Yes, we all have the capacity to behave in a psychopathic manner at times. I'm sure most of us flinch at the thought of inflicting pain on others, but if we were attacked we'd gouge someone's f'ing eyes out. Empathy is an instinct and like all instincts it is weaker or stronger, top priority or subverted depending on the demands of our environments and our top priority needs at that time.
But this doesn't diminish the point that some individuals are incapable of being anything other than psychopatic - they are simply born without the required hardware to have empathy as a feature of their cognitive architecture. They lack an instinct that most of us have, even if we don't always use it.
People were randomly assigned to groups (power/no power, truthful/lying) so claiming power causes people to lie more easily seems valid, within the bounds of the experiment.
It also seems to have a rigid structure perhaps verging on caste. Everyone has a particular planet (and perhaps spaceship) that they can belong to which seems based somehow on their interests. That sounds likely to exacerbate the problems you mention above.
Yes, it's very very annoying. Same with psych PHDs that publish those pop psych books which are half science/half nonsense. There one called "The Brain that heals itself" (or something like that) that I was reading a little while ago - it made me so annoyed. Exprapolating huge ideas from little lumps of evidence. Aggg.
I was making a joke, but one that was unforgivably obscure for a non-psychologist group.
Explaining a joke is equally unforgivable, but...
.. there was a time when psychologists and psychiatrist routinely did all sort of things (hypnosis, drug therapy, dream analysis) in order to recover repressed childhood memories of trauma (usually sexual abuse). This was based on a very flawed understanding of how memory functions, and those types of freudian techniques have now been rejected by almost all psychologists. In Australia at least, the practice of recovered memory therapy is pretty difficult due to our ethical code code and the way our malpractice laws work. (I don't know about psychiatric practice - I'm a psychologist).
Saying something like "Lets go into the safe room and I'll wrap you in a blanket" is a joking way that psychogists refer to this sort of therapy. Adding "regress through you past lives" is a shorthand way of saying that psychoanalysis is about as scientific as trying to find out who you were in your past life.
Hello - qualified person speaking here. In defense of my field:
(a) The practice of clinical psychology ranges from evidence-based (e.g. CBT) through to "Lets go into the safe room and I'll wrap you in a blanket and regress you through your past lives". Evidence based practice is based on science, random placebo-controlled trials and so on, so it's as scientific or unscientific as any other medically aligned field.
If you ever need a psych., get a referral from a doctor or a hospital, check that they are registered with the professional body in your country, what their quals are and - at the first session - ask them to describe the treatment plan, how many sessions it usually takes, what the prognosis is for the method they use and so on. STAY AWAY from anyone who talks about "repressed memories", thinks "dream analysis" is a science or who uses the words "deep" "buried" "unconscious" and "mind" in the same sentence. These people are a dying breed, fortunately.
(b) The theoretical basis of psychology is basically that human behavior is determined by your biology interacting with a complex social and physical environment within a framework of the habitiual responses you have learned in the past. So different researchers focus on differnt part of this complex system e.g cognitive neuropsychs look at the architecture of cognition, brain models etc, physiological psychs look at neural networks, hormones, brain structure, social psychs look at the social influences and how these moderate behaviour, evolutionary psychs speak circular crap in the popular press and so on.
BTW, psychology may well be a "liberal arts" major in the USA, but that's not the case in my neck of the woods - at my university its taught in the same department which teaches nursing and other allied health fields, although it vaires from uni to uni.
It's a very capitalist idea, and very American to I might add, as the US is supremelly capitalist - by comparison europe in general is far more socialist, and I would guess Canada is as well. Can't really speak for anywhere else.
Well you CAN speak for Australia. We're monkey see, monkey do when it comes to the US. Except in censorship - I'm proud to say we're leading the way.
A problem with that lawsuit is that the district would be using funds from the taxpayer... Which hardly punishes the right people. This was clearly a problem with the individuals who made and approved the asinine idea of spying on the kids at home. They're the ones who should be sued, and fired.
In the State of Australia I live in Govt Departments were exempt untill recently from any fines under the OHS laws. They argued the same way - it's the taxpayer who will ultimately pay because the fine will come out of the budget that pays for schools, hospital beds, the police and so on.
As a result, the OHS practices of the govt were appalling untill this situation was changed.
