> most homeless people are men
51% are men, idr% are women, the rest are "female led families" & you're excluding the extreme amounts of sex trafficking occurring, with 90%+ of trafficked women saying they were originally homeless.
> the female eats the male praying mantis
under extreme stress in lab conditions
> alpha male patterns in other monkeys
literally the antithesis of how humans evolved to suppress and even kill off 'alpha male' behavior for the success of the community https://www.amazon.ca/Moral-Origins-Evolution-Virtue-Altruism/dp/0465020488
> female reproduction is assured
Aren't you the same dudes constantly reeeing about single mothers? Humans are unique in the time and effort our development needs and as such monogamy has been the norm for 17k years
>egaltarianism as a revoult against nature
it's actually our species' evolutionary niche, dude.
​
I'd tolerate MGTOW far more if you guys ever did reading outside of your bubble.
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Evil-Empathy-Origins-Cruelty/dp/0465031420
That’s the very definition of evil.
The author’s name should look familiar. His brother is someone who’s been getting evil on video and film for quite some time.
No, I believe that (because I do believe established facts) so the Reagan admin had it's part. But the larger context is that the disestablishment of the mental health infrastructure had bipartisan support and the root causes for that support came primarily from liberal, compassionate ideas that mental health commitments were harsh, de-humanizaing, and should be abandoned. (Recall Geraldo Rivera's Willowbrook expose and Jack Nicholson's portrayal in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). And if you want to dive deeper, mental illness theory at the time leaned towards a belief that mentally ill people were misunderstood and release back into communities was the more enlightened approach. And on the cutting edge, some psychologists advanced the idea that mental illness was a "myth". See, for example, the Thomas S. Szasz's book ["The Myth of Mental Illness"]{https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Mental-Illness-Foundations-Personal/dp/0061771228/ref=sr_1_1?crid=31W08W5YP12LU&keywords=the+myth+of+mental+illness&qid=1663039465&sprefix=the+myth+of+mental+illness%2Caps%2C250&sr=8-1}. (This was assigned reading in my Psych 101 course.)
Likewise, you aren't wrong.
I understand you feel desperate and I'm not discounting that. Most people want help, they just don't know how or have the courage to ask. You deserve a lot of credit for putting yourself out there and doing both.
This "easy button" does not exist as you imagine it. The psychedelics are a tool, just like nitro glycerin or an umbrella. They aren't one size fix all magic wands. You need a whole tool kit to deal with life's problems.
Here's another excellent tool. Take care.
You are insulting me.
And yes, mental illnesses that cannot be reliably tested are not essentially different from superstitions:
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Mental-Illness-Foundations-Personal/dp/0061771228
Insteresting.
These studies still suffer from the "mental illness" framework, which some argue is just a way of psychiatrists to force people to conform:
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Mental-Illness-Foundations-Personal/dp/0061771228
Today we understand that "gender identity" is a religion rather than a medical concept.
You should read Irreducible Mind It's a great read and talks about how psychology used to be, "I experience this, others must as well," to the poking and prodding to elicited pertain responses to given stimuli. Very interesting read.
https://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068
I was just turned on to this which takes on a lot of misunderstanding of psychology and beliefs in pseudopsychology and therefore others denigrating [psychology as bad science.
If I taught psyc-101 I would absolutely require reading this. The chapters on operationalization and clinical vs statistical prediction are outstanding.
I was just recomended and read this book. It's great and addresses the common misnderstabnding oif psychology as being super soft and pseudoscince. Most people that think they undrestand psychology often go for pseudoscientific soft aspects of it, but this clears a lot of things up.
https://www.amazon.com/Think-Straight-About-Psychology-10th/dp/0205914128
Also, I know that the world of industrial and organizational psychology is working on getting a STEM classification from the US government. I forget all the details but there are two ways to get it certified as STEM. ONe I believe is the dept. of homeland security that uses career classification such as this for visa issuing purposes. In this case, STEM classification is for student visa purposes.
The other institution is one of the larger science groups that slip my mind. Both have slightly different definitions, but certain subdisciplines should meet their criteria. You have to keep in mind that psychology is very heavily statistically driven. It's a very quantitative field. And you are correct that with the brain becoming more and more measurable and important to the field it is going to continue in the direction of a hard science such as biology.
I kind of look at it as, "who cares?" To me, a bigger problem is that science, in general, is being denigrated.
