doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 23, 2017 0:03:22 GMT 1, Haha Ed I'll be back on the next one ๐ So you are not so keen on him and I found myself agreeing with most of what he was saying..except that I think people DO realise that there are people who believe in 'paradise' and how to get around that and have a constructive debate is what is the challenge, which they agree too. Summarising people who use the words 'Islamophobia'' and 'transgender' as "shut up and don't say anything to me" is also resorting to a type of ad-hominem fallacy no? So yes I agree with you he equally resorted to personal attacks in order to justify his points too. I have still yet to finish it but very enjoyable 
Haha Ed I'll be back on the next one ๐ So you are not so keen on him and I found myself agreeing with most of what he was saying..except that I think people DO realise that there are people who believe in 'paradise' and how to get around that and have a constructive debate is what is the challenge, which they agree too. Summarising people who use the words 'Islamophobia'' and 'transgender' as "shut up and don't say anything to me" is also resorting to a type of ad-hominem fallacy no? So yes I agree with you he equally resorted to personal attacks in order to justify his points too. I have still yet to finish it but very enjoyable |
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 23, 2017 0:26:08 GMT 1, yeah doyle , even stevens now.
I fundamentally disagreed with his comments on trans issues and thought the bit where he was saying that people who had issues over things at uni were essentially going to be unable to cope with issues in their later life - such as a lawyer not being robust enough to listen to info in a rape trial - was overegging it.
I assumed that he was referring to things happening at unis like lobbying to get statues of slave traders removed. I find this a fascinating subject around freedom of speech and attempts to remove references to history - i probably share his view that these protests are a tad hysterical but to then go on and project the implications of this onto the future lives and careers of those people was a bit much for me.
I do struggle to give value to someones views when they make strong statements in another area that i disagree with - i find it undermining of my trust in their objectiveness in other areas. Its an enjoyable part of this process, and the free thinking theme, to work through dropping my judgements and being able to seperate those arguements out.
yeah doyle , even stevens now. I fundamentally disagreed with his comments on trans issues and thought the bit where he was saying that people who had issues over things at uni were essentially going to be unable to cope with issues in their later life - such as a lawyer not being robust enough to listen to info in a rape trial - was overegging it. I assumed that he was referring to things happening at unis like lobbying to get statues of slave traders removed. I find this a fascinating subject around freedom of speech and attempts to remove references to history - i probably share his view that these protests are a tad hysterical but to then go on and project the implications of this onto the future lives and careers of those people was a bit much for me. I do struggle to give value to someones views when they make strong statements in another area that i disagree with - i find it undermining of my trust in their objectiveness in other areas. Its an enjoyable part of this process, and the free thinking theme, to work through dropping my judgements and being able to seperate those arguements out. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 23, 2017 0:42:59 GMT 1,
COMPETITION 10 โ Wednesday, 22 March to Saturday, 25 March 2017
Three questions related to the podcast below will be posted on Saturday, 25 March at 15:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). [Please note the earlier than usual time of 15:00.]
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 29, 30, 31 and 32
Waking Up With Sam Harris #45 - Ask Me Anything 5 (15 September 2016 โ still pre-Trump) [1:20:39]
โ uploaded by Sam Harris
www.samharris.org/podcast/item/ask-me-anything-5
soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/45-ask-me-anything-5
COMPETITION 10 โ Wednesday, 22 March to Saturday, 25 March 2017Three questions related to the podcast below will be posted on Saturday, 25 March at 15:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). [Please note the earlier than usual time of 15:00.]The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 29, 30, 31 and 32Waking Up With Sam Harris #45 - Ask Me Anything 5 (15 September 2016 โ still pre-Trump) [1:20:39] โ uploaded by Sam Harriswww.samharris.org/podcast/item/ask-me-anything-5soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/45-ask-me-anything-5
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 23, 2017 0:54:49 GMT 1, I just noticed met you wrote 5 lottery numbers for the next competition, but listed 4.
I just noticed met you wrote 5 lottery numbers for the next competition, but listed 4. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 23, 2017 1:26:36 GMT 1, I just noticed met you wrote 5 lottery numbers for the next competition, but listed 4.
Thank you. That was a careless cut-and-paste typo, now corrected.
Competition 10 is for four lottery numbers.
I just noticed met you wrote 5 lottery numbers for the next competition, but listed 4. Thank you. That was a careless cut-and-paste typo, now corrected. Competition 10 is for four lottery numbers. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 23, 2017 3:56:47 GMT 1,
Although not part of a competition, before we switch themes, here's some reading material for anyone with an interest in psychology, extremism, and jihadism in particular.
Last summer, ISIS released issue 15 of Dabiq, its former online propaganda and recruitment magazine. [This was replaced by another magazine called Rumiyah when the group's loss of control over Dabiq, Syria became imminent.]
Warning: Some of the photography is not for the faint-hearted. However, the magazine is a fascinating read. And important for those who wish to understand the jihadist mindset:
azelin.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/the-islamic-state-e2809cdacc84biq-magazine-1522.pdf
One written piece especially caught my attention, on pages 30โ33. The introductory paragraphs copied below are followed in the article by six numbered and lucid points addressing the title:
Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You
Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin โ who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations โ donโt make sense. Unless you truly โ and naively โ believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, wonโt prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!
Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be โpolitically incorrect.โ The apostate โimamsโ in the West will adhere to the same tired clichรฉ in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which theyโve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that itโs foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because theyโre afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script.
There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shariโah โ as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd โ are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative. As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms โ yet again โ why we hate you and why we fight you.
[...]
_______________
Unsurprisingly, Sam Harris made a podcast on this subject (Waking Up with Sam Harris #43 โ What Do Jihadists Really Want?).
