search results matching tag: psychology
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
Videos (402) | Sift Talk (18) | Blogs (30) | Comments (1000) |
Videos (402) | Sift Talk (18) | Blogs (30) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Trump: Biden Will "listen to the scientists"
some brains are more prone to 'rot' than others. belief is unlikely as a leading cause. EX: google: Nobel winner in 'racist' claim row
w/o other examples would point out some astrophysics theories resemble Hindu theology. some religious practices are supported by scientific studies in the area of psychology.
additionally, some poets were errorless when pointing out the truth of human behavior before there was scientific evidence to prove the stanzas.
seemly, there are diamonds and ore in the mines of all people. (note the prior source for verification)
humility can keep all on their toes.
we all make mistakes...hell! voted for reagan once!
being wrong is the only thing most folks can count on. don't know anyone hasn't done this kinda thing ->please Google: Steve Earle & The Dukes - "If I Could See Your Face Again" and listen to one of the world's greatest regrets
listening to that, thinking of covid and the potus' ultimate 'success' rate, hard to miss the truth of it all
RNC 2020 & Kenosha: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.
In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:
Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.
> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.
You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.
> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.
Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?
> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...
There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.
Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.
Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?
Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.
That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?
> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.
This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.
> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.
So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.
And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.
> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.
Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]
---
I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.
Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]
[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/
Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts
Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds
Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213
[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?
If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.
Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.
Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.
I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.
Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.
You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.
I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.
I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.
Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.
Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.
Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.
Trolls deserve derision.
I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.
Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?
Rebuttal?
A mask is an IQ test
The benefits are mostly in reverse. You wear a mask because it better protects others from you - you should always assume you're infected, if you're truly being safe.
If you can get a medical-grade mask, then it can have additional benefits, but that's not really the point here. Everyone can and should wear a mask, and then everyone has an improved chance of preventing the spread.
It's not a psychological thing. Every time I go to the store and see someone without a mask, they are a greater risk to me and my health. I don't know if they are infected, and quite possibly, neither do they. That's the problem with this disease, the incubation and spread can be done entirely without awareness of infection. Blind assumptions are absolutely awful.
You can catch this disease today, and spread it without knowing you're infected, completely without symptoms. That's why we quarantine, contact trace, and above all, always assume you're infected and therefore wear a mask to protect others.
Now as for whether a simple bandana mask is worth it or not, hell -- we can talk, but I'm going to push everyone to do something rather than nothing. If I could get a medical grade protections I'd do it, but the point is when you have to have a worldwide effort, if this helps 20-50% more than nothing, I'll take it. Everyone should. To the point of this video -- there's no reason not to, the science has spoken loud and clear on these points.
I was extremely suspicious about the effectiveness of simple masks and still am. They do stop you from sneezing on other people, obviously.
The biggest effect seems to be psychological - once the majority of people agree to wear masks that means they have taken control of the situation and are willing to do something about it, be responsible.
A mask is an IQ test
I was extremely suspicious about the effectiveness of simple masks and still am. They do stop you from sneezing on other people, obviously.
The biggest effect seems to be psychological - once the majority of people agree to wear masks that means they have taken control of the situation and are willing to do something about it, be responsible.
What "defund the police" really means
I'll go ahead and say the unpopular truth....we need to not just defund, but disband the police. Fire them all, then allow them to reapply for their jobs, but those with excessive complaints, or any crimes on their record don't get hired back or at a minimum should have to go back to school with no pay, then pass a psychological screening far more stringent than the one they passed originally.
No amount of funding change (which is needed), demilitarization (which only means not making them more militarized, no one's taking their swat tanks or snipers), no amount of public outrage, or chiefs quitting will make a difference if the same criminal cops are still on the force, they need a massive purge and complete culture change or things will not get better.
One other change that I believe will definitely help, remove immunity so criminal cops not only go to prison, but also are first in line to pay restitution for their own crimes out of their own pockets, then once they're bankrupt the union's pockets, and if they both run out of money the city/state comes last in line for obligation to pay. When cops lose everything when they're convicted for abusing their authority, the bad apples will straighten up fast or quit.
A Deer In Headlights
'deer in the headlights' is a pretty good analogy. there is a resemblance in the forehead and around the eyes. as the picture in this article can attest...
https://www.ammoland.com/2015/06/michigan-confirms-1st-case-of-chronic-wasting-disease-in-free-range-white-tailed-deer/
...although, his brain function may be more psychological than pathological?
Fastest, Easiest Way To Understand The Impeachment Report
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.
YEP
Its called being right.
Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN
I say it's both.
It's appeal on an emotional and moral level to get people to listen to the facts that she presents more clearly and honestly than the U.N. scientists or that other less political scientific organizations have published.
Not true. Using an emotional delivery to get people interested enough to listen to the factual science is basic psychology, and could be considered the science of selling science to humans....or applied behavioral science.
There's also what's known as psychology of science - The psychology of science is a branch of the studies of science that includes philosophy of science, history of science, and sociology of science or sociology of scientific knowledge. The psychology of science is defined most simply as the scientific study of scientific thought or behavior.
And the attacks are inexcusable.
To be totally upfront though, Gretta's role is meant to be emotional as opposed to scientific or factual. She's not meant to fill the gap of proving or providing facts, but rather to appeal on emotional level to get people to listen who maybe wouldn't other wise listen.
The criticism that such an angle is apart from 'science' isn't entirely invalid in her case. Right or wrong facts, using emotion to appeal to people and change their minds is entirely a non scientific approach to argument/persuasion.
