NSP March 21 2015
Current time: 09-19-2017, 06:58 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 13
Views: 6926

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NSP March 21 2015
03-22-2015, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 03-25-2015 06:54 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #1
NSP March 21 2015
Thanks, Marc, for discussing my two topics of concern, and your kind words (i think? lol).
First, let me restate that, the reason, as i'm seeing it, i bring it up (persistently), is because i'm interested in being as far away from lacking in integrity (logical consistency, hyperbole, sensationalism, ad hominem, etc) as the criminals being addressed, as one personally interested in voluntary association as the social norm, can be.

Just one quick consideration on the bit about language/lingo. Today you spoke about "inflammatory" (e.g. the "N" word) but is that not a bit of deflection? i.e. the point that's being made being that this issue comes up in regards to the goal of "family programming", right? That noted, fwiw, i'm inclined more towards shedding the taboo (emphasis on the "Boo!" aspect) that words have an inherent meaning in the first place, solving the problem at the root. [e.g. if this was a "rap" forum, the "N" word isn't "inflammatory"; generally on the lingo one, don't be too hard on yourself, as far as my two cents worth!]

So with that concern and consideration in mind, how does hearing a word like "bastard" compare to hearing a word like "nigger" "psychopath" from a new listener perspective? And the typical listener? And the kids? Families? (and hearing "psychopath!" over and over and over?)

i concur that there are individuals clinically, as by some standard, qualifying as being anti-social and that there are likely a higher percentage of them when it comes to positions of power.
But again, so can be Fundamentalists (of any religious order).? And that these both are vital to be aware of.

Now to get into the broadcast specifically:
You bring up working for as being employed by the IRS as being evidence in and of itself, of psychopathy, right? Again, my challenge is that the behavior of funda'mental'ly religious individuals, of the "god" arena, is indistinguishable therein, and i'm not finding any distinguishing evidence for labeling and calling them-- the front line phone and conference centric bureaucrats-- psychopaths instead. So much so, that one of the more popular examples used when demonstrating the circular argument/reasoning fallacy, "The Bible is true because God said it was true, in the Bible" is used. (and if say "in" Syria, add the "You're here aren't you?"?)
Yet how often does the pointing out of to Fundamentalists that their logical inconsistency (for likely the first time in their lives even) and the Belief foundation result in peaceful disagreement or their on the spot acknowledging\admitting such? [see the reason discussing "Religion" on the forum --irony of how "Religion" gets "hallmark" defined not aside-- is discouraged by so many?]

Hare, in an article he authored in 1996 wrote:
Quote:In my book, Without Conscience, I argued that we live in a "camouflage society", a society in which some psychopathic traits-- egocentricity, lack of concern for others, superficiality, style over substance, being "cool", manipulativeness, and so forth-- increasingly are tolerated and even valued.
[bold text emphasis, mine --eye2i]

You talked about psychopathic tendencies circa several IRS agents of late, but again, my counter point is: challenge any criminal on the spot and give me evidence that their behavior would be any different from that of the classic Bureaucrat?
You say "normal" people back down from logically consistent questioning when presented with such; that's not my experience in dealing with challenges to godists aka religionistas of the "god" variety, and how "normal" are they? Nor have i heard of it being the norm that criminals back down when confronted with their logical inconsistencies on the street (noting, cops included in this one!).

Note that in today's broadcast, you brought in anti-social disorder, psychopathy, and narcissism like they're synonyms. Later you spoke like they were required in some combination to be psychopathy? Is that fair? i personally don't see how it can be. Especially when one is trying to communicate publicly/broadly.

