First, we're talking cold propositions here. The kind of proposition where there has been no previous conversation/flirtation etc. Second, I didn't suggest doing it so others can overhear - indeed I pointed this out. Just so that they can see what's going on - or at the very least the lady you are propositioning has an easy way to get to witnesses (so avoid metal cages suspended in the air, for example).
This is because some men are gigantic assholes who, when it is safe for them to do so, get aggressive at 'bitches' that turn them down, and being alone with a testosterone-fuelled human with hard-on is pretty terrifying because the consequences can turn horrifying. If you want to know what such men can be like when women don't submit and they have basic anonymity? Check out the internet.
So be the gentleman, always make sure the ladies you proposition can politely turn you down without fear.
If nothing else, realize this - if you cold proposition a woman on her own, she may feel that it isn't a 'request' and you may end up inadvertently raping or sexually assaulting someone if she says OK out of fear. I doubt you'd be prosecuted for such a rape, but morally you'd be a rapist. Play on the safe side, always give girls an out.
I'm glad to see you have corrected your argument from it's previously incorrect position.
They don't define "unwanted sexual contact." For example, Bora Zivkovic had a habit of hugging women, some of whom didn't enjoy it. That is literally an "unwanted sexual contact." It may be creepy, unpleasant or inappropriate, and it should (and did) stop. But it's not rape.
This study is about unwanted sexual contact, not rape. If you don't know what unwanted sexual contact means, take a course. Hint, pressing your body up against an unwilling partner is unwanted sexual contact.
This study doesn't distinguish between unwanted hugging and forcible rape, and it doesn't break down the 26% figure into more or less violent forms of unwanted sexual contact. It doesn't even give the number of violent rapes.
Aww, does it not discuss legitimate rape? It's a study about sexual assault.
If you have an unknown number of unwanted huggings, at one end of the spectrum, and an unknown number of violent rapes, at the other end of the spectrum, then that's a big grey area.
Not if you are looking at rates of sexual assault. In which case, it's exactly what you were looking for.
I'd like to see a better-quality study.
You're free to fund one, or if you think you can do better - perform it yourself.
If you don't want to look like a creep - ask the girl to your room around witnesses (they don't have to hear, just as long as you make it feel safe for her to refuse). Waiting until your alone in a confined space, if not harassing, is very bad manners to the point of being ungentlemanly. Don't do that, guys.
"Have you ever experienced physical sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent at an anthropological field site? (If you have had more than one experience, the most notable to you.)"
Is the question about sexual assault.
The grey areas are overwhelmed by the black and white areas. If you feel there are too many grey areas, talk to your manager about getting on a course to help you.
Psychotic=violent is not a myth. It may not be the absolute rule, but it is far from being a myth, and the suggestion that it is reeks of dishonesty.
The equals sign makes it absolute. One equals the other. They are the same. That's as absolute as you can get. There is an increased chance of violence in psychotics and it is considerable but the equation tars me with a brush unfairly.
This would be like instead of saying 'If you are black, there is an increased chance you are involved in crime' {in the USA, presumably a function of poverty and entrenched gang culture etc} but instead saying "All black people are criminals".
It's unfair and its harmful. Please stop it.
You may believe you are non-threatening; however, this is your perspective, the perspective of someone who is admittedly psychotic.
Totally non-threatening. I only kill secretive government spies who are trying to assassinate me. Either that or I've only ever been the victim of violence (a lot), not the perpetrator.
If anything, Hollywood (at least within the last 20 years) has been very good to psychotics.
Like what? Twelve Monkeys? Beautiful Mind? Donnie Darko? They're the most positive ones I can think of.
Even on crime shows like America's "Law & Order" series, violent psychopaths are made more well-rounded
Also, we'd appreciate it if you didn't conflate psychosis with {violent} psychopathy. Really, please never do this again.
. The question I would be curious about is, what percentage of schizophrenics ultimately commit violent acts during an episode
Until you learn the answer to this question please stop saying psychotics are inherently violent. Thank you.
