No. Not that part.

I'm talking about something you may not be aware of about yourself called projection.

"Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. For example, a husband who has a hostile nature might attribute this hostility to his wife and say she has an anger management problem."

As far as being right, that remains to be seen. And that's only about Trump winning. Truth stands on it's own.

I consider the Dems as criminals... in not impeaching Trump. There's a point where impeachment is no longer a political "calculation" (even if you think it is one) but a defense mechanism for democracy and justice. Evidence demonstrate we're long past that point.

It's not like taking down Trump the USA will not have a POTUS... you'll have the VP as immediate replacement. As much a delusional self-righteous lame-ass Pence is, the Right can at least salvage what little dignity remained by not having a chaotic egomaniac to lead them. That's a win for the Republicans no?

Thank you for proving my hyperbole point.

I'm guessing that's some kind of defense mechanism you have to help you deal with being wrong.

I don't think the original video had audio, or at least I didn't hear it. Fun to hear them talking about it in Thai, although they don't say anything particularly scientifically relevant -- more like "augh! help me!" (out of surprise) and then some mild cussing about it.

The caption/title I get from the original video says:
"น่ากลัว หนอนทะเล เป็นแบบนี้"

First word is "na-grua" which means "scary", or more directly/literally "worthy of fear". The second word is compound, "nohn-talay" which means "worm-ocean", or "marine worm" would be a less literal but better English translation. The last word is actually 3 words: "pben baap ni", which roughly means "is like this". So an overall translation of the YT video title would be "this is a scary marine worm".

...Oops, and just now I'm seeing the YT description, which has a lot more Thai and does specifically mention Nemertea -- so that is probably correct. It looks and behaves a lot like some of the sea cucumbers that I've seen, although most tend to have a bit more texture or protrusions on their skin. But there are definitely sea cucumbers that are as smooth as this thing. Compare with a similar sea cucumber video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKWSLg5PDiU

Quite similar, but sounds like the Nemertea does this to eat whereas the Sea Cucumber does it as a defense mechanism.
--EDIT-- Whoops, embedded the wrong video. Should be fixed now

I can't really identify with this. I've never felt a pressure to act like a "real man". Even when in a toxic situation like Middle School, I never felt like "being a man" was the issue. I never felt like I had tons of pent up rage that I couldn't express because I had to "man up". And I certainly can't stand this pseudoscience BS about "if you don't cry you have all of this stuff pent up inside you".

If you want to help boys, help stop bullying. I don't think the two concepts are that closely linked.

Also, I feel like this could shame boys who use bravado and playful roughhousing as a defense mechanism.

I'll start by apologizing for the long reply...
I looked as closely as possible in HD fullscreen and on my computer the head never touched ground. More to the point, the child never reached for his head. Either way the point is moot, the mother never once even glances at the child to determine injury.
I did look closely, down to street view, at the whole park, and what I saw was it seems that in the non-skate areas there is a different texture to the ground (around the pool, playground area, etc.)
From my viewpoint (and I admit I could not read the park rules, I tried from every angle) the rest of the park is built specifically for skating, and has obstacles designed to skate on that have clear marks on them that that's what they are used for. The area you think is the only skate area has ramps in and out to skate on, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the implication of that design is you can skate everywhere. If I'm wrong in that guess, I'm wrong. There's no way to tell for certain from what I can see. That said, I draw the line at the areas designated for skating, and not in the areas designated for other things. As I've repeatedly stated, the skater bears some responsibility for not looking in a public place, but mom bears far more for allowing child to run free in a public skate park, especially when he was headed straight towards the street with no one watching until he screams.
I do admit from what I see this park is not well designed, as there is not a clear separation of the skate area and non-skate area, or a path from one non-skate area to another. If all the areas besides the small rail/bowl area are not for skating, they certainly should not have built it filled with skating obstacles and ramps, knowing that skaters will skate them.
I guess I misunderstood, yes, he was skating towards the picnic tables, but was no where near them at the end of his run, so who's to say he didn't plan on turning left into the rail area or stopping after the kick flip? The child was headed for the street, agreed?
Barrels out from behind an object is what children often do, and why they get hit, they don't know to look first.
Kid's mom is not seen until after the incident, then walking from the pavilion, she was not with or watching her child from every thing I see.
My reaction to blame the mom is because she was not watching her child and went off because that inattentiveness led to an accident, and she was the one responsible for her child's safety, no one else.