It's a worthwhile listen:
www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want
Although not part of a competition, before we switch themes, here's some reading material for anyone with an interest in psychology, extremism, and jihadism in particular. Last summer, ISIS released issue 15 of Dabiq, its former online propaganda and recruitment magazine. [This was replaced by another magazine called Rumiyah when the group's loss of control over Dabiq, Syria became imminent.] Warning: Some of the photography is not for the faint-hearted. However, the magazine is a fascinating read. And important for those who wish to understand the jihadist mindset: azelin.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/the-islamic-state-e2809cdacc84biq-magazine-1522.pdfOne written piece especially caught my attention, on pages 30โ33. The introductory paragraphs copied below are followed in the article by six numbered and lucid points addressing the title: Why We Hate You & Why We Fight YouShortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin โ who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations โ donโt make sense. Unless you truly โ and naively โ believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, wonโt prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!
Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be โpolitically incorrect.โ The apostate โimamsโ in the West will adhere to the same tired clichรฉ in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which theyโve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that itโs foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because theyโre afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script.
There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shariโah โ as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd โ are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative. As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms โ yet again โ why we hate you and why we fight you.
[...]_______________ Unsurprisingly, Sam Harris made a podcast on this subject ( Waking Up with Sam Harris #43 โ What Do Jihadists Really Want?). It's a worthwhile listen: www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want |
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 25, 2017 16:00:00 GMT 1, COMPETITION 10 โ Wednesday, 22 March to Saturday, 25 March 2017Three questions related to the podcast below will be posted on Saturday, 25 March at 15:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). [Please note the earlier than usual time of 15:00.]The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 29, 30, 31 and 32Waking Up With Sam Harris #45 - Ask Me Anything 5 (15 September 2016 โ still pre-Trump) [1:20:39] โ uploaded by Sam Harriswww.samharris.org/podcast/item/ask-me-anything-5soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/45-ask-me-anything-5
C10 QUESTIONS
Each time reference below is to the broad period in the podcast where the answer to the relevant question can be found.
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. [30:00โ1:00:00] What is it Sam Harris expresses distrust about (which he also refers to as "just tribalism by another name"), and what does he believe to be the preferable alternative for thinking more clearly?
2. [30:00โ1:00:00] Harris offers a vivid and amusing metaphor to illustrate how he sees Donald Trump, and Trump's mind in particular. Describe that metaphor.
3. [1:00:00โend] One of the 'Ask Me Anything' questions asks Harris to comment about a specific "podcast fiasco", referring to another podcast on which Harris was a guest.
(i) What is the name of that podcast?
(ii) Besides Harris, who were the other two guests on that podcast?
(iii) Why is it ironic the podcast ended up going haywire?
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 16:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).]
COMPETITION 10 โ Wednesday, 22 March to Saturday, 25 March 2017Three questions related to the podcast below will be posted on Saturday, 25 March at 15:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). [Please note the earlier than usual time of 15:00.]The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 29, 30, 31 and 32Waking Up With Sam Harris #45 - Ask Me Anything 5 (15 September 2016 โ still pre-Trump) [1:20:39] โ uploaded by Sam Harriswww.samharris.org/podcast/item/ask-me-anything-5soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/45-ask-me-anything-5 Each time reference below is to the broad period in the podcast where the answer to the relevant question can be found. Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. [30:00โ1:00:00] What is it Sam Harris expresses distrust about (which he also refers to as "just tribalism by another name"), and what does he believe to be the preferable alternative for thinking more clearly? 2. [30:00โ1:00:00] Harris offers a vivid and amusing metaphor to illustrate how he sees Donald Trump, and Trump's mind in particular. Describe that metaphor. 3. [1:00:00โend] One of the 'Ask Me Anything' questions asks Harris to comment about a specific "podcast fiasco", referring to another podcast on which Harris was a guest. (i) What is the name of that podcast? (ii) Besides Harris, who were the other two guests on that podcast? (iii) Why is it ironic the podcast ended up going haywire? [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 16:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).] |
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 25, 2017 16:17:27 GMT 1, 1. Sam Harris expresses distrust about identity politics and would prefer people to talk about specific issues based on their own merit and arguments
2.He describes trumps mind and thought patterns like blowing up a balloon and letting it off...seemingly having no idea or control about where it will go
3.1 We The People Live
3.2 Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan
3.2 Because it was meant to be a discussion about raising the level of public debate on polarising topics, such as racism within the police.
1. Sam Harris expresses distrust about identity politics and would prefer people to talk about specific issues based on their own merit and arguments
2.He describes trumps mind and thought patterns like blowing up a balloon and letting it off...seemingly having no idea or control about where it will go
3.1 We The People Live
3.2 Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan
3.2 Because it was meant to be a discussion about raising the level of public debate on polarising topics, such as racism within the police.
|
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 25, 2017 16:24:19 GMT 1, Shitbags...got the numbering wrong 
I listened to that podcast with Hannibal and would recommend it. It was amusing to hear Sam go on quite longwinded, thoughtful muses about the overall picture to have Hannibal cut in accusing him of being a human PowerPoint or saying Sam couldn't understand cos none of his friends had been murdered.
Shitbags...got the numbering wrong I listened to that podcast with Hannibal and would recommend it. It was amusing to hear Sam go on quite longwinded, thoughtful muses about the overall picture to have Hannibal cut in accusing him of being a human PowerPoint or saying Sam couldn't understand cos none of his friends had been murdered. |
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 25, 2017 18:14:47 GMT 1, ed you got the numbering wrong and I got the day and time wrong ๐ And not in a place where I can fully hear the vid right now.
In theory, I can steal and re-word your answers a little bit and win 
ed you got the numbering wrong and I got the day and time wrong ๐ And not in a place where I can fully hear the vid right now. In theory, I can steal and re-word your answers a little bit and win
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 25, 2017 18:32:40 GMT 1, 1.Sam Harris expressed distrust about identity politics. He would rather people think more clearly by discussing issues which are based on merit and arguments instead.
2. The metaphor Harrisnuses to describe Trump is that of blowing up a balloon and letting go of it in a way that it has no control or what direction it will go in.
