It would be easy to think that the government is just over-reacting to this swine flu, and they might be (that was my first impression), but it is better to over-react than to under-react and end up with a huge world-wide influenza epidemic such as occurred in 1918. Making the public slightly paranoid can help prevent the spread of the flu.
That is very true. Just like healthcare there or in Canada, the people are paying for it, just in different ways than we do in America (not that we have internet access that is that fast available to the general public here in America). I'm not saying one method ("socialism" versus "free market") is better than another in this case, that's a different discussion, I'm just supporting what the parent poster said - that they do pay more than $11 a month for it!
Thanks for posting that. I'm a "right-winger" and can't stand all these stupid teleprompter jokes/comments attacking Pres. Obama.
However, your statement about the right-wing trying "to pretend Obama is as dumb as Bush" begs the question. Actually, it doesn't beg the question, it's simply wrong. Pres. Bush's IQ is around 120, or about the 90th %ile (at least based on his college admissions test scores). That means he's more intelligent than 90% of the U.S. population. I'm not making that number up. Even articles unabashedly anti-Bush (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article634182.ece) report that number (I linked to that article to back my assertion but as someone who gives IQ tests regularly and has researched intelligence, most of that article is complete bunk).
Pres. Bush likely is not as intelligent and Pres. Obama but Pres. Bush is in no way dumb.
Au contraire! The exact opposite is true. Sen. Stevens is not (legally) guilty. What you meant to say is that "this doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong." Our court system still stands on the belief of innocence until proven guilt. His guilt was not proven, so he is innocent.
He might have done no wrong too; we don't know. We don't have all the facts and can't say for sure (or at least beyond reasonable doubt) that he is guilty so, according to our legal system, he is innocent
I'm not defending Sen. Stevens but I am defending our legal system. For all its flaws (there are many), it is the best legal system in the world. Maybe that's not saying much but for the most part, it works.
Your comment was actually the point of my post (I was being a bit sarcastic). The 5 second delay isn't very useful. It would be useful on occasion, but in general the best thing to do is edit your emails.
"The experiment was a success. It proved that their theory was invalid within the constraints and parameters that were defined."
Yeah, that's what I try to tell my reviewers when some of my research ends up with a null result. "Even though this doesn't look like much, it's actually really important because....":)
A few seconds to re-read my email? Clearly, you've never read one of my emails. Reading one is like embarking on an Antarctic voyage - you better be prepared for a considerable time investment. Each email is crafted with loving care; each word and phrase is selected carefully and softly caressed onto the virtual page. It takes much more than a few seconds to re-read and edit one of my emails.:)
That extra 5 seconds on top of any editing might just save someone's life some day, or at least a penguin's life.
Not at all. Believing in free will has nothing to do with believing in some form of God; they are completely separate issues. All I said (or at least meant to say) is that modern science is founded on the philosophical assumptions (theory, viewpoint, belief, etc.) of materialism, naturalism, and empiricism. There are other philosophical underpinnings but those are major ones. Materialism assumes determinism. Determinism is mechanistic and denies free will. Now, there are some variations of what people call determinism that allow free will but they are not really deterministic any more. Because determinism is assumed, you can't really study free will because it's like studying the null. It's basically saying and doing:
Free will doesn't exist.
I'm going to use methods that assume that free will doesn't exist.
Conduct free will research that shows free will does not exist.
Therefore, free will does not exist.
Your arguments are interesting but you still assume determinism and mechanism of our material world. That's fine; that's your belief (assumption) but my assumption is the philosophical concept of monism. This is a bit like a grand unifying theory in physics, it incorporates both materialism and nonmaterialism. With this assumption, materials have mechanistic qualities but are not bound by determinism. There is room for free will. One problem with your post (and I thought it was good - you raised some great questions) is that you assume only determinism, which influences your interpretation and your arguments. I assume a monistic approach so I am biased away from pure determinism.
You are correct in that it require some level of intelligence. However, the level of intelligence is very basic. To us as humans it doesn't even look like intelligence because our notion of intelligence is largely based on IQ or similar theories. Actually, in science we don't even have a good agreement of what intelligence is - we have no idea. We have a particular idea of what intelligence is while at the same time we have no idea what intelligence is. Scientists have no idea what causes intelligence. We just don't know.
I'd like to understand why you think this idea is (or could be) disturbing. What's disturbing about it?
