Jr. F'd up a lot. But the fact is, Saddam no longer threatens the world: something he very much would have liked to do. I am glad he is dead.
You _are_ aware that Saddam Hussein was an actual human being, not a comic-book supervillain, right?
Did Doctor Doom have torture chambers for athletes he felt under-performed in the olympics? I don't think Latvia ever invaded a neighbor country or had a security force that tried to assinate a US President, or sponsored terrorims in Israel.
It's an incredibly well done and entertaining book that focuses on psychology as a science and its perception thereof. It's not dry at all and quite humorous, but also has oodles and oodles of facts, statistics, and references to back up everything that's said in it. I shelled out the extra money to keep mine after I got my degree because I found it so useful.
And I've never heard of teddy bears being used in treatment ever...
I think that was in the malpractice case I referenced earlier. I just sent an EM to my old boss (who said he'd love to have represented her and dare the Plaintiff to show psychology has standards she violated.) I'll let you know if he recalls her name and if I can find links.
The rebirth suffocation case was 2000. Not sure what the credentials of all parties were:
One is a nurse practitioner. Another, "Julie Lynn Ponder Nominally the leader of the fatal rebirthing session, she was the only licensed therapist in the room that day. She had been issued her Marriage and Family Therapist license from California just ten months before the killing. It was revoked a year after her conviction.."
Gorfias: I've heard of children being smothered to death in some kind of re-birth experiment.
Heard of? Or seen documented proof of?
Same for the Teddy bear thing: actual practicality unknown.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I've heard of students telling examiners a lie: on occasion they hear a voice say, "Thump, empty and hollow" and find themselves committed. Interesting thing: fellow inmates knew the students were faking.
You hear a lot of things, but you haven't shown me anything.
I'm advising: don't just follow expert opinion in the soft sciences. Think for yourself.
Practice what you preach.
DrVornoff: Jr. F'd up a lot. But the fact is, Saddam no longer threatens the world: something he very much would have liked to do. I am glad he is dead.
No. He had no plans on threatening any world powers because he knew he would have gotten his ass kicked.
I thought Saddam kept f'n with the inspectors. At a minimum, he wanted the world (Iran particularly) to think he had WMD.
What would he possibly have to gain from such a bluff? What could be worth painting a giant bullseye on himself? If he wanted the world to believe he had WMDs, then why did the inspectors not find anything? None of this makes any goddamn sense.
Gorfias: I think that was in the malpractice case I referenced earlier. I just sent an EM to my old boss (who said he'd love to have represented her and dare the Plaintiff to show psychology has standards she violated.) I'll let you know if he recalls her name and if I can find links.
The rebirth suffocation case was 2000. Not sure what the credentials of all parties were:
One is a nurse practitioner. Another, "Julie Lynn Ponder Nominally the leader of the fatal rebirthing session, she was the only licensed therapist in the room that day. She had been issued her Marriage and Family Therapist license from California just ten months before the killing. It was revoked a year after her conviction.."
I thought Saddam kept f'n with the inspectors. At a minimum, he wanted the world (Iran particularly) to think he had WMD.
What would he possibly have to gain from such a bluff?
"Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture."
Gorfias: I think that was in the malpractice case I referenced earlier. I just sent an EM to my old boss (who said he'd love to have represented her and dare the Plaintiff to show psychology has standards she violated.) I'll let you know if he recalls her name and if I can find links.
The rebirth suffocation case was 2000. Not sure what the credentials of all parties were:
One is a nurse practitioner. Another, "Julie Lynn Ponder Nominally the leader of the fatal rebirthing session, she was the only licensed therapist in the room that day. She had been issued her Marriage and Family Therapist license from California just ten months before the killing. It was revoked a year after her conviction.."
And you believe this is the norm?
I think these people were in more trouble for criminal negligence than violating psychology standards.
I think that was in the malpractice case I referenced earlier. I just sent an EM to my old boss (who said he'd love to have represented her and dare the Plaintiff to show psychology has standards she violated.) I'll let you know if he recalls her name and if I can find links.
