Children

Originally posted by Burning thought
i thought so lol....follows in with exactley what I thought, regardless of your nay saying I can find so much information from this alone.

The evidence shows how people act however, you can find out by talking to people, by watching reality shows etc. A scientific study is simply what me and DDM has already done, only diffrence is the scientist has the title "scientist" but any fool can understand people being manipulated by soceity or instinctual notions.

Another trait you sare with dadudemon.

Y-you take "reality shows" as a bar of measurement? Are you silly? And no, you stating shit, based on MTV, is not the same as a scientific study.

Originally posted by Burning thought

Can you give me a reaosn why a qualification means much of anything?

in this instance it would mean you aren't making things up, have at least a passing familiarity with the concepts, and more abstractly, would have a much less generalized understanding of human behaviour.

Originally posted by Burning thought
to gain a qualification you simply need to have the right random grades

re: I have no post secondary education AND no experience in the field of psychology

random grades? so you can write me a "random" paper about the neuroscientific explanations behind Stockholm Syndrome? Since it means nothing to be educated in these things, obvously some random person could do it.

man, you are a case study in cognitive dissonance

Originally posted by Burning thought
and then get the job of psychologist,

psychology is a little bit more expansive than those who call themselves "psychologists".

Originally posted by Burning thought
I know many friends who do Psychology

so I can claim expertise in things my friends are interested in?

hello! I'm a freaking expert guitar player and know way more about music than any of you!

Originally posted by Burning thought
and personally I can often read people,

but you can't explain why that is an ability common to most humans, nor can you name a single experiment where this ability has been tested, nor do you have any idea what the limitations of this ability might be... etc.

what you can do, like everyone else, is form opinions of people. congrads!

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think looking into peoples minds is fairly easy especially when its staring you in the face.

1) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2) you have essentially just admitted your ignorance

3) easy = Propagator theory of brain dynamics is generalized to incorporate a new class of patchy propagators that enable treatment of approximately periodic structures such as are seen in the visual cortex. Complex response fields are also incorporated to allow for features such as orientation preference and wave-number selectivity. The results are applied to the corticothalamic system associated with the primary visual cortex. It is found that this system can generate gamma ( > or = 30 Hz) oscillations during stimulation, whose properties are consistent with experimental findings on gamma frequency and bandwidth, and existence of fine-scale spatial structure. It is found that a potential resonance is associated with each reciprocal lattice vector corresponding to periodic modulations of the propagators. It is found that the lowest resonances are the most likely to give rise to noticeable spectral peaks and increases of correlation amplitude, length, and time, and that these aspects are prominent only if the system is close to marginal stability, in accord with previous measurements and discussions of cortical stability. These features also enable gamma resonances to be stimulus-evoked, with substantial resonance sharpening for relatively small changes in mean neural firing rate. The results also imply dependence of gamma frequency on stimulus features.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16711833

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Your proof is in reality tv and comedy shows?

Good luck convincing anyone who knows anything.

Fix'd

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fix'd

Haha, good call.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If theyve done nothing to make you like them yet you do anyway, then ime not sure what that is, its not Drone, its simply the fact you probably dont know the reason but if nobody in your soceity likes/knows them then you cant be a drone and a human doesnt have instinct to listen to music 😛

well iused it as an example of the fact that you can want to do something or like somthing and not really have a reason

a women can want a child just because she wants to have one, thats not being a drone its making a decsion. I guess you're a drone for having friends and realationsships as well.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Indeed we have, we have seen what people do/say and so we can make our mind up on those people, its a study on what people do, you can find out from almost anywhere.

what was the null hypothesis?

Ive asked you 3 times now for an independent variable.

in the most literal of senses, you need both of those before what you are doing even approaches science, or an experiment.

Originally posted by inimalist
in this instance it would mean you aren't making things up, have at least a passing familiarity with the concepts, and more abstractly, would have a much less generalized understanding of human behaviour.

