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.
------------------------------------------------------------------ A quiet client who causes no community disturbance is deemed "improved" no matter how miserable or incapacitated that person may feel as a result. -------------------------------------------------------------------
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.“
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.
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? -----------------------------
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 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
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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Jan 2, 2010
Comments for foolness
Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.