(Part 2) Top products from r/nottheonion

A great book: Creating Mental Illness by Allan Horwitz. Really fascinating analysis of the DSM, along with a history of how it ended up the way it is. I highly recommend it. (I got mine from my university's library... it's pretty widely available so if you have library access you won't need to buy it.)

Edit: Let me add that I do understand the need for the DSM, and I'm not opposed to its use. However, I do think it's important that we really understand it and use it correctly, and it's very easy for misuse to occur. I also think that we're over-pathologizing a lot of behaviors that don't need it.

Nope. I'm referring to Carnot efficiency. If you have found a way around this, you will win a Nobel and a few other prizes, and revolutionize humanity as we know it.

If you are interested, look into a good thermo text. I use this one for most of the classes I teach:

http://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Engineering-Approach-Yunus-Cengel/dp/0073398179

Including in this this class:
http://www.colorado.edu/catalog/2012-13/courses/engr/b-mcen/3032-thermodynamics-2

I read a really great book by Peter Hessler called River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze that had a great bit about his students funny english names. Give it a read if you haven't already.

Interesting. I took AP US History so we had to read this tome. I remember it being something like 1,000 pages and the text font size was like 8 point. The APUSH exam was also pretty hard as well. I barely passed it with a 3 and I studied a hella lot for it too.

I don't know if you've read it but if you're interested, Cyber War by Richard A. Clark is a good read.

You're being too general, and shifting the topic of our conversation.

Your original comment was that prejudicial judgments and stereotypes were part of "how we as a species have survived," specifically in relation to a comment reading, "Shes got one of THOSE faces. So vapid, not suprised at her response," which was a response to a comment about looking like "bootleg Kylie Jenner."

My point about quackery and nonsense goes for almost all evolutionary psychology, but in this case it was related to the idea that evolution somehow prepared us specifically to have prejudices about intelligence based on resemblance to kylie jenner - or some unspecified way of looking "vapid."

Your point requires that judging people based on whether they look like kylie jenner has been an advantageous survival strategy for AT LEAST the tens of thousands of years that are required for genes to change. Which is obviously not true.

Now, your more recent comment is suddenly just talking about "having a preconceived idea about someone's personality" and "making assumptions about people based on their appearance." That's completely general. It could mean anything. We can talk about evo psych work on stereotypes and prejudices in general, if you want - and there definitely is SOME reasonably high quality work there, although not much - but you have effectively changed the topic.

I was arguing that you can't claim evolutionary origins for modern sexism, which is true. Modern sexism is too specific, and there's no good evidence suggesting that sexism has remained stable over evolutionary time. Our specific forms of sexism are not the same thing as heuristic-based perceptual strategies, which is the general topic you're referring to in your most recent post. "Gender and beauty standards" were the exact topic under discussion in the chain of posts we started with, which I why I mentioned the evolutionary psychology pseudoscience that deals with those topics. Which is, as I said, complete fucking quackery and nonsense. Check out, e.g., this sack of garbage.

So, tl;dr, no, modern sexism is not a genetic trait. That is an incoherent and unsupported position. Heuristic judgment is maybe an evolved trait, but there's good reasons to think that psychological traits in general don't evolve the way anatomical traits do.

FINAL NOTE: saying that x "is so obviously" y is not a very strong form of argument.

This isn't a new thing. If you want to know just how much personal freedom can be lost in the mental health system, check out Voluntary Madness, where someone researching the mental health system almost loses her entire freedom.

if you Have not read http://www.amazon.com/The-Holographic-Universe-Revolutionary-Reality/dp/0062014102

The holographic universe by micheal talbot you should soon!

Incredibly well layed out in this book. Whats fascinating is how this is really an extention of the Golden Mean movement which science is slowly catching up to.

What was wrong about my comment ??

Polygyny is allowed in Islamic jurisprudence

>Muslim men are allowed to practice polygyny, that is, they can have more than one wife at the same time, up to a total of four

Domestic Violence

>Islamic law, such as verse 4:34 of Quran, allows and encourages domestic violence against women, when a husband suspects nushuz (disobedience, disloyalty, rebellion, ill conduct) in his wife.

Marital Rape

>Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, the president of the Islamic Sharia Council of Britain said: "Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity…because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage"

Non-muslims under Sharia law - Dhimmi

>dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions, and it was obligatory on them to pay the jizya tax... excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and did not enjoy certain political rights reserved for Muslims, but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.

