- [WT] [Home] [Manage]
/ssh/ - Social Sciences & Humanities
A board for social sciences and humanities history, philosophy, anthropology, psychology...
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Media ID
File 1
Password (for post and file deletion)
Extra [ Is Spoiler ]
  • Supported file types are: jpg,jpeg,png,gif
  • Maximum file size allowed is 4mb.
  • Blotter updated: 22/10/09
  • 22/10/09 - Trial board for crafts, hobbies and Do It Yourself!
Show/Hide  Show All
File: 145149.jpg - (57.53kb, 396x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 16/6/2009(Tue)03:48:40 No.70217    [Reply]
Do people who are deaf or blind from the birth realize that other people can see/hear? If yes, do they only do that with external help or by themselves?
Pic slightly related.
3 post(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 23/6/2009(Tue)04:04:43 No.83244
They still have the hearing parts of the brain, unless that's why they are deaf, they may be able to imagine sounds, but with no initial stimuli to begin with they would be triggered by accidents in the brain.
>>
Anonymous 23/6/2009(Tue)05:06:26 No.83378
>>83244
But the brain doesn't learn to hear if it have never received stimuli. A daltonic doesn't imagine a color that he can't see.

Also seems like if you change the genes to make a animal with black and white vision to make a new animal with color vision (only eye change) its brain will learn to see colors.

Maybe if we make a humans with eye receptors to UV this new color will be normal to him, but we can't imagine how he see it.
>>
Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)04:09:19 No.88281
>>83378
Much of the brain is a combination of both genetically determined structures and their reaction with stimuli. Indeed without stimuli their ability to imagine what they cannot sense will be severely warped compared to someone with physical stimuli as a modicum on which to base their perceptions, however this does not mean the part of the brain which has evolved for million of years to deal with sight/sound disappears completely.

File: 160668.jpg - (58.61kb, 584x599) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
ITT: Psychodynamics Anonymous 20/6/2009(Sat)04:56:14 No.78954    [Reply]
Can I get some insights about psychodynamics, /ssh/?

While it doesn't make for very good therapy, the submerged part of the iceberg, however inarticulate, is as vast as the analogy suggests, containing all the precursors of our intuitive thought, all our preferences, our fears, our potential reactions, the tangled web of a universe inside all of our minds, and obviously, everything about us we do not articulate in our minds' eyes, and thereby, everything we ever did think of and forget. It's the most chaotic, dynamic, and relevant thing we have left to learn about, of which we have done almost none. Theories and models do not take away from the relevance of this concept, but rather highlight the fact that there is a virtual infinity of understanding left to accomplish about our own minds. It's the meaning behind everything that we are, for fuck's sake.
1 image reply(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
OP 23/6/2009(Tue)09:51:19 No.84095
>>80658
Your post is really more about behaviorism than what I was talking about, but there are issues to discuss in it relating to psychodynamics, and you did tie it in with your last paragraph.

Really, I think of behavior more often as it pertains to psychopharmacology (mostly neurotransmitters, don't know much about structure yet). Every individual exhibits deviance. I like how you said, "the neurodiversity of our species," and I think of it more as the quirks every individual exhibits neurologically, the "intelligence", thought patterns, and "personality". I like psychodynamics because to me, it shows how obscure these things really are, because they must be evaluated on an individual basis to really get the whole picture, and all of the theorists before have been theorists, schemers, because you can only look at the mind in this way so vaguely unless you want try understand one snapshot of a person for your entire life. They try to simplify what is inherently complicated. I don't believe there is a simple answer to nature versus nurture at all, and this approaches the problem as a gargantuan, expressionist mural painted over the instinct and other innate ~physical specifics of the individual. It's draining to think about how different everyone really is, to me, not that they aren't all similar and predictable as well.

I do think perhaps the majority of people have a degree of...marked defectiveness of personality and thought, which couldn't necessarily be called disorders, because they don't always ruin their quality of life, but do make them more simple though not less capable of intelligence. Things similar to Asperger's, but less prominent. If you think I'm saying I think everyone's stupid, try to read this paragraph again foregoing that conclusion, and I'm sorry I can't be more specific.
>>
Anonymous 25/6/2009(Thu)01:39:13 No.85598
>>84095
I don't really know psychodynamics I talk with psychology people sometimes but I'm a hard science nerd.

Anyway, I think that many conditions considered disorders like ADHD are just part of neurodiversity. People with ADHD have some problems compared to "normal" people, but they have some advantages too. Most of the world see many conditions like dyslexia and ADHD as a impairment, but there is many examples of notable scientists, artists and historical figures with conditions from ADHD to some forms of autism. Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton may have had Asperger syndrome, of course we can't be sure since they died before this condition came to be known.

What I mean is that there are many variations, some of them are considered normal in modern society, others not. Each variations has its advantages and disvantages, someone with asperger syndrome might have some problems with social interaction but their intense interests is good to the knowledge generation, others have said that ADHD has a link with creativity.
>>
Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)04:01:29 No.88279
>>85598
If a disorder has a negative effect on someone's quality of life then it needs to be cured, not ignored because for some reason you think "diversity" is always a good thing.

