Siince I've already started 2 threads stupid stuff my paych professor has said, I decided to make a thread to keep track of everything and share with you guys. You can also contribute.
My psych prof said that the brain is isolated from the universe because it can only perceive certain energies.
He claimed that Einstein had a bigger brain which allowed hin to use more than 10% of his "brain capacity.
Way ahead of you.
I already started a whole mess of threads on this topic:
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=634 -- Economic Insanity
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=637 -- Sociological Insanity
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=1322 -- Ethical Insanity
Note that I had a psychology professor who was the same as my sociology professor.
Also, I made two posts on this very subject in fail quotes not too long ago:
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=315.msg19595#msg19595 (something a power systems prof said)
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=315.msg19596#msg19596 (something an optical design prof said)
And as it so happens my sociology/psychology prof also said we don't have instincts. Specifically, he said the following verbatim:
"Humans do not have instincts because we are all born without knowledge and because we have freedom of choice. Instincts are behaviors that are innate and born with. They are by definition not a thought process, a reflex.
Necessary for something to be an instinct:
1.) It must be a complex behavior, not a reflex reaction or a biological function.
2.) Most important, it has to be unlearned.
3.) If it's instinct, the behavior must appear in all normal members of the species under normal circumstances."
He also noted that, "Fight, flight (or freeze--he added that) is not instinctual, otherwise we'd all do it under the same conditions and do the same one of them."
Another thing this same guy (Soc/Psy prof) said was that "because there cannot be enough controls, we cannot ever know what causes people to become homosexual." Yeah...
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 30, 2013, 05:08:41 PM
Another thing this same guy (Soc/Psy prof) said was that "because there cannot be enough controls, we cannot ever know what causes people to become homosexual." Yeah...
Wth?
Quote from: nilecroc on September 30, 2013, 05:16:09 PMWth?
I shit you not. That was in quotes for a reason. same with what I posted above that--which the prof had us write down in our notes exactly as he said it. Hence why I said that first bit was "verbatim".
I mean, Nile, I gotta be honest with you. The guy also referenced things during Sociology that Karl Marx said as if they were scientific fact (e.g. status, etc). That sent out a red flag to me that Sociology might as well be fucking Astrology. I mean come on! The guy whose namesake is so full of failed predictions and contradictions and we're supposed to take him seriously on the rest his thoughts on society, not just the economic ones??? Gimme a fucking break!
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 30, 2013, 05:02:33 PM
Way ahead of you.
I already started a whole mess of threads on this topic:
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=634 -- Economic Insanity
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=637 -- Sociological Insanity
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=1322 -- Ethical Insanity
Note that I had a psychology professor who was the same as my sociology professor.
Also, I made two posts on this very subject in fail quotes not too long ago:
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=315.msg19595#msg19595 (something a power systems prof said)
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=315.msg19596#msg19596 (something an optical design prof said)
And as it so happens my sociology/psychology prof also said we don't have instincts. Specifically, he said the following verbatim:
"Humans do not have instincts because we are all born without knowledge and because we have freedom of choice. Instincts are behaviors that are innate and born with. They are by definition not a thought process, a reflex.
Necessary for something to be an instinct:
1.) It must be a complex behavior, not a reflex reaction or a biological function.
2.) Most important, it has to be unlearned.
3.) If it's instinct, the behavior must appear in all normal members of the species under normal circumstances."
He also noted that, "Fight, flight (or freeze--he added that) is not instinctual, otherwise we'd all do it under the same conditions and do the same one of them."
So would he say that fight or flight isn't an instinct and that women have no maternal instinct?
Also,instinct via Wikipedia:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
Mine also claimed that humans
might evolve extra sensory organs like we're pokemon, completely misunderstanding natural selection. He talks about the brain as if it were a separate thing from the universe producing your reality, and not apart of the universe and perceiving reality.
He also claimed sound was produced by the brain, like sound and sound waves are two different things.
Btw, my psych prof was on the board of directors for my college in the 80s.
Quote from: nilecroc on September 30, 2013, 05:40:44 PM
So would he say that fight or flight isn't an instinct and that women have no maternal instinct?
That's exactly what he said on both accounts.
Quote from: nilecroc on September 30, 2013, 05:40:44 PMHe also claimed sound was produced by the brain, like sound and sound waves are two different things.
Wow. He sounds like a total woo.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 30, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Wow. He sounds like a total woo.
It's kind of depressing that he has a jib traching "science", even more so since he's teaching a class I'm.
QuoteHe also claimed sound was produced by the brain, like sound and sound waves are two different things
He might have meant that a big part of what we perceive as sound is supplied by the brain; much as much of what we "see" is supplied by the brain. As far as things go, our audio/video input organs are fairly sub-standard-and our processing unit/memory fills in the gaps.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on September 30, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Quote from: nilecroc on September 30, 2013, 05:40:44 PM
He also claimed sound was produced by the brain, like sound and sound waves are two different things.
Wow. He sounds like a total woo.
Actually, on that one he's sort of correct.
Sound is a perceptual phenomenon. Definitionally, a sound is something that is heard. If nothing hears a sound wave, then it was a sound wave, but never a sound. In that sense, the sound wave and the perception of the sound wave are quite different things.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 01, 2013, 08:03:26 AM
Wow. He sounds like a total woo.
Actually, on that one he's sort of correct.
Sound is a perceptual phenomenon. Definitionally, a sound is something that is heard. If nothing hears a sound wave, then it was a sound wave, but never a sound. In that sense, the sound wave and the perception of the sound wave are quite different things.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=sound
It's a definition, but it's also defined as vibrations.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 01, 2013, 09:40:00 AM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=sound
It's a definition, but it's also defined as vibrations.
It's equivocating in a common way. While commonly not distinguished, the sensation of sound (definitions 1c&d) and the vibrations of sound waves (definitions 1a&b) are clearly not the same thing.
This goes straight back to the resolution of the faux-Zen question "If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The answer is clearly NO, because sound is a perceptual phenomenon and if there's no perceiver there can be no perception.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 01, 2013, 06:49:28 PM
It's equivocating in a common way. While commonly not distinguished, the sensation of sound (definitions 1c&d) and the vibrations of sound waves (definitions 1a&b) are clearly not the same thing.
This goes straight back to the resolution of the faux-Zen question "If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The answer is clearly NO, because sound is a perceptual phenomenon and if there's no perceiver there can be no perception.
Also, some vibrations that are perceived as sound are actually felt, rather than heard. The deaf enjoying bass is an example of this, the motion of trains is another. I suppose, in a way, it would be anything that vibrates the ground (or the floor, or the...well, anything you might be touching) rather than just the air around your head to which this would apply. Come to think of it, that's a substantial part of "sound".
Quote from: dallen68 on October 01, 2013, 07:08:17 PM
Also, some vibrations that are perceived as sound are actually felt, rather than heard. The deaf enjoying bass is an example of this, the motion of trains is another. I suppose, in a way, it would be anything that vibrates the ground (or the floor, or the...well, anything you might be touching) rather than just the air around your head to which this would apply. Come to think of it, that's a substantial part of "sound".
It's definitely a huge part of the experience. Listening to music intended to be played loud enough to shake the room at a level you won't damage your hearing with is just not the same. (Yes, I've been to those kind of clubs a few times. Not too many, since I don't think I have an major hearing deficits.)
The way the sound waves interact with the environment (acoustics, broadly) is essential for giving, for instance, a concert audience the intended experience. This is the real reason why concert halls have fabric upholstered seating: This results in the smallest feasible difference in the acoustic properties of the hall being empty and the hall being full. This means that practice sessions in the hall produce as close to the same sound that the audience will get in the performance as can reasonably be done. I've even heard of halls where there are movable hangings engineered to allow the acoustics of the hall to be changed to mimic those of specific halls or styles of halls from the past to give a better experience when music from other eras is played.
Last year, I had a government say on the first day of class: "Rich people are raping this country." He went on to praise obama for the bailoutsthe rest of the semester.
He just said you can only use 15% of you brain because its pimited by sensory perception. I'm thinking of dropping this class.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 02, 2013, 11:13:06 AM
He just said you can only use 15% of you brain because its pimited by sensory perception. I'm thinking of dropping this class.
