Social proof is the tendency to believe what most people believe.
Identifying a few people who believe a proposition, and encouraging them to go public (especially repeatedly) creates the impression that lots of people are experiencing something real. Repeated affirmations create the impression that the assertion is true.
It may matter little that the expert is the only one in the universe with that opinion, if he or she is the only one whose opinions we often hear.
Politicians are persuaded to join in unfounded but politically advantageous rhetoric.
If a popular actor, media figure, politician, or local hero joins the process, more people will endorse the perceived reality.
Vivid examples -- especially dramatic case histories -- often influence judgments more than dull but more accurate quantitative examples.
Inviting the single child with a birth defect to the town hall meeting may overwhelm the fact that there are fewer birth defects in the neighborhood than in most similar residential areas.
Manipulators strive to divorce us from the facts rather than encouraging us to examine the evidence and reasoning of people who appear to disagree with us, they block communications and openly or indirectly try to persuade us that people who disagree with their views are dishonest, not trustworthy, incompetent, biased, racist, only concerned with money, insulting our intelligence, corrupt, betrayers of the American dream, and so on.
The subtext is: "Do not consider alternative points of view. Do what we tell you, without realizing that we are controlling you."
Like cult leaders, manipulators encourage us to close ranks and form an in-group suspicious of those who question the party line.
People tend to assume that the sensational represent reality.
Interpretations of behaviors, and applications of treatments, may be done in an arrogant unjustified way because of an underlying mentalism.
If the recipient disagrees or does not change, they may be labeled as "non-compliant" "uncooperative" or "treatment-resistant".
This is despite the fact that it may be due to inadequate understanding of the person or his/her problems, medication adverse effects, a poor match between the treatment and the person's lifestyle, stigma associated with the treatment, difficulty with access, cultural unacceptability or many other issues.
Mentalism may lead people to assume that a person isn't aware of what they're doing and that there is no point trying to communicate with them, despite the fact that they may well have a level of awareness and desire to connect even if they are acting in a seemingly irrational or self-harming way.
In addition, mental health clinicians tend to equate subduing a person with treatment; a quiet client who causes no community disturbance is deemed "improved" no matter how miserable or incapacitated that person may feel as a result.
Clinicians may blame clients for not being sufficiently motivated to work on treatment goals, or as "acting out" when their own goals are not supported. It is argued, however, that in the majority of cases this is actually due to the client having been treated in a disrespectful, judgmental, or dismissive manner.
Such mentalist behavior may again be justifed by blaming the person as having been demanding, angry or "needing limits", but it is argued that power-sharing can nevertheless be cultivated and that when respectful communication breaks down, the first thing that needs to be asked is whether mentalist prejudices have been expressed.
With all of the recent biomedical advances, a controversy has arisen that is closely related to the neurodiversity movement.
The commonality of genetic counseling before or during pregnancy may create a choice between a “normal” child and a “disabled” one.
Although this is not outright eugenics-style elimination of a segment of the population, this could result in a hushed, "backdoor" form of eugenics in which parents are able to choose whether to bear a child with a disability.
In a utilitarian society, there is no choice: disabled people are undeniably “more costly and less productive.”
Sympathetic parents also worry that a disabled child would be subject to social isolation and limited opportunities.
Whether a choice about disability status should be made based on any grounds is debated between supporters of the biomedical perspective and supporters of neurodiversity.
Supporters of the biomedical perspective believe that citizens have the responsibility to improve the health and welfare of their societies.
Embryo selection has been proposed as a way to improve the health of society.
Since those with so-called “low-functioning” autism are a drain on resources and may not be able to enjoy a “normal” life, genetic screening could be used as a preventative measure.
On the other hand, supporters of neurodiversity see embryo selection as a threat to their way of life and even a personal attack, perceiving that proponents of genetic screening would rather neurodiverse people had not been born.
Neurodiversity activists see the tendency toward embryo selection as a devaluation of those with autism and related conditions.
Genetic screening is on the rise with parents-to-be. People with disabilities already fear they will be increasingly economically, socially, and politically marginalized due to this potential move to eliminate disabilities from the population.
...based on the phenomena of gamers who can be great at a specific game through merely being the most active person playing said game thus proving that the praise for determination is, was and always be overrated
Tonight I tried to teach my son a lesson about life, but again, he taught me the lesson:
My son has been in MMA (Blended Kenpo) for 8 months and he still hasn’t earned his first belt.
His instructor is tough and expects a lot.
My son is close to earning his first belt, he has the moves down, and when I asked his teacher if he was ready to test, the teacher replied, “he still needs to learn the the Stack and Guard Pass.”
I was surprised, because the kids who had just earned belts didn’t know the Stack and Guard Pass.
So why is it different for my son?
I thought it wasn’t fair that he had to learn a move that others didn’t.
I decided it was a opportunity to teach him that life isn’t fair.
So at the dinner table tonight, I said, “you have to learn a move that other kids didn’t, just to earn the same belt, and I know that it isn’t fair. But that’s too bad, because sometimes life isn’t fair. If you want the belt, you’ll have to learn it anyway.”
My son replied, “You’re right dad. It isn’t fair… to those other kids.”
I said, “No, it’s not fair to you.”
He said, “No dad, it isn’t fair to them, because I get to learn more than them.“
To voluntarily entrust one's data, one's livelihood and one's sanity to hardware or software intended to destroy all three. In earlier days, virgins were often selected to beta test volcanos.
People keep getting disturbed by the juxtaposition of "violence" with sex, but think about it. This isn't Hostel.
There isn't really any violence directly between human beings.
The violence by human beings against human beings is mediated through automobiles.
Many of the interactions between human beings are mediated by cars, or take place in cars.
This isn't really a film about violence and sex, but about technology and how it's affecting how we communicate.
Take this screwed up thread. What the anonymity of the internet does to human interactions is well-documented, in literature and here in this post.
The internet didn't exist at the time the novel was written, but Ballard was sensitive to the sliding nature of human interaction as a result of technology, and cars were a suitable means for communicating his ideas.
It doesn't sound like you have any social problems.
If you didn't fit in in junior high or high school or otherwise got picked on, I would say stay the hell away from the military.
It'll be just like school, except much more brutal and incessant.
If you can fit in with jocks and assholes (no offense, just stereotyping so anon understands what I mean), then the military will be fine.
I was in the Marines (the worst branch), infantry (yeah...don't ask about that, long story, I was going to be an officer but I lost all respect for the Corps and finished my contract quick & clean), and I fucking lost it.
It's not like you can just join up, go to battle, do your job, do something good, and make lifelong pals.
