Відео

All mostly Jews

Where should age of consent be accoridng to your view based on the science?. There have been newer studies that show this stress and addiction only occurs in a subset of the population and most dont have these. You also say 25 is "done maturing" but many studies show this is a myth and not true. You seem to be parroting the "teen brain" myth.

The teen brain myth is pervasive and the infantalizing of others is insane.

But the importance of habits go all the way back to Aristotle. He meant that morality is based on virtues internalized through habits - virtue ethics.

Academia failed the people during COVID and they won't soon forget.

Let me just qoute good old Carl Jung "There is no such thing as a pure introvert or extrovert. Such a person would be in the lunatic asylum". ua-cam.com/video/tLeXXoumkqU/v-deo.html go to 25:58 and just listen from there Also, the original MBTI is different from what it is today. Back then, it relied more on cognitive functions, similar to Socionics and OPS. Furthermore, Socionics, which is a Jungian inspired model, has been studied in counseling and teamwork with great results. A fun fact is that it is also used in nuclear plants to measure stress, specifically at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant. Therefore, it can be concluded that you provided misinformation about Jungian Typology itself. Most psychologists who critique the system seem to disregard Jung's true work and the entire culture of Typology. However, it's a common mistake made by "professionals."

AFAIK, "published" basically means "peer reviewed", which evidently is not enough. I would argue that reproducibility should take a bigger role in the (.. I struggle to ding the right word..) status of findings. I mean that "published" should either not happen before findings are reproduced by other teams, or that "published" should not be the final status, but just an intermediate status before, say, "verified". I admit that my proposal have two possible major issue, one with IP - teams of cutting edge research would want to keep the lead, and the other, some researches are so expansive and require so specific equipment that it would not be likely for results to be reproduced by other teams for a long while if at all (looking at you, international particle collidders) - but then again, this should be expected in such cutting edge fields. So there could be even more statuses like "self reproduced", and "reproduced by other team" and ".. other teams". Science is about riding on the shoulders of giants. In that sense, I try to look at publications like a blockchain. A mined block may yet be reverted if it is not embraced in consensus. The allegory means in science - full reproduction. IMHO, the cost would be justified.

Working as a tester on contract for a national broadcaster I found a bug in a software release which would have led to a mixup of personal data. Did I get any thanks? No, I was called a troublemaker for delaying the project. It was soon decided my skills weren't needed any more.

Ah, so this explains why the research says that spanking harms kids, yet the largely unspanked kids of today are worse off than their well-spanked grandparents. LOL

Kappas seems to be channeling Freud.

psychology is not science...its an art....please stop calling it science.

but he was affiliated with the right political party or the right lodge

Congrats Prof, I am now starting of as a lecturer

The stress of having to produce in high pressure environments explains much of this fraud. My late wife and I developed a stress behavior model we used to train employees to manage stress. We were once recommended to HR staff at Morton-Thiokol, a NASA contractor made infamous by the Challenger Disaster due to the failure of their faulty O rings implicated in the explosion that destroyed the mission. While interviewing the HR training coordinator at the company, he insisted that Thiokol wanted its engineers and indeed, all their employees to work at high stress levels. He was unimpressed by our input from years of work in stress management that high stress levels over time reduce efficiency, quality and the health of emplyees. He was dismissive. Afterward, I remember remarking to my wife/partner, "Why the hell did we drive all the way out to this remote (Utah) location to pitch this guy when wasn't interested? "We were referred to him," she reminded me, "by the engineer (of the aerospace tech company) who thought we could help them." Under the circumstances our intervention probably wouldn't have mattered. And therein lies the rub. High organizational stress levels produce results, often rewarding but sometimes disastrous. Not to mention the wreckage caused to the employees working in those conditions.

Chemist at a company in 1970’s. We were not allowed to send failing environmental tests. We had to retest until we passed, then send the reports in to the state. Me and a buddy quit asap and went into other pursuits.

i have learnt to tell when a person is in Academia for the sake of science rather than for the sake of money and/or prestige. Most of the time, those who display high outward charisma and lack humility would tend to be the ones who lack research ethic and integrity, those who are silent and tend to keep to themselves and work diligently in the lab are the true honest scientists who really do care about doing science for the betterment of the world. I remember picturing the "nerds" in high school who kept to themselves, never harmed anyone, had a huge sense of humility and just needed a friend to talk to, the ones who have been labelled "socially awkward" by society; they are the ones who grow up to be the true honest scientists who care about the problems of the world. Just look at the Nobel Prize winners at the round table talks, you can sense a aura of humility and that they really love science.

