[Epstein] Hello madda / Hello fadda / Gotta syndrome / Called Havana!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Epstein] Hello madda / Hello fadda / Gotta syndrome / Called Havana!

«‹›1450 »

Perry Mason Jar: Feb 24, 2006; "Della? Take a lid"

neutral milf hotel posted:

anyone have thoughts about @soychicka? they seem to allude heavily to a lot of Epstein related evidence across the years

https://twitter.com/soychicka/status/1366023793785896961

https://twitter.com/soychicka/status/1366025907048226817

She's made it into this thread several times. She posts a lot about Epstein but yes it's only ever allusion to something without anything ultimately concretely or even approaching it. I had to unfollow last month since she spent over 6 weeks doxxing capitol protestors.

# ? Mar 1, 2021 15:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 14:30

Fiend: Dec 2, 2001

Perry Mason Jar posted:

She's made it into this thread several times. She posts a lot about Epstein but yes it's only ever allusion to something without anything ultimately concretely or even approaching it. I had to unfollow last month since she spent over 6 weeks doxxing capitol protestors.

Xeni Jarden�s parachute account?

# ? Mar 1, 2021 16:50

Mr Hootington: Jul 24, 2008; I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

Anyone have know of any good books about BCCI scandal and investigations?

# ? Mar 3, 2021 17:14

Perry Mason Jar: Feb 24, 2006; "Della? Take a lid"

https://mobile.twitter.com/communinsectism/status/1147645558145896448

# ? Mar 4, 2021 00:51

nut: Jul 30, 2019

just like the abstract expressionist movement in art, it feels increasingly like the whole field of trauma psychology (specifically as it shook out) was propped up by military funding

# ? Mar 4, 2021 01:00

Suplex Liberace: Jan 18, 2012

Joins Stockholm syndrome on the bs list

# ? Mar 4, 2021 01:37

nomad2020: Jan 30, 2007

https://twitter.com/cuttlefish_btc/status/931601211844976640

I'm pretty sure this counts as mod sass.

# ? Mar 4, 2021 02:59

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

the secret history of LF

# ? Mar 4, 2021 03:45

Happy Thread: Jul 10, 2005; by Fluffdaddy; Plaster Town Cop

Wow that's an old tweet. Wonder what sparked it

# ? Mar 4, 2021 05:02

Cached Money: Apr 11, 2010

Suplex Liberace posted:

Joins Stockholm syndrome on the bs list

i wouldn't go that far, the reason they are so widely cited are that they are very groundbreaking and important psychological experiments. What they also have in common is that they both would not be approved by an ethical committee today.

# ? Mar 4, 2021 12:50

nut: Jul 30, 2019

Cached Money posted:

i wouldn't go that far, the reason they are so widely cited are that they are very groundbreaking and important psychological experiments. What they also have in common is that they both would not be approved by an ethical committee today.

a couple years ago, unpublished data was found for the Milgram experiment.As far as I remember, it was an additional part of the experiment including data on whether or not participants thought they were actually shocking the actors. Those who thought they were actually shocking someone, shocked them at lower intensities. I can't remember if the difference was big enough to question the main conclusions or not, since it does seem like incredibly important data in a deceptive study.

# ? Mar 4, 2021 13:00

Cached Money: Apr 11, 2010

nut posted:

a couple years ago, unpublished data was found for the Milgram experiment.As far as I remember, it was an additional part of the experiment including data on whether or not participants thought they were actually shocking the actors. Those who thought they were actually shocking someone, shocked them at lower intensities. I can't remember if the difference was big enough to question the main conclusions or not, since it does seem like incredibly important data in a deceptive study.

I'd appreciate a link to this, would like to read about it!

