is almost always subjective and temporary.
From TFA remember that you are not talking about someone doing this labeling because of an extensive test, but rather due to 1-1024 characters of text. This would remove things critical such as base lines and responses to at least dozens of subject matter areas.
While I do agree with the broad point you are making, I think it is the misuse of science outside of the group of people who really understand the science that is the problem here. The fact that science may be misused doesn't make it bad science.Psychology is quite adept at understanding that (a) everyone is capable of "psychopathic" behaviour at times (b) in some situations behaving psychopathically is the expected, normal and sensible way to behave but (c) this doesn't change the fact that some people behave psychopathically with such consistency across situations, and in such inappropraite situations that a diagnosis is appropriate. While culture, learned behaviour and the environment all play a role, current knowledge strongly suggests that some people are "born psychopaths".
No, this system tries to predict the future by reading posts on twitter..
Why is there always such a knee-jerk reaction against these studies on Slashdot?
It's interesting that people's tweets reflect their personality. And before you say "well, duh!" to that, the way that people with different psychopathologies use language helps give insights into the part of the brain affected and helps map cognitions. There has been a lot of work on schitzophrenia and language, and I for one find it interesting that some personalitiy types might use more full stops when writing. Who knows, that little piece of information may add with other little bits to help psychologists discover something.
Could a certain percentage of people who commit violent crime share the common trait of psychopathy? Certainly. Do all? No.
No, but it's about 40-75% of those who are in prison for violent crimes.
In fact, a rather large percentage of the population are psychopathic, yet lead normal, non-violent lives. .
True, if by large you mean 2-7%
Far more people that are not psychopathic commit crimes than those with psychopathy.
The majority of people who commit crimes are not psychopathic, but if you are talking about violent crimes, then I would think the number of people with (a) empathy deficits and (b) exploitative attitudes to others then the proportion would skyrocket.
The end result of this research is rather clear: Watch what you say on the internet, the FBI might flag you. And that's a far more dangerous threat than a few psychopaths walking around. If you look at the biggest mass murders in human history, every single one of them was a government official. Think about that for a while.
This bit I agree with you.
I didn't take this as a troll - but I do think it's mean spirited.
Brilliant parody! You send up a total nincompoop really well. "I own my own software company". Sheezh!
Overall, I think that the comments being made in reply to your posts proves your general point about sexism being alive and well.
Damn, it's that self-depricating voice in my head again. It sounded like something a very sarcastic teacher used to say to me when my work was substandard: "You worked hard on that, didn't you?" Another one was "You always try hard, don't you?" And then she would look at what I had written and sigh.
Meh. The aliens will fiddle with the time space vortex so that they will have had the recordings before we would have had them.
Other planets? That's nothing. I read an article by a journalist who had gone undercover to audition for Australian Idol. According to her the waiver for the copyright on the footage extended to "this universe, any other universe and beyond".
Thanks you for explaining that. Just to point out, though, that in Australia you can still sue someone who knows they have an STD but does not disclose it to you.
But don't blame the Swedish law; it's just a more advanced country in regards to the human rights of women in this area.
... Christianity doesn't require you to pay money before they will reveal all of the church doctrines...
True, but the government does require that I pay money to fund Christian church's tax-free status. And I don't even want the doctrines.
I'm having a slow week.
Let us turn to the Oxford English Dictionary.
"Egoism" and "egotism" are distinct words, each of which have more than one meaning. Definition three for egoism is "sytematic selfishness". Definition four for egotism is "selfishness". So, despite the difference in their meanings, the two have definitions which overlap to mean "selfishness".
Egoism and egotism therefore can be use interchangably if you are descibing a person in a state of selfishness. In other uses the words would not be able to be used interchangably (i.e. an "egoist" is a person who holds with a particular ethical theory (egoism). An egotist is not.)
Thank you for this opportunity to be semanitc.
Have patience. One day they will balance the "addiction" versus "artery clogging" algorithm.
Parisite is in mouse, wants to be in cat, parisite biologically iteracts with mouse so mouse it is attracted to cat urine, parisite successful. Burger is in McDonalds, wants to be in you, burger biologically interacts with you so you are attracted to Mcdonalds, burger successful. "Burger" is a species. They act with a group mind.