You keep emphasizing that there are 3 "hallmarks" of psychopathy. How is that not selective picking (if not disingenuous)? And note that in chatting with Ian (kudos to him overall), you spoke of your opinion regarding doing such. Fine.
Again, i can only offer that Hare with his training and experience (fwtNw), spoke of 12 criteria, but more to point, how tricky the diagnosis is even for him as one with a career's worth of study, research, and practice; and he included in/as the "hallmarks" that psychopaths have trouble with authority and job stability (after all, can they turn off their psychopathy selectively persistently year after year?).
Conversely, do Folks holding as believing the same majority religious dogma (arguably taught ultimately by anti-social types) have that problem? Not so much.?
And as far as why the criteria that tends to dispel the lay diagnosis is being ignored, that being the inability to keep stable employment and relationships, leaves me with a serious distrust of usage of the label.
And as i've raised before: what might be the reason why the current and previous version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (as "offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders" has now (and since the 80s) downgraded the label of psychopathy as to usage? (and of course, as devil's advocate, indeed, what reason? i.e. maybe psychopaths have taken over the DSM!? Panic )
Hare, in discussing DSM-IV changes on this subject in 1996 includes this:
Quote:A Secret Service agent recently asked if I was familiar with a 1992 FBI report that almost half of the killers of law enforcement officers met the criteria for antisocial personality. <snip> The killers' characteristics referred to as antisocial personality in the FBI report were as follows: sense of entitlement, unremorseful, apathetic to others, unconscionable, blameful of others, manipulative and conning, affectively cold, disparate understanding of behavior and socially acceptable behavior, disregardful of social obligations, nonconforming to social norms, irresponsible. These killers were not simply persistently antisocial individuals who met DSM-IV criteria for ASPD; they were psychopaths- remorseless predators who use charm, intimidation and, if necessary, impulsive and cold-blooded violence to attain their ends.

Hugely critical ("hallmark"?) imho is "disrespectful of social obligations". "Social" in who's terms? How many, relative to what measurement, "Judges" are considered by their peers, constituents, fellow citizens, and families to have "disparate understanding of behavior and socially accepted behavior"? Isn't such anti-social behavior only towards those disagreeing with "respectful social obligations"? Again, social by, say, what religious standard?
(for example, noting that Hare doesn't appear to suspect, thus question the "Secret Service Agent" by the same criteria --as us aka per our "social" standards?)

Let me note here too (fwiw2), that Hare has his "hallmarks" and they are way more than 3 --"a 20-item construct rating scale", he says.
Quote:The items fall into two clusters: One cluster, referred to as Factor 1, reflects core interpersonal and affective characteristics; the other cluster, Factor 2, consists of items that reflect a socially deviant and nomadic lifestyle. The similarity between these factors and the behaviors and characteristics described above in the FBI report are obvious.
ibid
[bold text emphasis, mine --eye2i]

Which rounds nicely enough back to the problem i'm having with the frequency this assessment being made by you currently is:
  • it's highly subjective, not to mention being a disorder many take to be of a professional training diagnosis priority
  • thus it too easily comes across more like name-calling as to effect, and
  • calling them criminals serves just as effectively (if not better) in identifying such personalities.

Where interestingly enough, while examining the netSearch results that got me to Hare's article, i spotted this in another site's indexing:
Quote:
Have you been misdiagnosed?
Autism. Bipolar Disorder. Psychopathy. ADHD.
It's important to seek help for problems.
But in an age of insta-diagnosis, fixing something you don't really have can be as dangerous as letting it go.

"something you don't really have"?!?
Like maybe having hallucinating religious zealots acting criminally (aka Founding Father Racists Paytriotic Americans?) instead of Psychopaths?

One other quick but potentially crucial consideration: "taking down" a "rabid dog".
Please consider with me how dangerous using this type of analogy can be, as to seeking. Rabies, as a science fact, is incurable (presently). Is indoctrination? Is a brain under present science understanding lacking in empathy activity changeable? Do we know (in a clincial/scientific sense)?
Do we shoot down every Bureaucrat now that they're "rabid"?
[i'm not wishing to diminish the value of physical resistance to and self-protection from violence; rather, just seeking to clarify how the why of the violence is determined and how crucial such is]

Marc discussed with Ian the unclear present state of the science/research on the aspect of whether brain fMRI interpretation indicates a brain lack of activity resulting from nature ("rabid") or nurture {lack of, to bad training), thus a curable versus incurable condition. How relevant is that? How critical is the premise that that which one thinks upon (potentially evidenced first by what one speaks?) tends to be what they see? As what one gets? (see "misdiagnosed"?)

