Also... I'm realizing something here....
An interest in sports does not imply that your stupid....
it does suggest how social you are, and you 'define' yourself.
A guy who's into NewYork Mets, grew up in New York.
Loving the mets is a social thing. It shows how to connected to
the guys around you, and how much of 'just one of the guys' you were.
If you were not 'one of the guys' but a nerd sitting the library,
or playing a computer game by yourself, you would not 'like' the
new york mets or any other sports team.
If you like a sports team, and dislike the opposing team, shows
you level of socialization.
Nerds/Geeks are an abused/bullied folk, and HATE the regular
people that bullied them. These 'regular folk' are sports fans,
you are not 'of their group', and therefore you do not define yourself
as a sports fan.
If this is true, then I should be able to predict how many friends
you have on facebook based on how interested a guy is in sports.
erm....
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Just questions...
Psychopaths and Sociopaths don't have insecurities... why?
Fear of social rejection seems to be an evolutionarily valid... doesn't seem to be related to a persons ability to feel empathy. And insecurities doesn't seem to relate directly to any emotion.
Fear of social rejection seems to be an evolutionarily valid... doesn't seem to be related to a persons ability to feel empathy. And insecurities doesn't seem to relate directly to any emotion.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Personalization....
You come to a place you've never been before. Someone lived here before. Not you.
You know this place is not yours because none of your stuff is in this place. So you put your stuff in this place, and it becomes your place. Your stuff...
You take stuff from somewhere, and put it somewhere else. Get a delivery truck to transport stuff from where it used to be, to where you want it to be. You get to decide where to put this stuff so that makes it your stuff. And now this new place is yours because you put your stuff in your place.
REALLY? Is that all there is to personalization....?
You know this place is not yours because none of your stuff is in this place. So you put your stuff in this place, and it becomes your place. Your stuff...
You take stuff from somewhere, and put it somewhere else. Get a delivery truck to transport stuff from where it used to be, to where you want it to be. You get to decide where to put this stuff so that makes it your stuff. And now this new place is yours because you put your stuff in your place.
REALLY? Is that all there is to personalization....?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Fairness
Fairness is something that can only be established in certain (limited) conditions.
ie: You have two friends, they are hungry. You have two apples.
You give each friend one apple.
You have two hungry friends, and you are also hungry. You have two apples. This alteration makes fairness more difficult, and less precise. However, a fair solution still is easy to see; divide up the two apples in small enough pieces and each person gets an equal share.
You have two hungry friends, one hasn't eaten all day, one is slightly hunger. One Apple. Given the level of hunger is different, would it still be fair to give them equal shares of the apple? Is it fair to give the friend who hasn't eaten all day the entire apple?
Maybe get both friends to quantify their hunger, and use that as weights to measure what proportion of the apple each friend would get. (a messy solution for a messy situation).
Snap back to reality.... How about a more realistic example...
You have $500 in the bank. You have two children both starting college.
Both kids want to get into the same program; and each will need to pay a tuition of $250.
Here's a situation in which fairness can occur; Divide the $500 equally amongst the two kids.
You have $500, and two kids with different interests. One wants to get into a college program which costs $300, and the other kids program costs $200. Is it still fair to divide the $500 equally? Is it fair to divide the $500 unequally, to pay for their different interests?
You have $500, two kids. One wants to get into a college program that guarantees a job at the end, this program costs $500. The other child wants to get into a program that costs $100, which guarantees no job prospects.
....
In each example, I've taken a situation that calls for fairness, and added one more factor to consider. In life, most every situation has multiple dimensions, numerous factors..... They say that life isn't fair. I ask, how can it be.
Dare I say... it is unfair of people to want life to be fair.
ie: You have two friends, they are hungry. You have two apples.
You give each friend one apple.
You have two hungry friends, and you are also hungry. You have two apples. This alteration makes fairness more difficult, and less precise. However, a fair solution still is easy to see; divide up the two apples in small enough pieces and each person gets an equal share.
You have two hungry friends, one hasn't eaten all day, one is slightly hunger. One Apple. Given the level of hunger is different, would it still be fair to give them equal shares of the apple? Is it fair to give the friend who hasn't eaten all day the entire apple?