3. (i) We the people live.
(ii) Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan
(iii) It is ironic that the podcast ended up going haywire, because it was meant to be a discussion about bringing up the level of debates in public about polarising topics.
1.Sam Harris expressed distrust about identity politics. He would rather people think more clearly by discussing issues which are based on merit and arguments instead.
2. The metaphor Harrisnuses to describe Trump is that of blowing up a balloon and letting go of it in a way that it has no control or what direction it will go in.
3. (i) We the people live.
(ii) Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan
(iii) It is ironic that the podcast ended up going haywire, because it was meant to be a discussion about bringing up the level of debates in public about polarising topics.
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 25, 2017 18:52:41 GMT 1, 1. Sam Harris expresses distrust about identity politics and would prefer people to talk about specific issues based on their own merit and arguments 2.He describes trumps mind and thought patterns like blowing up a balloon and letting it off...seemingly having no idea or control about where it will go 3.1 We The People Live 3.2 Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan 3.2 Because it was meant to be a discussion about raising the level of public debate on polarising topics, such as racism within the police.
Lottery numbers 29, 30, 31 and 32 allocated to ed, despite the incorrect numbering. Congratulations.
C10 REFERENCE ANSWERS
1. Sam Harris expresses distrust about identity politics. His position is we should talk about specific issues, and reason honestly with them. [39:22โ48:26]
[Harris: [...] And as for the alt-right, for which Milo [Yiannopoulos] is the poster boy, I'm not sure I can say anything about it that is fair or useful. It seems to contain some smart people who are outraged by outrageous things, as Milo seems to be, at least some of the time. And it contains real racist nitwits. And everything in between. It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter movement in that respect, which is to say a totally mixed bag. And the net result of which is divisive in my view.
As far as I can tell, becoming a part of a movement doesn't help anybody think clearly. So I distrust identity politics of all kinds. I think we should talk about specific issues โ whether it's trade, or guns, or immigration, or foreign interventions, or abortion, or anything else. And we should reason honestly about them.
And I'm not the first person to notice that it's pretty strange that knowing a person's position on any one of these issues generally allows you to predict his position on the others. This shouldn't happen; some of these issues are totally unrelated. Why should a person's attitude toward guns be predictive of his views on climate change, or immigration, or abortion? And yet, it almost certainly is in our society. That's a sign that people are joining tribes and movements. It's not the sign of clear thinking.
If you're reasoning honestly about facts, then the colour of your skin is irrelevant. The religion of your parents is irrelevant. Whether you're gay or straight is irrelevant. Your identity is irrelevant. In fact, if you're talking about reality, its character can't be predicated on who you happen to be. That's what it means to be talking about reality. And this also applies to the reality of human experience, and human suffering. [39:22โ41:36]
Harris: [...] a person's identity and life experience often aren't relevant when talking about facts, and they're usually invoked in ways that are clearly fallacious. And many people seem to be making a political religion out of ignoring this difference. [44:12โ44:27]]
2. Harris: [...] you want to understand how I see Trump? Blow up a balloon, without tying off the end, and hold it up high. And then release it. Then watch it fly chaotically around the room. That's Trump's mind. In my view, that's what we'd be doing with the country if we put him in charge. [54:45โ55:05]
[For the 'Clinton vs Trump' section of the podcast, listen to 48:26โ1:04:45.
Harris: [...] I'll just say that those of you who are mystified that I could forgive Clinton her obvious lying and other indiscretions, just don't understand what a dangerous imbecile I think Trump is. I really think he is a child in a man's body. He is a malignantly selfish, ignorant and petty person. And a tyrant in the making, insofar as our system could accommodate a tyrant. As I said on that other podcast [#38], if you're supporting the guy because he'll "shake things up", I think you're just playing a game of chicken with human history. And there's no one in the other car. It is absolutely astonishing to me that this guy is a candidate for the presidency. [50:08โ50:56]
Harris: [...] But I can't overlook the fact that the man shows every sign, really every sign, of being motivated by pure selfishness and narcissism. To be compared with Hillary's partial selfishness and narcissism. And he strikes me as completely rudderless, intellectually. I mean, you want to understand how I see Trump? Blow up a balloon, without tying off the end, and hold it up high. And then release it. Then watch it fly chaotically around the room. That's Trump's mind. In my view, that's what we'd be doing with the country if we put him in charge. Just hitching our future to a totally chaotic system. If that's your view of "shaking things up", you're a nihilist.
My criticism of Trump, in particular about the way he speaks, and what that says about the way he thinks, which I went on and on about in podcast 38... That criticism isn't political. It's psychological. It's neurological. The guy seems to be bullshitting to a degree that borders on confabulation. I'm not a psychiatrist. I don't have any clinical experience, I'm not making a diagnosis. But I am making a judgement about him as a person. It seems to me that there is something wrong with his mind.
This isn't political. I have no loyalty to the Democratic Party. And I would never say that about someone like Mitt Romney. Now, Romney is a religious bumpkin who wears magic underpants, but he seems perfectly normal to me psychologically. [54:22โ56:03]
Harris: [...] Anyway, that was much more about Trump than anyone wanted, but I think it really is important. I don't want there to be any doubt that I put my shoulder to the wheel on this one. These moments in life don't come along very often. A President Trump, I believe, would be a blunder that history would be very slow to forgive us for. [1:04:19โ1:04:45]
Additional commentary by Harris on Trump:
Podcast #38 โ The End of Faith Sessions 2 [2:51โ1:04:22], published on 15 June 2016
www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-end-of-faith-sessions-2
Podcast #51 โ The Most Powerful Clown [0:00โ28:49], published on 10 November 2016 [Post-Trump victory]
www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-most-powerful-clown ]
3. [1:15:06โend]
(i) #WeThePeople LIVE, hosted Josh Zepps.
(ii) Joe Rogan and Hannibal Buress.