Well - they make you feel a little sluggish, and quite drowsy for about 8 hours (more at higher doses) after they kick in (so don't take them for breakfast if you have plans), but not depressed. It is possible to feel despair because of your chronic condition and the prospect of long term sluggishness I suppose but
Schizophrenics who seek help often do so for anxiety and depression rather than psychosis. There is often a history of these issues predating medication, but not always.
It's not just Hollywood, it's everywhere. The psychotic=violent myth is in every media that has discussed the issue. Newspapers only mention schizophrenia if someone was hurt, furthering the association in people's minds. My current employer refused to let me work without supervision because I had advised them I have had psychotic episodes and am undergoing treatment until I gave them a psych's letter telling them they were being morons (small and new business, so I forgave and educated instead).
Not really, it just demonstrates your ignorance (due to, presumably, where you live). The Open University courses involve tutorials as well as day schools and other social learning experiences as well as the distance learning (which used to involve TV broadcasts in the early hours of the morning but now involve sending people DVDs and books and providing a website for accessing other materials).
Given this notion is planned for US markets - your suggestion is de facto abolition of parole.
Tagging a parolee to keep them within a certain area, or to make sure they don't stay out too late... not such a bad idea. Worried they might go around shooting guns? Maybe don't let them out yet.
Fit the microphones with accelerometers, fit accelerometers with cell phones, fit the cell phones with guns, and fit guns with police. Everyone's a winner.
So they realize that Microphones are a lot cheaper than wrist bands and Guns tend to make a loud noise when used right?
Wow a chartered accountant that makes money from selling climate skeptic books and being a professional climate skeptic said it? And he published it as a 'paper'? In a paper published by a climate change denying think tank who has tried its best to hide the source of funding despite being legally obligated to reveal it, where the owners lied and said it mostly many private individuals donating when a review later revealed only 1% of their funding came from such a source? Good lord! That's Scientifimifical! On those kinds of grounds, sign me up to whatever they are selling - it must be totally accurate! Totally beyond any reasonable doubt.
It isn't a paper, it's commentary at best, but looks more like a blog post to me. Valid or not, it doesn't demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt, I'm afraid to inform you.
A) Correlational studies are considered exactly as they should be - showing correlations not causations. This is important when, for instance, you are trying to figure out what parts of a complex system might have what influences on final results. They point the way towards more dedicated research to learn causation.
B) Confirmation bias is a term coined by psychologist Peter Wason. Its study is the purvue of psychology. Incorrect interpretations are not the result of mixing correlation and causation but because the subject matter is very very complex, ethics prohibiting many potential experiments outright, and the understanding of the connections between evidences (reflexes, behaviour, brain activity etc)., are still ideas in their infancy.
C) Qualitative research practically requires the researcher provide their own reflections on how their perspective has influenced their interpretations. Quantitative research doesn't any more than in any other field.
D) The issues with ecological validity are discussed at length by psychologists with regards to their results. Ethics, and general difficulty in isolating variables in natural ways, result in this. However, this leads to increased tentativity in psychological perspectives, rather than an arrogant ignorance of these facts as you imply.
E) Psychologists are tentative about the general applicability of limited studies, although this has not always been historically the case.
F) Most science experiments are for commercial gain, and most results are never made public. Psychology is not alone along with economics here. I worked at a bio-lab for a while, we did dozens of science experiments a day on plastics to be used in bone replacements and associated medical things. They didn't tell anyone about what they learned about the properties of certain polymers, they sold the results of what they learned.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't suggest you do that.
I suggested you made sure there were people around, not necessarily within earshot.
Do you think walking up to strange women when they are alone with no prospect of immediate help around and propositioning them for sex is polite?
It is perfectly logical to call a tomato a vegetable. Because it is a vegetable (culinarily speaking). It's also a fruit (botanically speaking).
Ah, 'some "feminists"'. They're always up to no good those 'some "feminists"'.
First, we're talking cold propositions here. The kind of proposition where there has been no previous conversation/flirtation etc.
Second, I didn't suggest doing it so others can overhear - indeed I pointed this out. Just so that they can see what's going on - or at the very least the lady you are propositioning has an easy way to get to witnesses (so avoid metal cages suspended in the air, for example).
