search results matching tag: psychological effect

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (1)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (1)     Comments (21)   

Single Celled Organism Dies

lucky760 says...

Seriously, the psychological effect of watching it die surprised me.

Intellectually seems ridiculous to me, but I can't help that I really felt sad watching it happen.

wow.

What Did Cosmonaut Miss About Earth After Year in Space?

Payback says...

I wonder if virtual reality would help with the psychological effects. Not gaming or pr0n, but just sitting or walking through a park, or down a busy city street. Not CGI, but 360 degree, 3D video.

Racism in UK -- Rapper Akala

bareboards2 says...

@MonkeySpank Fascinating how your thoughtful comment on the psychological effects of horrendous treatment for over a hundred of years, followed by being the victims of terrorism for an additional hundred years, gets re-written into a treatise on liberal guilt.

Fascinating.

How to survive a grenade blast

radx says...

@CrushBug

Related story: during the later years of the war, when Allied air and sea supremacy made the Bay of Biscay a deathtrap, Allied torpedo boats took up ambush positions at the entrances to U-Boot bases, particularly La Rochelle. They'd get into position at night and stay just outside of range of the coastal defence batteries. Before outgoing submarines could reach deep water, they'd be plastered with hand grenades by these speed boats.

It wouldn't be able to sink a sub, but a lucky hit might damage the periscope and it did reduce the sub's sonar abilities by massive amounts, covering the entire exit area in a blanket of noise. Not to mention the psychological effect...

Anyway, just small bits of history.

Now, about this video: that small chance to be hit by a grenade chunk is surpassed by the rather noticable chance to be hit by one of roughly 6500 steel balls within a run-of-the-mill frag grenade used over here. Doesn't make the underwater experience any better though...

Caspian Report - Geopolitical Prognosis for 2016 (Part 1)

radx says...

@RedSky

First, if it were up to me, you could take over as Minister of Finance in this country tomorrow. Our differences seem miniscule compared to what horrendous policies our last three MoF have pushed. The one prior, ironically, was dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe by The Sun.

We're in agreement on almost everything you mentioned in your last comment, so I'll focus on what I perceive differently.

First, I'd differentiate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal spending, the former being a situational application of the latter. As you said, fiscal stimulus during an economic crisis tends to be inadequate with regards to our macroeconomic objectives. You can neither whip out plans for major investments at a whim nor can you mobilize the neccessary resources quickly enough to make a difference and still be reasonable efficient. Not to mention that it only affects certain parts of the economy (construction, mostly), leaving others completely in the wind. So I'm with you on that one, it's a terribly inefficient and ineffective approach.

Automatic stabilizers work magnificently in this regard, but they barely take any pressure from the lower wage groups, especially if unemployment benefits come with a metric ton of strings attached, as is the case in Germany. A basic income guarantee might work, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The problem I see with merely relying on reasonable automatic stabilizers in the form of payments is that they do put a floor into demand, but do very little to tackle the problem of persistent unemployment due to a lack of jobs. As useful as training and education are, the mere number of highly educated people forced to work mundane jobs tells me that, at best, it doesn't work, and at worst pushes a systemic problem onto the individual, leading to immense pressure. Not to mention the psychological effects of being unemployed when employment is tauted as a defining attribute of a proper person -- aka the demonization of the unemployed.

It's still somewhat decent in Australia, but in Europe... it's quite a horrible experience.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather see a lot more fiscal spending (permanent!) in the shape of public sector jobs. A lot of work cannot be valued properly by the market; should be done without the expectation of a return of investment (hospitals, anyone?); occurs in sectors of natural monopolies -- all of that should be publicly run. A job guarantee, like your fellow countryman Bill Mitchell advocates quite clearly, might be an approach worth trying out. Economy in the shit? More people on the public payroll, at rather low (but living wage!) wages. Do it at the county/city level and you can create almost any kind of job. If the private sector wants those people instead, they'd have to offer better working conditions. No more blackmail through the fear of unemployment -- you can always take a public job, even if it is at a meagre pay.

I should probably have mentioned that I don't buy into the notion of a stable market. From where I am standing, it's inherently unstable, be it through monopolies/oligopolies, dodging of laws and regulations (Uber), impossibility to price-in externalities (environmental damage most of all) or plain, old cost-cutting leading to a system-wide depression of demand. I'm fine with interfering in the market wherever it fails to deliver on our macroeconomic objectives -- which at this point in time is almost everywhere, basically.

Healthcare is all the rage these days, thanks to the primaries. I'd take the publicly-run NHS over the privately-run abomination in the US any day of the week. And that's after all the cuts and privatizations of the last two decades that did a horrible number on the NHS. Fuck ATOS, while we're at it.