# ? Mar 4, 2021 13:58

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Cached Money posted:

I'd appreciate a link to this, would like to read about it!

https://www.psypost.org/2019/11/unpublished-data-from-stanley-milgrams-experiments-casts-doubts-on-his-claims-about-obedience-54921

quote:

�I was surprised to discover an unpublished analysis in Stanley Milgram�s archives of the relationship between the amount of shock subjects gave in the experiment and their belief that the learner was really being hurt when I was researching my book �Behind the Shock Machine: the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments,'� explained study author Gina Perry, a science historian and an associate in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne.

�I also came across feedback in the archives from Milgram�s subjects that detailed what kinds of things made them suspicious that the experiment was a hoax and their hunch that the learner was not really being hurt.�
...

Most of the subjects (56 percent) were defiant and at some point refused to continue administering the electric shocks. These subjects were also more likely to have believed that the learner was suffering. Those who were less successfully convinced that the learner was in pain, however, were more obedient.

�Milgram publicly dismissed any suggestion that his subjects might have seen through the experimental deception and his work stresses his success in convincing his volunteers that the experiment was �real� even though his unpublished research showed that this was not the case,� Perry told PsyPost.

�While Milgram reported on the amount of shock that subjects were prepared to administer he suppressed data that gives us insights into why people behaved the way they did. Our study shows that the believability of the experimental scenario was highly variable, contrary to Milgram�s claims and that it affected subjects� behavior. Some subjects were convinced the learner was receiving painful shocks, others were sceptical and suspicious.�

�Our analysis shows that people who believed the learner was in pain were two and a half more times likely to defy the experimenter and refuse to give further shocks. We found that contrary to Milgram�s claims, the majority of subjects in the obedience experiments were defiant, and a significant reason for their refusal to continue was to spare the man pain,� Perry said.

�This upends the traditional narrative about the obedience experiments as a demonstration of our slavish obedience to the orders of authorities and as an explanation for events such as the Holocaust. Our results shift the focus to the issue of defiance of authority, and empathy and altruism as the dominant reactions of subjects who volunteered for this research.�

The new research builds upon findings from a previous study, which analyzed recordings of 91 conversations conducted immediately after the termination of the experiments. The recordings showed that most of the obedient subjects justified continuing the experiment because they believed the learner was not really being harmed.

Here�s the paper, scihub it if you need access

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0190272519861952

# ? Mar 4, 2021 14:03

nut: Jul 30, 2019

in retrospect, it probably isn�t so surprising. trauma psych and therapy included a lot of deciding the answers and then finding the proof. Ewen Cameron trumpeted the success of psychic driving and depatterning in a handful of patients while ignoring the irreversible damage he did to the rest, discounting them as not viable subjects for the technique

# ? Mar 4, 2021 14:11

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

nut posted:

just like the abstract expressionist movement in art, it feels increasingly like the whole field of trauma psychology (specifically as it shook out) was propped up by military funding

Wait, tell me about the abstract expressionist movement and its links to military funding?

# ? Mar 4, 2021 14:26

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Orange Devil posted:

Wait, tell me about the abstract expressionist movement and its links to military funding?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

quote:

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials.

...

# ? Mar 4, 2021 14:41

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Orange Devil posted:

Wait, tell me about the abstract expressionist movement and its links to military funding?

^efb we must have the same handler!

Technically it was the CIA https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

quote:

The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the "long leash" - arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.

The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

The next key step came in 1950, when the International Organisations Division (IOD) was set up under Tom Braden. It was this office which subsidised the animated version of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which sponsored American jazz artists, opera recitals, the Boston Symphony Orchestra's international touring programme. Its agents were placed in the film industry, in publishing houses, even as travel writers for the celebrated Fodor guides. And, we now know, it promoted America's anarchic avant-garde movement, Abstract Expressionism.
...
Until now there has been no first-hand evidence to prove that this connection was made, but for the first time a former case officer, Donald Jameson, has broken the silence. Yes, he says, the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it.

Regarding Abstract Expressionism, I'd love to be able to say that the CIA invented it just to see what happens in New York and downtown SoHo tomorrow!" he joked. "But I think that what we did really was to recognise the difference. It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.

"In a way our understanding was helped because Moscow in those days was very vicious in its denunciation of any kind of non-conformity to its own very rigid patterns. And so one could quite adequately and accurately reason that anything they criticised that much and that heavy- handedly was worth support one way or another."
...
This was the "long leash". The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. It was the beach-head from which culture could be defended against the attacks of Moscow and its "fellow travellers" in the West. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom also gave the CIA the ideal front to promote its covert interest in Abstract Expressionism. It would be the official sponsor of touring exhibitions; its magazines would provide useful platforms for critics favourable to the new American painting; and no one, the artists included, would be any the wiser.

Because Abstract Expressionism was expensive to move around and exhibit, millionaires and museums were called into play. Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art in New York. As president of what he called "Mummy's museum", Rockefeller was one of the biggest backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called "free enterprise painting"). His museum was contracted to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.

The museum was also linked to the CIA by several other bridges. William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members' board of the museum's International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency's wartime predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA's International Organisations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

Now in his eighties, Mr Braden lives in Woodbridge, Virginia, in a house packed with Abstract Expressionist works and guarded by enormous Alsatians. He explained the purpose of the IOD.

"We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War."

He confirmed that his division had acted secretly because of the public hostility to the avant-garde: "It was very difficult to get Congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do - send art abroad, send symphonies abroad, publish magazines abroad. That's one of the reasons it had to be done covertly. It had to be a secret. In order to encourage openness we had to be secret."

# ? Mar 4, 2021 14:42

Perry Mason Jar: Feb 24, 2006; "Della? Take a lid"

The artists, as far as I know (?), were unwitting participants in the propaganda war. That is, abstract expressionism was not the brainchild of spooks! But they did ensure that it rose to prominence in short time (via funding, driving the price of pieces up) since it was, in their mind, a suitable foil to the Soviet Realism movement in the Second World.

It's a right shame if anyone dismisses abstract expressionism on those grounds. It's also a shame that Pollock is first-in-mind, if you ask me. Far inferior to Rothko, Newman, and Kline. Kooning also largely sucks, in my woke opinion, but he doesn't have the prominence of Pollock or Rothko. Unfortunate, also, that many contemporary Americans' introduction to Rothko is via the mocking of his work in Mad Men.

Abstract expressionism slaps.

Edit: the oft-neglected women of the movement are also extremely good. I'm a big fan of Pollock's wife, Lee Krasner. Helen Frankenthaler and Joan Mitchell are very good as well, while Elizabeth de Kooning is better than her husband but still not a favorite of mine.

Perry Mason Jar has issued a correction as of 14:53 on Mar 4, 2021

# ? Mar 4, 2021 14:48

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Orange Devil posted:

Wait, tell me about the abstract expressionist movement and its links to military funding?

modern art in the 50�s and 60�s, including people like Pollock, we�re heavily funded by the cia.

# ? Mar 4, 2021 14:49

nut: Jul 30, 2019

tbf I believe at least some of the scientists were unwitting in their funding by the CIA as well. No one has to be witting in any of this--in any field of study, there is going to be a distribution of beliefs, but look what happens when a third party gets to decide which of those beliefs are empowered and prominent. Modern political science, for example, is largely just attempts to justify rapacious foreign policy with little room for successful dissent.

By cultivating trauma psychology as a prominent discipline (many funded researchers were heads of institutes or departments at prominent schools), you create an instrument to not only engage in torture/brainwashing research, but also lend the appearance of expertise to claims of Chinese and Russian brainwashing (on American POWs and Mindszenty, respectively). Perhaps its no surprise that the false memory foundation arises out of this same pool of academics, whether or not they know how their work is being used.

Also, PMJ you should def read Think Tank Aesthetics. Think you'd get a kick out of the author's interpretation of abstract expressionism's support by the CIA being part of RAND Corporation's endless need to quantify and decode everything in the world.

# ? Mar 4, 2021 15:00

Perry Mason Jar: Feb 24, 2006; "Della? Take a lid"

Ooh. Thanks, I'll check it out!

# ? Mar 4, 2021 15:32

WrightOfWay: Jul 24, 2010

Wasn't there some highly influential school for creative writing that was also heavily funded by the CIA?

# ? Mar 4, 2021 23:22

Ghislaine of YOSPOS: Apr 19, 2020

most people who "work for the cia" are unwitting. it's not a guy in a suit with a briefcase who makes you swear to secrecy.

# ? Mar 4, 2021 23:39

nut: Jul 30, 2019

WrightOfWay posted:

Wasn't there some highly influential school for creative writing that was also heavily funded by the CIA?

there�s a book about this called Finks but I haven�t read it.

following on labour union, student union, emigrate group, art, and other cultural groups secretly funded by the CIA, I read the mighty Wurlitzer by Hugh Wilford. the info in the book is good but the author is a crazy apologist for the CIA and buys fully the CIA�s defence that they were just �buying what was on the shelf�. worth noting this loser also wrote another book praising what Kermit Roosevelt did in the Middle East, suggesting it was to help citizens as best he could

# ? Mar 5, 2021 00:22

Wraith of J.O.I.: Jan 25, 2012

WrightOfWay posted:

Wasn't there some highly influential school for creative writing that was also heavily funded by the CIA?

enjoy: https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-iowa-flattened-literature/

he wrote a whole book on it too if you want to dive deeper: https://www.uipress.uiowa.edu/books/9781609383718/workshops-of-empire

# ? Mar 5, 2021 00:53

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Ghislaine of YOSPOS posted:

most people who "work for the cia" are unwitting. it's not a guy in a suit with a briefcase who makes you swear to secrecy.

i have this formative memory of a 3rd grade teacher explaining why its totally normal that the only source in their classroom about foreign countries comes from the "CIA World Factbook", not that its unreliable source, just that its strange all of our information from foreign countries comes from the CIA.

Lil me was pretty confused by it, older me thinks about it often.

# ? Mar 5, 2021 02:13

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Delta-Wye posted:

i have this formative memory of a 3rd grade teacher explaining why its totally normal that the only source in their classroom about foreign countries comes from the "CIA World Factbook", not that its unreliable source, just that its strange all of our information from foreign countries comes from the CIA.

Lil me was pretty confused by it, older me thinks about it often.

my cousin had a CIA World Factbook that she said she bought specifically so that she could look up things about a country while playing Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? and honestly even as a kid I also had a flicker of a thought that like "isn't the CIA a spy agency? wouldn't they have some kind of ulterior motive or bias when talking about other countries?" even when all I knew about the CIA was just depictions of it from movies

# ? Mar 5, 2021 02:23

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

https://twitter.com/WeeMissBea/status/1367091926437101574?s=20

Meghan Markle is a psyop

# ? Mar 5, 2021 02:45

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY: Feb 3, 2006

Atrocious Joe posted:

https://twitter.com/WeeMissBea/status/1367091926437101574?s=20

Meghan Markle is a psyop

The media has put so much more effort into finding dirt on her compared to the literal pedophile.

# ? Mar 5, 2021 03:43

Wraith of J.O.I.: Jan 25, 2012

i loving hate the royals and am instantly disgusted by any americans who adoringly follow their goings on

# ? Mar 5, 2021 03:47

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

nut posted:

there�s a book about this called Finks but I haven�t read it.

following on labour union, student union, emigrate group, art, and other cultural groups secretly funded by the CIA, I read the mighty Wurlitzer by Hugh Wilford. the info in the book is good but the author is a crazy apologist for the CIA and buys fully the CIA�s defence that they were just �buying what was on the shelf�. worth noting this loser also wrote another book praising what Kermit Roosevelt did in the Middle East, suggesting it was to help citizens as best he could

iirc there's a good episode of radio war nerd with the writer but im too lazy to dig it up rn