Explain this one to me please, how would having a qualifcation mean that? Being a psychologist is just a Job, you gain the job by having qualifcations to gain that job, qualifcations which could be just as random as history/geography like which I have.

Originally posted by inimalist
re: I have no post secondary education AND no experience in the field of psychology

random grades? so you can write me a "random" paper about the neuroscientific explanations behind Stockholm Syndrome? Since it means nothing to be educated in these things, obvously some random person could do it.

I could write that paper given a time to look through the subject of Stockholm Syndrome, anyone can do that.

Originally posted by inimalist
1. psychology is a little bit more expansive than those who call themselves "psychologists".

2. so I can claim expertise in things my friends are interested in?

hello! I'm a freaking expert guitar player and know way more about music than any of you!

3. but you can't explain why that is an ability common to most humans, nor can you name a single experiment where this ability has been tested, nor do you have any idea what the limitations of this ability might be... etc.

what you can do, like everyone else, is form opinions of people. congrads!

1. please explain...how?

2. Expertise? no, but you dont need a qualification to be an expert either.

3. No i can look at the world around me without needing some professor I dont know to tell me the same thing ive already seen in my own living.

Originally posted by inimalist
1) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2) you have essentially just admitted your ignorance

3) easy = Propagator theory of brain dynamics is generalized to incorporate a new class of patchy propagators that enable treatment of approximately periodic structures such as are seen in the visual cortex. Complex response fields are also incorporated to allow for features such as orientation preference and wave-number selectivity. The results are applied to the corticothalamic system associated with the primary visual cortex. It is found that this system can generate gamma ( > or = 30 Hz) oscillations during stimulation, whose properties are consistent with experimental findings on gamma frequency and bandwidth, and existence of fine-scale spatial structure. It is found that a potential resonance is associated with each reciprocal lattice vector corresponding to periodic modulations of the propagators. It is found that the lowest resonances are the most likely to give rise to noticeable spectral peaks and increases of correlation amplitude, length, and time, and that these aspects are prominent only if the system is close to marginal stability, in accord with previous measurements and discussions of cortical stability. These features also enable gamma resonances to be stimulus-evoked, with substantial resonance sharpening for relatively small changes in mean neural firing rate. The results also imply dependence of gamma frequency on stimulus features.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16711833

1. erm...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can do that too, although mines better since ive got an extra "HA"....

2. erm no not really

3. Explain what that actually helps you with your argument? ime not seeing anything to do with what ime argueing...

Originally posted by jalek moye
well iused it as an example of the fact that you can want to do something or like somthing and not really have a reason

a women can want a child just because she wants to have one, thats not being a drone its making a decsion. I guess you're a drone for having friends and realationsships as well.

Its impossible, A women cannot just wake up and say "I badly want a child and its going to be more important to me than the rest of the world!" what nonsense.....

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its an example of what I am saying, fact does not really need proof,

yes it does. Everything needs proof.

[QUOTE=11148396]Originally posted by Burning thought
[B]since proof can be found for this in most reality shows, comedies laughing at the way people are etc etc.

So, to you, a show that was written by someone to convey whatever message they want is a valid proof, akin to peer-reviewed work?

An edited for entertainment value show has some validity when compared to controlled studies?

Originally posted by Burning thought
You can easily see how ime correct in the fact that people do act like what ive stated,

you stated people are drones

yet have failed to offer a definition of drone

you said those who choose to do things in a similar way to their peer group are drones... So then to not be a drone you would have to have no peer group...

Originally posted by Burning thought
people are manipulated by soceity and you can see it in many areas but mostly in colledges/universities and find out by talking to people of varying ages.

ya, they stopped doing those kind of studies in psych because they learned that the data was suspect to bias and the way people present themselves.

