I don't know about this... It looks like a wait and see. Some of those scenes look like they are trying too hard...like WAY too hard; essentially they are trying to scare us using all of the extremely stupid ideas that have been used in all horror films since 2000...

Poltergeist was inventive, and awesome. Not only was it NOT a rated R film, but it STILL imposed a sense of dread that you don't get from many horror movies--because they all rely on two things: the "gotcha" scenes where something unexpected happens too fast for your senses to comprehend...thus it creates fear; and second, make something normal look absolutely not normal (the little girl in the closet for an example).

I hope they can pull it off, but it looks to me like they failed to grasp the reason WHY the first film did do so well. The beginning of the show was hard to even tell it WAS a horror film, and when things start to happen, the family was more in awe and ready to experiment with it...at first (and other signs were passed off as natural phenomena).

This looks like it is straight up: horror. I really hope that is not the case. Poltergeist spent a long time to setup it's scary moments, many of it's most scary moments are actually psychological--because you can see them coming, they never jump out at you (except when things go crazy at the very end). I hope they realize this at least...but as I said, it sure looks like they didn't.

BTW, anyone with the info on it, who is writing it, producing it, and directing it? Otherwise I'll go look it up (and see how bad it is; it already said it was from the producers of Evil Dead...like that is something to be proud of...it wasn't a good remake...).

Yes, it's like the sidewalk-chalk illustrations that are amazing technical feats from the right angle, but look nearly indecipherable from any other.

I prefer it this way, in a lesser-of-two-evils sense. It's an attraction to a specific location for the people entering the room from a specific direction. The alternative would ultimately be to unnerve the players playing, and understanding that casinos are already sucker-traps I wouldn't be able to see it as anything other than a psychological toy to screw your customers up further.

Agreed. Thats also why psychology is actually mostly mathematics. Ask any 1st semester student. Its really just cause and effect. What really shocks me all the time is that most people just dont get this simple fact.

And that statement might be the biggest bunch of crap I've read on the Sift in this last week, considering that psychology is fundamentally rooted in neuro-biological reactions to our environment (an evidence-based hard science).

Or video title could be
"Tyson makes a valid point and is shot down by some geriatrics"

Tyson is correct. And that is why psychology is mostly hocus pocus and we have yet to develop artificial intelligence.

>I think hurting others or self-hurting is always a sign of self-hate.

Not always. Always rarely applies in the field of psychology.

It could simply be sociopathy. You simply don't care.

Yeah, well, I completely disagree.

As I said, cloud password protection is an immateriality.

This video is about her being violently attacked psychologically.

Of course you can talk about what you want to talk about.

I hope you can hear me that is extremely painful for a woman to read about passwords when the topic is women being psychologically attacked by a certain type of man.

I'm bowing out now. I made my point.

Yeah. You are one of the good guys. I know. Honestly.

We're part of the problem because we believe that people should take precautions and avoid unnecessary risks? Make no mistake, it's awful that someone stole her pictures and distributed them on the web. She's definitely the victim here. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, making angry videos chastising the people who perpetrated these crimes is a waste of time. They knew exactly what they were doing and most certainly don't feel any remorse. Explaining the psychological impact of leaked nude pictures isn't going to convert those people into saints.

There are a lot of assholes in the world who don't care about your feelings or your rights. You should take that into account with every choice you make, such as taking nude pictures of yourself and sharing them with others on the internet. People take precautions all the time. You lock your doors, you look both ways before crossing the street, you don't carry too much cash at any given time, you stay out of dark alleys, you wear warm clothing in cold weather, you cover the seats of public toilets before using them, you wash your hands after using toilets, you get flu shots, etc. Using the internet should be treated no differently. Teaching people that sobering fact is going to be way more productive than trying to turn assholes into good people.

Naked pictures are not really the issue.

If her pictures had been stolen and looked at, but she didn't KNOW that they had been seen, her psychological damage from this theft would have been very different. Wondering who has seen them, being uncomfortable when meeting someone -- has this person seen them? That person? Not happy, not cool. And, in fact, she took back that particular psychological assault by posting this video and claiming her naked body for herself. Here. Look. I want you to look. It's my body and it is a fine body.

The real damage are the personal attacks, exposing personal information, attempted blackmail, active psychological assaults on her mind.

You guys can have your intellectual conversation about the cloud and how to protect yourself.

But that is not the problem.

I had to stop reading the comment stream when I realized it was starting to include crap about -- oh this isn't misogyny, this isn't hatred.

Yes. It is. It is violence against women, and this woman in particular.

And when you ignore that, and focus on the fact that she had made something that was vulnerable to theft... well, we get back to that feminist/humanist trope of -- you are part of the problem. #Not All Men? Well, men who focus on immaterialities while a violent psychological assault is taking place? I'd say #Those Men.

I know you don't mean any harm. I know you aren't #Those Men, not really. But I'm here to tell you that there is new harm being committed when you ignore the actual violent psychological crimes.

I am aware that some of what I have written might sound really stupid in light of the above comments, since I didn't read them. I'm okay with that. It is better than subjecting myself to what feels like an additional violation.

Your video, The Psychology of the Web Troll, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'documentary, race, racial, doll test, psychology' to 'documentary, race, racial, doll test, psychology, a girl like me' - edited by eric3579

You're 100% spot on, and that along with systemic corruption from top to bottom of politics and business (..but i repeat myself..) is going to be the legacy of this era - the Age of Deception. We MUST look good, we CANNOT afford to admit wrong.. these are phrases that should be anathema to politicians and public services, but they are words that literally define the modern statesman.

And as the supposed greatest amongst us, people flock to their example and are rewarded for doing so. We need both a psychological revolution, so we stop the rot of our civilisation, but also a physical one, because those in power are absolutely not going to relinquish it or even reduce their grip.

Why on Earth should we allow people who show themselves to be incompetent continue to hold the reins? We need a way to hold these people to account for their words and actions.

I think this is ok. Parent was pretty chill. Psychologically it must be a bit nuts to have parents freak the fuck out and rush you to the toilet for emergency poops. I mean, is it any wonder we have an anally retentive culture. Chill out parents, treat your kids with calm and if you can't make it to the bathroom for instructional defecation, its not the end of the world.