Except the problem with the whole illusion of free will theory (I've read the neuroscience research that argues it) is that it is based on using scientific methods that assume determinism (I won't get into a whole philosophy of science discussion here - it's too involved; so my brevity will have to suffice) to begin with. All of that science investigating free will is problematic because free will lies outside of the underlying assumptions of the scientific methods researchers use to study free will. [Anyone confused now?]. It's just the wrong method to investigate the question of free will. It's hard to assume determinism and get free will as a result.
The question has broad relevance beyond religion. Philosophers debate it endlessly. It has large implications for all science. If basic particles have free will then that is something we can't completely control for in physics or chemistry (free will goes beyond this bit of uncertainty though; randomness is not "insanity" as you said, it's more akin to chaos; under the chaos there is still structure and rules). Granted, the free will of an electron likely doesn't have large effects (assuming it's true) on a macro level but it could have some effects. Now, the mathematicians aren't saying electrons and other basic particles are intelligent, they just have free will.
In psychology, this the question of free will is important because it can change how a psychologist views abnormal behavior (and even normal behavior). It can change how psychotherapy is conducted. A lot of people don't think about the philosophical theory underlying science but this discussion of free will is not just for religion, it affects all science for you can take a deterministic approach to science or you can take a non-deterministic (e.g., free will) approach.
One last thing, you show a free will bias (at least non-deterministic bias) in your post: "Our actions ought to progress lawfully and predicatably [sic] from the programming that we've built into our minds" (emphasis added). That's using non-deterministic language to explain determinism. Most people just assume free will while most science assumes determinism. However, even the scientists usually assume free will in their day to day life (there are some who don't but they are rare). That's the funny thing. Science usually assumes determinism but people in general have a strong - innate you could say - bias towards non-determinism and free will.
Thanks for clarifying that catharsis is an ancient belief. It was just re-popularized by the psychodynamic school of psychologists.
Your last sentences illustrate the problem perfectly. We have anecdotal (and even research) evidence both ways (although the research tends to lean away from [violence] catharsis as real or beneficial). That actually gets back to the whole violence in video games or other media question. It may not lead to you personally being more violent or even more aggressive but it might affect someone else more strongly. The hard thing though is we can't ever say it has no effect on us. Who knows what years of playing violent games (or watching violent movies) does to us? We can't serve as a control group for ourselves (i.e., both watch and not watch violent games/movies over a number of years and then compare the number and levels of violent/aggressive acts). That's why I try to limit my exposure to violence. I play TF2 and other FPS games. I play Metal Gear Solid and watch violent shows but there are levels of violence (and attitudes towards violence). For example, Saving Private Ryan is very violent and very graphic but the violence is not glorified; whereas with movies like Saw or Friday the 13th, the violence is glorified. The same goes for games. GTA4 is all about senseless (glorifies violence) - there are a lot of games like that; TF2 is like that too.
My first statement was a little strong (that catharsis is a myth) only because there isn't good research evidence to support it and I spend much of my time doing psychology research so I like good supporting evidence.:) As I wrote above, I just think we should be more careful consumers of violence, especially since we live in a country with many children growing up in single-parent homes, spending a lot of time largely unsupervised. Having a father in the home is correlated with less violent and anti-social or delinquent behaviors in the children. Many kids turn out just fine growing up in single-parent homes but many don't. Violent games and movies especially don't help when parents are not able to provide (for whatever reason) the good parenting kids need.
Sorry, I should have included the caveat of aggressive or violent catharsis is a myth (or at least there is no good evidence that supports it). Catharsis can apply to broader "release" behaviors.
First, catharsis was a term invented by psychodynamicists (like Freud), whose theories were not based on good research and generally have not been supported by any psychology research. They used the term to refer to built-up unconscious conflict between id and superego. So, catharsis was a term created to explain a psychological construct (i.e., unconscious conflict) that just has not been verified by any research.
Further, if catharsis (of aggressive behaviors) was true, then research showing increases in aggressive feelings/behaviors after watching or participating in aggressive or violent behaviors would not be true.
Here are some references (ask and ye shall receive): TRANSMISSION OF AGGRESSION THROUGH IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS by Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila A. Ross (1961) Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
Bushman, B.J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame?
Bohart, A.C. (1980). Toward a cognitive theory of catharsis. Psychotherapy: Theory Research & Practice, 17, 192-201.