Marc, you point out "embarrassment as to being called out", along with "fragile ego", as being a psychopathy condition. Is your evidence in support of this purely anecdotal? If not, i'd sure like to see the research backing this aspect up?

And again, the evidence regarding how this-- embarrassment as to being called out/fragile ego" --differs from the typical fundamental non-political variety religionista when called out for their logical inconsistencies?
Noting presently we'd have to essentially look at either fundamental Islamists with their choice of code, or venture back to when Christianity had similar control/power e.g. The Crusades/Witch Trials/Slavery?

Kudos to Fabrice for bringing up again, that the Standford Prison and the Milgram Experiments, by Marc's tendency to diagnose, means 66% and higher are psychopaths.? [/moderate sarcasm?]
But what if we diagnose using the indoctrination of religious dogma criteria...?

Bottom line? Why not just call Them by what they patently, and hypocritically, are: criminals. ? Why isn't that enough? (maybe because it's just not name-call-y enough? because there's no rabid fun in that?) [Image: mirarghh.gif]

Again, i thank you Marc for you all consideration, and for your work; much respect,
--eye2ismuck2

_____________________
1. as far as the 1% to 4% to 6% of the general population to however the educated/and not so educated guess of psychopath numbers, one thing Ian didn't note is that positions of power control probably if not definitely tend to attract the less anti-social to lower empathetic (i.e. narcissistic/aspergers) personality types; i think that's significant (speaking of subjective). Granted, how much such conditions can be scaled, is crucial, but if psychopathy per it's major hallmarks include anti-authority and nomadic, along with thrill seeking that lends to instability as far as relationships go, i have a hard time seeing one in a bureaucratic job, period. See routine and boring. But as i hope to have argued to date, regardless, it's considering the lesser point as to concerns about here.
2. as Ian brings out, there are two schools of thought popular regarding what psychopathy is i.e. nature versus nurture; see my bit about "rabid" dogs? And also as Ian brought up, no intent here to in any way excuse Their (criminal) behavior; rather, to make our own personally exemplary.
3. next, the very fact that there's a question of how many of such there even are, along with it being held by some to clearly be "incurable"/untreatable, doesn't that call for being overly cautious in using the term/as a label?
The point here being, how close is it to being or being taken to be name-calling or using/resorting to ad hominem (see calling someone a "bastard", and the science versus dogma with that one? see those using the word "infidel"? and "atheist"?...). Mark towards the close of the broadcast, you went with "psychopath type", which is imho in the better direction i.e. say also "acting psychopathic", etc? Or, just "criminal".? Wink
4. Ian talked about the clinical/professional field, where i would want to point out that his one encounter was anecdotal (and aren't those fun?! and fine, as far as they go), and that the latest professional positions i've read about, includes that the lack of empathy as a brain issue as still open to debate, but with some saying research points towards it being treatable.
On the aspect of brain activity/inactivity ("rabies" again?), i offer that one needs to read about brain plasticity science.




Some forum parallel prior threads:

psychopath definition/criteria

So you want to convert a psychopath...

On Prancer, on Dancer, on Vixen, on Psychopath...

"6 percent" ? "Traits", opinion or fact ? (the "Psychopathy" word)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-23-2015, 09:34 AM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2015 09:41 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #2
RE: NSP March 21 2015
...meanwhile, jic... a peace\piece offering~

"eye know where i belong..."







Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-23-2015, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2015 09:12 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #3
RE: NSP March 21 2015
Another song from some obscure group. Wink





LOL! I'm a big fan.