That's just recruiting bullshit.
You're surrounded by the same human cancers you had in high school; they'll fuck with you everyday, nonstop, if you're the slightest bit different.
I'm unsure how to read you, OP.
The Marines are full of drunkards, criminals, drug-users, and guys who like to get into random fights.
Not saying that's you, just saying; those are the people in there.
If you decide to join, go Air Force.
Only Air Force.
They're the only ones that could be said that they take care of their people, and you have no clue what that means to be taken care of vs being hardcore, squared away, and good to go.
It means they recognize you as a person, instead of using you as a punching bag for their own ego, or seeing you as a problem that's getting in the way.
I was very good at my job (of killing people...ha, I know) but I was sneaky about it instead of loud and proud enough to bound down streets in plain view.
So I racked up a lot of stealth kills but not "manly" kills. So thus they fucked with me severely for not being a macho football player...that makes no sense.
This causes the child to look at certain situations in a negative way, causing the child to become frustrated.
When the individual becomes frustrated from a humiliating experience from the past, the individual then choose vulnerable outlets for their aggression (Singer and Hensley, 2004).]]]
The child learns to expect humiliation or a negative situation from the past, which then causes frustration or aggression.
Case Examples:
Ed Gein was humiliated early in his life and later turned his aggression out on others. Gein was controlled by his mother, and rejected by his father as a child, and was often abused (Hale, 1993).
Ted Bundy chose his victims based on the resemblance to a former girlfriend who had broken their marriage engagement (Hale, 1993).
David Berkowitz had a sense of rejection stemmed from being adopted, and it was said he felt rejected and humiliated by the world.
In this case, Berkowitz turned to fire starting the vent his frustration as a child.
Later in his life, Berkowitz obtained a sexual transmitted disease which created more hatred for women, which he would later turn to kill random women (Fishman, 2006)6.
In all of these instances the serial killer was presented with some form of humiliation as a child, and learned to vent their anger through aggression.
More importantly, money serves as a unit by which to measure the value of all goods and services in an economy.
By creating a standard unit of economic measure, we can easily compare the value of different goods and services.
Using money as a measurement, we can have a pretty good idea how much our labor is worth, and what it will cost us to buy food, clothing, building materials, fuel, and anything else — and it is relatively easy to compare the value of each of these, and manage our budgets accordingly.
Without money, however, we would be stuck with a barter system.
For a chicken farmer who wants to build a new barn, he would have to know how many eggs he needs to trade for lumber.
And that will be different for different lumbermen according to their need for eggs or who they might know who would want to trade eggs for something else they want.
How many eggs is a pound of nails worth?
How many pounds of nails would it take to buy a car?
How many cars would you need to trade for a house?
How many pounds of beef could you buy with your piano?
Without money as a standard unit of measurement, the barter system can be rather capricious, and the value of goods and services might vary wildly depending on what each trader needs at that moment, and how perishable the commodities are.
Maybe one board is worth two dozen eggs to the lumber man, and the egg farmer is willing to pay it.
But say the farmer needs five-hundred boards; that means he would have to trade a thousand dozen eggs for the lumber to build his barn.
Can he get a thousand dozen eggs together all at once?
And even if he can, what is a lumber man going to do with a thousand dozen eggs?
If he doesn’t need them, he certainly wouldn’t trade for them!
And so this touches back on the use of money as a medium of exchange, but it also leads to the third purpose of money.
And even when currency was printed, it was not actually money.
For instance, most printed currency in the United States was merely a note that was redeemable for gold or silver (called "specie").
The gold and silver was legal tender — that is gold and silver was actually money.
Currency was merely a note that was intended to represent the specie.
From time to time, governments have issued paper currency without backing it with any commodity.
The revolutionary colonies printed "Continentals", and during the American War Between the States, the U.S. printed "Greenbacks."
But for most of this country’s history (and indeed the long history of civilization), most legal tender has been in the form of gold, silver, copper or other coin, or measured by metal bullion.
We started to see a momentous shift by large banking interests to create a system of fiat money.
In 1934, when the federal government confiscated all privately-held gold in the United States, the value of the U.S. dollar was defined in terms of gold, being 0.048379... troy ounces of gold per dollar (or $20.67 per troy ounce of gold).
Even after this, and up until 1972, the value of the dollar was defined by law in terms of gold.
But after a half-century of money-manipulation, the bankers finally got their way, and the value of the U.S. Dollar was allowed to be determined by other means.
-------------------------
Back up about 200 years.
-------------------------
The statesmen of the young United States realized the dangers of fiat currency.
They saw the value of the "Continentals" printed during the American War for Independence evaporate in short order.
For this reason, when they drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they specified that no state shall make anything but gold or silver legal tender.
Furthermore, they vested the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof specifically in Congress—and up to 1913, Congress exercised this power without much problem.
Then they created the Federal Reserve, and the power to regulate the value of money began to shift from Congress to this banking cartel.
I call the Federal Reserve a banking cartel, because that is what it is.
It is a quasi-public entity, chartered by Congress with certain duties and responsibilities, which has been granted a monopoly on managing the money supply in the United States.
But it didn’t happen all at once, because at the time it was created, gold and silver were still legal tender, and U.S. treasury notes were still redeemable for specie at a fixed value.
It took the crisis of the Great Depression to allow the confiscation of all privately-held gold in the country and replace it with fiat currency, Federal Reserve Notes, which is what we have today. (This is a subject worth a very thick book.)
If I owe money to someone, and inflation occurs, when I end up paying that money back, it is worth less than when I first borrowed it, and may be easier to get.
But then of course, there is interest, and the lender must be assiduous to make sure the interest is enough to ensure a profit after considering inflation.
And if dollars are worth less in the future, that means I’ll have to make sure whatever line of work I am or whatever products I produce, my income at least keeps up with inflation, if I am to pay back that loan, the interest, and come out ahead.
When you buy or sell anything, the IRS makes you determine your capital gains by subtracting the base value from the gross sale price (and perhaps subtracting other associated costs).
Let’s use an example: say Mr. and Mrs. Peterson bought a house in 1970 for $35,000 and they sold it in 2000 for $155,000.
Their profit, for tax purposes, was $120,000.
At a 15% tax rate, they owe $18,000 in capital gains taxes.
But what did the value of the dollar do in those 30 years?
Well, there are a number of things you might compare: the consumer price index, average annual wages, the value of a commodity like silver or gold, etc.
Let’s just use the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index.
It says that $35,000 in 1970 dollars would be equivalent to about $155,000 in 2000 Dollars.
