Via Justin J Lehmiller:
I have done research on human subjects and had to get the research approved by distrustful committees so I have a glimmer of understanding of what she was up against and more than a little sympathy for her.
Almost as a side note I thought one of the points she made was very good. And that is that nearly everyone has used sex, either solo or with a partner to help them get to sleep at night. But sleep therapists, not a single one as far as she could determine, even mentioned this as a potential aid in overcoming sleep difficulties. Could this cut down on the use of pharmaceuticals? It would seem likely and probably have fewer undesirable side effects.
Similar benefits might exist for other issues as well. Orgasms affect mood and brain chemistry. Knowing more about this would seem likely to lead to better, or at least alternate, treatments for things like depression, right?
She not going so far as to endorse Dr. Joe’s Cure For Everything, but she is on the right track.
here’s a puzzler:
It’s a cardinal sin in the progressive weltanschauung to deny someone the validity of their own narrative.
Unless their narrative is “I’m doing this for Islam and the caliph!”
It’s not really a puzzler. Let me explain in a roundabout way.
I received an email a few weeks ago which said in part:
Standard progressive technique against non-progressives is the “basket of deplorables” attack: accuse them of *-ism and watch them wilt as they do a mad scramble trying to show they are actually good people. What the victims of those attacks don’t realize is that the attack has no connection to fact, and denials aren’t helpful because it isn’t about evidence or truth. Harry Reid knew this well and used it against Romney, as did many others.
My reply, in part, was:
The psychology of the progressives is that of a personality disorder. If you were to read the book Stop Walking on Eggshells I would bet you would see, as I do, amazing parallels between Borderline Personality Disorder and the political left in this country. I don’t have the book in front of me right now but here are some things that I remember:
- It is always your fault when something goes wrong.
- They create or maneuver things such that you are put in “can’t win” situations.
- They are at high risk of hurting themselves (riots damaging their own neighborhoods is my analog of this) if they get mad at you.
- They constantly start fights over nothing.
- The attempted use of facts will result in accusations of “You always have to get your way”, “You need to compromise.”, or increase the verbal and/or physical abuse.
- There is no successful treatment.
- The best you can hope for is to expend less energy/time dealing with them without compiling with their crazy demands (or as Barb says, “Getting on their crazy train.”)
The basics of how you deal with them, as individuals, is to tell them you aren’t going to tolerate their misbehavior. They will go ballistic at this, after all, it is all your fault, not theirs. They have done nothing wrong. Then ignore, them, walk away, or otherwise disengage and do your own thing when they inevitably misbehave. You must not give in to their misbehavior. They will only encourage them to misbehave more.
I just wish there was a way to divorce ourselves from the political left. I’m tired of the constant abuse and crazy talk.
Back to Tamara’s puzzlement.
These people are nuts. Barb and I have both had decades of experience attempting to deal with people like this and spent time talking to counselors getting help dealing with personality disordered people. Several times a week during the first year or so we were together one of us would tell a story and ask, “Why did they do this?” It took a while but it finally reached the point where the other person would say, “Don’t try to make sense of it. You will go crazy if you try.” That shortened to, “You are trying to get on crazy train with them.”
We mostly have the stories out of our system and it is now rare for one of us to tell one. And if one does come out the response is just, “Don’t get on the crazy train.”
And that is what our response to these sort of puzzlements should be. Give them “that look” and tell the sane people attempting to appease or understand the progressives, “Don’t get on the crazy train.”
Saturday Night Live did a surprisingly insightful ad for “The Bubble”
That’s right out of the “right wing” talk show sarcasm circuit. If Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh got together, they’d have come up with the same ad. Who thought of that? How did it get past the network editors?
A comment by Danika Takelo regarding Electoral College Voter Says He Will Not Vote For Hillary Clinton Even If She Wins His State:
I’m from Washington and if he does this, I want his HEAD on a platter!!!!!
Why are progressives so violent? It’s in their nature.
In nearly every scenario you can imagine, the person experiencing an unlikely addition to their reality is the one hallucinating. If all observers see the same addition to their reality, it might be real. But if even one participant can’t see the phenomenon – no matter how many can – it is almost certainly not real.
October 19, 2016
I Wake You Up for the Presidential Debate
[His ultimate point is:
If you see something unlikely – such as a new Hitler rising in the midst of America – and I see nothing remotely like that – I’m almost certainly right and you’re almost certainly having the illusion. I say that because the person who sees the unlikely addition to reality is the one experiencing the illusion nearly every time. Trump as Hitler-in-America is an addition to reality that only some can see. It is a pink elephant. It is a classic hallucination.
I’m not trying to say I’m smarter than anyone else. I just don’t see the pink elephant. Nor do perhaps 40% of the country who prefer Trump as president. And when that many people don’t see a pink elephant in a room, you can be sure it isn’t there, no matter how many do see it.
Another symptom of hallucinations is that when confronted by a doubter the believers have a strong emotional reaction and offer little or no evidence to support their claims.—Joe]
Women who sell their sexuality for money are regarded as whores, while women who give their sexuality for free are sluts.
In order to be considered a “nice girl,” women are more likely to understate the number of people they have slept with, whereas men typically boast and exaggerate their sexual history. Indeed, embedded in our culture and language are opposing attitudes to women and men who have had sexual relationships with many people. Thus, while the term “slut” is defined as “an insulting word for a woman whose sexual behavior is considered immoral,” the corresponding male term “stud” is defined as “a man who is admired for being sexually attractive and good at sex”
The difference may well be due to the man having to risk rejection by females, thus his ‘success’ is valued by other females as social proof of his value as a sex partner. In contrast, the vast majority of females risk very little when propositioning a man, yet even so that same vast majority of females actively disguise their intentions so as to maintain plausible deniability of their interest in a man, thus risking less than nothing. Thus there’s nothing to value (and much to disvalue) in such female behavior and the connotations of the word ‘slut’ reflect that.
September 21, 2016
Women’s Right to Say YES to Sexuality: Respecting and enhancing female sexual performance
[I found the article fascinating.—Joe]
Veritaphobia: fear of the truth
Veritaphobe: one with veritaphobia.
Example usage: People who think we can balance the budget and pay off the national debt without raising taxes or cutting spending are veritaphobes, just like those who think banning guns will solve all our crime problems.
You are wasting your time if you try to make someone see reason when reason is not influencing the decision. If you’ve ever had a frustrating political debate with your friend who refuses to see the logic in your argument you know what I mean. But keep in mind that the friend sees you exactly the same way.
When politicians tell lies they know the press will call them out. They also know it doesn’t matter. Politicians understand that reason will never have much of a role in voting decisions. A lie that makes a voter feel good is more effective than a hundred rational arguments. That’s even true when the voter knows the lie is a lie.
If you’re perplexed at how society can tolerate politicians who lie so blatantly you are thinking of people as rational beings. That world view is frustrating and limiting. People who study hypnosis start to view humans as moist machines that are simply responding to inputs with programed outputs. No reasoning is involved beyond eliminating the most absurd options. Your reasoning can prevent you from voting for a total imbecile but it won’t stop you from supporting a half-wit with a great haircut. If your view of the world is that people use reason for their important decisions you are setting yourself up for a life of frustration and confusing. You will find yourself continually debating people and never wining except in your own mind.
Few things are as destructive and limiting as a world view that assumes people are mostly rational.
How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life
[Adams articulates this better than I have been able to.
I keep wanting to believe, and to a great extent behaving as if, people are rational. This is despite my frequent claim that it is irrational to expect people to be rational. I know it’s not true, I get frustrated that it is not true, and I sometimes just want to retreat from contact with the general population.
I’m extremely lucky that Barb and I share nearly identical irrational views of reality and rationality.—Joe]
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds
[I look around me and, if I look closely enough, I see this nearly everywhere.
We have such a tenuous grasp on reality it is scary.—Joe]
Taking action to prevent terrorists from having access to assault weapons would be a good start. However, it seems that in the waning days of this Congress, there is more appetite for advancing un-American and counter-productive proposals such as closing the borders to Muslims or ethnically profiling whole communities.
To reiterate what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has testified to Congress, that with the current threat picture, homeland security cannot be achieved without sensible gun control laws.
Bennie G. Thompson
House Homeland Security Committee ranking member (D-Miss)
September 21, 2016
Homeland security means keeping assault weapons off our streets
[Sometimes I’m just amazed that people can say and believe the things they do. Immigration from other countries is not a constitutionally protected right. There isn’t anything more American than our country’s founding document. The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right protected by that document. Is this guy’s mind that well partitioned that he can’t connected what he wrote in consecutive sentences?
The only way this makes sense to me is that people say things with the knowledge, at some level, people will hear what they want to hear. The anti-gun politician will say they “respect the Second Amendment and they don’t want to ban guns”. The next sentence will be that they “support the banning of assault weapons”. It could be that those sort of contradictory messages work on both the receiver and the sender. They say and hear what they want depending upon individual biases of the person at that particular moment. And those biases change from second to second. For example, one second they are of the opinion that the Bill of Rights is important and should be respected. The next second they believe nothing should stand in the way of preventing terrorists from murdering innocent people. They somehow cannot make the connection that these two beliefs are incompatible.
It could be this a built-in psychological mechanism common to almost all people.
I view it as some sort of mental illness.—Joe]
Those who need to know already know what the following means. If it’s not crystal clear to you then don’t worry about it. It’s not for you. It’s more fun and games for the NSA:
Any candidate who tells this many lies clearly can’t win the debate on the merits.
Communications Director for Hillary Clinton
September 24, 2016
THE PRESSURE’S ON HILLARY CLINTON AT FIRST DEBATE, FAIR OR NOT
[Pamien, in this mind blowing display of projection, is referring to Donald Trump.
Rule Number 3. Social Justice Warriors always project.—Joe]
Those who need to know already know what the following means. If it’s not crystal clear to you then don’t worry about it. It’s not for you.
A majority of the public (58%) says that gun ownership in this country does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, compared with 37% who believe it does more to put people’s safety at risk.
Pew Research Center
August 26, 2016
Opinions on Gun Policy and the 2016 Campaign
[That’s the good news.
The bad news is there doesn’t seem to be any anti-gun laws being proposed in any of the major legislative bodies that the majority of people are opposed to. I don’t have an explanation for this dichotomy other than what I have said many times before:
It’s irrational to expect people to be rational.
I guess it just means we have more work to do in changing the culture.—Joe]
… or so the government sometimes says.
OTOH, when you have Big Data, with enough MetaData, it turns into Creepy Data.
No, a shrink having her patients friending each other *based on FaceBlock’s reccomendation* isn’t creepy at all. It’s all totally harmless, and could never be misused, right? (and people wonder why I don’t do Book of Faces)
I wonder if they could sue FB for violating HIPAA?
Via Bruce Schneier:
young people adrift in a globalized world find their own way to ISIS, looking to don a social identity that gives their lives significance. Groups of dissatisfied young adult friends around the world often with little knowledge of Islam but yearning for lives of profound meaning and glory typically choose to become volunteers in the Islamic State army in Syria and Iraq, Atran contends. Many of these individuals connect via the internet and social media to form a global community of alienated youth seeking heroic sacrifice, he proposes.
Preliminary experimental evidence suggests that not only global terrorism, but also festering state and ethnic conflicts, revolutions and even human rights movements — think of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s — depend on what Atran refers to as devoted actors. These individuals, he argues, will sacrifice themselves, their families and anyone or anything else when a volatile mix of conditions are in play. First, devoted actors adopt values they regard as sacred and nonnegotiable, to be defended at all costs. Then, when they join a like-minded group of nonkin that feels like a family a band of brothers a collective sense of invincibility and special destiny overwhelms feelings of individuality. As members of a tightly bound group that perceives its sacred values under attack, devoted actors will kill and die for each other.