Maybe get both friends to quantify their hunger, and use that as weights to measure what proportion of the apple each friend would get. (a messy solution for a messy situation).
Snap back to reality.... How about a more realistic example...
You have $500 in the bank. You have two children both starting college.
Both kids want to get into the same program; and each will need to pay a tuition of $250.
Here's a situation in which fairness can occur; Divide the $500 equally amongst the two kids.
You have $500, and two kids with different interests. One wants to get into a college program which costs $300, and the other kids program costs $200. Is it still fair to divide the $500 equally? Is it fair to divide the $500 unequally, to pay for their different interests?
You have $500, two kids. One wants to get into a college program that guarantees a job at the end, this program costs $500. The other child wants to get into a program that costs $100, which guarantees no job prospects.
....
In each example, I've taken a situation that calls for fairness, and added one more factor to consider. In life, most every situation has multiple dimensions, numerous factors..... They say that life isn't fair. I ask, how can it be.
Dare I say... it is unfair of people to want life to be fair.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Feminism is against the hijab
I'm not muslim, but I used to believe what they said about women wearing the hijab.
*Its their choice!* Their expression of themselves, and their devotion to their religion, etc.
But to understand the argument better, I started listening to mullahs talk about why its
important for muslim women to wear a hijab. In a word, its modesty.
Listening to Shaykh-ul-Islam Al-Hidayah answer a girls question about why women should cover up, the Shaykh said that its for their own benefit. A muslim women should cover up so she is not hassled by men; its about protecting the women from unwanted attention. He goes on to say that women get *in touble* (ie raped) when they are not modest enough.
Putting the whole *blaming the victim* aside for another rant....
But lets look at this argument more closely. "A women should cover up so she is not hassled."
One basic principle of humans, is that we ostracize that which is different. Being social creatures, we're designed to look for the black sheep.
So let say a good god-fearing head-covering muslim woman, living in a country where the majority of the women do not cover their heads, goes out for some shopping. In this society, her headscarf makes her stand out and hence noticed as different. She is actually being the opposite of modest, she is attracting attention BECAUSE she is wearing something very differnt.
Having attracted all that attention from everyone (she notices people looking at her, and maybe even staring), she more likely to attract the attention of a person with bad intentions, making her the prime target for a person looking for trouble.
How is that protecting the women?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7IrvkhUb3Y
*Its their choice!* Their expression of themselves, and their devotion to their religion, etc.
But to understand the argument better, I started listening to mullahs talk about why its
important for muslim women to wear a hijab. In a word, its modesty.
Listening to Shaykh-ul-Islam Al-Hidayah answer a girls question about why women should cover up, the Shaykh said that its for their own benefit. A muslim women should cover up so she is not hassled by men; its about protecting the women from unwanted attention. He goes on to say that women get *in touble* (ie raped) when they are not modest enough.
Putting the whole *blaming the victim* aside for another rant....
But lets look at this argument more closely. "A women should cover up so she is not hassled."
One basic principle of humans, is that we ostracize that which is different. Being social creatures, we're designed to look for the black sheep.
So let say a good god-fearing head-covering muslim woman, living in a country where the majority of the women do not cover their heads, goes out for some shopping. In this society, her headscarf makes her stand out and hence noticed as different. She is actually being the opposite of modest, she is attracting attention BECAUSE she is wearing something very differnt.
Having attracted all that attention from everyone (she notices people looking at her, and maybe even staring), she more likely to attract the attention of a person with bad intentions, making her the prime target for a person looking for trouble.
How is that protecting the women?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7IrvkhUb3Y
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Not Monsters
Not Monsters: Analyzing the Stories of Child Molesters by Pamela D. SchultzMy review
rating: 5 of 5 stars
Sex offenders are notorious for re offending. Reading their stories, every one of them thinks that rehabilitation is possible, given enough time, understanding, and counseling. Some are able to lead productive lives, and have years in between offenses, however, in the long run, they end up back to reoffending.
Sex offereders (I think are closer to violent criminals) because they have developed sexual interests, and coping mechinanisms, that incorperate offending.