Watching the farce of the last four years shows clearly how science is what you pay for

I don’t believe in study’s I don’t understand. In physics as example, you can get the point of things. But in sozial stuff or medical stuff, it’s often lies to make you think…in a way?

"Science is wrong sometimes" ~mac

Good day Dr Vanman, I enjoyed your analysis on the situation, and found it refreshing. I would ask however, does it go far enough? My background is business finacnce and sales, you could say a kind of scocial science of its own. What I've seen from consumers is the heuristic that an entity is 'all good' or 'all bad'. This is what allows seemingly simplistic marketing to work, the advertisement doesn't have to be very convincing, it just needs to tip the scale to 'all good,' when there are only 2 options this doesn't take much. To relate the example back to you, I'd say the consumers are the peers, the other scientists reviewing and citing the since debunked work. I know the media will publish shocking (almost always unfounded) headlines from "science," but is the same thing happening in scientific journals? Now an average person like me might believe a report of a new discovery as I read the morning finance news, but are the scientific community believing a report of a new discovery in the same way? Afterall, my finance news of choice and which ever scientific journal is in question has a good chance of being owned by the same people. Maybe the fault is with people as a species, not a particular industry, but you'd be the ultimate authority on that, far from me to say.

The problem with we human is that when we are way way above others in term of intelligence, academic achievement, personal wealth, power, we human would tend to be arrogant, and think that we are invincible.... Just like the people trying to build the tower of Babel.....

Every few hundreds years science is proven wrong. This is a good thing. If you can never be wrong, then you can never grow. Replicating results reduces fraud. However, it doesn't eliminate the fact that humans perform experiments. We are flawed and our results will always be flawed. The best we can hope for is to perform within the operational limits of our time.

often times the scientific community is the least likely to embrace change

I ghost people to avoid confrontation.

I was searching Sigmund Freud and your video popped out. For a second, I thought Freud had come back and started posting on UA-cam. 😂😂😂

WJ a marvelous example of"being creatively alive in every situation" (phrase from Wayne Dyer).

Remember when a tech billionaire Bill Gates was lecturing everyone about science… yet people most close to the actual science were shadow banned…

Another useless music video

😮😮😮

Its awesome how his insights draw upon the philosophical.

I'm a 4th year Ph.D. candidate currently and I'd like to become a professor. I think all students who go through the RA -> Ph.D. pipeline become disillusioned to some extent to the "virtue" in science, but I feel like I have become quite distraught over it. I see examples of sloppy science in my own university all the time. Professors that have work that just feels too good to be true and are difficult to replicate due to unique circumstances/populations. Professors that have told me "we always publish on datasets no matter what." Professors that just don't do anything anymore and collect a paycheck and can't get fired or moved to another department. All of this is very difficult for me to understand. I play a lot of games, so I don't struggle to understand the min-maxing approach to science and why it promotes fraud and doing subpar research. Especially since being a professor can be quite profitable, flexible, and prestigious. What I really don't understand is how these people had a mindset that allowed them to falter so heavily. The whole reason I got into science was to try to piece together the complexity of the world. I'd rather do no science than poor science, it doesn't really make sense for me to compromise on my world view to min-max a career, and I find it very upsetting that this happens to so many talented people. Luckily I know many careful, high quality scientists that have served as templates for me, but it seems like that's the minority these days and it's troubling.

5:56 But if it had worked, he'd get all the credit.

444

In this year alone there have been numerous news stories about "researchers have discovered -" but they won't even gove them credit because it sounds ridiculous. It makes it to where I no longer believe what I hear and have to see it with my own eyes.

Wow the amount of retractions and fraudulent papers by Chinese is crazy high

I love him ❤

The problem isn't with science, its the education system, the education system. Instead of encouraging truly smart and creative people, it promotes people who are good at memorizing and meeting deadlines. These people impress everyone by doing this their entire life but when it comes to doing something that truly requires original thinking and hard work, they resort to cheating because it is the only way they can maintain the perception that everyone has of them.

I came up a term to desrcribe a theory of patience. I believed that the experiment tests patience, and so i came up with a theory called strategic distraction theory of patience to help us be more patient. you can observe it when you put when the kids try to distract themselves from looking at the marshmallow. I am still developing it more but I would love critique of it when I get it fully formulated.😉

Tell us you don't understand the concept of 'peer review's without telling us you don't understand the concept of 'peer review'. Oh, wait, you just did. That's the _whole point_ of peer review. To weed out the incorrect.