My experience from this tells me that, if the school district were to be fined, the taxpayers wouldn't pay directly - the money would be deducted from the school district budget, and the parents would raise an outcry when the services and programs were available to their kids were cut. This would mean that the Govt/School Board etc would make sure it didn't happen again.
Individuals can also (and should also) be fined. But this is not just about unnaceptable behaviour from individuals, it involves senior decision makers not acting/
On and on, any word that some idiots have an issue with, another group takes it upon themselves to start condemning the word instead of the attitude. The correct response is to say that there's nothing fucking wrong with being black and saying someone is black is not an insult - just a fact if they are and a bizarre statement if they're not.
What you say seems OK in respect to a descriptive word like "black". But how would it apply to "nigger" or most of the other types of words that people object to? And how may of the words "that some idiots have an issue with" apply to white men?
It is not up to corporations to execute social policies.
Yes it is. Why ever not? The do it all the time. After all, they are the major benificiaries of social policies under a capitalist system. They never stop yelping for the government to intervene in this or that.
Corporations behave sociopathically - they want legislative intervention to protect them when the market forces go against them. But they squeal like piggies when they are asked to do anything that intervenes with their managerial perogative.
That guy passed out on the floor of the burning house doesn't care that because you're female, you can't meet the weight-lifting requirements of the firefighter exam. He just cares whether you get him out.
What you seem to be saying is that ALL women should be excluded from firefighting just because MOST women couldn't pass the entry exams. Most men couldn't pass the exams either.
Sure, given the natural differences between the average man and woman, men will always outnumber women in jobs needing strength.
But you shouldn't apply infomation about the average man or women to every man or women. It's unfair and discriminatory
If Google and Apple want to succeed in their field, doesn't it behoove them to hire the best and brightest? Shouldn't they be able to do so, even if it results in skewed racial statistics?
Why do you think that racial statistics would be skewed if the best and brightest were selected?
Well, let's be clear: "we're going to hire the smartest people, even if they're "white" and male" is *not* racist, but will probably get them in trouble anyway.
Have you ever heard anyone saying that other than when they are making an excuse for having all white men in a workplace?
Google just doesn't want to be subjected to draconian and racist equal opportunity laws or quotas.
I'm pretty sure they are hiring people based on merit and technical ability, not race or color.
Sigh. The standard excuse for racist and sexist employment practices. Because we all know that if an employer employs on the basis of "merit" and "technical ability", women and African Americans will be largely absent given that they lack both and can be trained in neither.
Yeah, yeah, laws made to conteract bigoted employers are "draconian" and "racist". I'm surprised you didn't raise the point about how it's white men who are the underclass these days.
The Australian Classification Board stated that - when deciding whether material is pedophillic or not - they take into account the appearance of the model/actress as well as their actual age (if they know the age).
Breast size is one of these criteria. So, the picture could be of an 18 year old, but an 18 year old who - given that age doesn't determine how old you look - appears to be 14. So bald pubic region, small breasts, slim hips with not much waist, photographed to look you and so on.
As far as I can see, no one has even mentioned banning small breats per se.
It's an interesting issue for me because a couple of years ago there was a billboard ad for Target (a kind of wal-mart like shop in Australia) which used a girl who was over 18 but looked 15 or so. She was posed with a lollipop in a Lolita-style way wearing short shorts.
The outrage in that case was that it send bad messages to young girls about how they had to look sexy (heels for pre-teens came in at about the same time).
It's always confusing for me because on one side there is the issue of censorship (which I oppose), then there is the increasingly widespread commodification of sex, use of pedophillic images, sexualisation of young teens and body image issues for females which I oppose.
In any case, the claims being made about "small breasts have been banned" in the sense "you could be 40 and still not show your peddo-bait breasts" is crap.
You can already see the next step in Australia... [where] they just banned any real porn where the actress has a size A cup, or looks under 25.
What's wrong with that PEDDO, and aussies also will ban also SHAVING of public HAIR and armpit hair on models so they dont lk like kiddies, & WE will be the community with the strictest standards and you will THINK OF THE CHILREN and only look at huge, hiary olde women. And you shit is retarded anyhoos PEDDO.