P.S. Have you ever read the headline from the Thick As A Brick album cover?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-24-2015, 07:37 AM (This post was last modified: 03-24-2015 07:42 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #4
RE: NSP March 21 2015
Aqualung Freecanuck my friend... ♪

(watching what run?!?) Stare
[psa]
[Image: Jethro-Tull-Thick-As-A-Brick.jpg]
[/psa]

Cool
--LilMiltoni2 (♪eyeing what...?)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-24-2015, 06:00 PM
Post: #5
RE: NSP March 21 2015
My first thought about evidence of the shame, ego, is that I have only anecdotal, from my own personal experience. It's my perception, what the facts tell me from the entire event and what happens after. I do not claim that I am correct every time I argue someone is a psychopath, that's why I will say they have anti-social behaviors. But, NonE, yeah, HE is definitely a psychopath.

I will agree with you Eye2, that using the word criminal is sufficient. Psychopath does have a bit more punch though. My most effective question is: If I did things like the gov't types, and I forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

It would not be as good if I asked: If I did things like the gov't types, and I forced people to give me money, would you consider me a psycho?

Love Bonamassa also. He kills it here also, Gary Moore faces at 3:35Smile



If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-24-2015, 07:37 PM
Post: #6
RE: NSP March 21 2015
Marc Wrote:But, NonE, yeah, HE is definitely a psychopath. 

Thanks Marc. It's so rare that I get the full measure of respect and credit that I am so obviously due! Wink

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-25-2015, 09:59 AM
Post: #7
RE: NSP March 21 2015
(03-23-2015 08:03 PM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  Another song from some obscure group. Wink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq5zTznlSJI=youtube
LOL! I'm a big fan.
P.S. Have you ever read the headline from the Thick As A Brick album cover?

Speaking of "have you ever"... have you per chance ever checked out this obscure bunch (that arguably somewhat relates, genre wise --well, in mye's mind? fwiw, Frank Zappa and Kerry Livgrin include them among their early influences; thus perhaps an acquired taste)?



(Peel The Paint)



(Advent Of Panurge)



(Plain Truth)



(I Am A Camera)



(All Through The Night)

additional suggestions: "A Cry For Everyone", "Number One", "Three Friends", "Octopus" & "Mister Class And Quality" (the tracks --where like with "Peel The Paint" above, with the last two you might hear further influences for the band Kansas, attributed circa Kerry Livgrin; see also the Giant songs "In A Glass House" and "Experience")
...and one perhaps up NonE's 60's psychodelia alley (musically and titular): "Nothing At All"

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-25-2015, 07:17 PM
Post: #8
RE: NSP March 21 2015
eye2 thanks for above post. I never heard of them before. I going to give them more of a listen. Am I nuts or did I hear a blend of Iron Butterfly and Tull in the first 3 songs. Like an lighter In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida feel.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2015, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2015 03:53 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #9
RE: NSP March 21 2015
FYC/FWIW/MMV/etc

Quote:When vaccine skeptics are presented with statements about the benign nature of vaccines, they double down on their skepticism rather than softening their bias.
In an experiment conducted at Dartmouth College, a quarter of 822 individuals surveyed expressed concern that the influenza vaccine could actually cause influenza. When that quarter was exposed to medical information from the Centers for Disease Control demonstrating the safety of the vaccine, they responded by declaring their refusal to get vaccinated.

Big Think's own Simon Oxenham commented on the study at the British Psychological Society:
Quote:A psychological principle that might explain this behavior is motivated reasoning: we are often open to persuasion when it comes to information that fits with our beliefs, while we are more critical or even outright reject information that contradicts our world view.

Understanding the brain's evolutionary function sheds light on this apparent defect in our ability to reason clearly and without undue bias. The brain's main function for millions of years, explains David Ropeik, was to aid us in very basic survival. And while reacting based on immediate feelings and emotions helped us survive in the bush, we are not automatically well-equipped to handle more complex problems:
Quote:[The brain] is a survival machine and it plays a lot of tricks with the facts in order to get us to tomorrow. That worked pretty well when the risks were lions and tigers and bears and the dark — oh my. It’s not as good now when we need to rationalize and reason and use the facts more with the complicated risks we face in a modern age.
--source, which also contains primary links

"motivated reasoning" --maybe like "career" and "paycheck" (see also, "get us to tomorrow")? peer environment\pressure? status signaling?
And handling "more complex problems" "without undue bias" --maybe like indoctrination, career training, political theory, etc?

