Showing posts tagged Psychology.
x

ALFOXUS

curious?   my face   

Jim

the middle-ground fallacy is probably the best for swaying public opinion, and probably the hardest to detect too

set up a debate as having two sides (and only two sides) and laugh as people assume they have to settle for some sort of compromised middle-ground between those two

and the best part is they’ll say they ‘examined both sides of the debate’ and ‘came to their own conclusion’ as if that isn’t a massive contradiction

it’s all about the audience participation

now stand back and watch as all the political parties scramble to declare themselves the ‘centre’ party whatever that means

— 9 months ago
#middle-ground fallacy  #logic  #media  #debate  #politics  #psychology 
"

The new education must consist essentially in this, that it completely destroys freedom of will in the soil which it undertakes to cultivate, and produces on the contrary strict necessity in the decisions of the will, the opposite being impossible. Such a will can henceforth be relied on with confidence and certainty […]

If you want to influence him at all, you must do more than merely talk to him ; you must fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will.

"

Johann Gottlieb Fichte, ‘The General Nature of the New Education’, Addresses to the German Nation (1807)

Fichte was a founding influence on the early 19th century Prussian model of education, which was the template that America, Britain and other countries then adopted for their own school systems. 

 

— 1 year ago with 6 notes
#philosophy  #fichte  #education system  #school  #social conditioning  #psychology  #german idealism  #19th century  #america  #britain  #usa  #uk  #conspiracy theory  #quotes  #history 

is anyone else sick of this increasing trend of infantilisation in advertising

either it’s an adult talking in a reassuring, patronising voice, as if we’re children

or it’s an actual 5 year old telling us about how some soulless multinational corporation makes them personally happy, or how they plant a tree for every purchase (note how they say ‘tree’ as if somehow sapling = tree, goddamnit they’re like pro-lifers)

or it’s a shitty picture of a house or a tree or a stick person, made to look as if a small child drew it, but actually some fucking full grown overpaid ad executive did that shit

I don’t know which one is creepier

the thing that gets me is, in addition to it being annoying, it’s actually psychologically proven to put audiences in a more suggestible, receptive state. (ever see that Derren Brown bit where he preps the person by giving them some orange juice to drink and some crayola crayons to draw with?). it’s a technique intended to bypass critical thinking skills learned in later life.

— 1 year ago with 2 notes
#advertising  #tv  #infantilisation  #media  #capitalism  #corporations  #television  #children  #psychology  #science 
'Is your brain really necessary?' - Science, Vol. 210, 12 December 1980. (WTF?!) →

There’s a young student at this university…who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain…instead of the normal 4.5 centimeter thickness of brain tissue between the ventricles and the cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle measuring a millimeter or so. His cranium was filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid.

So yeah, respected journal Science published an article with the title ‘Is your brain really necessary?’ in 1980. You’d think this would warrant further study maybe. But no. A quick google did turn up this article about a similarly hydrocephallic (ie ‘water on the brain’) woman who has an IQ of 113, higher than 80% of the population, despite having 10-15% of ‘normal’ brain volume. And a couple of other cases reported in news media around the world.

imageimage

Of course the ‘IQ’ test is often criticised (rightly so I think) as a culturally-biased and entirely outmoded method for measuring what amounts to a very restrictive definition of ‘intelligence’. That’s a whole subject in itself. But presumably IQ tests do at least provide some indication of a person’s aptitude at a particular type of computation.

Now, according to Professor Lorber’s data in the Science article, of those hydrocephallic people studied with the most enlarged ventricles (ie where the cranium was 95% filled with fluid), half of them had IQs greater than 100. Which, by definition, (if I’m not mistaken?), is actually a slightly higher % than you would expect to find in any given population. Now that portion of the sample only amounted to about 60 people or 10% of the total sample, which isn’t much to go basing any grand theories on, but still… further study maybe?!

It does seem like most people online who come across the study are running with it and deciding that it proves brains aren’t necessary at all, that consciousness is therefore non-physical, and so this is empirical proof for the existence of the immortal soul. Really can’t see how they’ve reached that conclusion given that all the people in the study have brains. Logic fail there I think. 

Conversely, most so-called skeptics seem to just want to dismiss the study off-hand. Which is quite hard for them to do given that Professor Lorber was a member of the Nobel Prize Committee and his data consisted of 600 CT scans. I’m guessing the article’s sensationalist title didn’t help (not that Lorber wrote that). Most of the critiques I’ve seen amount to nit-picking about his choice of words, or about relatively small discrepancies, without addressing the overall implications or acknowledging the obvious importance of the study.