Aspergers is not always a bad thing but this doesn't mean it's always a good thing and we should force mothers to induce asperger's syndrome and other "neurodiverse" mental deficiencies and disabilities in their children using carcinogenic neuro-toxins just to increase "diversity". Seriously, that's just insane. Am I in Mengele's laboratory here?

Edited at 27/6/2009(Sat)04:02:18

File: Embedded Video
Anonymous 21/6/2009(Sun)06:56:01 No.80640    [Reply]
Oh, the humanity!
>>
Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)11:44:07 No.88113
wat
>>
Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)03:33:33 No.88273
I prefer the original.

File: 73380.jpg - (21.13kb, 229x310) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 16/5/2009(Sat)06:18:01 No.34207    [Reply]
Little Albert experiment

In the early decades of the twentieth century the discipline of psychology was still in its infancy, but beginning to make significant headway. Pioneering researchers were enthusiastically unraveling the human mind, and some were willing to go to alarming lengths to satisfy their curiosity.

One such trailblazer was a behaviorist named John B. Watson. In 1919, his curiosity was aroused after observing a child who showed an irrational fear of dogs. Watson supposed that a shiny new human would not possess an inborn fear of domesticated animals, but if "one animal succeeds in arousing fear, any moving furry animal thereafter may arouse it." In order to satiate his scientific appetite, he undertook a series of experiments at Johns Hopkins University to determine whether an infant could indeed be conditioned to fear cute-and-cuddly animals by associating them with scary stimuli. A couple decades earlier Pavlov's notorious dogs had been conditioned to salivate a

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
8 post(s) and 9 image reply(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 24/5/2009(Sun)09:08:37 No.43468
Is there some kind of structure to this thread or what?
>>
Anonymous 23/6/2009(Tue)12:33:37 No.83182
>>43468
Idk, but it was a good read. I liked the video, as well.
>>
Anonymous 23/6/2009(Tue)01:58:27 No.83202
>>43468
I think it is more like a "interesting dump"

File: 146596.png - (42.91kb, 275x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 16/6/2009(Tue)04:27:32 No.70246    [Reply]
Is there a concept of word that refers to both written and ponounced words in langages that use ideograms for writing, as in alphabetic langages?
6 post(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/6/2009(Wed)12:57:17 No.74043
File: 165702.jpg - (96.8kb, 427x640)
>>74026
But is there an original Jap word that has the same meaning as the English "word"?
>>
Anonymous 17/6/2009(Wed)01:20:32 No.74046
>>74043
Not that I know, my japanese is very basic and my vocabulary is small.

Also, such basic word as "word" wouldn't have been imported if they already had a word for it.
>>
Anonymous 17/6/2009(Wed)03:26:49 No.74751
>>74046
>Also, such basic word as "word" wouldn't have been imported if they already had a word for it.
Indeed.

File: 87264.gif - (102.36kb, 800x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 18/5/2009(Mon)02:37:06 No.36447    [Reply]
Raptor Philosophy!
25 post(s) and 37 image reply(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/6/2009(Tue)03:01:51 No.68807
File: 141825.jpg - (23.58kb, 342x254)
Now that your childish game is over can we return to raptor philosophy?
>>
Anonymous 17/6/2009(Wed)08:25:30 No.73148
>>61334
Amazing, my point went straight over your head again. What's so difficult to understand about 2 mathematical laws beings dependant on each other?

1/0 = anything
2/0 = anything
anything ≠ another number
therefore there can only be one answer

1/0 = 2/0 = anything (one answer)

1/0=2/0
anything = itself
>>
Anonymous 17/6/2009(Wed)01:24:04 No.74047
File: 166586.jpg - (5.62kb, 126x148)
>>73148
so anything*0=0
and anything=anything/0
this means that anything*0=anything
since anything*0=0 them
0=anything

File: 144578.jpg - (26.22kb, 486x309) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 12/6/2009(Fri)03:02:24 No.63350    [Reply]
A recent study has found that the fall of an item’s popularity mirrors its rise to popularity, so that items that become popular faster also die out faster, which is demonstrated by name trends.

In their study, Jonah Berger from the University of Pennsylvania and Gaël Le Mens from Stanford University and Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona have investigated why things become unpopular, and have found some surprisingly counterintuitive results. Their study is published in a recent issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“While it is easy to see products, ideas, or behaviors catch on in popular culture, less in known about why such things become unpopular,” Berger told PhysOrg.com. “We show how social dynamics drive cultural change, and examine the reciprocal interplay between individual decisions and collective outcomes. Aggregate changes in popularity shape individual choice, which in turn drives aggregate popularity.”
>>
Anonymous 12/6/2009(Fri)05:17:20 No.63482
To investigate how cultural tastes change over time, Berger and Le Mens analyzed thousands of baby names from the past 100 years in France and the US. (Because there is less of an influence of technology or advertising on name choice, baby names provide a way to study how adoption depends on primarily internal factors.) The researchers found a consistent symmetry in the rise and fall of individual names; in other words, the longer it took for a name to become popular, the longer it took for the name to fade out of popularity, and thus the more staying power it had compared to names that quickly rose and fell. The effect was robust, occurring in both countries and across various time windows.
>>
Anonymous 12/6/2009(Fri)05:17:44 No.63483
To find additional support for this relationship, the researchers also interviewed expecting parents on how likely they would be to give their children certain names. Afterwards, participants rated their perception of how trendy each name was. The results showed that parents viewed names that had experienced sharper recent increases in usage as fads, and avoided these names in accordance with this concern.