I don't know if this helps, but psychology is the science for learning and teaching about other sciences. That's kind of cool and psychology can help design effective hard science learning programs.
all those things boil down to one question. is consciousness real, or is it a brain generated illusion, reducible to mindless matter
Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century
if it is reducible, then your feelings about that stuff is justified. but based on my profound and numerous experiences with the anomalous features of consciousness and on various flavors of evidence such as in the above book, it isn't
I know it sounds like a copout, but justice depends on the context.
Unlike say with religion or faith, there is empirical evidence that humans evolved with an innate sense of justice, a way of knowing and recognizing--in context--what is just, and what is unjust.
If you haven't already, check out this read, by the anthropologist and primatologist Christopher Boehm. I hate amazon but here is the easiest link
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Origins-Evolution-Virtue-Altruism/dp/0465020488
His book Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, is also an excellent and thought provoking read
https://www.amazon.com/Hierarchy-Forest-Evolution-Egalitarian-Behavior/dp/0674006917
I think Andy Field's Discovering Statistics is a good first book. You can run the analyses in any software.
Another great source of knowledge is Understanding Psychology as a Science by Zoltan Dienes.
Understanding Psychology as a Science by Zoltan Downed https://www.amazon.com/dp/023054231X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_NQ4PRSPX7TGHPC99TD8K
This book is great at breaking down the philosophical assumptions current psych science is built on. It's pretty technical so you need to have a pretty thorough graduate understanding of research methods and stats though.
u/FusRoDoo are you aware of the nderf.org site? TONS of stories up there answer your question here. I've linked to the "exceptional" section. This is data collected by the Univ of Virginia, Dr Bruce Greyson, et al. And, since you are "science minded" and interested in this topic, have you looked into this book...? The Irreducible Mind
I see. It can be difficult at times, for sure. To some extent I imagine it depends on your own interpretations of scripture and philosophical views. Within the faith there is quite a wide variety of perspectives on topics of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and ways to approach scripture. I sometimes find myself more in agreement with materialistic scientists on certain topics than with Baha'is.
However, regarding the fundamental materialist position of many scientists, I find it often tends to be just as dogmatic as beliefs of certain religious types. There is a growing body of evidence from multiple fields suggesting that a materialist orientation cannot account for phenomena that we encounter in the universe. The majority of today's scientists ignore or are not aware of the relevant work. One place to start is by reading this book https://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068/ . It is focused mainly on psychology, but does a good job of articulating many of the relevant topics at play when it comes to today's materialism.
This textbook does a really good job at a quick outline of Popper's contribution and I highly recommend it to anyone who is studying Psychology (my major).: Understanding Psychology as a Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference
I don't recall where I ran into that book but it was much more useful than what we were using in class. I want to say I got it from the "Everything Hertz" podcast which I highly recommend.
The strange love relationship to Marx is baffling to me. I never understood and may never will. I am from South America and I saw first hand what following Marx gets you, nothing but ruin, death and destruction. I've been trying to be more open minded towards the Democratic Socialist ideas and learn to see what they have to offer but I keep getting side tracked and never actually dive in.
I also recently found out Marx was deeply anti-semitic so like, somehow that's okay...I just don't get it. If there is one thing that I could change about people on my side of the aisle it would definitely be this strange obsession with Marx.
I feel people need to identify with something and having a “mental illness” is at times the equivalent of Christians identifying with Christianity. Not to mention, most people who say they are depressed are misdiagnosing themselves based on internet based searches and answers. Additionally, the internet can actually validate people’s emotions far easier than humanity ever could before. If people feel they are on the ADD spectrum, they can find thousands of articles and forums that validate those inner thoughts and beliefs, even if they aren’t true about you. Not to mention they equate being sad or down with being depressed and the two aren’t the same. Human emotion has a range and an ebb and flow throughout the day. To be 100% happy 24/7 is not realistic. A healthy brain has ups and downs.
Also, many life situations and thoughts contribute to depression and make it worse. Even the thinking that “I am depressed” worsens and keeps people in that mindset that they are suffering from depression when in reality it’s something else like being sad you didn’t get promoted or upset that your friend is mad at you.
Mental illness is a myth. A mind construct. There’s a great book that goes in depth with this called “The Myth of Mental Illness” - https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Mental-Illness-Foundations-Personal/dp/0061771228
Guessing that the most tests you encounter are correlations, t-tests and analyses of variance, this should be a good fit:
here's a book that considers these questions from a solidly academic yet nontraditional POV: https://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068
i'm not going to try to convince you that consciousness cannot be neatly located in the human brain (which scientists sloppily refer to sometimes as "mind" -- as if that word has ANY scientific usefulness -- and this just speaks to the hugely imprecise way scientists speak and think about these things). if you're interested in the topic, i recommend the book above.
but let me ask you. what is consciousness exactly?