The rebirth suffocation case was 2000. Not sure what the credentials of all parties were:
One is a nurse practitioner. Another, "Julie Lynn Ponder Nominally the leader of the fatal rebirthing session, she was the only licensed therapist in the room that day. She had been issued her Marriage and Family Therapist license from California just ten months before the killing. It was revoked a year after her conviction.."
So you are basically basing your idea that psychology is a "soft" science and not that credible on the fact that there are some malpractitioners? There are malpractioners in every field and basing your verdict of the field in question on them is grossly negligent. Do you think anyone would take me seriously if I refused to believe in genetics because eugenics turned out to be hogwash?
So you are basically basing your idea that psychology is a "soft" science and not that credible on the fact that there are some malpractitioners? There are malpractioners in every field and basing your verdict of the field in question on them is grossly negligent. Do you think anyone would take me seriously if I refused to believe in genetics because eugenics turned out to be hogwash?
Actually, I'm basing it in part on there being so few malpractitioners. You cannot lose a malpractice claim if you don't have solid standards to begin with. The times I do hear of malpractice in this field, it typically has to do with the psychologist having sex with a patient.
Can you find a news story of a malpractice case that sticks to standards that don't involve criminality (in the linked case, negligent homicide), sex with a patient, or ethics violation (stealing money) or practicing without a license. Something where the psychologist simply asked the wrong questions or chose the wrong exercises for the patient and the Defense lost? I would be very interested in reading it, seriously. Not sending you on a fetch quest or busting your balls, I'd really like to read one.
And is eugenics bunk, or just unethical? I thought through eugenics, they can make a grown horse the size of a dog.
Psychology uses empirical methods to infer relationships between variables, thus science.
What you are thinking about is Psychology in the past, when it was pretty dodgy. Nowadays psychology is very much grounded in scientific principals.
In psychology you cannot just make claims about behaviour without having evidence to support it, you will get laughed out of wherever it is psychologists meet.
I don't think you understand exactly what it is, I think you are stuck with the image of a shrink in a dark room with a patient laying on a couch. That is just what the everyday person sees. We don't see all the behind the scene work that actually worked out all the stuff that guy is talking about. The behind the scene stuff, that is the real science.
When I took my high school course in psychology it counted towards my science credit, just saying.
Jr. F'd up a lot. But the fact is, Saddam no longer threatens the world: something he very much would have liked to do. I am glad he is dead.
You _are_ aware that Saddam Hussein was an actual human being, not a comic-book supervillain, right?
Did Doctor Doom have torture chambers for athletes he felt under-performed in the olympics? I don't think Latvia ever invaded a neighbor country or had a security force that tried to assinate a US President, or sponsored terrorims in Israel.
So, when do we invade Liberate North Korea, who actually DID get a Weapon of Mass Destruction while Bush was busy going after Hussein?
Gorfias: I think these people were in more trouble for criminal negligence than violating psychology standards.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't malpractice suits generally fall under the category of criminal negligence in court?
No. Malpractice suits typically fall under "Tort" law, a civil, not criminal matter, though they can cross lines. You murder me, you go through criminal court and get punished for murder. Afterwords, my wife can sue you for damages civily. But typically, say you rear end me and I get a sore neck. Accidents happen. You won't be charged criminally, I just sue you civiliy for pain and suffering.
Anyway, this doesn't change shit. Psychology follows the scientific method, thus it is a science.
Gorfias: I thought through eugenics, they can make a grown horse the size of a dog.
No.
Really? EDIT: My point is, if you wanted to use genetics to make superiour people, I think science could accomplish it. It is just considered unethical.
A man once said, 'The average Liberal may be smarter than the average conservative... But the smartest conservative is smarter than the smartest liberal.'
You're getting your terms mixed up. Eugenics in the context of this conversation refers to controlling human populations toward genetic ends, which was often done by sterilizing women believed to have undesirable traits (i.e. being black). This proved to be a lot of bullshit as genetics as a science evolved and proved once and for all that there is no such thing as a master race.