I don't believe consciousness exists (at least as anything unique to intelligence) (/quote>
I'm starting to believe that consciousness is just another type of memory.
Slashdot Mirror
But this doesn't diminish the point that some individuals are incapable of being anything other than psychopatic - they are simply born without the required hardware to have empathy as a feature of their cognitive architecture. They lack an instinct that most of us have, even if we don't always use it.
In the study, the lies told were the same for the same motive. "Power" was the independent variable.
Or - psychopathy is genetic, not learned.
People were randomly assigned to groups (power/no power, truthful/lying) so claiming power causes people to lie more easily seems valid, within the bounds of the experiment.
Thanks, that's 3 minutes of my work day nicely wasted.
It also seems to have a rigid structure perhaps verging on caste. Everyone has a particular planet (and perhaps spaceship) that they can belong to which seems based somehow on their interests. That sounds likely to exacerbate the problems you mention above.
Geocities is dead! Long live Geocities!
I quite like it.
Yes, it's very very annoying. Same with psych PHDs that publish those pop psych books which are half science/half nonsense. There one called "The Brain that heals itself" (or something like that) that I was reading a little while ago - it made me so annoyed. Exprapolating huge ideas from little lumps of evidence. Aggg.
Explaining a joke is equally unforgivable, but ...
Saying something like "Lets go into the safe room and I'll wrap you in a blanket" is a joking way that psychogists refer to this sort of therapy. Adding "regress through you past lives" is a shorthand way of saying that psychoanalysis is about as scientific as trying to find out who you were in your past life.
(a) The practice of clinical psychology ranges from evidence-based (e.g. CBT) through to "Lets go into the safe room and I'll wrap you in a blanket and regress you through your past lives". Evidence based practice is based on science, random placebo-controlled trials and so on, so it's as scientific or unscientific as any other medically aligned field.
If you ever need a psych., get a referral from a doctor or a hospital, check that they are registered with the professional body in your country, what their quals are and - at the first session - ask them to describe the treatment plan, how many sessions it usually takes, what the prognosis is for the method they use and so on. STAY AWAY from anyone who talks about "repressed memories", thinks "dream analysis" is a science or who uses the words "deep" "buried" "unconscious" and "mind" in the same sentence. These people are a dying breed, fortunately.
(b) The theoretical basis of psychology is basically that human behavior is determined by your biology interacting with a complex social and physical environment within a framework of the habitiual responses you have learned in the past. So different researchers focus on differnt part of this complex system e.g cognitive neuropsychs look at the architecture of cognition, brain models etc, physiological psychs look at neural networks, hormones, brain structure, social psychs look at the social influences and how these moderate behaviour, evolutionary psychs speak circular crap in the popular press and so on.
BTW, psychology may well be a "liberal arts" major in the USA, but that's not the case in my neck of the woods - at my university its taught in the same department which teaches nursing and other allied health fields, although it vaires from uni to uni.
Bet it could never do "Rock Lobster" (B52s), either.
It's a very capitalist idea, and very American to I might add, as the US is supremelly capitalist - by comparison europe in general is far more socialist, and I would guess Canada is as well. Can't really speak for anywhere else.
Well you CAN speak for Australia. We're monkey see, monkey do when it comes to the US. Except in censorship - I'm proud to say we're leading the way.
A problem with that lawsuit is that the district would be using funds from the taxpayer... Which hardly punishes the right people. This was clearly a problem with the individuals who made and approved the asinine idea of spying on the kids at home. They're the ones who should be sued, and fired.
In the State of Australia I live in Govt Departments were exempt untill recently from any fines under the OHS laws. They argued the same way - it's the taxpayer who will ultimately pay because the fine will come out of the budget that pays for schools, hospital beds, the police and so on.
As a result, the OHS practices of the govt were appalling untill this situation was changed.
My experience from this tells me that, if the school district were to be fined, the taxpayers wouldn't pay directly - the money would be deducted from the school district budget, and the parents would raise an outcry when the services and programs were available to their kids were cut. This would mean that the Govt/School Board etc would make sure it didn't happen again.
Individuals can also (and should also) be fined. But this is not just about unnaceptable behaviour from individuals, it involves senior decision makers not acting/
On and on, any word that some idiots have an issue with, another group takes it upon themselves to start condemning the word instead of the attitude. The correct response is to say that there's nothing fucking wrong with being black and saying someone is black is not an insult - just a fact if they are and a bizarre statement if they're not.