Hwang is pronounced "WAHng". Like wrong without the r.

The problem with science nowadays is. It became its own religion. And consumed by its own Dogma.

Follow the money

I have a VERY hard time trusting social and psychological sciences and doctors due to a literal lifetime of dealing with them due to a borderline addict mother and other difficult family already, to know the literature is rife with fraud was hardly surprising to me. The ease with which diagnoses change from Dr to Dr can be jawdropping, and the actual benefits of 100% of the treatments are wishful thinking, if not criminal, in my experience and opinion. At 17yo I spent the summer driving my mom to Duke 3x week for electric shock treatment (they called it ECT electro cardio t something idr exactly never did) Long story short, every bit of it sucked and was traumatizing not just to mom, but to our entire family, and greedily I say myself. She died and was resuscitated the last time. They tried to hide it. It was horrible. This was summer of 1990. She killed herself just over a year ago.

Pity you cannot or will not explain the working patents of D.E.W. laser based weapons and other patents which H.A.A.R.P. weapons hold. Perhaps that's why almost nobody watches or subscribes to your content. I'd say much more, but I don't want to be rude or cause a problem. You are a very nice and polite man, but so are several serial killers. The devils are not without their charms. Good luck and blessings ❤

I believe the primary issue lies in labeling them "personality" types instead of "mind types." Although people will always categorize each other based on recognizable behavior patterns, it's clear that no one truly thinks there are only 16 personality types. The term "16 cognitive mind types" is far more realistic since human behavior is primarily driven by sensing, intuiting, feeling, and thinking. Are there more aspects to consider? Not really, or perhaps we don't know yet. However, by categorizing our mental functions into these four main groups, we can create a measurable system, hence the concept of 16 types or 8 types. Nature and the universe function in a pulsing, moving, oscillating manner, and our minds operate similarly, alternating between sensations, intuitions, feelings, and thoughts. Before forcing ourselves into strict categories, we should acknowledge this dynamic nature. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator uses terms like "feelers" and "thinkers," but in reality, all humans think and feel simultaneously, and sense and intuit simultaneously. These functions exist on a continuum, yet MBTI discussions rarely mention this cognitive axis. Instead, the focus is on the letters I, E, J, and P. MBTI tests are flawed because they base their questions on behavior, which is an ineffective way to determine a "mind" type. People often lack the clarity and objectivity needed to see themselves accurately, leading to misleading results. A more effective approach would involve seeking insights from family, friends, and society. The descriptions of functions within MBTI, particularly the distinctions between extroverted and introverted orientations (E/I), are weak and vague. Statements like "you respect tradition if you are Si" or "you care about others' feelings if you are Fe" are overly simplistic. Such descriptions do not adequately capture the nuances of these functions, causing confusion. The goal should be to understand our weaknesses and why we struggle with certain aspects of life, not to confine ourselves to arbitrarily named boxes. Weak descriptions and vague categories do not help anyone. Moreover, the question about where one gains energy is misleading. A socially extroverted person might claim they gain energy from the outside world, even if they are introverted in reality. MBTI fails to address cognitive and social extroversion and introversion adequately, possibly because it complicates the discussion. It is disappointing that the MBTI has devolved into pop psychology for teenagers. Another frequent criticism is the lack of scientific data supporting MBTI. However, psychology is based on the human psyche, which is not always scientifically measurable. We shouldn't place too much faith in empirical data for this field. It's unnecessary to measure someone's capacity for imagination or their sensitivity to the world in a strictly empirical manner. Instead, we can develop a system based on known cognitive functions: feeling, thinking (judging/deciding), sensing, and intuiting (perceiving/observing). Cognitive psychology measures the functions we use most and how our minds process and judge information. It's not about preference; our minds are attuned to specific "frequencies," even if they oscillate and include overtones or harmonics.

Trust the money.

He lived to 116 years old?

Too busy coordinating with warrior cops and weapons firms to care about robust IRBs

All perfectly chronicled in Maria Konnikova's book "The Confidence Game."

Honestly, it's quite concerning that some people are reaching the wrong conclusions based on this. This exposé is more about the inherent corruption in academia, and not to support your denial that the earth is flat, or some other batshit conspiracy theory.