Were doing it again
 

I see another thread makes it way off the topic again ..

Mike :lol:

A "risqué" claim, certainly. Luckily I have evidence, and a nice sound theory to go with it. Google Scholar yields numerous results on this topic. If you'd like, I can request any of the full texts and get you the specific details. Last year I wrote a paper on institutionalized police abuse, and in the course of my literature search, came up with a lot of research on police abuse of kin. Unfortunately I do not still have those specific articles. I am not suggesting all or even a significant number of police officers are abusive, but that they are predisposed to this type of behaviour. We all would be if we spent our days engaging in almost exclusively negative interactions with no way to release the pressure. "Community policing" has sought to counteract this feeling of negativity within and towards police services, but unfortunately has been bastardized by many departments and rendered just a cliché. Anyways, I (and the criminologists who's views I subscribe to) would not consider the police a useful information source.

I have a final exam in 30 minutes or so, I'll respond to your comments regarding legalization when I get home.

Quinn,
Thank you for the information and I appreciate you spending the time looking that up when you could have been studying - I hope your exam went well. I looked through the links you provided and found some great info on the effects of job-related stress on police officers and their families. Alcoholism, divorce, abuse, ptsd, suicidal ideations...
What I could not find though was the "proof" that you said supported your claim that police are more likely to abuse their spouses and children than any other occupation. It may just be that I've lost my knack for research :redface: . I feel that a person could write a paper on the negative affects of being a long-haul trucker or a stock trader and I'm sure they would also find a lot of relevant articles. If you could please direct me to a study that says that police officers and prison guards are "more likely to engage in child and spousal abuse than the general population" I would really like to read it. Thanks in advance.

- good point about community policing, I always suspected that much of it was just posturing.

- Chad

Right, should have added "but I'll keep looking." I don't think you've lost your knack, more likely that it's Google we're talking about, and a beta at that. I'll check the same engines I would have used last year and try to find something specifically related to this topic.

Going back to evolution and greed - here's what my prof had to say (Dr. Hugh Notman, normally of the U of C anthropology dept., specifically, primatology, he studies chimps, but teaches a few animal behaviour courses here and there):

I was eagerly awaiting that.

But in the end, and I do say this with a lot of personal conviction, I don't think of psychology as a science. That's just a personal thing. I know a lot of you will dissagree with me and that's okay. I have my reasons.

*YAWN*

This thread is getting longer than "War and Peace"
:sleeping:

Can we discuss your reasons? Many people have a very dated view of psychology, ie. Alderian, Freudian. If you define science the same way the scientific community (physics, biology, genetics, chemistry, physiology, etc.) does, then psychology is a science. It's just that simple. I guess it's not that big of a deal, but it does bother me. I will tell you right now though that my area of interest is about as far removed from traditional psychology as you can get. You might be surprised how many branches there are to psychology now. An extremely diverse field of study.

Sounds like you know a bit more on this subject than the average Joe there Chad :razz: :mrgreen:

things that make ya go hmmmm :eek:

I was going to suggest... extra metal halides... there must be one or two among us.

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush to play SC, so I gave a half assed comment.

To me, psychology's endless failure to produce definitive predictions for behavior clearly outdates it as a science, making it more ideological observation and theorem. That's a nice step in the right direction, but that's about it. I don't know how else to explain it without using movie clips and sound bits that I no longer have access to.

I'll be open minded about this though, maybe there's something big that I'm missing here.

Albert and Chad, I'll try to respond to both of you tomorrow morning. For now, study, study, study. :neutral:

I think you are confusing use with legalization. Current studies suggest there would be little to no increase in number of users if marijuana use were to be legalized. It would also rid the city of the grow houses which you mentioned was one of the most serious negative effects of the drug trade. Other benefits of government regulation would include reduction of illegal dealers, a hefty income from sales and taxes, and designated legal areas to consume (smoke) would help contain use to one area.

It was probably Harry Anslinger who influenced Emily Murphy to make her march to the common's. He was the USA's first "drug czar" who was given the position in the 1930's after riding the wave of popular opinion that jazz and other musicians were spreading the "terrible weed" to the good white folks of America. He maintained spreading lies and misinformation about the drug throughout his life and built his career on fighting marijuana use. It was he who originally petitioned Canada to follow the states in its enforcemant of drug use to help protect their border.

I'm not saying it is harmless nor is it for everyone, but marijuana is not the monster it has been made out to be. For an informative and entertaining look at the use of media in altering popular opinion of the drug see "Weed", as narrated by Woody Harrelson. It contains some priceless clips of old propaganda films and astounding statistics regarding the amount of time and money spent battling the acceptance of another vice besides government taxed liquor.

As Cptn has pointed out, legalization of marijuana would arguably solve more problems than it would create.

Regarding police abuse, I can't find the study which I referenced in the first place, and in fact I seem to be finding very little altogether. I've dropped off an email to someone who works in this area, and I'll check the papers I have at my parents' house over the break if you like. If I can't find that quotation I'll retract the statement and we'll just say "police are a bad group to ask if you want objective information about deviance", since that was my original point. Regardless, here are a few related quotations:

Link
Link
As for psychology being a science, science is more a process (method of gathering information about the world) than a thing ("doing science"), the process of generating a hypothesis or theory and then testing it (gathering observations). Good science (as per Karl Popper's work) does not prove anything but rather seeks to disprove things. Each observation that supports a hypothesis or theory strengthens it but does not exclude the possibility of finding anomalies in the future. Good psychology generates hypotheses that are then tested. Certainly in the past some early psychologists generated theories after observation, which is extremely problematic, but at this time this process is generally not accepted in the larger psychological community. This is the main problem with people like Freud, Jung and Adler, who are generally not given much consideration anymore, outside some small circles of counselors.

Do we have any psychologists or similarly-qualified individuals on the board? If you haven't jumped in yet, I'm assuming you're not going to, so I'll just go for it. :neutral:

Counselors are generally the private types in the phone book. You also have clinical psychologists, who are essential psychiatrists without an MD and therefore without the ability to prescribe drugs. However they are often employed by governments, in hospitals, prisons, etc., working alongside psychiatrists and social workers in many cases. Clinical psychologists generally have very nearly a decade of schooling and research things like addictions, disorders, disabilities, etc. Also note that, at least in Canada, only certified clinical psychologists can actually call themselves psychologists. Hence why you hear the terms counselor, psychotherapist, etc. sometimes. These people may have anything from an Internet diploma right through to multiple Ph.Ds, but without being accredited by the professional organization, they cannot call themselves psychologists. In Alberta and Quebec you only need a Master's to become a psychologist, in the rest of Canada you need a Doctorate.

Most people consider these fields to make up psychology, and are unaware of the other areas in the field. But not all individuals in psychology even work with people.
-Neuropsychology: Nervous system/brain anatomy, processes, pharmacology. This is where research on plasticity, strokes, marijuana, tinnitus, circadian rhythms, etc. gets done, generally. Many of the advances in medicine you hear about in the news is actually work being done by neuroscientists.
-Cognitive psychology: Memory, thought processes, consciousness, language, awareness, spacial ability...
-Industrial/organizational psychology: Group/team theory, leadership, organizational conflict and change... basically management psychology. In fact, management programs generally refer to this area as organizational behaviour, but it's essentially the same thing. Managers get the vast majority of their information in this area from psychological research.
-Perception: The senses, how the brain processes sensory information...
-Cognitive ergonomics and environmental psychology: More thought processes, how humans process incoming information, environmental design, human/computer interaction, artificial intelligence - Google, Microsoft, HP, Ford, Boeing all employ these types...
-Developmental psychology: Everything but in the context of aging and human development, from infants to the aged.
-Social psychology: Perhaps the parent of I/O psychology, human interaction, groups, conflict, race, sexual orientation, love, the media...
-Evolutionary psychology: The historical development of human psychology, lots of looking at other species here to put things in perspective.
-Comparative psychology: Animals in relation to us. Generally primates but also everything from octopuses to parrots to dogs.
-Theoretical psychology: History and critical examination of psychology as as a whole... philosophy of... research methods.

I think that covers most of it. So in short, by the most accepted definition, modern psychology is a hard science, and there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of research articles out there to prove it.

Thanks Quinn,
I agree that the only source for true information on devience would be from studies, conducted scientifically, and without bias.
If I could, I would modify you statement again to say that police are not the best group to get objective information on deviance (because, yes they're biased). However, due to the nature of their experience, I believe they are still better qualified to speak to the subject than a dentist, or accountant, or a student :razz: would be (couldn't resist the dig- im joking, you are obviously very well informed).
And yes, you and the Captain do make a good point for the legalization of marihuana and I personally believe that there some powerful arguments on both sides; however, I do not think these arguments hold much water in relation to other narcotics that are currently illegal. JMO.
Thanks.

This should be the only source for information on anything grounded in the empirical, ie. everything except religion, philosophy, logic, etc.

Definitely. But "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (alliteration in the Bible, who knew). With an issue like this, with scientific data available, you have to be careful interpreting any anecdotal evidence. Be it from dentists or police.

Agreed. Marijuana is a mild stimulant and should not be lumped in with the more vile and addictive narcotics, nor the derogatory term "drugs".


Hey Quinn, what are you going to be when you grow up?
I'm envious of the obviously interesting studies you are taking and impressed by the degree of knowledge you are retaining from your classes. Makes me wish I was in a more mature state of mind when I went to school.

Anybody interested in going to the pub, nurse a few beers, solve the world's problems?

At this point I'm gunning for grad school, either in I/O psychology or more likely, cognitive ergonomics. Both are quite lucrative and very much in demand. I also have an interest in evolutionary theory, obviously, and research methods, statistical theory and by extension the scientific method.

I like pubs, as long as I'm still welcome at Canreef gatherings. :rolleyes:

This thread exhibits flight of ideas and circumstantiality. Can we get back to the original topic about a baby elephant dying?

Why wouldn't you be? As much as we like to tease you, your answers show thoughtfulness and sensitivity beyond your tender years. :mrgreen:

Apparently the zoo employees who worked with the baby will be receiving professional counseling.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this certainly got me to thinking... maybe I'll check it out. Thanks :biggrin:

- AnisotropicChad

Just thinking out loud here, F9/11 is a documentary that covers several years of history in just over two hours. Therefore it cannot possibly contain all the "truths", so Moore had to select what "truths" to include. From a pseudo-philosophical standpoint, without all the truth, can you have any truth at all? Obviously what Fox, CNN, ABC, etc., even the CBC present is not 100% objective. Nothing on our plane of existence is, because no one is omnipresent or omniscient. The very few pieces that are included in a documentary or news report (or in one person's experience of an event) provide an incomplete and therefore biased picture, despite the best intentions.

However, I did a quick Google for authoritative refutations of claims Moore made and surprisingly, didn't find too many that weren't filled with even more convoluted reasoning than Moore's film. So maybe at least on his own level, the right-wing had a hard time disputing his assertions.

Did you guys even goto the link I gave you ? ... here it is again

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

{edited} Canreef staff.
Read the above book. Not going to debate this one again …already have / debated it to death.

Yes it is too bad the zoo keepers let the poor elephant die! I hope next time they can correct their errors.

Merry Christmas!

Dave

I/O, what is that?

Enough of this please. Sorry, it's my thread, and I'm closing it now.