Same for the railroad: the pre-privatization Bundesbahn in Germany was something to be proud of and an immeasurable boost of both the economy and the general standard of living.

In the mid/long run, the effects of automation and climate change-induced migration will put an end to the idea of full employment, but for the time being, there's still plenty of work to be done, plenty of idle resources to be employed, and just nobody to finance it. So why not finance it through the printing press until capacity is reached?

As for the Venezuela comparison: I don't think it fits in this case. Neither does Weimar Germany, which is paraded around quite regularly. Both Venezuela and Weimar Germany had massive supply-side problems. They didn't have the production capacity nor the resources to meet the demand they created by spending money into circulation. If an economy runs at or above its capacity, any additional spending, wherever it comes from, will cause inflation. But both Europe and the US are operating faaar below capacity in any measurable metric. You mentioned LRAS yourself. I think most estimates of it, as well as most estimates of NAIRU, are off quite significantly so as to not take the pressure off the wage slaves in the lowest income sector. You need mass unemployment to keep them in line.

As you said, the participation rate is woefully low, so there's ample space. And I'd rather overshoot and cause a short spike in inflation than remain below potential and leave millions to unneccessary misery.

Given the high level of private debt, there will be no increase in spending on that front. Corporations don't feel the need to invest, since demand is down and their own vaults are filled to the brim with cash. So if the private sector intends to net save, you either have to run a current account surplus (aka leech demand from other countries) or a fiscal deficit. Doesn't work any other way, sectoral balances always sum up to zero, by definition. If we want to reduce the dangerous levels of private debt, the government needs to run a deficit. If we don't want to further increase the federal debt, the central bank has to hand the cash over directly, without the issuance of debt through the treasury.

As for the independant central bank: you can only be independant from either the government or the private sector, not both. Actually, you can't even be truly independant from either, given that people are still involved, and people have ideologies and financial ties.

Still, if an "independant" central bank is what you prefer, Adair Turner's new book "Between Debt and the Devil" might be worth a read. He's a proponent of 100% reserve banking, and argues for the occasional use of the printing press -- though controlled by an inflation-targeting central bank. According to him, QE is pointless and in order to bring nominal demand up to the level we want, we should have a fiscal stimulus financed by central bank money. The central bank controls the amount, the government decides on what to spend it on.

Not how I would do it, but given his expertise as head of the Financial Services Authority, it's quite refreshing to hear these things from someone like him.

Study Says Wealthy People Are Generally Assholes

RedSky says...

But in that case, their monopoly example where the 'rich' participant is chosen at random wouldn't show the same result.

I've always ascribed it in my head to a lack of empathy by the rich, due to increasingly less contact with the lower classes of wealth the richer they get (think gated communities, exclusive private schools) but that compounds my assumption too as it seems merely being designated rich appears to have some (immediate) psychological effect.

Gjd55 said:

They have it backwards. It is being an asshole, stealing candy, cheating at dice etc. type of behaviour that gets these people rich. They are not nasty because they're rich, they're rich because they can be nasty.

"Aye Aye Sir"

Skeeve says...

For anyone interested in this stuff - how basic training inoculates people to prepare them for mental stress - I would highly recommend Col. Dave Grossman's "On Killing".

It's mainly about the psychological effects of killing, but it spends some time on how militaries prepare soldiers for the act of killing. Very fascinating.

FOX Still Doesn't Understand Separation of Church and State

Lawdeedaw says...

>> ^gwiz665:

Establishment clause.
He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.
He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.


One--Texas isn't even really a state... Two--does he actually propagate or just ask for a gathering? Propagating would be specifically arguing for a religion of his choice or religion at all. You know, I have prayed in the past. Sometimes it was necessary for me. This, even though I am atheist. It was about the psychological effects (Although when I pray it is a rare thing indeed.)

I know there is no God and I don't pray to one. So if I would, for whatever reason, ask for a prayer day, even for spiritual things, I am not necessarily propagating anything more than a state of mind. That's spiritual to me. My wife breastfeeding was spiritual to me (The first two babies... the third, I was like 'Fuck it.')

Of course Rick Perry is sliding a disingenuous motive in there. But what the heck. He didn't, in this video, advocate for anything inappropriate.

Also, the first amendment is at odds with the establishment clause anyways... And even if it is not--are you suggesting that the literal interpretation should always be followed in the constitution like atheists are demanding are followed in the establishment clause? That's dangerous. "The right to bear arms" has no limitations whatsoever. You couldn't argue that times have changed because the law has not. And before we get into the term militia, I will explain it. Back then it meant, "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." Dictionary.reference.com

So yeah, let's err on the side of reason.

Circumcision - Another Form of Child Abuse

Crosswords says...