(iii) The irony is that a breakdown took place between Harris and Buress, when the very purpose of that podcast was to discuss how to have difficult conversations with people about touchy subjects.
[Harris: [...] the whole point of the podcast was to talk about how to have difficult conversations. Josh had noticed my attempts to do this on my podcast, both the successes and the failures. And he wanted to talk about what's it's like to attempt to raise the level of public debate on polarising topics. [1:16:42โ1:17:01]
The #WeThePeople LIVE podcast in question is in two parts, episodes 52 and 53:
www.acast.com/wethepeoplelive/ep.52samharris-joerogan-hannibalburess-aconversationaboutconversations-parti
www.acast.com/wethepeoplelive/ep.53moreofsamharris-joerogan-hannibalburess-aconversationaboutconversations-partii ]
_____________________________
If anyone enjoyed the Q&A about Brazilian jiu-jitsu [9:22โ20:00], this is the blog post Harris refers to, The Pleasures of Drowning:
www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-pleasures-of-drowning
Perhaps most amusing is the part about "delusions of martial prowess [having] much in common with religious faith." For convenience, here are the two videos Harris posted โ illustrating collective delusion in the first, later confronted by physical reality in the second:
1. Sam Harris expresses distrust about identity politics and would prefer people to talk about specific issues based on their own merit and arguments 2.He describes trumps mind and thought patterns like blowing up a balloon and letting it off...seemingly having no idea or control about where it will go 3.1 We The People Live 3.2 Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan 3.2 Because it was meant to be a discussion about raising the level of public debate on polarising topics, such as racism within the police. Lottery numbers 29, 30, 31 and 32 allocated to ed, despite the incorrect numbering. Congratulations. C10 REFERENCE ANSWERS1. Sam Harris expresses distrust about identity politics. His position is we should talk about specific issues, and reason honestly with them. [39:22โ48:26] [Harris: [...] And as for the alt-right, for which Milo [Yiannopoulos] is the poster boy, I'm not sure I can say anything about it that is fair or useful. It seems to contain some smart people who are outraged by outrageous things, as Milo seems to be, at least some of the time. And it contains real racist nitwits. And everything in between. It's a bit like the Black Lives Matter movement in that respect, which is to say a totally mixed bag. And the net result of which is divisive in my view.
As far as I can tell, becoming a part of a movement doesn't help anybody think clearly. So I distrust identity politics of all kinds. I think we should talk about specific issues โ whether it's trade, or guns, or immigration, or foreign interventions, or abortion, or anything else. And we should reason honestly about them.
And I'm not the first person to notice that it's pretty strange that knowing a person's position on any one of these issues generally allows you to predict his position on the others. This shouldn't happen; some of these issues are totally unrelated. Why should a person's attitude toward guns be predictive of his views on climate change, or immigration, or abortion? And yet, it almost certainly is in our society. That's a sign that people are joining tribes and movements. It's not the sign of clear thinking.
If you're reasoning honestly about facts, then the colour of your skin is irrelevant. The religion of your parents is irrelevant. Whether you're gay or straight is irrelevant. Your identity is irrelevant. In fact, if you're talking about reality, its character can't be predicated on who you happen to be. That's what it means to be talking about reality. And this also applies to the reality of human experience, and human suffering. [39:22โ41:36]Harris: [...] a person's identity and life experience often aren't relevant when talking about facts, and they're usually invoked in ways that are clearly fallacious. And many people seem to be making a political religion out of ignoring this difference. [44:12โ44:27]]2. Harris: [...] you want to understand how I see Trump? Blow up a balloon, without tying off the end, and hold it up high. And then release it. Then watch it fly chaotically around the room. That's Trump's mind. In my view, that's what we'd be doing with the country if we put him in charge. [54:45โ55:05] [For the 'Clinton vs Trump' section of the podcast, listen to 48:26โ1:04:45.Harris: [...] I'll just say that those of you who are mystified that I could forgive Clinton her obvious lying and other indiscretions, just don't understand what a dangerous imbecile I think Trump is. I really think he is a child in a man's body. He is a malignantly selfish, ignorant and petty person. And a tyrant in the making, insofar as our system could accommodate a tyrant. As I said on that other podcast [#38], if you're supporting the guy because he'll "shake things up", I think you're just playing a game of chicken with human history. And there's no one in the other car. It is absolutely astonishing to me that this guy is a candidate for the presidency. [50:08โ50:56]Harris: [...] But I can't overlook the fact that the man shows every sign, really every sign, of being motivated by pure selfishness and narcissism. To be compared with Hillary's partial selfishness and narcissism. And he strikes me as completely rudderless, intellectually. I mean, you want to understand how I see Trump? Blow up a balloon, without tying off the end, and hold it up high. And then release it. Then watch it fly chaotically around the room. That's Trump's mind. In my view, that's what we'd be doing with the country if we put him in charge. Just hitching our future to a totally chaotic system. If that's your view of "shaking things up", you're a nihilist.
My criticism of Trump, in particular about the way he speaks, and what that says about the way he thinks, which I went on and on about in podcast 38... That criticism isn't political. It's psychological. It's neurological. The guy seems to be bullshitting to a degree that borders on confabulation. I'm not a psychiatrist. I don't have any clinical experience, I'm not making a diagnosis. But I am making a judgement about him as a person. It seems to me that there is something wrong with his mind.