Jemmer, P. (2006). Abreaction - catharsis: Stirring dull roots with spring rain. European Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 7(1), 26-36.
If we want to take a strong ethological/evolutionary perspective, we are wired for preservation of the self and our progeny. This does not necessarily include violence. We do have natural aggressive tendencies but aggression != violence. In any case, that's why I said violence is largely learned. Yes, we have natural tendencies towards aggression (and probably even violence) but violence is a social behavior (you can be violent towards yourself but that behavior is relatively rare) and is facilitated socially.
You spout off the arguments Malthus used many years ago about overpopulation. His predictions have been wrong for a couple hundred years so far. We don't need to limit population growth, we just need to encourage technological innovation and better use of natural resources. We also need a lot of younger people to help support the aged population. So yes, we do need to increase the world's population.
"I guess Utah Mormon is a bit of a different breed than Mormons from almost everywhere else."
Being Mormon, growing up outside of Utah, and having lived in 4 different states, including Utah, I can't wait until I can move back to Utah. Utah Mormons are no different than Mormons elsewhere - there are just more Mormons per capita so you end up with a few bad seeds, just like you do in every group of people. I've never met nicer people than I have in Utah.
Utah certainly isn't for everyone, although the Salt Lake valley is now less than 50% Mormon; there are 49 other states and many other countries for you to choose to live in! Yay for choices.:)
Ah, but what if those 3 players would not have otherwise killed cops?
Catharsis is a myth; no research supports it. All we've ever learned from psychology research about violence is that it is largely a learned behavior. Kids will learn it mainly from family and friends but they also learn violence from strangers, TV, movies, music, and games. Now, violent media may not explain a lot of the variance in violent behaviors but it is completely naive to say that it does not have an affect. There are some people who can drink alcohol and never become alcoholic; there are others who try alcohol once and become alcoholic very quickly. It's the same with violence. Just because violent games may not generally lead to increased rates of violence in a society, does not mean that they don't for some people.
I'm not calling for a censorship of violent games. I'm not even sure I like this legislation (I'd have to read the full bill to form a good opinion) and I'm certainly not in favor of a government doing the parenting that parents should do but kids don't need to be playing some of the games that they play.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be easy to think that the government is just over-reacting to this swine flu, and they might be (that was my first impression), but it is better to over-react than to under-react and end up with a huge world-wide influenza epidemic such as occurred in 1918. Making the public slightly paranoid can help prevent the spread of the flu.
No. Al Gore did. Pres. Obama just gets the credit just like other people received the credit for "the internet." ;)
That is very true. Just like healthcare there or in Canada, the people are paying for it, just in different ways than we do in America (not that we have internet access that is that fast available to the general public here in America). I'm not saying one method ("socialism" versus "free market") is better than another in this case, that's a different discussion, I'm just supporting what the parent poster said - that they do pay more than $11 a month for it!
Thanks for posting that. I'm a "right-winger" and can't stand all these stupid teleprompter jokes/comments attacking Pres. Obama.
However, your statement about the right-wing trying "to pretend Obama is as dumb as Bush" begs the question. Actually, it doesn't beg the question, it's simply wrong. Pres. Bush's IQ is around 120, or about the 90th %ile (at least based on his college admissions test scores). That means he's more intelligent than 90% of the U.S. population. I'm not making that number up. Even articles unabashedly anti-Bush (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article634182.ece) report that number (I linked to that article to back my assertion but as someone who gives IQ tests regularly and has researched intelligence, most of that article is complete bunk).
Pres. Bush likely is not as intelligent and Pres. Obama but Pres. Bush is in no way dumb.
Why is it the Bush road? He didn't build the road. He simply followed the same road predecessors started.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up "Insightful." You hit the nail on the head.
Au contraire! The exact opposite is true. Sen. Stevens is not (legally) guilty. What you meant to say is that "this doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong." Our court system still stands on the belief of innocence until proven guilt. His guilt was not proven, so he is innocent.
He might have done no wrong too; we don't know. We don't have all the facts and can't say for sure (or at least beyond reasonable doubt) that he is guilty so, according to our legal system, he is innocent
I'm not defending Sen. Stevens but I am defending our legal system. For all its flaws (there are many), it is the best legal system in the world. Maybe that's not saying much but for the most part, it works.
Your comment was actually the point of my post (I was being a bit sarcastic). The 5 second delay isn't very useful. It would be useful on occasion, but in general the best thing to do is edit your emails.