Which you are doing a fair degree of just by using "educated" as a pejorative.
I have not used "educated" as a pejorative but "credentialed". There are many ways to get an education. But the type of person doing the studies this sort of collumn trumpets are from a particular brand of education, a credentialed education.
Having a "credential" doesn't make you a bad person: it does, I think, make you much more likely to need a big, inefficient government to create bull shit jobs to help such a person avoid real work.
I get value from a hot dog vendor. If I don't, I can walk away and find someone else to give me value.
From a "diversity co-ordinator"? Not so much.
There are also a lot of jobs that are crucial to maintain your current day to day life that do require a credentialed education, such as engineers and doctors. Those people learned information that was gained from scientists and researchers with credentialed educations. The job of "diversity co-ordinator" might have a really important value to it. I don't know if you know what that persons responsibilities are, I know that I don't. But to look at someone's job and say "That's pointless and we don't need you" is easy to say when you haven't done it yet. I used to think that a lot of the non-teacher positions at schools were fairly useless, like principles, vice-principles, the secretaries, the guidance councilors, all of them were useless to me, right up until I needed one. Once you see why you need someone in a position you start to appreciate them being there a lot more.
You're getting your terms mixed up. Eugenics in the context of this conversation refers to controlling human populations toward genetic ends, which was often done by sterilizing women believed to have undesirable traits (i.e. being black). This proved to be a lot of bullshit as genetics as a science evolved and proved once and for all that there is no such thing as a master race.
...What he said.
I suspect that once genetic engineering gets good enough, the 1% is going to start genetically upgrading their kids, no matter what the government says they can or can't do. They've always made sure their youngsters have every possible advantage, I can't imagine them passing this one up over anything as insignificant as 'medical ethics'. (Assuming it IS unethical. It'd depend a lot on what traits they wanted installed....)
You're getting your terms mixed up. Eugenics in the context of this conversation refers to controlling human populations toward genetic ends, which was often done by sterilizing women believed to have undesirable traits (i.e. being black). This proved to be a lot of bullshit as genetics as a science evolved and proved once and for all that there is no such thing as a master race.
...What he said.
I suspect that once genetic engineering gets good enough, the 1% is going to start genetically upgrading their kids, no matter what the government says they can or can't do. They've always made sure their youngsters have every possible advantage, I can't imagine them passing this one up over anything as insignificant as 'medical ethics'. (Assuming it IS unethical. It'd depend a lot on what traits they wanted installed....)
Really! Dude/Dudette! You've crossed your own logic about 3 ways in one post! But in response to some of what you wrote: I think Eugenics could be used to breed stronger, smarter, healthier people. The problem with that is that there are always going to be people that don't hit the median mark on these measures. Do we, as a society, treat such people as defective.
But yes, those with means are already at it. See the fertility industry and sperm donor business. Women are given extensive information about donors to help them choose the donor most likley to help them produce healthy, above average intelligence, physically attractive children.
Gorfias: But yes, those with means are already at it. See the fertility industry and sperm donor business. Women are given extensive information about donors to help them choose the donor most likley to help them produce healthy, above average intelligence, physically attractive children.
You realize that men and women have been utilizing information about their potential sexual partners to accomplish much the same thing so far as they are able, right? (For as long or longer than people have been having sex...)
Gorfias: But yes, those with means are already at it. See the fertility industry and sperm donor business. Women are given extensive information about donors to help them choose the donor most likley to help them produce healthy, above average intelligence, physically attractive children.
You realize that men and women have been utilizing information about their potential sexual partners to accomplish much the same thing so far as they are able, right? (For as long or longer than people have been having sex...)
Fair point, but there's something different about it when you add science and engineering into the mix. Or maybe there's nothing wrong with eugenics as long as you aren't taking away someone else's right to procreate?
Gorfias: But yes, those with means are already at it. See the fertility industry and sperm donor business. Women are given extensive information about donors to help them choose the donor most likley to help them produce healthy, above average intelligence, physically attractive children.