This isn't political. I have no loyalty to the Democratic Party. And I would never say that about someone like Mitt Romney. Now, Romney is a religious bumpkin who wears magic underpants, but he seems perfectly normal to me psychologically. [54:22โ56:03]Harris: [...] Anyway, that was much more about Trump than anyone wanted, but I think it really is important. I don't want there to be any doubt that I put my shoulder to the wheel on this one. These moments in life don't come along very often. A President Trump, I believe, would be a blunder that history would be very slow to forgive us for. [1:04:19โ1:04:45]Additional commentary by Harris on Trump:Podcast #38 โ The End of Faith Sessions 2 [2:51โ1:04:22], published on 15 June 2016www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-end-of-faith-sessions-2Podcast #51 โ The Most Powerful Clown [0:00โ28:49], published on 10 November 2016 [Post-Trump victory]www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-most-powerful-clown ]3. [1:15:06โend] (i) #WeThePeople LIVE, hosted Josh Zepps. (ii) Joe Rogan and Hannibal Buress. (iii) The irony is that a breakdown took place between Harris and Buress, when the very purpose of that podcast was to discuss how to have difficult conversations with people about touchy subjects. [Harris: [...] the whole point of the podcast was to talk about how to have difficult conversations. Josh had noticed my attempts to do this on my podcast, both the successes and the failures. And he wanted to talk about what's it's like to attempt to raise the level of public debate on polarising topics. [1:16:42โ1:17:01]The #WeThePeople LIVE podcast in question is in two parts, episodes 52 and 53:www.acast.com/wethepeoplelive/ep.52samharris-joerogan-hannibalburess-aconversationaboutconversations-partiwww.acast.com/wethepeoplelive/ep.53moreofsamharris-joerogan-hannibalburess-aconversationaboutconversations-partii ]_____________________________ If anyone enjoyed the Q&A about Brazilian jiu-jitsu [9:22โ20:00], this is the blog post Harris refers to, The Pleasures of Drowning: www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-pleasures-of-drowningPerhaps most amusing is the part about "delusions of martial prowess [having] much in common with religious faith." For convenience, here are the two videos Harris posted โ illustrating collective delusion in the first, later confronted by physical reality in the second: |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 25, 2017 19:02:40 GMT 1, 1.Sam Harris expressed distrust about identity politics. He would rather people think more clearly by discussing issues which are based on merit and arguments instead. 2. The metaphor Harrisnuses to describe Trump is that of blowing up a balloon and letting go of it in a way that it has no control or what direction it will go in. 3. (i) We the people live. (ii) Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan (iii) It is ironic that the podcast ended up going haywire, because it was meant to be a discussion about bringing up the level of debates in public about polarising topics.
Tactically impressive. I applaud you.
But I've exercised some equitable discretion on this occasion and awarded the lottery numbers to ed, since his primary numbering (1, 2, 3) was correct.
1.Sam Harris expressed distrust about identity politics. He would rather people think more clearly by discussing issues which are based on merit and arguments instead. 2. The metaphor Harrisnuses to describe Trump is that of blowing up a balloon and letting go of it in a way that it has no control or what direction it will go in. 3. (i) We the people live. (ii) Hannibal Buress and Joe Rogan (iii) It is ironic that the podcast ended up going haywire, because it was meant to be a discussion about bringing up the level of debates in public about polarising topics. Tactically impressive. I applaud you. But I've exercised some equitable discretion on this occasion and awarded the lottery numbers to ed, since his primary numbering (1, 2, 3) was correct. |
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 25, 2017 19:16:43 GMT 1, This did make me chuckle...Like copying a mates homework in school
This did make me chuckle...Like copying a mates homework in school
|
|
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 25, 2017 19:16:57 GMT 1, Haha thanks met and well done to ed
Haha thanks met and well done to ed |
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 25, 2017 19:17:42 GMT 1, I know, I couldn't resist...see if I could get away with it ๐
I know, I couldn't resist...see if I could get away with it ๐
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 25, 2017 19:32:50 GMT 1,
COMPETITION 11 โ Saturday, 25 March to Monday, 27 March 2017
Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Monday, 27 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof).
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 33, 34, 35 and 36
Secrets of the Psychics - James Randi Documentary [54:17]
โ uploaded by dickies docos
Homeopathy, quackery and fraud | James Randi [17:50]
โ uploaded by TED
COMPETITION 11 โ Saturday, 25 March to Monday, 27 March 2017
Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Monday, 27 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof).
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 33, 34, 35 and 36
Secrets of the Psychics - James Randi Documentary [54:17]
โ uploaded by dickies docos
Homeopathy, quackery and fraud | James Randi [17:50]
โ uploaded by TED
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 27, 2017 2:31:37 GMT 1,
THE MET LOTTERY
*UPDATE: A CHANGE OF PLAN*
PART I: MARATHON and PART II: HAT TIP were previously two constituents of the same lottery for a single prize. This has been revised.
Both parts will now be standalone, each with its own lottery and its own prize.
1. PART I still ends on Friday, 31 March 2017, when details of the lottery draw determining the prize winner will also be published. The lottery winner for PART I will still be announced on Saturday, 1 April 2017.
The PART I prize remains the original prize referred to in point 13 of the Game Format and Rules.
What the change means in practice is that competition winners have just seen their chances improve of ending up with the lottery-draw number.
2. PART II has been pushed back. Details of PART II โ along with details of the separate lottery draw determining that prize winner โ will now be published in late April.
The PART II prize will be different and of a secondary nature (the idea being to place greater emphasis on PART I).
THE MET LOTTERY
*UPDATE: A CHANGE OF PLAN*
PART I: MARATHON and PART II: HAT TIP were previously two constituents of the same lottery for a single prize. This has been revised.
Both parts will now be standalone, each with its own lottery and its own prize.
1. PART I still ends on Friday, 31 March 2017, when details of the lottery draw determining the prize winner will also be published. The lottery winner for PART I will still be announced on Saturday, 1 April 2017.
The PART I prize remains the original prize referred to in point 13 of the Game Format and Rules.
What the change means in practice is that competition winners have just seen their chances improve of ending up with the lottery-draw number.
2. PART II has been pushed back. Details of PART II โ along with details of the separate lottery draw determining that prize winner โ will now be published in late April.
The PART II prize will be different and of a secondary nature (the idea being to place greater emphasis on PART I).
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 27, 2017 20:35:13 GMT 1, COMPETITION 11 โ Saturday, 25 March to Monday, 27 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Monday, 27 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 33, 34, 35 and 36[...]