So, if the dollar lost so much value that it takes $155,000 in 2000 to buy the same amount of goods and services as $35,000 in 1970, what was Mr. and Mrs. Peterson’s actual profit?
What they had to sell and work for the buy the house in 1970 is actually equal to what they would have to sell and work for to by the same house in 2000!
Realizing the inflation of the Dollar, there was no actual profit!
But to the IRS, Mr. and Mrs. Peterson owe $18,000 in taxes (in 2000 Dollars). And so there’s one example of how inflationary policy favors government tax collection at the expense of tax payers.
When the money supply grows faster than the aggregate of all the goods and services in an economy, the result is inflation.
But when new money is printed, the person who spends the money first gets to enjoy the value of that cash before the general value of the currency decreases. And so who is it that usually spends that money first? Banks.
Those who borrow new money from banks. Government. Contractors who are paid by the government.
These are the folks who realize an advantage by spending the new money before inflation occurs from the increased money supply.
And there is a third class of people who benefit from a monetary policy that allows the value of money to fluctuate: banks and money-traders.
As I will explain with an allegory, while over the long-term tendency is for inflation to devalue fiat currency, in the short-term the value of a given currency might go up and down.
This allows for clever traders to capitalize on these exchange differences, acquire when the exchange is down, and trade when it goes up, and pocket the difference.
Such trading activity does nothing to add value to the money, nor does it create any wealth or contribute in any positive way to economic prosperity.
But it is a simple way to make a profit, and a small percentage of this exchanged money is continually skimmed by the banks and other money-changers.
Communal reinforcement is a social phenomenon in which a concept or idea is repeatedly asserted in a community, regardless of whether sufficient empirical evidence has been presented to support it.
Over time, the concept or idea is reinforced to become a strong belief in many people's minds, and may be regarded by the members of the community as fact.
Often, the concept or idea may be further reinforced by publications in the mass media, books, or other means of communication.
The phrase "millions of people can't all be wrong" is indicative of the common tendency to accept a communally reinforced idea without question, which often aids in the widespread acceptance of urban legends, myths, and rumors.
Communal reinforcement works both for true and false concepts or ideas, making the communal reinforcement of an idea independent of its truth value.
Therefore, the fact that many people in a given community believe a certain thing is not indicative of its truth or falsehood, for just as a false concept or idea can be accepted as fact in a community via communal reinforcement, so can a true concept or idea.
Communal reinforcement can be seen as a positive force in society if it reinforces a concept or idea which is true or beneficial to society, such as the discouragement of driving under the influence. Conversely, it can be seen as a negative force if it reinforces a concept or idea which is untrue or harmful to society, such as the avoidance of bathing in Medieval Europe. ~Skeptic's Dictionary
The ideomotor effect is a psychological phenomenon wherein a subject makes motions unconsciously. As in reflexive responses to pain, the body sometimes reacts reflexively to ideas alone without the person consciously deciding to take action. For instance, tears are produced by the body unconsciously in reaction to the emotion of sadness.
Running a company was a lot like running a ranch in the Old West:
Back then a rancher could not count on the judicial system to protect his interests ...so he had to enlist his own hired guns to protect his property.
If a rancher was weak or had no stomach for a fight, rustlers would steal his cattle and tougher ranchers would take his range.
Likewise, if we had no stomach for a fight, our software would be stolen, our trademarks would be infringed, and our savings would be taken by customers claiming harm from our products.
If we did not use our hired guns (our attorneys), our judicial system would not protect our interests. We were fast becoming a company with deep pockets, and we had to be willing to fight to prevent people from emptying them.
I was not ready to believe the attorneys at the time. I was still too young and too idealistic.
Unfortunately, what they were telling me was true.
Even if a successful company is fair and honest in every one of its business dealings, there will be a few lawsuits.
The only way to avoid them is to stay unsuccessful and keep your pockets empty. As soon as you have something worth having, there will be someone else who will try to take it.
In social psychology, reciprocity refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, and responding to a negative action with another negative one. Positive reciprocal actions differ from altruistic actions as those only follow from other positive actions and they differ from social gift giving in that those are not actions taken with the hope or expectation of future positive responses.
Another form of reciprocity is moral reciprocity. Moral reciprocity refers to the general tendency of humans (and, some argue, other animals) to reciprocate both assistance and harm in relation to the subjective interpretation of that assistance or harm as moral or immoral. For example, neoclassical economics holds that rational individuals will only engage in actions that maximize their material gains. Researchers believe that moral reciprocity may be the reason why many individuals are willing to pay a price considered to be irrationally large (within the framework of neoclassical economics) to punish others they believe have acted immorally.
Reinforcement is another name for the outcomes of our behavior.
Reinforcement value refers to the desirability of these outcomes.
Things we want to happen, that we are attracted to, have a high reinforcement value.
Things we don't want to happen, that we wish to avoid, have a low reinforcement value.
If the likelihood of achieving reinforcement is the same, we will exhibit the behavior with the greatest reinforcement value (i.e., the one directed toward the outcome we prefer most).
As with expectancy, reinforcement value is subjective, meaning that the same event or experience can vastly differ in desirability, depending on the individual's life experience.
Punishment from a parent would be negatively reinforcing to most children, and something to be avoided. However, children who get little positive attention from parents can seek out parental punishment because it has a higher reinforcement value than neglect.
The least amount of reinforcement that still has a positive value is known as the minimal goal. If people achieve an outcome that equals or exceeds their minimal goal, they will feel that they have succeeded. When the level of reinforcement falls below an individual's minimal goal, that reinforcement feels like failure.
People differ in their minimal goals. Thus, the same outcome may represent success to one person (with a lower minimal goal) while it feels like failure to another person (with a higher minimal goal).
Sex and nudity in movies have failed to generate ticket sales in Hollywood, says a report.
The report titled Sex Doesn't Sell -- Nor Impress! is authored by Dean Keith Simonton and Anemone Cerridwen. The authors, who examined more than 900 films released between 2001 and 2005, indicated that virtually all the top-grossing films that came out during that period had little or no sex or nudity, reports imdb.com.
"Sex did not sell, whether in the domestic or international box office, and even after controlling for MPAA Motion Picture Association of America rating," said Simonton, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis.
Added Cerridwen: "In other words, even among R rated movies, less graphic sex is better."
Cerridwen also said that the study evolved from a personal experience while she was taking an acting class and became concerned about the sexual content of the scripts she was viewing.
"I assumed sex sold and wanted to know by how much. I braced myself for the worst, and got quite the surprise."
She is also hoping that the study will influence Hollywood producers.
"I do believe that there are a fair number of people in the film industry who want to make better films, and this study may give them some ammunition," said Cerridwen.