I do like the 5 second email delay though.
I know. That's why if I get a null result I start my spin machine to argue why it's important to publish the research.
"The experiment was a success. It proved that their theory was invalid within the constraints and parameters that were defined."
:)
Yeah, that's what I try to tell my reviewers when some of my research ends up with a null result. "Even though this doesn't look like much, it's actually really important because...."
Great! Now we have all of this carbon being converted into methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas. ;) Chalk up another win for science!
[Yes, I'm saying all of this tongue-in-cheek].
A few seconds to re-read my email? Clearly, you've never read one of my emails. Reading one is like embarking on an Antarctic voyage - you better be prepared for a considerable time investment. Each email is crafted with loving care; each word and phrase is selected carefully and softly caressed onto the virtual page. It takes much more than a few seconds to re-read and edit one of my emails. :)
That extra 5 seconds on top of any editing might just save someone's life some day, or at least a penguin's life.
Your arguments are interesting but you still assume determinism and mechanism of our material world. That's fine; that's your belief (assumption) but my assumption is the philosophical concept of monism. This is a bit like a grand unifying theory in physics, it incorporates both materialism and nonmaterialism. With this assumption, materials have mechanistic qualities but are not bound by determinism. There is room for free will. One problem with your post (and I thought it was good - you raised some great questions) is that you assume only determinism, which influences your interpretation and your arguments. I assume a monistic approach so I am biased away from pure determinism.
My wife doesn't know that (she wouldn't care anyway). That's at least one person who doesn't know. ;)
You are correct in that it require some level of intelligence. However, the level of intelligence is very basic. To us as humans it doesn't even look like intelligence because our notion of intelligence is largely based on IQ or similar theories. Actually, in science we don't even have a good agreement of what intelligence is - we have no idea. We have a particular idea of what intelligence is while at the same time we have no idea what intelligence is. Scientists have no idea what causes intelligence. We just don't know.
I'd like to understand why you think this idea is (or could be) disturbing. What's disturbing about it?
Except the problem with the whole illusion of free will theory (I've read the neuroscience research that argues it) is that it is based on using scientific methods that assume determinism (I won't get into a whole philosophy of science discussion here - it's too involved; so my brevity will have to suffice) to begin with. All of that science investigating free will is problematic because free will lies outside of the underlying assumptions of the scientific methods researchers use to study free will. [Anyone confused now?]. It's just the wrong method to investigate the question of free will. It's hard to assume determinism and get free will as a result.
The question has broad relevance beyond religion. Philosophers debate it endlessly. It has large implications for all science. If basic particles have free will then that is something we can't completely control for in physics or chemistry (free will goes beyond this bit of uncertainty though; randomness is not "insanity" as you said, it's more akin to chaos; under the chaos there is still structure and rules). Granted, the free will of an electron likely doesn't have large effects (assuming it's true) on a macro level but it could have some effects. Now, the mathematicians aren't saying electrons and other basic particles are intelligent, they just have free will.
In psychology, this the question of free will is important because it can change how a psychologist views abnormal behavior (and even normal behavior). It can change how psychotherapy is conducted. A lot of people don't think about the philosophical theory underlying science but this discussion of free will is not just for religion, it affects all science for you can take a deterministic approach to science or you can take a non-deterministic (e.g., free will) approach.
One last thing, you show a free will bias (at least non-deterministic bias) in your post: "Our actions ought to progress lawfully and predicatably [sic] from the programming that we've built into our minds" (emphasis added). That's using non-deterministic language to explain determinism. Most people just assume free will while most science assumes determinism. However, even the scientists usually assume free will in their day to day life (there are some who don't but they are rare). That's the funny thing. Science usually assumes determinism but people in general have a strong - innate you could say - bias towards non-determinism and free will.
Thanks for clarifying that catharsis is an ancient belief. It was just re-popularized by the psychodynamic school of psychologists.
:) As I wrote above, I just think we should be more careful consumers of violence, especially since we live in a country with many children growing up in single-parent homes, spending a lot of time largely unsupervised. Having a father in the home is correlated with less violent and anti-social or delinquent behaviors in the children. Many kids turn out just fine growing up in single-parent homes but many don't. Violent games and movies especially don't help when parents are not able to provide (for whatever reason) the good parenting kids need.