Apologies for any confusion to members participating in COMPETITION 11.
With the clocks having changed yesterday in the UK, GMT no longer corresponds to UK time.
The questions relating to the James Randi videos will still be posted at 21:00 GMT โ but that is now 22:00 UK time.
See you in about 85 minutes.
COMPETITION 11 โ Saturday, 25 March to Monday, 27 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Monday, 27 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 33, 34, 35 and 36[...] Apologies for any confusion to members participating in COMPETITION 11. With the clocks having changed yesterday in the UK, GMT no longer corresponds to UK time. The questions relating to the James Randi videos will still be posted at 21:00 GMT โ but that is now 22:00 UK time. See you in about 85 minutes. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 27, 2017 22:00:01 GMT 1, COMPETITION 11 โ Saturday, 25 March to Monday, 27 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Monday, 27 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 33, 34, 35 and 36James Randi - Secrets of the Psychics Documentary (Full) [54:17] โ uploaded by Muon Ray
Homeopathy, quackery and fraud | James Randi [17:50] โ uploaded by TED
C11 QUESTIONS
Each time reference below is to the half-hour period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found.
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. First video: [0:00โ30:00] In a college freshman class, each student was given a detailed horoscope and told it was drawn up by a professional, based on information they'd supplied about when and where they were born. James Randi then asks the students to grade their personal horoscopes for accuracy on a scale of 1 to 5 โ with 5 representing the highest degree of accuracy. Most students gave their horoscopes a grade of 4/5 or 5/5.
(i) What is it the students were not told at the beginning of this test?
(ii) What are some of the factors Randi later mentions (regarding the wording of the horoscopes) that help to explain the test results?
2. First video: [0:00โ30:00] The psychologist Ray Hyman used to work as a professional palm reader. After reading books on the subject, Hyman also found it worked and (for a while) became a believer.
(i) Describe the bet made by a college friend that led Hyman to change his mind about palm reading.
(ii) What is one of Hyman's explanations for why people believe in palm reading?
3. Second video: Who are the main subjects of Randi's ire in this TED Talk (being the people he refers to as carrying out "a cruel farce", taking advantage of the innocent, naive and grieving, and sometimes ruining people emotionally and financially)?
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT / 23:00 UK time (but no later than 23:59 GMT / 00:59 UK time).]
COMPETITION 11 โ Saturday, 25 March to Monday, 27 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Monday, 27 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 33, 34, 35 and 36James Randi - Secrets of the Psychics Documentary (Full) [54:17] โ uploaded by Muon Ray
Homeopathy, quackery and fraud | James Randi [17:50] โ uploaded by TED Each time reference below is to the half-hour period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found. Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. First video: [0:00โ30:00] In a college freshman class, each student was given a detailed horoscope and told it was drawn up by a professional, based on information they'd supplied about when and where they were born. James Randi then asks the students to grade their personal horoscopes for accuracy on a scale of 1 to 5 โ with 5 representing the highest degree of accuracy. Most students gave their horoscopes a grade of 4/5 or 5/5. (i) What is it the students were not told at the beginning of this test? (ii) What are some of the factors Randi later mentions (regarding the wording of the horoscopes) that help to explain the test results? 2. First video: [0:00โ30:00] The psychologist Ray Hyman used to work as a professional palm reader. After reading books on the subject, Hyman also found it worked and (for a while) became a believer. (i) Describe the bet made by a college friend that led Hyman to change his mind about palm reading. (ii) What is one of Hyman's explanations for why people believe in palm reading? 3. Second video: Who are the main subjects of Randi's ire in this TED Talk (being the people he refers to as carrying out "a cruel farce", taking advantage of the innocent, naive and grieving, and sometimes ruining people emotionally and financially)? [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT / 23:00 UK time (but no later than 23:59 GMT / 00:59 UK time).] |
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 27, 2017 22:14:12 GMT 1, 1.1 The students were not told that each 'individual' horoscope was in fact identical
1.2 Factors include that personality descriptions could be seen as generally true of everyone, and when mixed in with what seem very personal details and things that most people would want to believe about themselves this explains why they scored so highly.
2.1 The bet was that he would do just as well if he told exactly the opposite of what he thought he was reading on the palm
2.2 Hyman states that people want you to succeed and that if you set them up right you can tell them anything - the brain will find ways of reinterpreting to fit
3. His main grievance is aimed at people who claim they can talk to the dead, such as Sylvia 'The Talons' Brown
1.1 The students were not told that each 'individual' horoscope was in fact identical
1.2 Factors include that personality descriptions could be seen as generally true of everyone, and when mixed in with what seem very personal details and things that most people would want to believe about themselves this explains why they scored so highly.
2.1 The bet was that he would do just as well if he told exactly the opposite of what he thought he was reading on the palm
2.2 Hyman states that people want you to succeed and that if you set them up right you can tell them anything - the brain will find ways of reinterpreting to fit
3. His main grievance is aimed at people who claim they can talk to the dead, such as Sylvia 'The Talons' Brown
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 27, 2017 22:29:19 GMT 1, 1.(i) The students thought that all the horoscopes were based on previous info given beforehand to the class/lecture. They were not informed that this was not the case: that in fact all horoscopes were the same.
(ii) Some factors Randi mentions to help explain the test results were that people 'want to be fooled' . They like to believe certain things are true.
2. (i) Ray Hyman was bet by his friend to give the 'opposite' reading to what he normally would have done to challenge him.
(ii) one of the explanations offered is that it doesn't matter what you say, people will interpret it as they want until it 'fits like a glove'.
3. He argues that the main subjects who take advantage of the naive and innocent people are the Psychics. Such people exemplifies in the video are:Uri Geller and Sylvia Brown. He ultimately blames the media as it pleases the sponsors.
1.(i) The students thought that all the horoscopes were based on previous info given beforehand to the class/lecture. They were not informed that this was not the case: that in fact all horoscopes were the same.