# ? Mar 5, 2021 03:47

Inverted Icon: Apr 8, 2020; by Athanatos

nut posted:

in retrospect, it probably isn�t so surprising. trauma psych and therapy included a lot of deciding the answers and then finding the proof. Ewen Cameron trumpeted the success of psychic driving and depatterning in a handful of patients while ignoring the irreversible damage he did to the rest, discounting them as not viable subjects for the technique

Remember how I said hypnosis is real? What if I told you that evidence has been slowly trickling out that, low-key, huge chunks of psychology are actually fake as hell? Someone mentioned that an ethics committee would never allow the Zimbardo or Milgram experiments to reoccur. If they did, they would probably have different results than the original.

This is because many on many results from psychology experiments are not reproducible. As well, commonly accepted data processing techniques have been used to prove things like 'drinking ovaltine makes you younger'. Combining the reproducibility crisis with the crisis in statistics, and I'm comfortable saying that large swaths of psychology are just made up. As in, they do not reflect what is actually happening.

When someone says "I better believe them, they're a doctor after all", they're disenfranchised in their mind. When someone says "I better believe them, they're a doctor of psychology/psychiatry after all" they're extremely disenfranchised in their mind.

I've gotten push back on this before. Like, how is mass advertising real then? I get around this by saying that Some psychology is fake

# ? Mar 5, 2021 04:00

Marzzle: Dec 1, 2004; Bursting with flavor

Danger posted:

modern art in the 50�s and 60�s, including people like Pollock, we�re heavily funded by the cia.

what was the end goal?

# ? Mar 5, 2021 04:28

Torpor: Oct 20, 2008; .. and now for my next trick, I'll pretend to be a political commentator...

HONK HONK

Marzzle posted:

what was the end goal?

individualism?

# ? Mar 5, 2021 04:50

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

I remember this Chronicle of Higher Education article went into some of the ideological agenda behind CIA support for the Iowa Writer's Workshop, but it's paywalled for me now

https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-iowa-flattened-literature/

Found a quote from it in another article, that sort of summarizes it.

quote:

�Good literature, students learned, contains �sensations, not doctrines; experiences, not dogmas; memories, not philosophies.�� These rules have become so embedded in the aesthetic canons that govern literary fiction that they almost go without question, even if we encounter thousands of examples in history that break them and still manage to meet the bar of �good literature.� What is meant by the phrase is a kind of currency�literature that will be supported, published, marketed, and celebrated. Much of it is very good, and much happens to have sufficiently satisfied the gatekeepers� requirements.

https://www.openculture.com/2018/12/cia-helped-shaped-american-creative-writing-famous-iowa-writers-workshop.html

basically the young advertising execs and lawyers in the early CIA funded art they thought was good, and more concerned with inner lives than the wider world. So it could show that the US could produce stuff of artistic merit, and funnel artists into forms that didn't outright challenge the capitalist system.

since much of it wasn't openly praising capitalism, it was a more elegant form of propaganda.

# ? Mar 5, 2021 04:56

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

Basically, the CIA didn't like that Marx wrote "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

# ? Mar 5, 2021 04:59

nishi koichi: Feb 16, 2007; everyone feels that way and gives up.
that's how they get away with it.

gradenko_2000 posted:

my cousin had a CIA World Factbook that she said she bought specifically so that she could look up things about a country while playing Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? and honestly even as a kid I also had a flicker of a thought that like "isn't the CIA a spy agency? wouldn't they have some kind of ulterior motive or bias when talking about other countries?" even when all I knew about the CIA was just depictions of it from movies

i had this same experience when i was a child doing a report on jamaica. like �why the cia?�

i still don�t know why the cia.