As the scientists explain, these findings suggest that beliefs about the evolution of popularity may be self-fulfilling. There is no mathematical necessity that forces cultural items (such as names) that sharply increase in popularity to die out faster, but people’s beliefs have the ability to create this reality, since people don’t want to be seen as following the herd. This effect is an example of how psychological processes shape culture, in addition to the more widely known reciprocal dynamic, that culture can shape thought processes.
>>
Anonymous 12/6/2009(Fri)05:19:09 No.63484
Besides baby names, the symmetry between popularity rise and fall can carry over to other cultural items. For example, the scientists noted that similar outcomes have been observed in the music industry, where new artists who shoot to the top of the charts right away also fall quickly, and so have lower overall sales than those who rise more slowly. While this finding seems counterintuitive, since a quick rise in popularity would seem like a good thing, it shows that a backlash to perceived fads should be taken into account. As the researchers explain, people who want to ensure the persistence and success of particular items should seek to popularize the items at a slow but steady pace.

“Managers often want their products to catch on quickly, and conventional wisdom would say that products which catch on quickly should be more likely to succeed,” Berger said. “Our results, however, show that the exact opposite can occur. Fast adoption can hurt success. We think these findings extend to a broad range of areas where choices signal identity. People often join social movements, choose products, or wear styles because of what it communicates about them to others, and in these domains of life, adoption speed should influence cultural success.”
http://www.physorg.com/news163333282.html

File: 127240.jpg - (19.04kb, 417x199) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 07/6/2009(Sun)03:04:20 No.59628    [Reply]
I wonder if in future people will study about today books, comics, movies and games the same way that today we study about ancient epics, medieval epics and modern epics.

If people will have lectures about Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings and Stan Lee here in west
Edited at 07/6/2009(Sun)03:56:53
4 post(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 09/6/2009(Tue)03:06:21 No.60821
File: 133252.png - (29.39kb, 336x336)
>>60442
>>
Anonymous 11/6/2009(Thu)07:37:55 No.62705
>>60028
Yeah, in some schools I'm sure they do. I saw a documentary on They Might Be Giants and they had a segment about a debate class dealing with Particle Man
>>
Anonymous 12/6/2009(Fri)04:17:01 No.63403
>>62705
We don't have debate classes in my country T_T

It would be so cool...

File: 28018.jpg - (20.12kb, 311x475) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 07/5/2009(Thu)04:42:50 No.12651    [Reply]
So what do you guys think about Brave New World?
2 post(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 29/5/2009(Fri)08:41:47 No.49969
Saw the movie, not very realistic so it was boring.
>>
Anonymous 09/6/2009(Tue)03:23:15 No.60513
>>49969
Wow, I didn't realize there was a movie. After watching the first part, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuiaT0nX9ls I can say you're much better off reading the book.
>>
Anonymous 09/6/2009(Tue)03:38:27 No.60537
File: Embedded Video
>>60513
You can post videos directly

File: 112454.jpg - (52.93kb, 529x458) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Religion evolution Anonymous 31/5/2009(Sun)04:56:03 No.51196    [Reply]
Religion, like everything else, is rarely static. As environment and culture changes, so too does religion. Sometimes the change remains internal, reforming the religion into something similar yet new. Sometimes it creates a break with its parent and becomes a religious entity unto itself.

Judeo-Christianity is rife with such evolution. Jesus strove to change Judaism, but his followers ended up following the new path of Christianity, based on his teachings. The teachings of both Christianity and Judaism influenced the formation of Islam 600 years later. 1200 years afters that, the Baha'i Faith came into existence in the same general region of the world.
2 post(s) and 1 image reply(s) omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 31/5/2009(Sun)05:27:36 No.51209
As a atheist who does not hate religion I find this interesting.
It seems less prone to intolerance
than christianism, judaism and islamism but still have too many deep dogmas.

I still like more zen's non-reliance on written words and shinto's idea of everything containing a kami (spirit/god)
>>
Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)10:12:33 No.52379
>>51209
Isn't atheism a dogma?
>>
Anonymous 02/6/2009(Tue)05:28:23 No.52794
>>52379
Not for me, but some atheists really take it as a dogma.

I just don't have any reason to believe more in judaic-chriastian-islamic god (Tetragrammaton) than any other god like Ganesh, Odin, Zeus, Tupă, Nzambi, Eshu...

Also, if I don't know what did something I don't put a sobrenatural cause. Just because I can't explain something doesn't means that this is the proof of some sobrenatural cause, it just means that I don't know.

[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[ File Only] Password
3.14chan Google Search                                       



share.chan3 imageboard banner exchange
pichan 314chan 3.14chan πchan


The Chan Top List

[sci / ssh / geek / sug]