This is because some men are gigantic assholes who, when it is safe for them to do so, get aggressive at 'bitches' that turn them down, and being alone with a testosterone-fuelled human with hard-on is pretty terrifying because the consequences can turn horrifying. If you want to know what such men can be like when women don't submit and they have basic anonymity? Check out the internet.
So be the gentleman, always make sure the ladies you proposition can politely turn you down without fear.
If nothing else, realize this - if you cold proposition a woman on her own, she may feel that it isn't a 'request' and you may end up inadvertently raping or sexually assaulting someone if she says OK out of fear. I doubt you'd be prosecuted for such a rape, but morally you'd be a rapist. Play on the safe side, always give girls an out.
I'm glad to see you have corrected your argument from it's previously incorrect position.
They don't define "unwanted sexual contact." For example, Bora Zivkovic had a habit of hugging women, some of whom didn't enjoy it. That is literally an "unwanted sexual contact." It may be creepy, unpleasant or inappropriate, and it should (and did) stop. But it's not rape.
This study is about unwanted sexual contact, not rape. If you don't know what unwanted sexual contact means, take a course. Hint, pressing your body up against an unwilling partner is unwanted sexual contact.
This study doesn't distinguish between unwanted hugging and forcible rape, and it doesn't break down the 26% figure into more or less violent forms of unwanted sexual contact. It doesn't even give the number of violent rapes.
Aww, does it not discuss legitimate rape? It's a study about sexual assault.
If you have an unknown number of unwanted huggings, at one end of the spectrum, and an unknown number of violent rapes, at the other end of the spectrum, then that's a big grey area.
Not if you are looking at rates of sexual assault. In which case, it's exactly what you were looking for.
I'd like to see a better-quality study.
You're free to fund one, or if you think you can do better - perform it yourself.
They used this definition: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types...
If you are engaging in sexual banter in the workplace and it is making even one of your colleagues uncomfortable you should stop.
And whether that man thinks being persistent will win her over eventually.
If you don't want to look like a creep - ask the girl to your room around witnesses (they don't have to hear, just as long as you make it feel safe for her to refuse). Waiting until your alone in a confined space, if not harassing, is very bad manners to the point of being ungentlemanly. Don't do that, guys.
You should read the study, not the article about the study, if you are going to criticize it. The thing you quoted was about harassment, not assault.
http://www.plosone.org/article...
"Have you ever experienced physical sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent at an anthropological field site? (If you have had more than one experience, the most notable to you.)"
Is the question about sexual assault.
The grey areas are overwhelmed by the black and white areas. If you feel there are too many grey areas, talk to your manager about getting on a course to help you.
Psychotic=violent is not a myth. It may not be the absolute rule, but it is far from being a myth, and the suggestion that it is reeks of dishonesty.
The equals sign makes it absolute. One equals the other. They are the same. That's as absolute as you can get. There is an increased chance of violence in psychotics and it is considerable but the equation tars me with a brush unfairly.
This would be like instead of saying 'If you are black, there is an increased chance you are involved in crime' {in the USA, presumably a function of poverty and entrenched gang culture etc} but instead saying "All black people are criminals".
It's unfair and its harmful. Please stop it.
You may believe you are non-threatening; however, this is your perspective, the perspective of someone who is admittedly psychotic.
Totally non-threatening. I only kill secretive government spies who are trying to assassinate me. Either that or I've only ever been the victim of violence (a lot), not the perpetrator.
If anything, Hollywood (at least within the last 20 years) has been very good to psychotics.
Like what? Twelve Monkeys? Beautiful Mind? Donnie Darko? They're the most positive ones I can think of.
Even on crime shows like America's "Law & Order" series, violent psychopaths are made more well-rounded
Also, we'd appreciate it if you didn't conflate psychosis with {violent} psychopathy. Really, please never do this again.
. The question I would be curious about is, what percentage of schizophrenics ultimately commit violent acts during an episode
Until you learn the answer to this question please stop saying psychotics are inherently violent. Thank you.
Since Greek is taken, maybe we could replace the clumsy literal PC English with Latin? "I have Schismentis and so do I?"