He says it applies to the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s. Why shouldn’t it also be applicable to present day politics in the U.S.? Perhaps the Black Lives Matter movement and the police shootings?
Interesting. Very, very, interesting.
Some people cannot be convinced by information. Never forget that. They genuinely believe they are our masters. I expect events will eventually convince them otherwise.
August 13, 2016
Mailvox: the reluctant revolutionary
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The present study has offered three empirical predictions. (1) The number of fame-seeking rampage shooters will continue to grow. (2) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will attempt to kill more victims than past offenders killed. (3) Fame-seeking rampage shooters will “innovate” new ways to get attention.Whether these predictions will be borne out by future data remains to be seen. However, one social change that could potentially disrupt the growth of this threat would be a major reversal in the way the media covers these attackers. Recently, there has been some support for movements such as “No Notoriety” and “Don’t Name Them,” which encourage media organizations to avoid giving rampage shooters the attention and fame they often seek.
Aggression and Violent Behavior Volume 27, March–April 2016, Pages 122–129
Fame-seeking rampage shooters: Initial findings and empirical predictions
[Via email from John Richardson, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money.
This is all consistent with other research that I have seen. The only quibble I have with this conclusion is that it limits the fame seeking to shooters. I also expect fire, knives, swords, vehicles, poison, chemical weapons, explosives, blunt objects, and many other tools will also be used by fame seekers.—Joe].
Some sorta academic clown suggests he and some buddies might storm NRA headquarters.
It’d be like “The Keystone Cops Storm Okinawa.” Amusing, but rather messy for the cleanup crews. Of course an anti gunner sees nothing wrong with homicide, that’s not really the issue….
July 6, 2016
It is possible he and his friends might make it to the elevators
[Delusions are often functional.
In this case my hypothesis is the academic clown is able to imagine some sort of control over his hated enemy in his delusional universe and this gives him comfort that he is lacking in the real world.—Joe]
This is, of course, from Stephanie. Inspired by Terilyn:
It even looks sort of like Terilyn.
Good job Stephanie.
I see it in terms of political liberals, who respond to simple niceness with ever increasing demands for total capitulation and subservience under their brutal and capricious rule, and who respond to the cruelty and threat of groups like Islam with ever increasing groveling and ass-kissing. Morals, principle, it all means nothing.
Say you have no problem with men dressing as women and suddenly they demand you let those men be naked with your six year old daughter in a gym locker room. Say your religion requires those transgender men be thrown from buildings and murdered, and they will seek to import you into the country, provide you with free welfare, and give you victim status to get special privileges over real Americans. It is not logical.
May 25, 2016
On Violence, Amygdala, And Shifting Toward K
[While his claim about the transgender goals are less than accurate his point has a lot of truth to it. The liberal/progressives are all about tolerance and acceptance and want to politically suppress people who display a Confederate flag, deface bumper stickers of NRA members, and riot at assembles of their political opponents. All these people are, almost without exception, peaceful and law-abiding.
The progressives of the world are insistent that Muslims not be discriminated against, that refugees, consisting of a disproportionate number of warrior aged men with a demonstrated propensity for sexual violence, be allowed into their societies. Most terrorists events in the world are the work of Muslims. Nearly all armed conflicts in the world today involve Muslims on one or both sides. And drawing blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed will get you murdered.
So what gives? Anonymous Conservative proposed hypothesis is that these people have mental issues. I have to conclude either this or that, as frequently proposed by Lyle, these people recognize Muslims as the enemy of their political opponents and hence, after a fashion, they are their short term allies.
In any case it is not logical nor does it bode well for freedom.—Joe]