# ? Mar 5, 2021 06:11

nut: Jul 30, 2019

Inverted Icon posted:

Remember how I said hypnosis is real? What if I told you that evidence has been slowly trickling out that, low-key, huge chunks of psychology are actually fake as hell? Someone mentioned that an ethics committee would never allow the Zimbardo or Milgram experiments to reoccur. If they did, they would probably have different results than the original.

This is because many on many results from psychology experiments are not reproducible. As well, commonly accepted data processing techniques have been used to prove things like 'drinking ovaltine makes you younger'. Combining the reproducibility crisis with the crisis in statistics, and I'm comfortable saying that large swaths of psychology are just made up. As in, they do not reflect what is actually happening.

When someone says "I better believe them, they're a doctor after all", they're disenfranchised in their mind. When someone says "I better believe them, they're a doctor of psychology/psychiatry after all" they're extremely disenfranchised in their mind.

I've gotten push back on this before. Like, how is mass advertising real then? I get around this by saying that Some psychology is fake

In my opinion, the reproducibility crisis in psychology is a confluence of a lot of factors. First, a whole lot of science is not reproducible. On one hand, there's little impetus in any lab to spend additional resources and time reproducing someone else's work as it won't publish well, especially if you can reproduce the findings, ironically. On the other hand, you can just be wrong in your theorizing or basis of experimentation, which is likely even easier when you work largely in abstract concepts like thought and cognition. You could have shaped the results and these errors can be caught should the line of research continue.

Also, psychology involves a lot of really big sample sizes because of the possibility of using things like surveys. Parametric statistics, the most commonly used techniques historically, are based off of using samples of a population to derive findings about the whole population. When it comes to sample sizes that are sufficiently large enough, significance becomes increasingly easier to achieve and suddenly very small group differences are significant. You see this best in things like meta-analyses on MRIs where a change in cortical thickness of a couple percent is presented as a diagnostic criteria, but the finding only holds up in tests of thousands of people, not on an individual basis (where diagnosis would actually occur).

Last, psychology only became an empirical discipline with the advent of behaviourism, where JB Watson and his supervisor decided that maybe the mechanisms of the brain are their mystery aren't important and we can study behaviour using the same forms of quantification and experimentation. This approach then had to mesh with a largely subjective patient-forward therapeutic approach and things like psychoanalysis. It's hard to reconcile this history with modern statistical approaches founded in other disciplines. Does this mean their impacts are totally made up? Maybe. But even some of the worst therapists had successful patients, so who knows.

Also, of course, there's straight up academic fraud, but I'm trying to be positive here.

# ? Mar 5, 2021 14:03

nut: Jul 30, 2019

for a fun sprinkle of evil, JB Watson is infamous for his studies on Albert, a like 7-9 month old baby that he conditioned into fearing a stuffed rat by exposing it alongside loud banging noises. Albert spread this fear to an array of objects deemed similar to the rat and his mother pulled him from the study before Watson ever tried to eradicate the fear.

Worse off, although Watson said Albert was in good health, a 2009 paper purported to have found letter correspondence that revealed Albert's likely identity as a child who died at age 6 from hydrocephalus (though, it should be noted, this finding is disputed with a different identity of a man who lived to 87).

Worse worse off, JB Watson was caught cheating on his wife with his research assistant in studying Albert, fired from his post at John Hopkins and......

...entered advertising where he invented the coffee break.

# ? Mar 5, 2021 14:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 14:30

gh0stpinballa: Mar 5, 2019

Atrocious Joe posted:

https://twitter.com/WeeMissBea/status/1367091926437101574?s=20

Meghan Markle is a psyop

i'm not particularly fond of anyone from the aristocracy but I have a hunch that in addition to the racism, harry and Meghan also discovered something especially horrifying pertaining to Andrew or Diana's death that convinced them they needed to get the gently caress out of Dodge.

# ? Mar 5, 2021 14:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Epstein] Hello madda / Hello fadda / Gotta syndrome / Called Havana!

«‹›1450 »