Well - they make you feel a little sluggish, and quite drowsy for about 8 hours (more at higher doses) after they kick in (so don't take them for breakfast if you have plans), but not depressed. It is possible to feel despair because of your chronic condition and the prospect of long term sluggishness I suppose but
Schizophrenics who seek help often do so for anxiety and depression rather than psychosis. There is often a history of these issues predating medication, but not always.
It's not just Hollywood, it's everywhere. The psychotic=violent myth is in every media that has discussed the issue. Newspapers only mention schizophrenia if someone was hurt, furthering the association in people's minds. My current employer refused to let me work without supervision because I had advised them I have had psychotic episodes and am undergoing treatment until I gave them a psych's letter telling them they were being morons (small and new business, so I forgave and educated instead).
AKA Dissociative identity disorder. There is a slight comorbidity between the conditions, but depression and anxiety are also comorbid.
If we ever get to the point where we're getting over 500,000 cases of Ebola every year, but are only seeing 2000 deaths a week, then we'll talk.
What are the statistics for native born American citizens who travel to the Far East?
Not really, it just demonstrates your ignorance (due to, presumably, where you live). The Open University courses involve tutorials as well as day schools and other social learning experiences as well as the distance learning (which used to involve TV broadcasts in the early hours of the morning but now involve sending people DVDs and books and providing a website for accessing other materials).
Given this notion is planned for US markets - your suggestion is de facto abolition of parole.
Tagging a parolee to keep them within a certain area, or to make sure they don't stay out too late... not such a bad idea. Worried they might go around shooting guns? Maybe don't let them out yet.
Indeed - but also add driverless cars into the tech mix and suddenly 90% of grievances against the police probably disappear!
Right - but shooting someone with a non-DoC-issued firearm is a crime!
Fit the microphones with accelerometers, fit accelerometers with cell phones, fit the cell phones with guns, and fit guns with police. Everyone's a winner.
So they realize that Microphones are a lot cheaper than wrist bands and Guns tend to make a loud noise when used right?
Wow a chartered accountant that makes money from selling climate skeptic books and being a professional climate skeptic said it? And he published it as a 'paper'? In a paper published by a climate change denying think tank who has tried its best to hide the source of funding despite being legally obligated to reveal it, where the owners lied and said it mostly many private individuals donating when a review later revealed only 1% of their funding came from such a source? Good lord! That's Scientifimifical! On those kinds of grounds, sign me up to whatever they are selling - it must be totally accurate! Totally beyond any reasonable doubt.
It isn't a paper, it's commentary at best, but looks more like a blog post to me. Valid or not, it doesn't demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt, I'm afraid to inform you.
A) Correlational studies are considered exactly as they should be - showing correlations not causations. This is important when, for instance, you are trying to figure out what parts of a complex system might have what influences on final results. They point the way towards more dedicated research to learn causation.
B) Confirmation bias is a term coined by psychologist Peter Wason. Its study is the purvue of psychology. Incorrect interpretations are not the result of mixing correlation and causation but because the subject matter is very very complex, ethics prohibiting many potential experiments outright, and the understanding of the connections between evidences (reflexes, behaviour, brain activity etc)., are still ideas in their infancy.
C) Qualitative research practically requires the researcher provide their own reflections on how their perspective has influenced their interpretations. Quantitative research doesn't any more than in any other field.
D) The issues with ecological validity are discussed at length by psychologists with regards to their results. Ethics, and general difficulty in isolating variables in natural ways, result in this. However, this leads to increased tentativity in psychological perspectives, rather than an arrogant ignorance of these facts as you imply.
E) Psychologists are tentative about the general applicability of limited studies, although this has not always been historically the case.
F) Most science experiments are for commercial gain, and most results are never made public. Psychology is not alone along with economics here. I worked at a bio-lab for a while, we did dozens of science experiments a day on plastics to be used in bone replacements and associated medical things. They didn't tell anyone about what they learned about the properties of certain polymers, they sold the results of what they learned.
Of course Popper considered 'verification' as pseudoscience, and preferred falsification tests as truly scientific {I am simplifying}.
Unfortunately, merely claiming you are right and the consensus are fools can make you quite famous and net you book deals (and lots of TV interviews).