second post reply starts here:
OK, that's clearer that you don't excuse her actions. I accept and agree with that.
Expect the parent to be upset, absolutely. Expect them to be aggressive, not really but many people go that way. Expect them to be violent to address their own parental failings, not at all. Expect them to understand they (not the skater) is 70%+ at fault for not supervising a toddler? Never, parents rarely accept their failings and almost always deflect responsibility.
I feel you miss-state the situation. I say he should have hit her to stop her advance, not if she stopped, at the end of the video, she's still attacking. That's self defense, and using the skateboard in that capacity seems fine to me. We may disagree, people are different.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph...we just don't see it the same way. I feel like many parents have a natural defense mechanism of responsibility deflection, and I don't accept any responsibility for other's children, and would never expect them to take it for mine. I understand the mindset of parents that believe we all have a responsibility to take care of their children, I just disagree with it.
I also disagree that age is an excuse, if the child is too young to watch out for itself, it's 100% the parent's responsibility in my eyes, not mine.

And then there's the new idea that this discussion is all about a faked video. If true, the parent is still irresponsible for letting their child be run into on concrete where he may well have broken his skull, but maybe not completely out of control crazy violent.
Again, apologies for the long post.

It could be a defense mechanism...if we suddenly get blinded, we don't run in a straight line so we're harder to find or catch.

I think I finally understand Louis CKs idea of cumming on someones face as a defense mechanism.

>> ^probie:

So as a firm believer in evolution, I'm fascinated by this creature. But it begins to raise simple questions. What are it's natural predators and/or what the heck has been walking around on the beach for the last X thousands of years for it to evolve such a defense mechanism?
It seems that Australia and Madagascar are the two prime examples of how extreme bio-diversity can become, due to their isolation. Is it that evolution responds differently to different sized "cages". Or could it be that I just am looking at it subjectively, in that, North America's fauna is just as odd and bizarre, (ie. rattlesnakes, grizzly bears, etc.) and that I'm just used to them?
Points to ponder.


Hrm, after watching that spider crab video, maybe stingrays, or even octopus (in shallow water).

So as a firm believer in evolution, I'm fascinated by this creature. But it begins to raise simple questions. What are it's natural predators and/or what the heck has been walking around on the beach for the last X thousands of years for it to evolve such a defense mechanism?

It seems that Australia and Madagascar are the two prime examples of how extreme bio-diversity can become, due to their isolation. Is it that evolution responds differently to different sized "cages". Or could it be that I just am looking at it subjectively, in that, North America's fauna is just as odd and bizarre, (ie. rattlesnakes, grizzly bears, etc.) and that I'm just used to them?

Points to ponder.

>> ^dag:

Thomas Jefferson said when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I don't think the US government is afraid of its people - I wish they were.
I think there's more to the dysfunction in American government than the balance of fear.


"Government" is not a person. Our government is comprised of individuals, every one of them a human being (with the exception of two androids and four pod people). I think they DO fear us, which is why they're so prone to pandering. Worse, though, is that WE are our government. By and large, WE put these people there.
I think one of the biggest problems we have is the two-party system, an unfortunate inevitability of the First Past the Post voting system.
One thing the FPtP video doesn't really mention is what happens once the parties have established their dominance - indoctrination. We're encouraged to side with Republicans or Democrats, and once we've done that, over time we're inclined to start buying into the entire party platform. You can't be anti-abortion and pro-gay-rights. We immediately jump to the defense of any party tenet attacked by our "misguided" opposition. Minor differences of opinion become sacred cows. Perhaps this is a natural herd mentality, a defense mechanism against marginalization, or avoidance of peer conflict.
Whatever the causes, the outcome is gridlock and resentment. Nothing gets done because compromise is weakness. Candidates are only able to rise to power by adhering to the party line.
So I begin my post suggesting that government is individuals, and end by suggesting that individuals cede their power to the parties.
The system is broken. Checks and balances only function when sufficient individual agency is involved.