Goose Visits Man Who Rescued Her Every Day | The Dodo
uh; isn't this "imprinting" along the line of Lorenz's work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)
I remember becoming the mom (dad?) to a quail in HS Biology class...(and nope, we didn't kill them; they went to a quail reserve)
What Do Cynical People Really Want?
The irony is palpable.
This hyper cynical assessment of cynicism and cynics is some serious Jr high psychology in video form.
I'm clearly a cynic.
I had a decent childhood, with minor neglect but nothing that hurt me, just taught me to enjoy solitude. Like others, I've suffered loss of loved ones, both by death and choice, more often than I deemed fair. Like mom used to say," who told you life was supposed to be fair?" There's no secret hurt I'm brooding over.
I do have worldly experience, I traveled more by 18 than most do in their lifetime, studied at some excellent schools (and some horrific ones) for over a decade after high school, I have plenty of love and kindness in my life, more than I want or think I deserve sometimes. I've been happily married to the same woman for 21 years.
I thought this video was a slap in the face to honest cynics...dismissive of our valid, empirical evidence of how fucked things are, how crappy humanity is, and how little chance there is of solving our problems before it's too late, and infantalizing us as irrational babies lashing out because we've been hurt. Maybe we just refuse to pull the wool over our own eyes because we much prefer ugly truth to beautiful lies.
Edit: also, there's the idea that if you always expect the worst, you're never disappointed.
*rant over
Squish Baby
Yes, and I think it could have serious psychological impact on the child, but on the other hand I really wish I'd thought to do this with my son when he was younger. Comedy gold (if only for the father).
Kid is going to have wrinkled skin at age 2. Gonna look like an old sea captain.
But I have to admit, that is a squishable face.
You Are Probably a Victim of the Largest Theft of All Time
The police are, and always have been, tools for those in power to stay in power. Most places they don't even try to combat financial fraud, wage theft, and all that, even though it does way more damage (like the 2008 collapse). The illusions of equality and justice are there to keep the masses from rioting in the streets, as is the self-serving promotion that 'anyone could become one of us, if you just work hard enough'. Truth is it doesn't take hard work. By and large, rich people were born rich, or have psychological deficits that allow them to exploit, harm, and even kill without remorse. Shkreli and his ilk have 'what it takes' to get rich in America. People with hang-ups like ethics and morals will always be left behind until the system fundamentally changes.
Every government in the world has always been run by the privileged. When you have power and privilege it's inevitable that most will use the one to protect the other.
It's amazing how much people spend to protect their homes from being robbed compared to where they actually lose the most money.
LCD Soundsystem - Tonite
Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs
*quality
As someone who watches a LOT of kid's movies with my daughter, I notice an alarming regularity of torture in children's media.
You like Pixar movies, right? Pick a Pixar film, ALL of them have a torture scene. It's bizarre.
It's late, so I'll be succinct about these, but let's define torture as follows:
Torture - noun - the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim
Fair?
This is a short list I can think of off the top of my head
Toy Story
Sid tortures Woody "Where are your rebel friends NOW?" as he burns his forehead
Toy Story 2
Stinky Pete tortures Woody "You can go to Japan together or in pieces. Now GET IN THE BOX!"
Toy Story 3
Buzz gets put in the "time-out chair" with a burlap bag put over his head and is forced to turn on his friends
Monster's Inc.
Mike is put in the "scream extractor" and is interrogated "Where's the kid?" as the extractor inches towards his face.
Wreck it Ralph
Ralph asks "What's going on in this candy coated Heart of Darkness?" Sour Bill tries to run away but Ralph picks him up and threatens to lick him. "I'll take it to my grave" "Fair enough" and Ralph pops Sour Bill in his mouth "Had enough?" "OKAY OKAY I'LL TALK!"
Cars 2
The green-gasoline in his tank, the spy car is put in front of the radiation shooting camera and is interrogated about who the other spy is and who has the information about the green gas he recovered that could unravel their plan to get revenge for being discriminated against for being "lemons." His engine explodes (he's killed?) in spite of giving up the information.
The Incredibles
Mr. Incredible is restrained via some black goop and asked about his family's whereabouts on the island.
Finding Nemo
Near the end of the film when Dory finds Nemo but Marlin has wandered off thinking Nemo was dead, they need to know which way Marlin went and come across the little crabs sitting on the pipe "heyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyy" "Yeah I saw where he went, but I'm not telling you, and there's no way you're gonna make me." Dory lifts him up and threatens to feed him to the seagulls sitting on a small rock until he starts screaming "OKAY ILL TALK ILL TALK HE WENT TO THE FISHING GROUNDS!!!"
I could go on, but I hope to make this simple point:
These films do NOT have to include a torture scene. It's simply odd to me that it appears so often, instilling the idea early on that torture works for getting information or cooperation out of people.
Finally, I point to one of many pieces of research on the matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325643/
USDA: Eggs are NOT Healthy or Safe to eat
You have some serious psychological issues and I hope you can find the time to work on them. I feel bad for you that you create conflicts and arguments as your primary form of human interaction.
No, because you didn't specify "terrestrial", or "single cause", or "currently", or "intentional", or "not including habitats degraded to the point of collapse but not overtly destroyed".
I added a number of qualifiers to make it possible to agree with your statement.
Did you even read what you wrote?
Did you read the paragraph that came before what you cut and pasted? *facepalm
Btw, I wrote that, I only cut and pasted the wiki, which I did read. I get enough proteins that my brain functions enough to think for myself, but thanks for the compliment of thinking I copied from a professional writer.
LMFAHS!