Many people think that the placebo effect is "all in the head," but that is no more true than that people's physiological responses to what they think is alcohol or a drug are only in their head. People can be conditioned "to respond to placebos through repeated administrations of active drugs" ~Skeptic's Dictionary
Krauss, a professor of physics, argues in the December 3, 2005, issue of New Scientist that misusing the word theory plays into the hands of creationists.
Morrison, an astrobiologist, argues in the November/December 2005 issue of Skeptical Inquirer that to debate "the theory of evolution" is a trap that benefits creationists.
Similar quibbles have arisen regarding the word believe.
Also, parapsychologist Dean Radin chafes at the word belief when applied to his beliefs about the reality of psi.
To him, having overwhelming evidence for a position means you don't have to say you believe. Faith requires belief, parapsychology doesn't.
It does seem awkward to speak of believing in electricity or believing in gravity especially when one considers that people talk about believing that God is three persons in one being or of believing that Mary was a virgin and the mother of God.
The word "belief" is quite elastic and covers a vast range of options.
Unfortunately, so does the word "theory".
Krauss doesn't think string theory should be called a theory but a model or a paradigm, even though he admits that "the string enterprise has produced a very impressive body of theoretical work."
Krauss also thinks it's "incorrect" to refer to inflationary theory in cosmology. We should speak of the inflationary paradigm when we "describe the hypothesized growth of the universe soon after it began." Krauss writes:
Maintaining this semantic distinction is not merely contentious nitpicking.
A key part of the argument made by those who wish to introduce religion into science classes is that evolution is "just a theory".
By "theory" these individuals are referring to the common lay usage of the word, meaning a hunch or a guess, and not the more restrictive sense in which the term is normally discussed in science....When debating the nature of science with advocates of intelligent design, I am frequently confronted with the claim that string theory is no more scientific than intelligent design.
"Because it is not the number of tasks we are constantly doing that reduces our efficiency but rather the number of things splitting our focus that confuses us to what we want to be doing."
By editing out certain ideas, adding some in etc, one can manipulate a person's train of thought, and over time, push them in a certain direction for whatever purpose necessary. An example would be not mentioning the Vatican and organized religions role in the New World Order, in order to shield them, and deflect blame onto other parties, like the Zionists (which they hope will expand into outright hating against Jews) ~Some forum user's comment on Alex Jones
In a “disorganized” crime, the victim isn’t chosen logically.
She’s seemingly picked at random and “blitz-attacked,” not stalked and coerced.
The killer might grab a steak knife from the kitchen and leave the knife behind.
The crime is so sloppily executed that the victim often has a chance to fight back.
“Moreover, the disorganized killer has no idea or interest in the personality of the victim”
Ressler writes in “Whoever Fights Monsters.”
“He does not want to know who they are, and many times take steps to obliterate their personalities by quickly knocking them unconscious or covering their faces or otherwise disfiguring them.”
Comments by foolness
foolness commented on the word Propaganda
"Every movie is technically propaganda, it just depends on what the themes are."
>>>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/propa.html
Social proof is the tendency to believe what most people believe.
Identifying a few people who believe a proposition, and encouraging them to go public (especially repeatedly) creates the impression that lots of people are experiencing something real. Repeated affirmations create the impression that the assertion is true.
Appeals to authority
It may matter little that the expert is the only one in the universe with that opinion, if he or she is the only one whose opinions we often hear.
Politicians are persuaded to join in unfounded but politically advantageous rhetoric.
If a popular actor, media figure, politician, or local hero joins the process, more people will endorse the perceived reality.
Vivid examples -- especially dramatic case histories -- often influence judgments more than dull but more accurate quantitative examples.
Inviting the single child with a birth defect to the town hall meeting may overwhelm the fact that there are fewer birth defects in the neighborhood than in most similar residential areas.
Manipulators strive to divorce us from the facts rather than encouraging us to examine the evidence and reasoning of people who appear to disagree with us, they block communications and openly or indirectly try to persuade us that people who disagree with their views are dishonest, not trustworthy, incompetent, biased, racist, only concerned with money, insulting our intelligence, corrupt, betrayers of the American dream, and so on.
The subtext is: "Do not consider alternative points of view. Do what we tell you, without realizing that we are controlling you."
Like cult leaders, manipulators encourage us to close ranks and form an in-group suspicious of those who question the party line.
People tend to assume that the sensational represent reality.
Multiple chemical sensitivity and Gulf War syndrome are prime examples.
The existence of a name does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding real event.
However, spurious allegations may appear plausible if associated with common symptoms. of human existence, especially if depicted by an expert.
Another misleading technique is the use of categorical terms that lead away from a more reassuring (and more reasonable) quantitative reality.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the art of letting the other party have things your way. ~Daniele Vare
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Quiet Client
------------------------------------------------------------------
A quiet client who causes no community disturbance is deemed "improved" no matter how miserable or incapacitated that person may feel as a result.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalism_(discrimination)
Interpretations of behaviors, and applications of treatments, may be done in an arrogant unjustified way because of an underlying mentalism.
If the recipient disagrees or does not change, they may be labeled as "non-compliant" "uncooperative" or "treatment-resistant".
This is despite the fact that it may be due to inadequate understanding of the person or his/her problems, medication adverse effects, a poor match between the treatment and the person's lifestyle, stigma associated with the treatment, difficulty with access, cultural unacceptability or many other issues.
Mentalism may lead people to assume that a person isn't aware of what they're doing and that there is no point trying to communicate with them, despite the fact that they may well have a level of awareness and desire to connect even if they are acting in a seemingly irrational or self-harming way.
In addition, mental health clinicians tend to equate subduing a person with treatment; a quiet client who causes no community disturbance is deemed "improved" no matter how miserable or incapacitated that person may feel as a result.
Clinicians may blame clients for not being sufficiently motivated to work on treatment goals, or as "acting out" when their own goals are not supported. It is argued, however, that in the majority of cases this is actually due to the client having been treated in a disrespectful, judgmental, or dismissive manner.
Such mentalist behavior may again be justifed by blaming the person as having been demanding, angry or "needing limits", but it is argued that power-sharing can nevertheless be cultivated and that when respectful communication breaks down, the first thing that needs to be asked is whether mentalist prejudices have been expressed.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Backdoor Eugenics
With all of the recent biomedical advances, a controversy has arisen that is closely related to the neurodiversity movement.
The commonality of genetic counseling before or during pregnancy may create a choice between a “normal” child and a “disabled” one.
Although this is not outright eugenics-style elimination of a segment of the population, this could result in a hushed, "backdoor" form of eugenics in which parents are able to choose whether to bear a child with a disability.