[Image: the%20thinker.jpg]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2015, 05:43 PM
Post: #10
RE: NSP March 21 2015
I have attempted to address those issues with the free will post, and the "Who Rules Over Us" series. #2 of which I post on the There Is No We thread. (It has had a major impact on me.) Though you may disagree, I feel there is no historical or factual support for the proposition; in which I suspect you posted above.

That being said I can see a distinct possibility in what you have posted above. I would also admit to being less receptive due to the messenger whom I find presumptive and perceive as slightly hypocritical. Frankly the unintended consequences disturb me, after all we are only human. So I will probably remain a litte stubborn toward the direction in which is attempted to be sold to me.

I do appreciate what you are trying to convey.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 05:51 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2015 05:51 PM by Farmer James.)
Post: #11
RE: NSP March 21 2015
I think it would be cool to have Mark interview this guy Stefan Verstappen (see links below). The concept of "secondary psychopath" would give some creedance to Mark's frequent usage of the term psychopath in describing these judges, prosecutors, cops, IRS agents, etc. I include here a link to his video and study guide “Defense Against the Pscychopath” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgGyvxqYSbE or free .pdf version here: http://www.chinastrategies.com/wp-conten...hopath.pdf

excerpt from his .pdf:

Secondary Psychopaths: While the classic genetic psychopath
is one who is born with whatever genetic trait that causes this
pathology, there is another group of people that behave just
like the classic psychopath who were not born that way but
were created. Secondary psychopaths are created in two ways,
through trauma and through groups.
(omit trauma part but perhaps 15,000 hrs of traumatization and indoctrination in government schooling might apply!)
The second way in which psychopaths are created is through
groups. There are certain groups that will attract psychopaths
because of the opportunities of power and influence
membership provides. Usually such groups will quickly
become led and dominated by psychopaths. Other nonpsychopathic
members of these groups would have to become
psychopaths in order to survive.

For example, in a street gang( insert police, bar cult here), sociopaths make the best leaders
and therefore most gangs have a sociopath at its head. Other
psychopaths are also attracted to the violence and power of a
street gang and so together they create a psychopathic value
system. The gang becomes a psychopathic entity. The nonpsychopathic
youth who must live within the territory of such
a gang is given two choices -become a victim of the gang or
join them. By joining the gang, the new recruit must also adopt
the group’s twisted value system and behave accordingly thus
becoming a secondary psychopath.

Conversely, at the other end of the scale we can see the same
principle at work in corporations. The money and power of a
corporation attracts the cerebral and narcissistic psychopaths.
In a corporate environment they have many advantages over
their non-psychopathic competitors for promotion. Not
surprisingly most corporations end up being run by
psychopaths. As with a criminal gang, a corporation’s culture
adopts the twisted values of its leaders. Those who would seek
employment must likewise adopt or at least appear to adopt the
corporation’s essentially psychopathic mindset.

What is important to understand is that a mob has no
conscience. Individual members may or may not have a
conscience but when they are part of a mob, they will have
none. Most organizations from street gangs to corporations are
mobs. It would be a mistake to place your trust in them since
they can turn predatory in a moment and deprive you of time,
money, sanity and livelihood.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 10:59 PM
Post: #12
RE: NSP March 21 2015
(04-01-2015 05:51 PM)Farmer James Wrote:  I think it would be cool to have Mark interview this guy Stefan Verstappen (see links below). The concept of "secondary psychopath" would give some creedance to Mark's frequent usage of the term psychopath in describing these judges, prosecutors, cops, IRS agents, etc. I include here a link to his video and study guide “Defense Against the Pscychopath” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgGyvxqYSbE or free .pdf version here: http://www.chinastrategies.com/wp-conten...hopath.pdf

excerpt from his .pdf:

Secondary Psychopaths: While the classic genetic psychopath
is one who is born with whatever genetic trait that causes this
pathology, there is another group of people that behave just
like the classic psychopath who were not born that way but
were created. Secondary psychopaths are created in two ways,
through trauma and through groups.
(omit trauma part but perhaps 15,000 hrs of traumatization and indoctrination in government schooling might apply!)
The second way in which psychopaths are created is through
groups. There are certain groups that will attract psychopaths
because of the opportunities of power and influence
membership provides. Usually such groups will quickly
become led and dominated by psychopaths. Other nonpsychopathic
members of these groups would have to become
psychopaths in order to survive.

For example, in a street gang( insert police, bar cult here), sociopaths make the best leaders
and therefore most gangs have a sociopath at its head. Other
psychopaths are also attracted to the violence and power of a
street gang and so together they create a psychopathic value
system. The gang becomes a psychopathic entity. The nonpsychopathic
youth who must live within the territory of such
a gang is given two choices -become a victim of the gang or
join them. By joining the gang, the new recruit must also adopt
the group’s twisted value system and behave accordingly thus
becoming a secondary psychopath.

Conversely, at the other end of the scale we can see the same
principle at work in corporations. The money and power of a
corporation attracts the cerebral and narcissistic psychopaths.
In a corporate environment they have many advantages over
their non-psychopathic competitors for promotion. Not
surprisingly most corporations end up being run by
psychopaths. As with a criminal gang, a corporation’s culture
adopts the twisted values of its leaders. Those who would seek
employment must likewise adopt or at least appear to adopt the
corporation’s essentially psychopathic mindset.

What is important to understand is that a mob has no
conscience. Individual members may or may not have a
conscience but when they are part of a mob, they will have
none. Most organizations from street gangs to corporations are
mobs. It would be a mistake to place your trust in them since
they can turn predatory in a moment and deprive you of time,
money, sanity and livelihood.

This has me thinking about a twist on the Stockholm syndrome. Possible a Nuremberg syndrome?

What really hits home with me is the last paragraph.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2015, 11:13 AM
Post: #13
RE: NSP March 21 2015
The Crowd, by Gustav Le Bon

Table of Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction. The Era of Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Book I. The Mind of Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter I. General Characteristics of Crowds. — Psychological Law of
Their Mental Unity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter II. The Sentiments and Morality of Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Chapter III. The Ideas, Reasoning Power, and Imagination of Crowds.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chapter IV. A Religious Shape Assumed by All the Convictions of
Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Book II. The Opinions and Beliefs of Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Chapter I. Remote Factors of the Opinions and Beliefs of Crowds.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Chapter II. The Immediate Factors of the Opinions of Crowds. . . . . . . . 59
Chapter III. The Leaders of Crowds and Their Means of Persuasion.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Chapter IV. Limitations of the Variability of the Beliefs and Opinions of
Crowds.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Book III. The Classification and Description of the Different Kinds of Crowds.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Chapter I. The Classification of Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Chapter II. Crowds Termed Criminal Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Chapter III. Criminal Juries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Chapter IV. Electoral Crowds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Chapter V. Parliamentary Assemblies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Power to the revolution!

Jurisdictionary
Proclaim FBA Rey
Search here, it's private.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-17-2015, 07:50 AM
Post: #14
RE: NSP March 21 2015
(03-22-2015 02:51 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Marc discussed with Ian the unclear present state of the science/research on the aspect of whether brain fMRI interpretation indicates a brain lack of activity resulting from nature ("rabid") or nurture {lack of, to bad training), thus a curable versus incurable condition. How relevant is that? How critical is the premise that that which one thinks upon (potentially evidenced first by what one speaks?) tends to be what they see? As what one gets? (see "misdiagnosed"?)
[Image: bokmal.gif] fwiw/fyc/iai/mmv/etc...

Moheb Constandi, at BrainDecoder.com, included in what he Wrote:Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures brain activity indirectly by detecting changes in the flow of oxygen-rich blood, or the blood oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal, with its powerful magnets. The assumption is that areas receiving an extra supply of blood during a task have become more active. Typically, researchers would home in on one or a few "regions of interest," using 'voxels,' tiny cube-shaped chunks of brain tissue containing several million neurons, as their units of measurement.