First of all, the questions and reasoning that set this off was ridiculous.
What store will you be shopping in? - "I don't know," should be a perfectly reasonable answer.
But the officer flip flops and turns this into an issue. The officer escalate this out of control.

Second, this guy should know that he needs to answer the questions straight up in a robot voice.
I totally understand how he can get offended as the officers question his integrity but anyone who has ever crossed the boarded knows that you are there, asking permission to access the US and acting indignant will not gain you points in their eyes.

The fact that they decided to arrest both persons over this is also ridiculous. Pulling away is not assault, punching the officer would be assault. Pulling away is an involuntary defense mechanism.

These officers could have turned either way. they could have slowed things down, calmed things down and got ahold of the situation but instead they decided to intimidate and use fear to control the situation until the outcome was all but decided upon. It's like they wanted this interaction to happen.

Also, this officer knows of at least three terrorists entering the country every day? Really? They can't catch them all, I wonder how many thousands are already inside plotting destruction?

Hmm. A lot of people seem to get *very* different reads on Feynman from watching this than I do.

I don't read him as "smug" at all. The smiling? Defense mechanism, I say. He felt regret for his part in developing the bomb, hopeful pleasure in the idea that perhaps dropping the two bombs on Japan represented a net savings in lives both among the Japanese and allied forces (an invasion would have been catastrophic), and the mish-mash of conflicting emotions makes even his incredibly gifted mind go into meltdown.

I personally don't think that any of the Manhattan Project scientists "deserved" to be blamed for deaths caused by the two bombs that were actually dropped "in anger", nor for the near-disasters of the Cold War, etc. etc. I don't think they should even have lost any sleep over their involvement in developing the weapons, but I expect that all of them did in spades.

I think a better (bit still rather unfair) place to start second-guessing things is either with President Truman for giving the executive orders, or the committee that suggested the targets of the bombs (which did include Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists along with military leaders). I have always wanted to think along the lines of:

What if we had dropped the first bomb in a remote forest, where there would have been hopefully little to no loss of human life but still plenty of evidence as to the destructive power and effective radius of the weapon? We could then have communicated with the Japanese, told them the area to inspect, and said "surrender or next time we drop the same thing somewhere that you're really not going to want us to."

Maybe that would have worked, but it is a dicey way to play the cards we had in our hand. The Japanese might have read it as a sign of weakness, it would have made for another delay before we could develop more bombs and hopefully end the war (although we already had to bluff that we had plenty to use if it came down to it), etc. So basically, now I am just glad that I have never had to and hopefully never will have to make a decision that has anywhere near the magnitude of those made by the people in charge of that whole situation. Second guessing them decades after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight and information that they didn't have access to seems rather crass.

Ignore, for a moment, the factual errors (eg the bombardier beetle does not produce an explosion). The important thing to understand, in my opinion, is that many of these are good questions to ask.

How could the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism have evolved? Now I know this question has been addressed in detail already, but assume it's being asked for the first time. The answer to this question is going to be enlightening, one way or another. Either biologists will provide an answer (enlightening) or we will find a gaping hole in our understanding of evolution (enlightening). These are both positive outcomes and nobody should be criticized for asking, even today when the answer is readily available to anyone with internet access.

There are things that should be criticized, however. First and foremost: unwillingness to listen to an answer. It does you no harm to hear even a false answer as long as you apply due skepticism. This goes for people of all walks, opinions and beliefs.

Second, you should be criticized if you think disproving natural selection (or any attempts to do so) would be evidence for God. That is a non-sequitur. If natural selection was disproven tomorrow, all that proves is that we don't know how we got the diversity of life we see around us.

God is not the null hypothesis. You have to provide evidence to support the existence of God, not just shoot down any "competing" ideas.