In a utilitarian society, there is no choice: disabled people are undeniably “more costly and less productive.”
Sympathetic parents also worry that a disabled child would be subject to social isolation and limited opportunities.
Whether a choice about disability status should be made based on any grounds is debated between supporters of the biomedical perspective and supporters of neurodiversity.
Supporters of the biomedical perspective believe that citizens have the responsibility to improve the health and welfare of their societies.
Embryo selection has been proposed as a way to improve the health of society.
Since those with so-called “low-functioning” autism are a drain on resources and may not be able to enjoy a “normal” life, genetic screening could be used as a preventative measure.
On the other hand, supporters of neurodiversity see embryo selection as a threat to their way of life and even a personal attack, perceiving that proponents of genetic screening would rather neurodiverse people had not been born.
Neurodiversity activists see the tendency toward embryo selection as a devaluation of those with autism and related conditions.
Genetic screening is on the rise with parents-to-be. People with disabilities already fear they will be increasingly economically, socially, and politically marginalized due to this potential move to eliminate disabilities from the population.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Grinding
word replacement for practice
...based on the phenomena of gamers who can be great at a specific game through merely being the most active person playing said game thus proving that the praise for determination is, was and always be overrated
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Opportunities
Tonight I tried to teach my son a lesson about life, but again, he taught me the lesson:
My son has been in MMA (Blended Kenpo) for 8 months and he still hasn’t earned his first belt.
His instructor is tough and expects a lot.
My son is close to earning his first belt, he has the moves down, and when I asked his teacher if he was ready to test, the teacher replied, “he still needs to learn the the Stack and Guard Pass.”
I was surprised, because the kids who had just earned belts didn’t know the Stack and Guard Pass.
So why is it different for my son?
I thought it wasn’t fair that he had to learn a move that others didn’t.
I decided it was a opportunity to teach him that life isn’t fair.
So at the dinner table tonight, I said, “you have to learn a move that other kids didn’t, just to earn the same belt, and I know that it isn’t fair. But that’s too bad, because sometimes life isn’t fair. If you want the belt, you’ll have to learn it anyway.”
My son replied, “You’re right dad. It isn’t fair… to those other kids.”
I said, “No, it’s not fair to you.”
He said, “No dad, it isn’t fair to them, because I get to learn more than them.“
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Wisdom
True wisdom is applied wisdom.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Wisdom
He who lives without folly is less wise than he believes.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Politics in Science
Science is very political.
You have a shrinking amount of funds for research spread out amongst more researchers.
The easy way to get money is to show there is a problem.
I have seen many ethical and scientific professors with rigorous standards belittled and attacked because they attack the status quo.
Doesn't matter if their methods are better or more correct because it will ruin people's reputations or livelihoods.
No one wants to admit that their life's work is a fraud and a sham so they have a vested interest in protecting their research.
Dissenters are attacked and they try to discredit them. The more childish the attacks the less tenable the position.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Beta Test
To voluntarily entrust one's data, one's livelihood and one's sanity to hardware or software intended to destroy all three. In earlier days, virgins were often selected to beta test volcanos.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Forum
One basic notion underlying forums is that it is a cooperative.
Having been on forums for years, I disagree with this. The basic notion underlying forums is the flame.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Violence
People keep getting disturbed by the juxtaposition of "violence" with sex, but think about it. This isn't Hostel.
There isn't really any violence directly between human beings.
The violence by human beings against human beings is mediated through automobiles.
Many of the interactions between human beings are mediated by cars, or take place in cars.
This isn't really a film about violence and sex, but about technology and how it's affecting how we communicate.
Take this screwed up thread. What the anonymity of the internet does to human interactions is well-documented, in literature and here in this post.
The internet didn't exist at the time the novel was written, but Ballard was sensitive to the sliding nature of human interaction as a result of technology, and cars were a suitable means for communicating his ideas.
~Crash (1996)
>>>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115964/board/flat/91135461?p=2
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Military
Anecdote from Anonib.com /hikki/
It doesn't sound like you have any social problems.
If you didn't fit in in junior high or high school or otherwise got picked on, I would say stay the hell away from the military.
It'll be just like school, except much more brutal and incessant.
If you can fit in with jocks and assholes (no offense, just stereotyping so anon understands what I mean), then the military will be fine.
I was in the Marines (the worst branch), infantry (yeah...don't ask about that, long story, I was going to be an officer but I lost all respect for the Corps and finished my contract quick & clean), and I fucking lost it.
It's not like you can just join up, go to battle, do your job, do something good, and make lifelong pals.
That's just recruiting bullshit.
You're surrounded by the same human cancers you had in high school; they'll fuck with you everyday, nonstop, if you're the slightest bit different.
I'm unsure how to read you, OP.
The Marines are full of drunkards, criminals, drug-users, and guys who like to get into random fights.
Not saying that's you, just saying; those are the people in there.
If you decide to join, go Air Force.
Only Air Force.
They're the only ones that could be said that they take care of their people, and you have no clue what that means to be taken care of vs being hardcore, squared away, and good to go.
It means they recognize you as a person, instead of using you as a punching bag for their own ego, or seeing you as a problem that's getting in the way.
I was very good at my job (of killing people...ha, I know) but I was sneaky about it instead of loud and proud enough to bound down streets in plain view.
So I racked up a lot of stealth kills but not "manly" kills. So thus they fucked with me severely for not being a macho football player...that makes no sense.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Depression
Nothing is ever as bad as it seems when you lose and never as good when you win.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Impossible
Impossible is daring to dream. ~Sci-Fi Channel
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Bliss
Darkness...Failure...Foolishness...Sadness
I'd rather overcome these and find the clues within them than live knowing I did decide to be covered in bliss.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Challenge
"Life may have no meaning, or, even worse, it may have a meaning of which you disapprove."
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word H.E.L.Lcomments
History
Experience
Life
Legacy
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word History
"Every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers." ~ Mignon Mclaughlin
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Suicide
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. ~Nietzsche
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Victory
If you live long enough, you'll see that every victory turns into a defeat.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Humiliation
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
-----------------------------------------
Serial Murder and Social Learning Theory
-----------------------------------------
Hale (1993) applied the social learning theory to serial murder using case studies.
The social learning theory suggests that people learn new behavior through punishment and rewards.
But the serial murderer goes through a different process because most children go through some sort of humiliation during their life.
A serial killer is often introduced to a humiliating experience, and cannot distinguish between a rewarding and non rewarding experience, which is part of the social learning theory.
This causes the child to look at certain situations in a negative way, causing the child to become frustrated.
When the individual becomes frustrated from a humiliating experience from the past, the individual then choose vulnerable outlets for their aggression (Singer and Hensley, 2004).]]]
--------
Anxiety
--------
The child learns to expect humiliation or a negative situation from the past, which then causes frustration or aggression.
Case Examples:
Ed Gein was humiliated early in his life and later turned his aggression out on others. Gein was controlled by his mother, and rejected by his father as a child, and was often abused (Hale, 1993).
Ted Bundy chose his victims based on the resemblance to a former girlfriend who had broken their marriage engagement (Hale, 1993).
David Berkowitz had a sense of rejection stemmed from being adopted, and it was said he felt rejected and humiliated by the world.
In this case, Berkowitz turned to fire starting the vent his frustration as a child.
Later in his life, Berkowitz obtained a sexual transmitted disease which created more hatred for women, which he would later turn to kill random women (Fishman, 2006)6.
In all of these instances the serial killer was presented with some form of humiliation as a child, and learned to vent their anger through aggression.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Friendship
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy,
...but it's very funny
Did you ever try buying them without money?
~Ogden Nash
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Life
Diogenes was asked,
"What is the difference between life and death?
"No difference."
"Well then, why do you remain in this life?"
"Because there is no difference."
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Life
What happens is not what life is all about.
What you do in reaction to what happens is what life is all about.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word States' Rights
Isn't it nice that people who prefer Los Angeles to San Francisco live there? ~ Herb Caen
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Currency
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7009.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Most people seem to treat money as if it were an object.
---------------------------------------------------------
...and for most people, money is an object:
...or to put it better: Acquiring money is an objective.
In reality, money should not be viewed as an object, but rather as a tool.
Money serves three main purposes:
*as a medium of exchange
*as a unit by which to measure economic value
*as a means by which to store wealth.
-------------------------------
Unit to Measure Economic Value
-------------------------------
More importantly, money serves as a unit by which to measure the value of all goods and services in an economy.
By creating a standard unit of economic measure, we can easily compare the value of different goods and services.
Using money as a measurement, we can have a pretty good idea how much our labor is worth, and what it will cost us to buy food, clothing, building materials, fuel, and anything else — and it is relatively easy to compare the value of each of these, and manage our budgets accordingly.
Without money, however, we would be stuck with a barter system.
For a chicken farmer who wants to build a new barn, he would have to know how many eggs he needs to trade for lumber.
And that will be different for different lumbermen according to their need for eggs or who they might know who would want to trade eggs for something else they want.
How many eggs is a pound of nails worth?
How many pounds of nails would it take to buy a car?
How many cars would you need to trade for a house?
How many pounds of beef could you buy with your piano?
Without money as a standard unit of measurement, the barter system can be rather capricious, and the value of goods and services might vary wildly depending on what each trader needs at that moment, and how perishable the commodities are.
Maybe one board is worth two dozen eggs to the lumber man, and the egg farmer is willing to pay it.
But say the farmer needs five-hundred boards; that means he would have to trade a thousand dozen eggs for the lumber to build his barn.
Can he get a thousand dozen eggs together all at once?
And even if he can, what is a lumber man going to do with a thousand dozen eggs?
If he doesn’t need them, he certainly wouldn’t trade for them!
And so this touches back on the use of money as a medium of exchange, but it also leads to the third purpose of money.
--------------------------------------------------------------
For most of human history, money has been coined, not printed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And even when currency was printed, it was not actually money.
For instance, most printed currency in the United States was merely a note that was redeemable for gold or silver (called "specie").
The gold and silver was legal tender — that is gold and silver was actually money.
Currency was merely a note that was intended to represent the specie.
From time to time, governments have issued paper currency without backing it with any commodity.
The revolutionary colonies printed "Continentals", and during the American War Between the States, the U.S. printed "Greenbacks."
But for most of this country’s history (and indeed the long history of civilization), most legal tender has been in the form of gold, silver, copper or other coin, or measured by metal bullion.
--------------------------------------------------
With the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913
--------------------------------------------------
We started to see a momentous shift by large banking interests to create a system of fiat money.
In 1934, when the federal government confiscated all privately-held gold in the United States, the value of the U.S. dollar was defined in terms of gold, being 0.048379... troy ounces of gold per dollar (or $20.67 per troy ounce of gold).
Even after this, and up until 1972, the value of the dollar was defined by law in terms of gold.
But after a half-century of money-manipulation, the bankers finally got their way, and the value of the U.S. Dollar was allowed to be determined by other means.
-------------------------
Back up about 200 years.
-------------------------
The statesmen of the young United States realized the dangers of fiat currency.
They saw the value of the "Continentals" printed during the American War for Independence evaporate in short order.
For this reason, when they drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they specified that no state shall make anything but gold or silver legal tender.
Furthermore, they vested the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof specifically in Congress—and up to 1913, Congress exercised this power without much problem.
Then they created the Federal Reserve, and the power to regulate the value of money began to shift from Congress to this banking cartel.
I call the Federal Reserve a banking cartel, because that is what it is.
It is a quasi-public entity, chartered by Congress with certain duties and responsibilities, which has been granted a monopoly on managing the money supply in the United States.
But it didn’t happen all at once, because at the time it was created, gold and silver were still legal tender, and U.S. treasury notes were still redeemable for specie at a fixed value.
It took the crisis of the Great Depression to allow the confiscation of all privately-held gold in the country and replace it with fiat currency, Federal Reserve Notes, which is what we have today. (This is a subject worth a very thick book.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
What is the value of the Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the value now fluctuates daily, hourly, by the second.
Money traders and banking houses now manipulate the value of currencies all over the world.
Since its inception, the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have created constant fluctuation.
But over time, it results in continual inflation: what $1 buys today would have cost less than 5-cents in 1913.
But except for a few periods of rampant inflation, this devaluation of the dollar has been relatively gradual, so maybe it isn’t such a big deal.
-----------------------------
Who is Favored by Inflation?
-----------------------------
Debtors
If I owe money to someone, and inflation occurs, when I end up paying that money back, it is worth less than when I first borrowed it, and may be easier to get.
But then of course, there is interest, and the lender must be assiduous to make sure the interest is enough to ensure a profit after considering inflation.
And if dollars are worth less in the future, that means I’ll have to make sure whatever line of work I am or whatever products I produce, my income at least keeps up with inflation, if I am to pay back that loan, the interest, and come out ahead.
IRS
When you buy or sell anything, the IRS makes you determine your capital gains by subtracting the base value from the gross sale price (and perhaps subtracting other associated costs).
Let’s use an example: say Mr. and Mrs. Peterson bought a house in 1970 for $35,000 and they sold it in 2000 for $155,000.
Their profit, for tax purposes, was $120,000.
At a 15% tax rate, they owe $18,000 in capital gains taxes.
But what did the value of the dollar do in those 30 years?
Well, there are a number of things you might compare: the consumer price index, average annual wages, the value of a commodity like silver or gold, etc.
Let’s just use the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index.
It says that $35,000 in 1970 dollars would be equivalent to about $155,000 in 2000 Dollars.
So, if the dollar lost so much value that it takes $155,000 in 2000 to buy the same amount of goods and services as $35,000 in 1970, what was Mr. and Mrs. Peterson’s actual profit?
What they had to sell and work for the buy the house in 1970 is actually equal to what they would have to sell and work for to by the same house in 2000!
Realizing the inflation of the Dollar, there was no actual profit!
But to the IRS, Mr. and Mrs. Peterson owe $18,000 in taxes (in 2000 Dollars). And so there’s one example of how inflationary policy favors government tax collection at the expense of tax payers.
The people who get to spend the new money first.
When the money supply grows faster than the aggregate of all the goods and services in an economy, the result is inflation.
But when new money is printed, the person who spends the money first gets to enjoy the value of that cash before the general value of the currency decreases. And so who is it that usually spends that money first? Banks.
Those who borrow new money from banks. Government. Contractors who are paid by the government.
These are the folks who realize an advantage by spending the new money before inflation occurs from the increased money supply.
And there is a third class of people who benefit from a monetary policy that allows the value of money to fluctuate: banks and money-traders.
As I will explain with an allegory, while over the long-term tendency is for inflation to devalue fiat currency, in the short-term the value of a given currency might go up and down.
This allows for clever traders to capitalize on these exchange differences, acquire when the exchange is down, and trade when it goes up, and pocket the difference.
Such trading activity does nothing to add value to the money, nor does it create any wealth or contribute in any positive way to economic prosperity.
But it is a simple way to make a profit, and a small percentage of this exchanged money is continually skimmed by the banks and other money-changers.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Communal Reinforcement
Communal reinforcement is a social phenomenon in which a concept or idea is repeatedly asserted in a community, regardless of whether sufficient empirical evidence has been presented to support it.
Over time, the concept or idea is reinforced to become a strong belief in many people's minds, and may be regarded by the members of the community as fact.
Often, the concept or idea may be further reinforced by publications in the mass media, books, or other means of communication.
The phrase "millions of people can't all be wrong" is indicative of the common tendency to accept a communally reinforced idea without question, which often aids in the widespread acceptance of urban legends, myths, and rumors.
Communal reinforcement works both for true and false concepts or ideas, making the communal reinforcement of an idea independent of its truth value.
Therefore, the fact that many people in a given community believe a certain thing is not indicative of its truth or falsehood, for just as a false concept or idea can be accepted as fact in a community via communal reinforcement, so can a true concept or idea.
Communal reinforcement can be seen as a positive force in society if it reinforces a concept or idea which is true or beneficial to society, such as the discouragement of driving under the influence. Conversely, it can be seen as a negative force if it reinforces a concept or idea which is untrue or harmful to society, such as the avoidance of bathing in Medieval Europe. ~Skeptic's Dictionary
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Immortality
Game: Descent into Darkness (Battle for Wesnoth campaign)
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Immortality
Game: Immortal Defense
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Freedom
Freedom would not be so difficult to attain were prison not so sweet. ~Diogenes
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Lust
They don't have to be beautiful, just fuckable.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Statistics
It helps to think of things statistically.
Every time you roll the dice, every side has a 16.6% chance.
Each roll is a new event, each event resets the %-chance,
...because statistics doesn't remember the last die roll.
The fact stands.
How many people don't ask questions or don't better themselves because they think its stupid or too late?
Quite a hell of a lot.
Its never too late to do anything, at least you've done it, and others didn't make the effort.
If you don't get a job, brush it off; it means you were one of 30 other people who got the boot.
Numbers, guys, numbers.
That's all life is.
Failure is nothing.
Your past is nothing.
You know who you are today,
You know who you want to be,
That's all that matters.
You can make amends with yourself.
We live in an ocean of people, an ocean of statistics & probabilities.
Ever seen someone who got their GED when they were 40?
At least they did it, dammit!
Why would anyone make fun of them?
Because they're assholes, that's why.
Compare yourself to yourself,
Keep track of your own progress rather than looking for that elusive magic moment that's always brought fail and misery.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Ideomotor Effect
The ideomotor effect is a psychological phenomenon wherein a subject makes motions unconsciously. As in reflexive responses to pain, the body sometimes reacts reflexively to ideas alone without the person consciously deciding to take action. For instance, tears are produced by the body unconsciously in reaction to the emotion of sadness.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Love
The biological motivator to go all-in despite being harmful to one's existence.
>>>Outer Limits S106 - The Man Who Was Never Born
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Love
One can live without someone they love but not without someone they need.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Lawsuit
Running a company was a lot like running a ranch in the Old West:
Back then a rancher could not count on the judicial system to protect his interests ...so he had to enlist his own hired guns to protect his property.
If a rancher was weak or had no stomach for a fight, rustlers would steal his cattle and tougher ranchers would take his range.
Likewise, if we had no stomach for a fight, our software would be stolen, our trademarks would be infringed, and our savings would be taken by customers claiming harm from our products.
If we did not use our hired guns (our attorneys), our judicial system would not protect our interests. We were fast becoming a company with deep pockets, and we had to be willing to fight to prevent people from emptying them.
I was not ready to believe the attorneys at the time. I was still too young and too idealistic.
Unfortunately, what they were telling me was true.
Even if a successful company is fair and honest in every one of its business dealings, there will be a few lawsuits.
The only way to avoid them is to stay unsuccessful and keep your pockets empty. As soon as you have something worth having, there will be someone else who will try to take it.
Almost Perfect: http://www.wordplace.com/ap/index.shtml
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Disease
When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Reciprocation
Wikipedia:
In social psychology, reciprocity refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, and responding to a negative action with another negative one. Positive reciprocal actions differ from altruistic actions as those only follow from other positive actions and they differ from social gift giving in that those are not actions taken with the hope or expectation of future positive responses.
Moral reciprocity
Another form of reciprocity is moral reciprocity. Moral reciprocity refers to the general tendency of humans (and, some argue, other animals) to reciprocate both assistance and harm in relation to the subjective interpretation of that assistance or harm as moral or immoral. For example, neoclassical economics holds that rational individuals will only engage in actions that maximize their material gains. Researchers believe that moral reciprocity may be the reason why many individuals are willing to pay a price considered to be irrationally large (within the framework of neoclassical economics) to punish others they believe have acted immorally.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Retreat Pulling
antonym of progress pushing
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Reinforcement Value
Reinforcement is another name for the outcomes of our behavior.
Reinforcement value refers to the desirability of these outcomes.
Things we want to happen, that we are attracted to, have a high reinforcement value.
Things we don't want to happen, that we wish to avoid, have a low reinforcement value.
If the likelihood of achieving reinforcement is the same, we will exhibit the behavior with the greatest reinforcement value (i.e., the one directed toward the outcome we prefer most).
As with expectancy, reinforcement value is subjective, meaning that the same event or experience can vastly differ in desirability, depending on the individual's life experience.
Punishment from a parent would be negatively reinforcing to most children, and something to be avoided. However, children who get little positive attention from parents can seek out parental punishment because it has a higher reinforcement value than neglect.
The least amount of reinforcement that still has a positive value is known as the minimal goal. If people achieve an outcome that equals or exceeds their minimal goal, they will feel that they have succeeded. When the level of reinforcement falls below an individual's minimal goal, that reinforcement feels like failure.
People differ in their minimal goals. Thus, the same outcome may represent success to one person (with a lower minimal goal) while it feels like failure to another person (with a higher minimal goal).
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Sex Doesn't Sell
Sex and nudity in movies have failed to generate ticket sales in Hollywood, says a report.
The report titled Sex Doesn't Sell -- Nor Impress! is authored by Dean Keith Simonton and Anemone Cerridwen. The authors, who examined more than 900 films released between 2001 and 2005, indicated that virtually all the top-grossing films that came out during that period had little or no sex or nudity, reports imdb.com.
"Sex did not sell, whether in the domestic or international box office, and even after controlling for MPAA Motion Picture Association of America rating," said Simonton, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis.
Added Cerridwen: "In other words, even among R rated movies, less graphic sex is better."
Cerridwen also said that the study evolved from a personal experience while she was taking an acting class and became concerned about the sexual content of the scripts she was viewing.
"I assumed sex sold and wanted to know by how much. I braced myself for the worst, and got quite the surprise."
She is also hoping that the study will influence Hollywood producers.
"I do believe that there are a fair number of people in the film industry who want to make better films, and this study may give them some ammunition," said Cerridwen.
http://sify.com/movies/fullstory.php?id=14925606
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Reactive Thinking
word replacement for positive thinking
Be The Hero (book)
Ask "What would the hero do?" and learn what actions you should take.
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Polish
word replacement for edit
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Placebo
Many people think that the placebo effect is "all in the head," but that is no more true than that people's physiological responses to what they think is alcohol or a drug are only in their head. People can be conditioned "to respond to placebos through repeated administrations of active drugs" ~Skeptic's Dictionary
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Paradigm
word replacement for Theory
Skeptic's Dictionary:
Two recent articles address this issue:
David Morrison's "Only a Theory? Framing the Evolution/Creation Issue"
Lawrence Krauss's "Mind your language."
Krauss, a professor of physics, argues in the December 3, 2005, issue of New Scientist that misusing the word theory plays into the hands of creationists.
Morrison, an astrobiologist, argues in the November/December 2005 issue of Skeptical Inquirer that to debate "the theory of evolution" is a trap that benefits creationists.
Similar quibbles have arisen regarding the word believe.
Eugenie Scott has argued, according to Krauss, that we shouldn't use the word "believe" in a scientific context because it blurs the distinction between science and religion.
Also, parapsychologist Dean Radin chafes at the word belief when applied to his beliefs about the reality of psi.
To him, having overwhelming evidence for a position means you don't have to say you believe. Faith requires belief, parapsychology doesn't.
It does seem awkward to speak of believing in electricity or believing in gravity especially when one considers that people talk about believing that God is three persons in one being or of believing that Mary was a virgin and the mother of God.
The word "belief" is quite elastic and covers a vast range of options.
Unfortunately, so does the word "theory".
Krauss doesn't think string theory should be called a theory but a model or a paradigm, even though he admits that "the string enterprise has produced a very impressive body of theoretical work."
Krauss would like us to restrict our use of 'theory' in science to what is "a logically coherent and predictive system that has been tested against experiment or observation. It explains observable phenomena and makes falsifiable predictions about them."
Krauss also thinks it's "incorrect" to refer to inflationary theory in cosmology. We should speak of the inflationary paradigm when we "describe the hypothesized growth of the universe soon after it began." Krauss writes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining this semantic distinction is not merely contentious nitpicking.
A key part of the argument made by those who wish to introduce religion into science classes is that evolution is "just a theory".
By "theory" these individuals are referring to the common lay usage of the word, meaning a hunch or a guess, and not the more restrictive sense in which the term is normally discussed in science....When debating the nature of science with advocates of intelligent design, I am frequently confronted with the claim that string theory is no more scientific than intelligent design.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Olds
word replacement for news
----------------
News is trivia
----------------
What passes for important is actually far from it.
How much of today’s news will you remember next year? Can you even remember last month’s news?
Your brain discards the news because it’s trivial; what you internalize is the fear-based conditioning.
~Steve Pavlina
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Non-Imitative
antonym of mimickry
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Multi-Focus
word replacement for multi-task
"Because it is not the number of tasks we are constantly doing that reduces our efficiency but rather the number of things splitting our focus that confuses us to what we want to be doing."
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Information Gatekeeper Syndrome
By editing out certain ideas, adding some in etc, one can manipulate a person's train of thought, and over time, push them in a certain direction for whatever purpose necessary. An example would be not mentioning the Vatican and organized religions role in the New World Order, in order to shield them, and deflect blame onto other parties, like the Zionists (which they hope will expand into outright hating against Jews) ~Some forum user's comment on Alex Jones
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Fun
antonym of task
"It ain't fun if it's easy."
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Discouragement
Antonym of recommendation
January 3, 2010
foolness commented on the word Disorganized Crime
In a “disorganized” crime, the victim isn’t chosen logically.
She’s seemingly picked at random and “blitz-attacked,” not stalked and coerced.
The killer might grab a steak knife from the kitchen and leave the knife behind.
The crime is so sloppily executed that the victim often has a chance to fight back.
“Moreover, the disorganized killer has no idea or interest in the personality of the victim”
Ressler writes in “Whoever Fights Monsters.”
“He does not want to know who they are, and many times take steps to obliterate their personalities by quickly knocking them unconscious or covering their faces or otherwise disfiguring them.”
January 3, 2010