Early fMRI studies involved scanning participants' brains while they performed some mental task, in order to identify the brain regions activated during the task. Hundreds of such studies were published in the first half of the last decade, many of them garnering attention from the mass media.

Eventually, critics pointed out a logical fallacy in how some of these studies were interpreted. For example, researchers may find that an area of the brain is activated when people perform a certain task. To explain this, they may look up previous studies on that brain area, and conclude that whatever function it is reported to have also underlies the current task.

Among many examples of such studies were those that concluded people get satisfaction from punishing rule-breaking individuals, and that for mice, pup suckling is more rewarding than cocaine. In perhaps one of the most famous examples, a researcher diagnosed himself as a psychopath by looking at his own brain scan.

These conclusions could well be true, but they could also be completely wrong, because the area observed to be active most likely has other functions, and could serve a different role than that observed in previous studies.

The brain is not composed of discrete specialized regions. Rather, it's a complex network of interconnected nodes, which cooperate to generate behavior. Thus, critics dismissed fMRI as "neo-phrenology" – after the discredited nineteenth century pseudoscience that purported to determine a person's character and mental abilities from the shape of their skull – and disparagingly referred to it as 'blobology.'

In 2009, a damning critique of fMRI appeared in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. Initially titled "Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience" and later retitled to "Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition," the article questioned the statistical methods used by neuro-imagers. The authors, Ed Vul of University of California in San Diego and his colleagues, examined a handful of social cognitive neuroscience studies, and pointed out that their statistical analyses gave impossibly high correlations between brain activity and behavior.
<snip>
Russ Poldrack of the Department of Psychology at Stanford University says that although the problem was more widespread than the paper suggested, many neuro-imagers were already aware of it. "They happened to pick on one part of the literature, but almost everybody was doing it," he says.

The problem arises from the "circular" nature of the data analysis, Poldrack says.
<snip>
At the heart of the matter is the concept of statistical power, which reflects how likely the results are to be meaningful instead of being obtained by pure chance. Smaller studies typically have lower power. An analysis published in 2013 showed that underpowered studies are common in almost every area of brain research. This is specially the case in neuroimaging studies, because most of them involve small numbers of participants.

"Ten years ago I was willing to publish papers showing correlations between brain activity and behavior in just 20 people," says Poldrack. "Now I wouldn't publish a study that doesn't involve at least 50 subjects, or maybe 100, depending on the effect. A lot of other labs have come around to this idea."

Cost is one of the big barriers preventing researchers from increasing the size of their studies. "Neuroimaging is very expensive. Every lab has a budget and a researcher isn't going to throw away his entire year's budget on a single study. Most of the time, there's no real incentive to do the right thing," Yarkoni says.
<snip>
"The low statistical power and the imperative to publish incentivizes researchers to mine their data to try to find something meaningful," says Chris Chambers, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Cardiff. "That's a huge problem for the credibility and integrity of the field."
<snip>
Even robust and apparently straight-forward fMRI findings can still be difficult to interpret, because there are still unanswered questions about the nature of the BOLD signal. How exactly does the blood rush to a brain region? What factors affect it? What if greater activation in a brain area actually means the region is working less efficiently?

"What does it mean to say neurons are firing more in one condition than in another? We don't really have a good handle on what to make of that," says Yarkoni. "You end up in this uncomfortable situation where you can tell a plausible story no matter what you see."

To some extent, the problems neuro-imagers face are part of the scientific process, which involves continuously improving one's methods and refining ideas in light of new evidence. When done properly, the method can be extremely powerful ...
--from BOLD Assumptions: Why Brain Scans Are Not All That They Seem, by Moheb Constandi, at BrainDecoder.com
Alexis Madrigal, at Wired.com, Wrote:Scanning Dead Salmon in fMRI Machine Highlights Risk of Red Herrings

Neuroscientist Craig Bennett purchased a whole Atlantic salmon, took it to a lab at Dartmouth, and put it into an fMRI machine used to study the brain. The beautiful fish was to be the lab’s test object as they worked out some new methods.