From Lorber’s wikipedia page -

neurosurgeon Kenneth Till said that Lorber is “overdramatic when he says that someone has ‘virtually no brain.’” Lorber admitted it later, saying that he “was only half serious”, but defends himself with: “I can’t say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.” In his later years Lorber expressed great sorrow that more attention had not been paid to his sensational findings.

Which I think is fair enough - they are clearly hugely significant findings regardless of that sort of margin of error when it comes to interpreting the scans (and even if, like me, you don’t agree that IQ tests are actually measuring ‘intelligence’ as such). But especially given the long history and popular discourse of big brains being equated with higher intelligence (even though that association has proved inaccurate), and the many, many theories and often brutal social practices which have followed or been justified by it.

Thoughts? Anyone have any further information on this? 

— 1 year ago
#science  #brain  #wtf  #weird  #neurology  #neuroscience  #skepticism  #psychology  #IQ  #intelligence  #did you know  #suppression? 
did-you-kno:

Source

“Is,” “is.” “is” — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don’t know what anything “is”; I only know how it seems to me at this moment. - Robert Anton Wilson
The only study quoted in that article consisted of people looking at drawings, and occasionally thinking that they’d already seen a drawing which they hadn’t, because (presumably) it was similar to one that they had. Which is so far removed from the actual lived experience of déjà vu that to draw any generalised conclusions from it is ridiculous. And what does that show, anyway? That memory is fallible?
Déjà vu ‘is’ (seems like) a basic ontological experience, it’s about your surroundings, the whole sensory input, the overbearing sense of significance. I mean, if anyone in that study actually felt real déjà vu (which seems unlikely), it’d have more to do with the fact that they were looking at the drawings in the same environmental context (laboratory etc) that they were the last time. But they would have been fully, rationally aware that they had been in that place before, so it’s not really déjà vu is it? 
Ugh, fucking reductive psychologism.
We don’t know what déjà vu is, or why it is. 
And what does “Déjà vu is your brain making you feel like something is familiar” even mean? That’s not an explanation, that’s a description, just with a tenuous semantic distinction between ‘you’ and ‘your brain’ so it looks like something meaningful has been expressed.

did-you-kno:

Source

“Is,” “is.” “is” — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don’t know what anything “is”; I only know how it seems to me at this moment. - Robert Anton Wilson

The only study quoted in that article consisted of people looking at drawings, and occasionally thinking that they’d already seen a drawing which they hadn’t, because (presumably) it was similar to one that they had. Which is so far removed from the actual lived experience of déjà vu that to draw any generalised conclusions from it is ridiculous. And what does that show, anyway? That memory is fallible?

Déjà vu ‘is’ (seems like) a basic ontological experience, it’s about your surroundings, the whole sensory input, the overbearing sense of significance. I mean, if anyone in that study actually felt real déjà vu (which seems unlikely), it’d have more to do with the fact that they were looking at the drawings in the same environmental context (laboratory etc) that they were the last time. But they would have been fully, rationally aware that they had been in that place before, so it’s not really déjà vu is it? 

Ugh, fucking reductive psychologism.

We don’t know what déjà vu is, or why it is. 

And what does “Déjà vu is your brain making you feel like something is familiar” even mean? That’s not an explanation, that’s a description, just with a tenuous semantic distinction between ‘you’ and ‘your brain’ so it looks like something meaningful has been expressed.

(via did-you-kno)

— 1 year ago with 11035 notes
#angriest response to a did you know post ever  #science  #philosophy of science  #psychology  #brain  #deja vu  #experience  #knowledge  #epistemology 

residentzoopolis:

Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay

Interesting video for several reasons.

The audience clearly feel they’re getting value for their $6000 admission. This stuff is comedy gold for them.

Says a lot, really.

— 1 year ago with 16 notes
#animals  #capitalism  #capuchin  #elites  #inequality  #money  #monkeys  #psychology  #science  #society  #TED 
Another example of why newspapers shouldn't be trusted with reporting science. →

John Walker at Rock Paper Shotgun critiques the Metro’s conclusion, based on one poorly-controlled, interview-based study of only 42 people, that gamers can’t tell fantasy from reality.

The findings don’t even begin to suggest that… just some anecdotal evidence of interesting psychological/perceptual phenomena (quite cool actually).

— 2 years ago with 3 notes
#gaming  #videogames  #pc gaming  #science  #media  #psychiatry  #psychology