And complain to the dean. YOU are the customer. YOU are paying THEM. Demand your money's worth!
Quote from: nilecroc on October 02, 2013, 11:13:06 AM
He just said you can only use 15% of you brain because its pimited by sensory perception. I'm thinking of dropping this class.
A large portion of it goes to things you have little or no conscience control over, like making your organs work. That being said, perhaps "he" only uses 15% of his brain?
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 02, 2013, 11:16:46 AM
And complain to the dean. YOU are the customer. YOU are paying THEM. Demand your money's worth!
I wish that were true, but my dad is making use the hazlewood act. Plus this guy used to be on the board at my college, so he probably knows the dean.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 02, 2013, 11:21:10 AM
I wish that were true, but my dad is making use the hazlewood act. Plus this guy used to be on the board at my college, so he probably knows the dean.
They still would not be getting that money if you left. That makes you the customer.
Never had any professor say anything stupid to me as such (man, I lucked out). Though one professor did tell a friend of mine that he was a waste of his time, asking a question that had been asked brothers before him, even though he had no way of knowing it had been asked (it was before class, and was about a homework).
yeah, let that sink in.
However, I did have staff talk bullshit to me: had this one jagoff tell me that I was to get a tuition hike of 3%, plus "major fees" for the major I had (remember, I'm out of state, already paying $11,000 on tuition a semester), who then turned around and said that I was still attending one of the cheapest business schools in the country for out of state, compared to all the other ones, and that that was great news!
let me remind you: I was only ever a Geology major, or an Engineering major. Needless to say, my reply (yes, I replied) was not very diplomatic--to say the least (friends who read did laugh at the gall though). The reply, from what I understand, made the rounds in the Geology department. Sadly, the letter has not survived (can no longer access my student account), so I cannot paste it here :(
My professors said so many stupid things I don't think many even stuck in my memory (one example was how my biology professor said that pine trees don't grow naturally in Piedmont NC, when I have them all around my house), but I'll never forget the one that was the last straw, triggering my decision to leave UNC-G behind forever.
It was a midterm exam for Western Civ (a completely worthless class), and I'd made a zero on one essay question because the professor did not want "a philosophical answer."
The question?
"Compare and contrast the views of Locke and Hobbes."
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 02, 2013, 03:49:12 PM
My professors said so many stupid things I don't think many even stuck in my memory (one example was how my biology professor said that pine trees don't grow naturally in Piedmont NC, when I have them all around my house), but I'll never forget the one that was the last straw, triggering my decision to leave UNC-G behind forever.
It was a midterm exam for Western Civ (a completely worthless class), and I'd made a zero on one essay question because the professor did not want "a philosophical answer."
The question?
"Compare and contrast the views of Locke and Hobbes."
Hobbes though man sucked and needed rulers, Locke didn't?
non-philosophical, but I doubt I'd get a better grade than you with this...
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 02, 2013, 03:49:12 PM
My professors said so many stupid things I don't think many even stuck in my memory (one example was how my biology professor said that pine trees don't grow naturally in Piedmont NC, when I have them all around my house), but I'll never forget the one that was the last straw, triggering my decision to leave UNC-G behind forever.
It was a midterm exam for Western Civ (a completely worthless class), and I'd made a zero on one essay question because the professor did not want "a philosophical answer."
The question?
"Compare and contrast the views of Locke and Hobbes."
How the hell do these people get jobs?
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 02, 2013, 03:49:12 PM
My professors said so many stupid things I don't think many even stuck in my memory (one example was how my biology professor said that pine trees don't grow naturally in Piedmont NC, when I have them all around my house), but I'll never forget the one that was the last straw, triggering my decision to leave UNC-G behind forever.
It was a midterm exam for Western Civ (a completely worthless class), and I'd made a zero on one essay question because the professor did not want "a philosophical answer."
The question?
"Compare and contrast the views of Locke and Hobbes."
Good lord. Can't say I blame you.
I had a BIOLOGY prof who claimed that the most efficient way for humans to make use of the plants growing on Earth would be to eat them directly.
Apparently, he didn't know that most mammals (including all primates) lack any means to effectively digest almost all the plant matter on this planet. Ruminants, on the other hand...
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on October 02, 2013, 03:35:56 PMNever had any professor say anything stupid to me as such (man, I lucked out).
You....lucky bastard you! :P
Quote from: evensgrey on October 03, 2013, 05:46:44 PM
I had a BIOLOGY prof who claimed that the most efficient way for humans to make use of the plants growing on Earth would be to eat them directly.
Apparently, he didn't know that most mammals (including all primates) lack any means to effectively digest almost all the plant matter on this planet. Ruminants, on the other hand...
I don't know, I would assume there's a reason that any nutrition chart you look at has grass (yes, corn, wheat, and other grains are grass) as the primary thing (usu. about 9 servings), then just slightly less than that other fruits and vegetables (avg. 4 servings), and then on top of that meat (usu. about 2 oz.) and diary (1 or 2 servings), then sometimes sugar. I'd be guessing there isn't a 40yr conspiracy going on here.
Quote from: dallen68 on October 03, 2013, 06:51:38 PM
I don't know, I would assume there's a reason that any nutrition chart you look at has grass (yes, corn, wheat, and other grains are grass) as the primary thing (usu. about 9 servings), then just slightly less than that other fruits and vegetables (avg. 4 servings), and then on top of that meat (usu. about 2 oz.) and diary (1 or 2 servings), then sometimes sugar. I'd be guessing there isn't a 40yr conspiracy going on here.
OK, did anyone ELSE manage to completely fail to understand my post?
Quote from: evensgrey on October 03, 2013, 08:27:45 PM
OK, did anyone ELSE manage to completely fail to understand my post?
I figured it meant your professor didn't know that most of those plants are mainly made of cellulose which we humans can't turn into energy. So that's why many of them are fed to animals. Because 10% energy from the plants total potential is better than the 0% we'd otherwise get?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on October 04, 2013, 10:02:06 AM
I figured it meant your professor didn't know that most of those plants are mainly made of cellulose which we humans can't turn into energy. So that's why many of them are fed to animals. Because 10% energy from the plants total potential is better than the 0% we'd otherwise get?
Well, not QUITE 0%, but pretty close, since we're also quite poorly equipped to efficiently mechanically smash the cellulose structure open to extract the bits we can digest.
Another problem is the protein component. To get the right amino acid balance, humans need to eat large quantities of both cereals and legumes. It's much more efficient to eat some meat instead. That also gives you essential B12, which is a real problem without animal products.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 04, 2013, 08:55:15 PM
Well, not QUITE 0%, but pretty close, since we're also quite poorly equipped to efficiently mechanically smash the cellulose structure open to extract the bits we can digest.
Another problem is the protein component. To get the right amino acid balance, humans need to eat large quantities of both cereals and legumes. It's much more efficient to eat some meat instead. That also gives you essential B12, which is a real problem without animal products.
Ah. Okay. :) Good to know I was at least close and on the right track. :)
And adding to the economic insanity bit,
My econ professor (the same one in the mentioned thread) once argued 'against' minimum wage but...
well, I put 'against' in quotes because his argument was so weak it was like he was either that uninformed/stupid and/or just trying to not offend anyone.
He stated that while the poor would get the increased wage, so would richer kids taking the job who don't need the money.
I wish I was making that up.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on October 12, 2013, 11:24:46 AM
He stated that while the poor would get the increased wage, so would richer kids taking the job who don't need the money.
I wish I was making that up.
So saying someone doesn't deserve the same compensation for doing the same job as anyone else because of background isn't supposed to offend anyone? Nice.
Was there a string of accidents in the 90s caused by desensitization to brake lights?
My guess would be no, but if the sun or other light source is at the exact wrong angle, it can be difficult to see the brake light. This is why you need to look at the entire car in front of you. If it's not moving, or is moving slower than you are, you need to either go around it or apply your brakes.
Paraphrase: When you lie, your pupils dialate automatically unless you're a psychopath. It doesn't work all the time.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 14, 2013, 11:26:27 AM
Was there a string of accidents in the 90s caused by desensitization to brake lights?