So, as the fish sat in the scanner, they showed it “a series of photographs depicting human individuals in social situations.” To maintain the rigor of the protocol (and perhaps because it was hilarious), the salmon, just like a human test subject, “was asked to determine what emotion the individual in the photo must have been experiencing.”

The salmon, as Bennett’s poster on the test dryly notes, “was not alive at the time of scanning.”

If that were all that had occurred, the salmon scanning would simply live on in Dartmouth lore as a “crowning achievement in terms of ridiculous objects to scan.” But the fish had a surprise in store. When they got around to analyzing the voxel (think: 3-D or “volumetric” pixel) data, the voxels representing the area where the salmon’s tiny brain sat showed evidence of activity. In the fMRI scan, it looked like the dead salmon was actually thinking about the pictures it had been shown.

“By complete, random chance, we found some voxels that were significant that just happened to be in the fish’s brain,” Bennett said. “And if I were a ridiculous researcher, I’d say, ‘A dead salmon perceiving humans can tell their emotional state.'”

The result is completely nuts — but that’s actually exactly the point. Bennett, who is now a post-doc at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his adviser, George Wolford, wrote up the work as a warning about the dangers of false positives in fMRI data. They wanted to call attention to ways the field could improve its statistical methods.

Researchers get up to 130,000 voxels from each set of scans they do of a brain. They have to comb all that data for signals that indicate something is happening in a particular region of the brain. The fMRI data has a lot of natural noise, though, and with the amounts of data generated in the work, chance can play some tricks. Bennett compared the fMRI data problems to a particularly strange kind of darts game.

“In fMRI, you have 160,000 darts, and so just by random chance, by the noise that’s inherent in the fMRI data, you’re going to have some of those darts hit a bull’s-eye by accident,” he said.

Like a sophisticated version of Photoshopping the contrast on a photograph, neuroscientists can filter the fMRI data to highlight the signal within the noise, but in so doing, rigorous statistical checks have to be maintained.

“We could set our threshold so high that we have no false positives, but we have no legitimate results,” Bennett said. “We could also set it so low that we end up getting voxels in the fish’s brain. It’s the fine line that we walk.”

Bennett’s point is that a suite of methods known as multiple comparisons correction can allow researchers to maintain most of their statistical power while keeping the danger of false positives at bay.

The work highlights that brain science is highly data-driven and statistical now. Although the visualizations — usually some orangey spots on an otherwise dark brain scan — seem simple, the data collection and interpretation that go into producing them is intense.

The point of the salmon study isn’t to prove that fMRI shouldn’t be used or is worthless. Brain scientists can do things with fMRI machines they otherwise couldn’t, said Ed Vul, an MIT neuroscience graduate.

“Instead of hoping to find a particular [brain] lesion or getting monkeys and making the lesions, this method is much cheaper and easier,” Vul said, “and has allowed a much broader range of questions to be asked about the brain.”

Vul, who published a controversial paper earlier this year that was critical of some statistical methods used in the field, said he appreciated that Bennett was also trying to do some “internal policing” to make fMRI practitioners’ methods as rigorous as possible.

Bennett’s paper has been turned down by several publications, but a poster on the work received an appreciative audience at the Human Brain Mapping conference earlier this summer. Neuroscience researchers have been forwarding it to each other for weeks.

Perhaps the dash of humor helps the medicine go down. And using a tasty, delicious fish instead of a human to make the false-positives point has an ancillary benefit: After you’re done with the research, it can be reused via culinary post-processing.

“Any good scientist would want to know the details of post-scan culinary post-processing of the subject and the hedonic results of degustation of the subject when studying a population of salmon, even with N=1,” wrote David Perlman, a neuroscience graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, in a comment on Bennett’s blog. “I would be very appreciative if you would make this information publicly available. Thanks!”

Via: Mindhacks and Neuroskeptic. 2009

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)