Your last sentences illustrate the problem perfectly. We have anecdotal (and even research) evidence both ways (although the research tends to lean away from [violence] catharsis as real or beneficial). That actually gets back to the whole violence in video games or other media question. It may not lead to you personally being more violent or even more aggressive but it might affect someone else more strongly. The hard thing though is we can't ever say it has no effect on us. Who knows what years of playing violent games (or watching violent movies) does to us? We can't serve as a control group for ourselves (i.e., both watch and not watch violent games/movies over a number of years and then compare the number and levels of violent/aggressive acts). That's why I try to limit my exposure to violence. I play TF2 and other FPS games. I play Metal Gear Solid and watch violent shows but there are levels of violence (and attitudes towards violence). For example, Saving Private Ryan is very violent and very graphic but the violence is not glorified; whereas with movies like Saw or Friday the 13th, the violence is glorified. The same goes for games. GTA4 is all about senseless (glorifies violence) - there are a lot of games like that; TF2 is like that too.
My first statement was a little strong (that catharsis is a myth) only because there isn't good research evidence to support it and I spend much of my time doing psychology research so I like good supporting evidence.
Sorry, I should have included the caveat of aggressive or violent catharsis is a myth (or at least there is no good evidence that supports it). Catharsis can apply to broader "release" behaviors.
:)
First, catharsis was a term invented by psychodynamicists (like Freud), whose theories were not based on good research and generally have not been supported by any psychology research. They used the term to refer to built-up unconscious conflict between id and superego. So, catharsis was a term created to explain a psychological construct (i.e., unconscious conflict) that just has not been verified by any research.
Further, if catharsis (of aggressive behaviors) was true, then research showing increases in aggressive feelings/behaviors after watching or participating in aggressive or violent behaviors would not be true.
Here are some references (ask and ye shall receive): TRANSMISSION OF AGGRESSION THROUGH IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS by Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila A. Ross (1961) Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
Bushman, B.J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame?
Bohart, A.C. (1980). Toward a cognitive theory of catharsis. Psychotherapy: Theory Research & Practice, 17, 192-201.
Jemmer, P. (2006). Abreaction - catharsis: Stirring dull roots with spring rain. European Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 7(1), 26-36.
I hope this helps.
If we want to take a strong ethological/evolutionary perspective, we are wired for preservation of the self and our progeny. This does not necessarily include violence. We do have natural aggressive tendencies but aggression != violence. In any case, that's why I said violence is largely learned. Yes, we have natural tendencies towards aggression (and probably even violence) but violence is a social behavior (you can be violent towards yourself but that behavior is relatively rare) and is facilitated socially.
Oops, "does not have an affect" should read "effect." Man, that's embarrassing!
You spout off the arguments Malthus used many years ago about overpopulation. His predictions have been wrong for a couple hundred years so far. We don't need to limit population growth, we just need to encourage technological innovation and better use of natural resources. We also need a lot of younger people to help support the aged population. So yes, we do need to increase the world's population.
"I guess Utah Mormon is a bit of a different breed than Mormons from almost everywhere else."
:)
Being Mormon, growing up outside of Utah, and having lived in 4 different states, including Utah, I can't wait until I can move back to Utah. Utah Mormons are no different than Mormons elsewhere - there are just more Mormons per capita so you end up with a few bad seeds, just like you do in every group of people. I've never met nicer people than I have in Utah.
Utah certainly isn't for everyone, although the Salt Lake valley is now less than 50% Mormon; there are 49 other states and many other countries for you to choose to live in! Yay for choices.
Ah, but what if those 3 players would not have otherwise killed cops?
Catharsis is a myth; no research supports it. All we've ever learned from psychology research about violence is that it is largely a learned behavior. Kids will learn it mainly from family and friends but they also learn violence from strangers, TV, movies, music, and games. Now, violent media may not explain a lot of the variance in violent behaviors but it is completely naive to say that it does not have an affect. There are some people who can drink alcohol and never become alcoholic; there are others who try alcohol once and become alcoholic very quickly. It's the same with violence. Just because violent games may not generally lead to increased rates of violence in a society, does not mean that they don't for some people.
I'm not calling for a censorship of violent games. I'm not even sure I like this legislation (I'd have to read the full bill to form a good opinion) and I'm certainly not in favor of a government doing the parenting that parents should do but kids don't need to be playing some of the games that they play.
One word: Keynes.
I don't agree with Keynes but the spending - even pork like this - is based on Keynes' theories.