Any type of reported information is treated very skeptically by researchers, and modern techniques are aimed at asking people things in ways that they are unaware of what you are asking them.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive looked it up many times, quote from the wiki article what is relevent to your point?

you have looked up neuroplasticity?

funny concept eh? What do you think, if a child was reared in an environment where the input stimuli carried different featural information for different functional purposes (like colour, rather than orientation defined contours) how do you think the low level arrangement of vision would be affected? Does the human brain have enough plasticity to make sense of that environment?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its impossible, A women cannot just wake up and say "I badly want a child and its going to be more important to me than the rest of the world!" what nonsense.....

Originally posted by Burning thought
Explain this one to me please, how would having a qualifcation mean that? Being a psychologist is just a Job, you gain the job by having qualifcations to gain that job, qualifcations which could be just as random as history/geography like which I have.

a) psychology is the not practice of being a psychologist, it is the study of human behaviour using scientific methodology

b) the qualifications one needs to be a psychologist are not random

c) the qualifications necessary to become a psychologist are not randomly distributed or passive as history/geography. One must seek out the specific qualifications.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I could write that paper given a time to look through the subject of Stockholm Syndrome, anyone can do that.

and you prove my point

Originally posted by Burning thought
1. please explain...how?

well, to begin with, there is community psychology, clinical psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and many other types of psychology. All have research, practice, and teaching fields.

Psychology today stands as one of the most expansive umbrella terms in all of science. To classify psycholoy as those who are practicing psychologist is really to ignore anything exciting from the field, which imho, normally comes from research.

Originally posted by Burning thought
2. Expertise? no, but you dont need a qualification to be an expert either.

depends how you define "qualification"

I would think some degree of experience, no matter what the field, would be required to be an expert. If not formal experience, that is ok, however, in the field of psychology, it has been found more often than not that the folk psychology that people come up with on their own is worthless at best.

Originally posted by Burning thought
3. No i can look at the world around me without needing some professor I dont know to tell me the same thing ive already seen in my own living.

well, thats good for you, because nothing you have seen in your own living (based on what you have posted here) is congruent with the actual study of human behaviour. You might have appraoched a theme or two, but what you have said here is largely much more emblematic of who you are rather than who others are. Its like Freud in that way.

Originally posted by Burning thought
1. erm...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can do that too, although mines better since ive got an extra "HA"....

2. erm no not really

3. Explain what that actually helps you with your argument? ime not seeing anything to do with what ime argueing...

its an example of how easy it is to see into the mind.

my argument here has changed to yu don't know what you are talking about, rather than anything from earlier. The reason this supports that is because it is an example of how difficult it is to actually do any reading of the content of a person's mind, a practice you claimed was easy.

Originally posted by inimalist
1. So, to you, a show that was [b]written by someone to convey whatever message they want is a valid proof, akin to peer-reviewed work?

An edited for entertainment value show has some validity when compared to controlled studies?

2. you stated people are drones

yet have failed to offer a definition of drone

you said those who choose to do things in a similar way to their peer group are drones... So then to not be a drone you would have to have no peer group...

3. ya, they stopped doing those kind of studies in psych because they learned that the data was suspect to bias and the way people present themselves.

Any type of reported information is treated very skeptically by researchers, and modern techniques are aimed at asking people things in ways that they are unaware of what you are asking them.

4. you have looked up neuroplasticity?

funny concept eh? What do you think, if a child was reared in an environment where the input stimuli carried different featural information for different functional purposes (like colour, rather than orientation defined contours) how do you think the low level arrangement of vision would be affected? Does the human brain have enough plasticity to make sense of that environment? [/B]

1. Studies is just what ive done as can anyone else, the fact it has a seal of approval from a university is the only diffrence. The thing is, that a TV show gives you an example of what soceity likes to see, people laugh at reality shows because thats what they are, reality and being shown the foolishness of their own reality people find it funny. Thats why in shows like big brother they fill with either fools who are likely socially controlled because it interests people, thats why a lot of people in big brother have the brain the size of a cherry, for example the women crying and moaning because they did not let her have her makup and her case a few months ago.