(ii) Some factors Randi mentions to help explain the test results were that people 'want to be fooled' . They like to believe certain things are true.
2. (i) Ray Hyman was bet by his friend to give the 'opposite' reading to what he normally would have done to challenge him.
(ii) one of the explanations offered is that it doesn't matter what you say, people will interpret it as they want until it 'fits like a glove'.
3. He argues that the main subjects who take advantage of the naive and innocent people are the Psychics. Such people exemplifies in the video are:Uri Geller and Sylvia Brown. He ultimately blames the media as it pleases the sponsors.
|
|
|
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 27, 2017 22:36:56 GMT 1, Close doyle but, unless I'm being over confident i think i nailed it. I even tried to do coherent sentences this time.
There's some great vids on YouTube of psychics failing or being called out about it. Awkward af.
A bit like the hitchslapped stuff. Also, Randi.org might be my new favourite web address.
Close doyle but, unless I'm being over confident i think i nailed it. I even tried to do coherent sentences this time. There's some great vids on YouTube of psychics failing or being called out about it. Awkward af. A bit like the hitchslapped stuff. Also, Randi.org might be my new favourite web address. |
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 27, 2017 22:41:35 GMT 1, ed I knew it, my psychic told me you would win tonight
ed I knew it, my psychic told me you would win tonight
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 27, 2017 22:49:44 GMT 1, I enjoyed the part were Uri geller couldn't do the tricks because he didn't feel the connection that time on the programme haha and how homeopathy consists of finding a medicine and diluting it till there's nothing left haha I did enjoy these James Randi vids though, thanks met I agree with his ultimate thought that why are we still drawn to the irrational even despite all the scientific evidence. even religion?
I enjoyed the part were Uri geller couldn't do the tricks because he didn't feel the connection that time on the programme haha and how homeopathy consists of finding a medicine and diluting it till there's nothing left haha I did enjoy these James Randi vids though, thanks met I agree with his ultimate thought that why are we still drawn to the irrational even despite all the scientific evidence. even religion? |
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 27, 2017 22:52:59 GMT 1, I liked how he said something like 'im a magician not a wizard' and then proceeded to dress like a wizard in Russia.
I liked how he said something like 'im a magician not a wizard' and then proceeded to dress like a wizard in Russia.
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 27, 2017 22:55:52 GMT 1, Haha yes great stuff and what a farce all that water testing in Russia was, very amusing to watch ๐
Haha yes great stuff and what a farce all that water testing in Russia was, very amusing to watch ๐
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 27, 2017 23:43:08 GMT 1, 1.1 The students were not told that each 'individual' horoscope was in fact identical 1.2 Factors include that personality descriptions could be seen as generally true of everyone, and when mixed in with what seem very personal details and things that most people would want to believe about themselves this explains why they scored so highly. 2.1 The bet was that he would do just as well if he told exactly the opposite of what he thought he was reading on the palm 2.2 Hyman states that people want you to succeed and that if you set them up right you can tell them anything - the brain will find ways of reinterpreting to fit 3. His main grievance is aimed at people who claim they can talk to the dead, such as Sylvia 'The Talons' Brown
Lottery numbers 33, 34, 35 and 36 allocated to ed. Congratulations. Noble effort by doyle that could be described as "great but too late".
C11 REFERENCE ANSWERS
1.
(i) All of the students received the same horoscope.
(ii) James Randi later said that โ as is commonplace with horoscopes โ the personality descriptions were generally true of everyone, some parts seemed specific because they were so personal, and there were others that anyone might hope would be true (e.g. "You have a great deal of unused capacity.").
2.
(i) Ray Hyman was bet by one of his college friends that he would do just as well as a palm reader if he told his clients the opposite of what he read in their palms. He tried this and it turned out to be correct.
(ii) Hyman stated he realised it didn't make a difference what he told clients: "If you set people up right, you can tell them almost anything." They could make sense out of whatever they were told by finding a way of reinterpreting it "so it really fits them like a glove". Regarding one particular client, he added, "This person wants me to succeed; she'll work out some accommodation."
3. Randi's greatest ire is directed toward so-called psychics or mediums who claim to be able to communicate with the deceased.
[For those interested in the tricks and techniques used by charlatans of the psychic industry, I recommend checking out programmes on this subject by Derren Brown. See for example, Messiah. The uncomfortable part dealing with cold reading and pretending to speak with the dead starts at 37:00:
Miracles for Sale, covering the nastiness of the faith-healing industry, is also recommended:
]
_____________________________
Additional information:
On the subject of the expensive mind-rot that is homeopathy (a.k.a. the placebo effect and power of suggestion, combined with a normal functioning of the body's immune system), does anyone feel like being outraged?
Two NHS centres continue to offer homeopathic treatments, in London and Glasgow. At a time when the NHS is desperately struggling for resources, that's taxpayer money being redirected to pseudoscience and quackery.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37557083
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#regulation
But on the other hand, "David Beckham, Twiggy, Roger Daltrey, Caprice, Susan Hampshire, Tina Turner, Louise Jameson, Gaby Roslin, Jude Law, Sadie Frost, Nadia Sawalha, Richard Branson, Debra Stephenson and Meera Syal, as well as HM The Queen are all users of homeopathy."