I'm not aware of any, and even if there were I have no idea how it could be linked to brake lights.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 14, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
Paraphrase: When you lie, your pupils dialate automatically unless you're a psychopath. It doesn't work all the time.
In other words, it works, except when it doesn't. Gotta love it.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 14, 2013, 11:58:13 AM
I'm not aware of any, and even if there were I have no idea how it could be linked to brake lights.
In other words, it works, except when it doesn't. Gotta love it.
He said there was a bunch of car crashes that caused insurance comanies to give out millions in clains. He AAA did a study and determined it was due to desensitization of the break lights, so they moved break lights. I searched for the study, and found nothing about it. Oroving once again that professors have no clye what their talking about half of the time.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 14, 2013, 01:02:22 PM
He said there was a bunch of car crashes that caused insurance comanies to give out millions in clains. He AAA did a study and determined it was due to desensitization of the break lights, so they moved break lights. I searched for the study, and found nothing about it. Oroving once again that professors have no clye what their talking about half of the time.
The closest I can find is AAA talking about how distractions while driving can cause someone to miss brake lights.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 14, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
Paraphrase: When you lie, your pupils dialate automatically unless you're a psychopath. It doesn't work all the time.
There are certain physical clues to indicate that someone
might be lying, but even under the best circumstances they are not 100% reliable. There's a number of reasons for this:
1. If the person is aware of the indicator, they will avoid the indicator. For example, if he is aware that people that are lying tend to maintain to much eye contact, he will make sure not to.
2. Any number of other factors could be involved. For example, the person might be nervous about something else.
3. You have to be like right up on someone to tell whether or not there eyes are dilating, so out of the indicators that are known, this is one of the least usable. Besides, his eyes might be "automatically dilating" because of the shadow of your head reducing the amount of light to his eyes while you were getting close enough to tell if his eyes were "automatically dilating."
Federal regulators went around and found sumimnal messages that said buy coke. They were fined for "brain washing".
Edit: Now he's going on about something called the mirror effect i.e. sprint puts up a billboard that says buy one phone, get another free for six to eight months and you stop consvously noticing it. I asked what if i hate sprint and he daid it doesnt matter. He then went on to say that subliminal message is used to brainwash the public. He said consumer psychologists can get sway with this because its not subliminal advertisement or some horseshit. Im glad i skipped this class for two days. Now if I could just drop it.
Edit:The belief in the power of subliminal messaging to manipulate behavior seems to have originated in 1957 with James Vicary, an advertising promoter who claimed to increase popcorn sales by some 58% and Coke sales by some 18% in a New Jersey movie theater simply by flashing very briefly the messages "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Hungry - Eat Popcorn." Even though the claim has been shown to be a hoax, and even though no one has been able to duplicate the event, belief in the legend lingers. This story and several others were retold by Vance Packard in The Hidden Persuaders (1957), a book that became required reading for a generation of college students.
http://www.skepdic.com/subliminal.html
This clown should be fired.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 14, 2013, 01:12:55 PM
The closest I can find is AAA talking about how distractions while driving can cause someone to miss brake lights.
I think what was being referred to is this: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808696.html
Basically, its a study that claims that as people got used to the central high mounted stop lamps (called third brake lights around here) their effectiveness leveled off due to the removal of the novelty effect.
There was also one recently that found that flashing lights are more effective than the steady-on lights.
So my prof claimed that the mere effect can cause you to buy sonething later because you start taking stuff in subconsciously. I looked it up and all it is is people having a preference for things when their exposed to long enough.
Quote from: dallen68 on October 12, 2013, 01:15:27 PM
So saying someone doesn't deserve the same compensation for doing the same job as anyone else because of background isn't supposed to offend anyone? Nice.
I probably should have said, "offend the poor people". This was a community/2 year college I attended before transferring to a 4 year university in order to save money. Either way, it's still an extremely weak argument.
Quote from: T dog on December 29, 2013, 04:42:36 PM
I probably should have said, "offend the poor people". This was a community/2 year college I attended before transferring to a 4 year university in order to save money. Either way, it's still an extremely weak argument.
And unfortunately, I don't remember what the conversation was about.
Oh, found it. What I was saying is that if the rich white kids were doing the work, there's no reason they shouldn't get the compensation.