Secondly, I propose that these people are not in control of their actions. They are in control of their immate actions, 'chose not to' etc, however, after time (much like an anger management graduate) the tension builds, the thoughts intensify, and eventually, people give in to urges.
I think child molesters are not in control of their selves. Their emotional development seems to be childlike in many ways.
Therefore, I think rehabiliation to the point that they can intergrate into general society, is impossible. (ie akin to a recovering alcoholic *living* in a bar). The best solution, I think, would be to create a separate society for child molesters. Much like a productive jail, where inmates can start business, compete with products (not services), maybe in an e-commerce environment. A place where they can live without contact with children, and without seeing another child.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Religious and Psychology
I've done some research various people's views on psychology and psychologists, and ironically, the people that I agree with are deeply religious. This is very bizarre because I am deeply atheist!
Nonetheless, it seems the deeply religious and I have taken a very different path to the same conclusion. Religious Folk believe that (and I'll quote someone here)
I suppose I'm talking about those who choose to be religious, not those that are raised within a sect, and remain within the same religious philosophy they were raised with, simply because they were raised in it. No, I'm not talking about those folk. I'm talking about the folk that can think; not accept any old smuck that wears a robe, a funny looking hat, and has a bible in hand, to be an authority figure. I'm talking about those that believe that god is the only and ultimate authority figure, and that they need to have a 'personal relationship with god'. Or to translate that to atheist language: *Know Thy Self*.
(when the conversation is between you and the imaginary friend that's always *got your back*, well that's just you assessing your own situation with feelings of security and self assurance. Yes, those secure feelings come form your imaginary friend, if those feelings are there, doesn't really matter where its coming from)
*Quoting some religious guy here*
no matter how good and advance methodology and human knowledge, when it has something to do with a person mental and inner self mechanisms, others are always outsiders who may or may not able to understand it. Only God can understand a person completely, therefore the solution must first of all comes from Him.
Maybe I'll take a turn and say that any intelligent/thinking person will ultimately come to the same conclusion about psychology. It is the art of applying human principles to your own life, as a means of evaluation. Not a means of measuring normality, but simply having the knowledge of the theories that are out there, some of which may apply to you. Psychology is not a science! Its not an "behavior x is caused be deisres y'. Its much more abstract than that, more like 'behaviours are caused by desires'. Which behaviours? Which desires? For each person the answer is different.
Nonetheless, it seems the deeply religious and I have taken a very different path to the same conclusion. Religious Folk believe that (and I'll quote someone here)
I suppose I'm talking about those who choose to be religious, not those that are raised within a sect, and remain within the same religious philosophy they were raised with, simply because they were raised in it. No, I'm not talking about those folk. I'm talking about the folk that can think; not accept any old smuck that wears a robe, a funny looking hat, and has a bible in hand, to be an authority figure. I'm talking about those that believe that god is the only and ultimate authority figure, and that they need to have a 'personal relationship with god'. Or to translate that to atheist language: *Know Thy Self*.
(when the conversation is between you and the imaginary friend that's always *got your back*, well that's just you assessing your own situation with feelings of security and self assurance. Yes, those secure feelings come form your imaginary friend, if those feelings are there, doesn't really matter where its coming from)
*Quoting some religious guy here*
no matter how good and advance methodology and human knowledge, when it has something to do with a person mental and inner self mechanisms, others are always outsiders who may or may not able to understand it. Only God can understand a person completely, therefore the solution must first of all comes from Him.
Maybe I'll take a turn and say that any intelligent/thinking person will ultimately come to the same conclusion about psychology. It is the art of applying human principles to your own life, as a means of evaluation. Not a means of measuring normality, but simply having the knowledge of the theories that are out there, some of which may apply to you. Psychology is not a science! Its not an "behavior x is caused be deisres y'. Its much more abstract than that, more like 'behaviours are caused by desires'. Which behaviours? Which desires? For each person the answer is different.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Video Games and TV
There's a strong correlation between hours spent watching tv, and being influenced by advertising. I wonder if there is a correlation between how much time a person spends on video games, and how much susceptible they are to media conditioning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)