What you say seems OK in respect to a descriptive word like "black". But how would it apply to "nigger" or most of the other types of words that people object to? And how may of the words "that some idiots have an issue with" apply to white men?
It is not up to corporations to execute social policies.
Yes it is. Why ever not? The do it all the time. After all, they are the major benificiaries of social policies under a capitalist system. They never stop yelping for the government to intervene in this or that.
Corporations behave sociopathically - they want legislative intervention to protect them when the market forces go against them. But they squeal like piggies when they are asked to do anything that intervenes with their managerial perogative.
That guy passed out on the floor of the burning house doesn't care that because you're female, you can't meet the weight-lifting requirements of the firefighter exam. He just cares whether you get him out.
Relax, the guy passed out on the floor of the burning building will be saved! All firefighters have to pass fitness and strength testing. http://www.topendsports.com/testing/forces-fire-fighters.htm
What you seem to be saying is that ALL women should be excluded from firefighting just because MOST women couldn't pass the entry exams. Most men couldn't pass the exams either.
Sure, given the natural differences between the average man and woman, men will always outnumber women in jobs needing strength.
But you shouldn't apply infomation about the average man or women to every man or women. It's unfair and discriminatory
If Google and Apple want to succeed in their field, doesn't it behoove them to hire the best and brightest? Shouldn't they be able to do so, even if it results in skewed racial statistics?
Why do you think that racial statistics would be skewed if the best and brightest were selected?
Well, let's be clear: "we're going to hire the smartest people, even if they're "white" and male" is *not* racist, but will probably get them in trouble anyway.
Have you ever heard anyone saying that other than when they are making an excuse for having all white men in a workplace?
Google just doesn't want to be subjected to draconian and racist equal opportunity laws or quotas.
I'm pretty sure they are hiring people based on merit and technical ability, not race or color.
Sigh. The standard excuse for racist and sexist employment practices. Because we all know that if an employer employs on the basis of "merit" and "technical ability", women and African Americans will be largely absent given that they lack both and can be trained in neither.
Yeah, yeah, laws made to conteract bigoted employers are "draconian" and "racist". I'm surprised you didn't raise the point about how it's white men who are the underclass these days.
Posts like your's show why these laws are needed.
Licia Fox isn't cute?
Breast size is one of these criteria. So, the picture could be of an 18 year old, but an 18 year old who - given that age doesn't determine how old you look - appears to be 14. So bald pubic region, small breasts, slim hips with not much waist, photographed to look you and so on.
As far as I can see, no one has even mentioned banning small breats per se.
It's an interesting issue for me because a couple of years ago there was a billboard ad for Target (a kind of wal-mart like shop in Australia) which used a girl who was over 18 but looked 15 or so. She was posed with a lollipop in a Lolita-style way wearing short shorts.
The outrage in that case was that it send bad messages to young girls about how they had to look sexy (heels for pre-teens came in at about the same time).
It's always confusing for me because on one side there is the issue of censorship (which I oppose), then there is the increasingly widespread commodification of sex, use of pedophillic images, sexualisation of young teens and body image issues for females which I oppose.
In any case, the claims being made about "small breasts have been banned" in the sense "you could be 40 and still not show your peddo-bait breasts" is crap.
I'm happy to go toe to toe in a nerd-off with any CS grad.
Trust me, we book nerds are not only the most introverted of the nerds, but also the most annoyingly verbose.
You can already see the next step in Australia ... [where] they just banned any real porn where the actress has a size A cup, or looks under 25.
What's wrong with that PEDDO, and aussies also will ban also SHAVING of public HAIR and armpit hair on models so they dont lk like kiddies, & WE will be the community with the strictest standards and you will THINK OF THE CHILREN and only look at huge, hiary olde women. And you shit is retarded anyhoos PEDDO.
I don't believe consciousness exists (at least as anything unique to intelligence) (/quote> I'm starting to believe that consciousness is just another type of memory.
In 30 years AI 'is likely to eliminate almost all of today's decently paying jobs.' A bold statement and likely FUD.
Paris Hilton and Puff Daddy are paid well.