Understanding Psychology as a Science by Zoltan Dienes
The building had steel .. if not, it's even more impressed it collapsed
Didn't freefall collapse because it wasn't supporting 20 floors above the burn point
Very few steel-framed buildings have ever been hit by a fully loaded jet plane, history has no meaning here
Tehran building codes are stronger than US building codes, no lazy labor unions getting in the way.
You should read the entire book: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X
>It's a conclusion based on a complete lack of counterexamples, a lack of any supported theories that would allow for such behavior, and the existence of well-verified theories that fundamentally disallow such behavior. As such, the conclusion that people can't meditate their way across space and time constitutes well-established knowledge.
There are plenty of examples, and plenty of theory that would allow "Mind" to travel through space and time; but of course, it's not even accepted to "talk" about these things, by the majority of the scientific establishment so you're not going to see the kind of controlled examples that you are looking for. It is taboo. Some would say, it is professional suicide. Outside of a physicalist materialist perspective of the universe, these things are very possible. Inside it? Of course not.
If you want a proper scientific look at this stuff, I suggest you read Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century.
Modern science cannot even begin to explain how relatively low-level (not "enlightened") meditators can do things like burn themselves while alive without twitching a muscle, slow their pulse-rate or breathing down to virtually nothing for extended periods of time, generate intense body heat in sub-zero climates, etc. And these are just physiological phenomena, much more easily observed and analyzed than anything from the psychological domain.
>The difference is that we have strong evidence and theory on the one side, and none on the other. There is not an equal probability that either are true.
Read the book. You'll maybe find that there's plenty of evidence which suggests that the scientific community's base assumptions that physicalist materialism is true is a false one.
Wilson's "On Human Nature" should be required reading (and is shorter/more readable than Sociobiology)
If you're really serious about this, then I urge you to read the following book http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068 & http://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Revolutionary-Theory-Reality/dp/0062014102
That will give you a better idea how weak the foundation for the hypothesis of materialism is.
Sure. It's not conclusive by any means but there have been a lot of studies done involving near-death experiences and out of body reports that suggest the very real possibility both that consciousness survives the death of the physical body and that our consciousnesses go "somewhere" after we die.
Look into Pim Van Lommel's study or Jeffrey Long's prospective study (both wrote books about them), both physicians and skeptics before looking into what's really going on with NDEs and OOB experiences. Also read Irreducible Mind.
Prescriptive materialism is a fundamentalist viewpoint and often anti-scientific.
I would buy an old edition, but the best introduction to psychology is How to Think Straight About Psychology. Doesn't just give an overview of the field, but explains the difference between what is and is not psychology.
http://www.amazon.com/Think-Straight-About-Psychology-Edition/dp/0205914128
From the description:
Keith Stanovich's widely used and highly acclaimed book presents a short introduction to the critical thinking skills that will help students to better understand the subject matter of psychology. How to Think Straight about Psychology, 10e helps students recognize pseudoscience and be able to distinguish it from true psychological research, aiding students to become more discriminating consumers of psychological information.
Learning Goals Upon completing this book, readers should be able to: Evaluate psychological claims they encounter in the general media. Distinguish between pseudoscience and true psychological research. Apply psychological knowledge to better understand events in the world around them.
As an MS4 on the interview trail for psychiatry, I wanted to read some opposition work. I came across some work by Thomas Szasz (this book in particular).
Anyway, I did a little background research on him and found out he founded CCHR International. Where had I heard of that group before? Reddit!
In addition to this list, I'd recommend:
Nah man, you're not a nutjob. I know some real conspiracy nuts in real life, they're not nutjobs, they just have different worldviews. But even just the basic video of hte incident shows debris in true freefall that is ejected going down faster than the bulk of the mass which is the most basic representation I can give of it not being in free fall.
I did my own calculations based on it as I'm fairly good in that area but I can surely help you find some more information I'm sure. I know Popular mechanics made a great article a while back though that really put in understandable terms. I /Personally/ didn't read this one but I've heard some good things from some people who enjoy Popular Mechanics and considering who they are I feel pretty confident suggesting it.
Edit: Found it http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X
Edit 2: Oh and to top it all off btw, I do believe that some non criminal negligence was involved in this plot not being stopped. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 though, and at the time I might have also found travel patterns and communications of the individuals to have been worrying but not threatening. I wasn't the person making the call, so I can't say one way or the other.