72 Virgins

>In Islam, the concept of 72 virgins (houri) refers to an aspect of Jannah (Paradise). This concept is grounded in Qur'anic text which describe a sensual Paradise where believing men are rewarded by being wed to virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" bosoms.

I would like to point out that Islamic "sensual paradise" is what most differs Islam from the other Abrahamic religions.

Oxford sociologist Diego Gambetta in his book "Making Sense of Suicide Missions" went as far as claiming that while "suicide missions" are common throughout cultures, Islamic "martyrs" are attracted by the sensual pleasures in Islamic afterlife, considering that such pleasures are possibly denied in life due to the monopolization of women (polygyny) by the elites.

edit: if your IQ can come under question even from a sarcastic (yet truthful) statement then certainly I'm not the one to blame for the lack of it.

Umm, Duh??? Building 257 at Plum Island was where ticks were actively experimented on. Read the book https://www.amazon.com/Lab-257-Disturbing-Governments-Laboratory/dp/0060011416

A People's History of the United States https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060838655/ref=cm_sw_r_other_awd_2ia-wbHQG8G8W

The movie is based on a book also:

Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer

https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Valley-Making-Personal-Computer/dp/0071358927

she actually has a biography that's a New York Times bestseller by that name

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beauty-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199229759

Relevant.

Surely you're aware that the average "gun enthusiast" is more trained than the average law enforcement official, and also less likely to break the law (police are 23x times more likely to break the law than a concealed carrier)? See 1 and 2.

During the last study that was done (1993), Police were also more likely (1200x more likely) to accidentally shoot someone than a concealed carrier. See 3.

1: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/

2: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-3993670-7898564

3: http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/

Hah, no. Just read a handful of books that touch on these things.

• http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029
  
• http://www.amazon.com/First-Frontier-Forgotten-Struggle-Endurance-ebook/dp/B005LVR7FE/
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-cultural/dp/0195069056/
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Bound-Away-Virginia-Westward-Movement/dp/0813917743/
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031436

• https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/20/top-10-books-on-vladimir-putins-russia
  
• http://time.com/4672142/russia-books/
  
• Anna Politkovskaya's A Dirty War, A Small Corner of Hell, Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy, A Russian Diary (Politkovskaya was murdered in 2006 by one of Kaydrov's goons as a birthday present for Putin)

Textbook example of bad science. By that logic the underserved ethnic groups would have to be more prone to conspiracy theories than others. And that is obviously not the case. The example in the picture (Obama being Kenyan) is not a good example anyways, since there are real hints of problems with a 100% sure US citizenship. The Senate had invalidated those concerns, but they were there . (International student status at Harvard, problems with birth certificate, if I remember correctly.) The logic of Failure by Dietrich Doerner https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Situations/dp/0201479486 shows very convincingly that this type of thinking, conspiracy theories that is, is more rooted in a situation that is poorly understood and where the feeble mind tries to find a reason in an unreasonable situation. Only people that are aware of that process can try to avoid it.

> The Church as a whole is guilty until proven innocent.

Ah, so you've graduated to an even more ridiculous claim -- EVERY Catholic is guilty without evidence. Okay.

> what the FUCK are you doing to protect those children being abused by priests?

What are you doing? Bad mouthing innocent people anonymously on the Internet? Great job.

> I'm not bound by any of that

Correct, you are free to make assertions based on no evidence.

> You are enabling the abuse by trying to silence me for no good reason other than that you're offended

I'm enabling abuse by pointing out that it's ridiculous to accuse millions of people that are innocent of wrong doing without any evidence? Whatever you say buddy.

> people who are innocent don't care what people say about them

Ah, I see. So you can accuse millions of innocent people of doing something horrible with no evidence, and if anyone objects, that confirms your evidence-free claim? Very nice logic.

> Maybe had some suspicions you've tucked down deep

Devoid of any chance of actually defending your point, you've resorted to cursing in bold capital letters and ad hominem attacks. "Here's a solid fact of life" people who abandon reason and substitute it with these desperate measures are (1) losing the argument (2) realize they are losing and (3) everyone else realizes it too.

> Or perhaps you've been a victim of abuse yourself

Or perhapppsss.... maybe... just maybe... I think it's wrong to accuse millions of innocent people of heinous things with no evidence? I found a good book for you https://www.amazon.com/dp/0192893203/