www.britishhomeopathic.org/homeopathy/facts/
1.1 The students were not told that each 'individual' horoscope was in fact identical 1.2 Factors include that personality descriptions could be seen as generally true of everyone, and when mixed in with what seem very personal details and things that most people would want to believe about themselves this explains why they scored so highly. 2.1 The bet was that he would do just as well if he told exactly the opposite of what he thought he was reading on the palm 2.2 Hyman states that people want you to succeed and that if you set them up right you can tell them anything - the brain will find ways of reinterpreting to fit 3. His main grievance is aimed at people who claim they can talk to the dead, such as Sylvia 'The Talons' Brown Lottery numbers 33, 34, 35 and 36 allocated to ed. Congratulations. Noble effort by doyle that could be described as "great but too late". C11 REFERENCE ANSWERS1. (i) All of the students received the same horoscope. (ii) James Randi later said that โ as is commonplace with horoscopes โ the personality descriptions were generally true of everyone, some parts seemed specific because they were so personal, and there were others that anyone might hope would be true (e.g. "You have a great deal of unused capacity."). 2. (i) Ray Hyman was bet by one of his college friends that he would do just as well as a palm reader if he told his clients the opposite of what he read in their palms. He tried this and it turned out to be correct. (ii) Hyman stated he realised it didn't make a difference what he told clients: "If you set people up right, you can tell them almost anything." They could make sense out of whatever they were told by finding a way of reinterpreting it "so it really fits them like a glove". Regarding one particular client, he added, "This person wants me to succeed; she'll work out some accommodation."3. Randi's greatest ire is directed toward so-called psychics or mediums who claim to be able to communicate with the deceased. [For those interested in the tricks and techniques used by charlatans of the psychic industry, I recommend checking out programmes on this subject by Derren Brown. See for example, Messiah. The uncomfortable part dealing with cold reading and pretending to speak with the dead starts at 37:00:Miracles for Sale, covering the nastiness of the faith-healing industry, is also recommended: ]_____________________________ Additional information: On the subject of the expensive mind-rot that is homeopathy (a.k.a. the placebo effect and power of suggestion, combined with a normal functioning of the body's immune system), does anyone feel like being outraged? Two NHS centres continue to offer homeopathic treatments, in London and Glasgow. At a time when the NHS is desperately struggling for resources, that's taxpayer money being redirected to pseudoscience and quackery. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37557083www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#regulationBut on the other hand, "David Beckham, Twiggy, Roger Daltrey, Caprice, Susan Hampshire, Tina Turner, Louise Jameson, Gaby Roslin, Jude Law, Sadie Frost, Nadia Sawalha, Richard Branson, Debra Stephenson and Meera Syal, as well as HM The Queen are all users of homeopathy."www.britishhomeopathic.org/homeopathy/facts/ |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 27, 2017 23:53:52 GMT 1,
COMPETITION 12 โ Monday, 27 March to Tuesday, 28 March 2017
Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Tuesday, 28 March at 20:00 GMT / 21:00 UK time (or within a few minutes thereof).
Sorry about the low volume in the introductions to the videos by Philip Zimbardo.
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 37 and 38
Asch Conformity Experiment [5:47]
โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTV
Dangerous Conformity [8:23]
โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTV
The Bystander Effect [7:04]
โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTV
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo
COMPETITION 12 โ Monday, 27 March to Tuesday, 28 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Tuesday, 28 March at 20:00 GMT / 21:00 UK time (or within a few minutes thereof). Sorry about the low volume in the introductions to the videos by Philip Zimbardo. The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 37 and 38Asch Conformity Experiment [5:47] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTVDangerous Conformity [8:23] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTV The Bystander Effect [7:04] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTVen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 28, 2017 21:00:00 GMT 1, COMPETITION 12 โ Monday, 27 March to Tuesday, 28 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Tuesday, 28 March at 20:00 GMT / 21:00 UK time (or within a few minutes thereof). Sorry about the low volume in the introductions to the videos by Philip Zimbardo. The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 37 and 38Asch Conformity Experiment [5:47] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTVDangerous Conformity [8:23] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTV The Bystander Effect [7:04] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTVen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo
C12 QUESTIONS
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. First video: Fill in the blanks:
"Sometimes we go along with the group because what they say convinces us that they are right. This is called __________ __________. But sometimes we conform because we are apprehensive that the group will disapprove if we are deviant. This is called __________ __________."
2. Second video: The video illustrates the dangers of conformity with the life-or-death example of fires.
Give your own example of a less serious risk of succumbing to herd instinct and the influence of group norms / crowd behaviour, which can be witnessed on a regular basis either on this forum or in the wider art world.
3. Third video: The subject here is the bystander effect, i.e. the "social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present."
One experiment shown involves an actress called Ruth who's wearing normal clothing. She appears to lie unconscious on the steps outside a bustling Liverpool Street station in London. Describe how the narrator explains this situation regarding:
(i) what would probably happen if the street were deserted apart from Ruth and a single passerby;
(ii) what actually takes place in the first instance when a hesitating woman spots Ruth; and
(iii) what triggers a change in that woman's behaviour.
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 UK time (but no later than 23:59 UK time).]
COMPETITION 12 โ Monday, 27 March to Tuesday, 28 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Tuesday, 28 March at 20:00 GMT / 21:00 UK time (or within a few minutes thereof). Sorry about the low volume in the introductions to the videos by Philip Zimbardo. The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following two lottery numbers: 37 and 38Asch Conformity Experiment [5:47] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTVDangerous Conformity [8:23] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTV The Bystander Effect [7:04] โ uploaded by HeroicImaginationTVen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. First video: Fill in the blanks: "Sometimes we go along with the group because what they say convinces us that they are right. This is called __________ __________. But sometimes we conform because we are apprehensive that the group will disapprove if we are deviant. This is called __________ __________."2. Second video: The video illustrates the dangers of conformity with the life-or-death example of fires. Give your own example of a less serious risk of succumbing to herd instinct and the influence of group norms / crowd behaviour, which can be witnessed on a regular basis either on this forum or in the wider art world. 3. Third video: The subject here is the bystander effect, i.e. the "social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present."One experiment shown involves an actress called Ruth who's wearing normal clothing. She appears to lie unconscious on the steps outside a bustling Liverpool Street station in London. Describe how the narrator explains this situation regarding: (i) what would probably happen if the street were deserted apart from Ruth and a single passerby; (ii) what actually takes place in the first instance when a hesitating woman spots Ruth; and (iii) what triggers a change in that woman's behaviour. [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 UK time (but no later than 23:59 UK time).] |
|