2. I like how you say ive given NO definition then give a part of the definition.

Drones:

-follow their peer groups
-follow social ideas like law (i.e its wrong to be gay!)
-cannot give reasons or explanations for actions they call part of their own behavior which you touched on below.

3. You just basically proved my entire point, people present themselves as diffrent characters to fit in/follow the idea of soceity.

4. I dont understand what your asking me, please ask me it in a diffrent more obvious way.

Are you from the UK?

Originally posted by inimalist
a) psychology is the not practice of being a psychologist, it is the study of human behaviour using scientific methodology

b) the qualifications one needs to be a psychologist are not random

c) the qualifications necessary to become a psychologist are not randomly distributed or passive as history/geography. One must seek out the specific qualifications.

and you prove my point

well, to begin with, there is community psychology, clinical psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and many other types of psychology. All have research, practice, and teaching fields.

Psychology today stands as one of the most expansive umbrella terms in all of science. To classify psycholoy as those who are practicing psychologist is really to ignore anything exciting from the field, which imho, normally comes from research.

depends how you define "qualification"

I would think some degree of experience, no matter what the field, would be required to be an expert. If not formal experience, that is ok, however, in the field of psychology, it has been found more often than not that the folk psychology that people come up with on their own is worthless at best.

well, thats good for you, because nothing you have seen in your own living (based on what you have posted here) is congruent with the actual study of human behaviour. You might have appraoched a theme or two, but what you have said here is largely much more emblematic of who you are rather than who others are. Its like Freud in that way.

its an example of how easy it is to see into the mind.

my argument here has changed to yu don't know what you are talking about, rather than anything from earlier. The reason this supports that is because it is an example of how difficult it is to actually do any reading of the content of a person's mind, a practice you claimed was easy.

You dont need as I said earlier however all these qualifcations and titles to tell you what people are. ou just need to look and talk to the people, if their trying to hide who they are or are lieing like you said earlier about having to ask people so they dont know what their being asked then your proving people react to how soceity wants them to be.

Can you show me the folk psychology that is found worthless?

Its easy looking from a social point of view, looking from a scientific point of view is difficult and in this instance irrelvent as well.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Are you from the UK?

In sociology you still need to provide quantitative data as evidence, you will not be taken seriously by screaming "just watch TV!!!!!!".

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
In sociology you still need to provide quantitative data as evidence, you will not be taken seriously by screaming "just watch TV!!!!!!".

Yeah, that's where calling people drones whenever they disagree with him comes in. It releases him from having to do any work.

data? like what? how is me telling you where to find information which is stupid becaus the info is simplyin the world around you, if youve not taken your time in trying to understand people or dont try to get to the depths of who a person is rather than who they are trying to create the image of who they are then you obviously need to try to do such things. you dont need a little table showing results of people.

And nobody is screaming....

Watching reality programs is a good way to see the reasons behind people do things since TV programs are usually targeted, especially those for younger generations or my age at the social aspects of their lives, which leads to the instinctual/social control ime talking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, that's where calling people drones whenever they disagree with him comes in. It releases him from having to do any work.

😆

Originally posted by Burning thought
data? like what? how is me telling you where to find information which is stupid becaus the info is simplyin the world around you, if youve not taken your time in trying to understand people or dont try to get to the depths of who a person is rather than who they are trying to create the image of who they are then you obviously need to try to do such things. you dont need a little table showing results of people.

You do need to measure you data and provide actual reproducible evidence if you want to be taken seriously by any thinking person. You can invent bullshit all day long but it'll still baseless and not worth looking at for any real independent thinker.

Originally posted by Burning thought
And nobody is screaming....

You are. Between sobs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You do need to measure you data and provide actual reproducible evidence if you want to be taken seriously by any thinking person.

So your basically telling me is that I dont want to be taken seriously by you?