You realize that men and women have been utilizing information about their potential sexual partners to accomplish much the same thing so far as they are able, right? (For as long or longer than people have been having sex...)
Fair point, but there's something different about it when you add science and engineering into the mix. Or maybe there's nothing wrong with eugenics as long as you aren't taking away someone else's right to procreate?
Well, it's not really what is commonly referred to as eugenics in the latter case. Aside from that, the latter is true though only in a negative sense: no one has a right to procreate that supersedes the right of another not to participate in procreating. :)
Luna: A man once said, 'The average Liberal may be smarter than the average conservative... But the smartest conservative is smarter than the smartest liberal.'
Discuss.
Sounds like one of those quips you throw out when you want to sound smart, really. Just like "One genius and 99 fools can accomplish much less than 100 averagely intelligent people".
"Fools". Hm. Odd word. Doesn't sound nearly as good when you say it.
Gorfias: Fair point, but there's something different about it when you add science and engineering into the mix.
How? I would like to raise a family with a very intelligent woman because I value intelligence and would like to pass that on to another generation. Humans have been doing that sort of thing since before there was even an eye for Gregor Mendel to be a twinkle in.
Gorfias: Fair point, but there's something different about it when you add science and engineering into the mix.
How? I would like to raise a family with a very intelligent woman because I value intelligence and would like to pass that on to another generation. Humans have been doing that sort of thing since before there was even an eye for Gregor Mendel to be a twinkle in.
For starters, I think that the inclussion of science into the mix, you turn baby into controllable product. If it fails your consumer expectations will be disappointed.
Lust, passion, emotion are not sterile and controllable in most instances (OK, the British Royals have been compared to animal husbandry... not a lot of lust and passion going on there). The baby is not "produced product with expected results".
Gorfias: For starters, I think that the inclussion of science into the mix, you turn baby into controllable product. If it fails your consumer expectations will be disappointed.
Lust, passion, emotion are not sterile and controllable in most instances (OK, the British Royals have been compared to animal husbandry... not a lot of lust and passion going on there). The baby is not "produced product with expected results".
I don't buy that, because science has had a hand in childbirth and procreation since we invented medicine. And if someone is treating a child as a product and not as a child, then that person is not ready to be a parent, but there's nothing we can really do about it. Being naive is not a crime. Being a moron is not a crime. Being immature is not a crime.
Luna: A man once said, 'The average Liberal may be smarter than the average conservative... But the smartest conservative is smarter than the smartest liberal.'
Discuss.
Sounds like one of those quips you throw out when you want to sound smart, really. Just like "One genius and 99 fools can accomplish much less than 100 averagely intelligent people".
"Fools". Hm. Odd word. Doesn't sound nearly as good when you say it.
Luna: A man once said, 'The average Liberal may be smarter than the average conservative... But the smartest conservative is smarter than the smartest liberal.'
Discuss.
Sounds like one of those quips you throw out when you want to sound smart, really. Just like "One genius and 99 fools can accomplish much less than 100 averagely intelligent people".
"Fools". Hm. Odd word. Doesn't sound nearly as good when you say it.
So no weight to the quote then?
No, it's a dumb, meaningless quote that has no basis in reality.
Did Doctor Doom have torture chambers for athletes he felt under-performed in the olympics? I don't think Latvia ever invaded a neighbor country or had a security force that tried to assinate a US President, or sponsored terrorims in Israel.
Thanks for the links, I'll take a look.
I think that was in the malpractice case I referenced earlier. I just sent an EM to my old boss (who said he'd love to have represented her and dare the Plaintiff to show psychology has standards she violated.) I'll let you know if he recalls her name and if I can find links.
The rebirth suffocation case was 2000. Not sure what the credentials of all parties were:
http://childrenintherapy.org/victims/newmaker.html
One is a nurse practitioner. Another, "Julie Lynn Ponder
Nominally the leader of the fatal rebirthing session,
she was the only licensed therapist in the room that day.
She had been issued her Marriage and Family Therapist
license from California just ten months
before the killing. It was revoked a year
after her conviction.."