I think the procedure is unnecessary, any possible health benefits are negated by there being much better more reliable ways to prevent the health problems without needing to remove a functioning organ. That said I've not seen anything that suggests there is any long term psychological effect, most of the trauma seems to be during the actual operation. Unfortunately it seems, unlike in Ryjkyj's case, most infants are not given an anesthesia, and there are studies that show the immediate trauma to be much lower when it is given.

Top 20 Most Dangerous Drugs - BBC Horizon

luxury_pie says...

How could a drug which is proven to be dehydrating when taken ONCE be any safer then a drug which has no known harmful sideeffects unless it's delivered in extremely high concentration or taken over a immense period of time.

I don't get how extacy can be the "safest drug around" ( i know there is "Kaht" but this does not seem to be a drug) or why cannabis should be more "dangerous" then LSD because of its psychological effects. (yea right)

Taser Test Creates Girly Man

TheSofaKing says...

As soon as the taser stops, the pain is 100% gone. The only residual effect is you feel like you had a brisk workout.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^TheSofaKing:
I've been tasered and I got it for 5 seconds. It is the worst pain I have ever felt by miles. I've explained the feeling as follows: remember the WORST time you hit your funny bone... multiply by 1 million and put it over your entire body.

And after the taser? Is it the less-lethal behemoth everyone makes it out to be? Did it leave you disabled? Psychological effects? Me not being tasered, I have no clue. I just go by what the masses say. I would love to write a book on the subject...

Taser Test Creates Girly Man

Lawdeedaw says...

>> ^TheSofaKing:
I've been tasered and I got it for 5 seconds. It is the worst pain I have ever felt by miles. I've explained the feeling as follows: remember the WORST time you hit your funny bone... multiply by 1 million and put it over your entire body.


And after the taser? Is it the less-lethal behemoth everyone makes it out to be? Did it leave you disabled? Psychological effects? Me not being tasered, I have no clue. I just go by what the masses say. I would love to write a book on the subject...

Study: ALL Men Watch Porn (TYT)

Bloocut says...

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^dag:
It's kind of amazing to me that porn has, in my lifetime, gone from being outlieing deviant smut - to public service for male physiological release.
I'd like to see more reports on the psychological effect of porn on people. Addiction, diminished actual sexual response etc.
I'm not saying that porn is a terrible thing, but its acceptance into mainstream society has a huge impact on our culture.
I still remember this guy in college, in public speaking class, who advocated "relief booths" on street corners, to be housed by willing sex workers, to provide release for "stressed out males" - thereby reducing the masculine ills of society - fights, wars, etc. The premise being that most of the major problems of the world stem from male sexual frustration. He would say, that it's not mistake missiles and bullets are shaped like penises.

Give people food and regular sex and there would not be a reason to go to war... everybody would be full and satisfied. I'd give that guy some cred.


The "huge impact" mentioned has many facets. Think about leaving a fresh-baked cobbler in the window facing an alley or perhaps a gun near brothers 0-7 the oldest of which is as developmentally prepared for touching it as he is to his responsibilities to his siblings-One's ability to handle the overload relative to social mores and civility reveals the real societal rub. Yeah, porn affords release. How much can simpletons handle?

Study: ALL Men Watch Porn (TYT)

LarsaruS says...

>> ^dag:

It's kind of amazing to me that porn has, in my lifetime, gone from being outlieing deviant smut - to public service for male physiological release.
I'd like to see more reports on the psychological effect of porn on people. Addiction, diminished actual sexual response etc.
I'm not saying that porn is a terrible thing, but its acceptance into mainstream society has a huge impact on our culture.
I still remember this guy in college, in public speaking class, who advocated "relief booths" on street corners, to be housed by willing sex workers, to provide release for "stressed out males" - thereby reducing the masculine ills of society - fights, wars, etc. The premise being that most of the major problems of the world stem from male sexual frustration. He would say, that it's not mistake missiles and bullets are shaped like penises.


Give people food and regular sex and there would not be a reason to go to war... everybody would be full and satisfied. I'd give that guy some cred.

Study: ALL Men Watch Porn (TYT)

dag says...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's kind of amazing to me that porn has, in my lifetime, gone from being outlieing deviant smut - to public service for male physiological release.

I'd like to see more reports on the psychological effect of porn on people. Addiction, diminished actual sexual response etc.

I'm not saying that porn is a terrible thing, but its acceptance into mainstream society has a huge impact on our culture.

I still remember this guy in college, in public speaking class, who advocated "relief booths" on street corners, to be housed by willing sex workers, to provide release for "stressed out males" - thereby reducing the masculine ills of society - fights, wars, etc. The premise being that most of the major problems of the world stem from male sexual frustration. He would say, that it's not mistake missiles and bullets are shaped like penises.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon