Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Deepcut

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jerico
    replied
    whoa what's going on here? Must read. I'll bbl

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", as my old man used to say...

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    If we can trust the American mass media to do one thing consistently, we can trust them to oversimplify very complex explanations, all while presenting themselves as experts. In class, I'll often hear "but that's not what they said on TV" or worse "on the internet" in response to some complex points I may make.

    Sigh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Sorry to be unclear. You and I certainly agree about the relative place of biology in this complex equation. I didn't mean to imply that biology was more important than these other factors. Wilson makes me think that we have to consider heredity, not necessarily embrace it, as a contributing factor in behavior and action.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    I have to inject Edward O. Wilson's sociobiology into this conversation. I'm trained as a sociological social psychologist, so I tend to discount much of the role of heredity in studying behavior (and as a Pragmatist, much of most behavioral approaches as well). However, while I don't agree with all of his conclusions, Wilson makes a tremendously convincing case for the intersection of biology and social behavior in both animals and humans. In doing so, he largely takes the influence of brain physiology as a given. I don't buy it all, but he raises many issues that psychologists, anthropologists, biologists, and sociologists should recognize, especially how much prosocial behavior is influenced by heredity and forces much like natural selection.

    Leave a comment:


  • liar_on_high
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Talking about genetics and behavior takes the discussion away from social issues so that people can be done away with. I believe that it is a capitalist cost cutting measure.
    Bravo! (ghastly liberal back-slapping, tee-hee )
    We are not all born equal. That's empirically obvious.
    However I believe we should all be treated equally.
    There is a difference and it doesn't negatively impact objective knowledge gathering in medical science like feel-good PC ideologies.
    Political correctness does not belong in science and medicine.
    Goodwill and ethics do, but not PC.
    You may make a few people feel good for the moment at the expense of gaining a true understanding that will benefit rest of future humanity because of personal/professional bias.
    That's criminal to me.
    This is much larger than psychiatry, psychology or capitalism and I have no agenda nor attachment to any of the above.
    Of course knowledge of genetics could be a tool for eugenicists, but a butter knife could be a lethal weapon in the hands of a killer.
    Get it?
    Knowledge isn't bad, it's the people who would use it to nefarious ends that are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Talking about genetics and behavior takes the discussion away from social issues so that people can be done away with. I believe that it is a capitalist cost cutting measure.
    Bravo! (ghastly liberal back-slapping, tee-hee )

    Leave a comment:


  • liar_on_high
    replied
    I think to push any physiological/heritable basis for behavior under the rug for the sake of political correctness is ultimately doing a disservice to humanity.
    I would say a similar thing to a psychiatrist not to dismiss behavioral study.
    The brain is an organ that can be changed from without AND within.
    I think both approaches are worthy and there are situations where the application of one or the other is more sensible.
    If a patient undergoes head trauma and has a radical change in personality, it logically follows to me that there is indeed SOME physiological basis for behavior.

    Also, I don't see why the brain, like arms, legs, eyes etc. would not be subject to the same heritable variation.

    Understand, I am not arguing in favor of psychiatry vs. psychology!
    I am arguing against professional bias. Look at all of the data as objectively as possible. If it backs up what you believe, great.
    If it doesn't, great.
    Know why?
    Because we will actually have learned something instead of stagnated because of pride.


    This is just a small part of what to me is a larger issue: treating symptoms and not root causes.
    No longer is it the country doc wandering from homestead to homestead with his black bag and stethescope.
    Specialization in the medical community has become a necessity as there is so much knowledge and experience required to be competent in one discipline.
    Thus we have medical professionals that are brilliant in one area but possibly clueless in another.
    This and professional pride are what I think can lead to a stifling of advancement, misdiagnosis and treatment of symptoms rather than causes.
    For example, a patient comes in complaining of "irritability, anxiety, hostility, depression, insomnia, memory loss".
    A psychiartist will automatically prescribe a med.
    A psychologist will talk about it with the patient.

    Patient comes back. "Doc I'm not feeling better, in fact I'm getting worse I think. I can't remember things very well anymore."

    Psychiatrist switches meds.
    Psychologist tries alternate behavioral approaches.

    But did either one consider that it could be:
    A) Nutritional deficiency
    B) MERCURY POISONING.

    In that case both care givers would have failed the patient because of pride and ignorance.

    Psychiatry has the advantage of having large corporate backing.
    I tend to distrust psychiatry because of this, and their tendency to trust obviously biased pharmaceutical data in favor of listening to the patient (SSRI withdrawal for example).

    Leave a comment:


  • liar_on_high
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Mostly I hate psych tests. As I have said before I think that psychology is really a qualitative art than anything else. And that the application of "science" to social situations is mostly a lie.

    However, I have seen results from the MMPI, generated by a computer, that are very telling of the person’s personality. You could say in that woman’s defense though that personality is a state rather than a fixed set a traits. For instance, if someone just raped and murdered my girlfriend and then I took the MMPI it might show that I was a potentially violent person, as revenge would be on my mind. If it was given after a close relative died then it might show that the person had a depressive personality. Events in people’s lives can affect their personality for short periods of time then they return to their baseline.

    So, it can be argued that personality tests measure current states rather than long-term traits. It’s a big deal in psych testing. People that are more behaviorally oriented like myself do not believe in fixed personalities or inborn personality traits.
    Hmm, with the wealth of data in support of the heritability of physical characteristics (genetics and evolution), is it entirely prudent to exclude
    inborn personality tendencies also as a function of this process?

    I hypothesize that brain architecture and chemical makeup, like height or eye and hair color is passed on.
    This brain architecture would influence/predispose an individual toward certain behaviors. I argue for predisposition not traits or fixed personality, as that seems to imply absolute existence without consideration for modification by environmental stimuli.
    Like a person born without a leg, some physical intervention is required (prosthetic) for this person to be able to walk like those born with two legs. Just because we can't immediately see it with the brain hidden from view, doesn't mean an analogous situation isn't occuring with birth brain physiology that deviates sufficiently from the norm.

    I just don't think it's sound to take physiology out of the equation for understanding human behavior. Neither do I agree with a purely physiological approach. I believe the relationship is symbiotic.
    Behavior influences the architecture and the architecture influences behavior.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    I can certainly see the wisdom of preventing sadists from working in prisons, but I'm a bit suspicious overall of the use of psychometric tests to vet employees. http://www.labor.net.au/news/1099012954_31129.html

    There was a case in the UK of an experienced nurse who was dismissed from her post after being found to have an unsuitable psychological profile, even though her performance was unquestioned! Surely these things can never be 100% accurate?

    Leave a comment:


  • M-A_19
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Well, that was my first and last trip to such a club, so I am not clear on what music goes with spanking. While exercising I never listen music that I like (so I don’t listen to any) because I don’t want to associate my favorite tunes with pain. Maybe that explains the crappy music, but I doubt it. .
    I have never heard anything about such clubs that would make me want to go. Even people who are completely into the scene complain about the dreadful music (many of them are into industrial music, which is how I know. )

    I think the music is probally there for the masochists!

    thanks for the information on the MMPI, very interesting. I wonder what they use for such Screening here in europe?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I am not clear on what music goes with spanking.
    (spoken) come over here!

    Some girls, they like candy, and others, they like to grind,
    I’ll settle for the back of your hand somewhere on my behind.
    Treat me like I’m a bad girl, even when I’m being good to you,
    I don’t want you to thank me, you can just spank me. mmm.

    Some guys like to sweet talk, and others, they like to tease,
    Tie my hands behind my back and, ooo, I’m in ecstasy.
    Don’t slobber me with kisses, I can get that from my sisters,
    Before I get too cranky, you better...

    Chorus:

    Like hanky panky [hanky panky],
    Nothing like a good spanky [good spanky].
    Don’t take out your handkerchiefs,
    I don’t wanna cry, I just wanna hanky panky.
    Like hanky panky [hanky panky],
    Nothing like a good spanky [good spanky].
    Don’t take out your handkerchiefs,
    I don’t wanna cry, I just wanna hanky panky guy.

    Oooo.

    Please don’t call a doctor, ’cause there’s nothing wrong with me,
    I just like things a little rough and you better not disagree.
    ’cause I don’t like a big softie, [no], I like someone mean and bossy,
    Let me speak to you frankly, you better...

    (chorus)

    Oooo, yeah.

    Spoken:

    What about? yeah. that’s an interesting...
    Oooo.
    My bottom hurts just thinking about it.

    [she wants you to] treat me like I’m a bad girl,
    [she needs you to] even when I’m being good to you.
    I don’t want you to thank me [don’t thank her], you better...

    (chorus)

    [hanky panky] oooh, yeah
    [good spanky] get the picture?
    [don’t wanna cry, I just wanna]

    That’s the way I came into this world,
    The doctor said, lady, she’s a beautiful girl.
    He gave me a spanky and the doctor smiled,
    So give it up, honey, ’cause I want it.
    Yeah.
    [hanky panky, good spanky, don’t wanna cry, I just wanna .......blah blah blahh...
    Remember that one? :?

    You've given me some scary thoughts about some of our managers!

    Leave a comment:


  • L'Etranger
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    It sounds like a process of brutalisation. A friend of mine who was in the army for the first Gulf War (fortunately for him in the Medical Corps) says that some fairly damaged individuals from dysfunctional backgrounds join the forces in the first place, looking for a surrogate family. "Head cases" he calls them. Perhaps some of these people make life a misery for the others. You only have to think what the bullies were like at school...
    One reason why even the Left in Germany does't want the German army to be changed into an entirely professional army, but to have a constant 30% of draftees is that you get people from all walks of life and with all kinds of backgrounds. It works fairly well and prevents units from being entirely composed of Neanderthal men, bullies, trigger-happy dimwits and Neo-Nazis (who often volunteer to get close to guns!). Also the chance to study and get academic degrees fills the officer's ranks with a certain percentage of people who have learnt to think, even question an order. A soldier is ideally seen as a "citizen in uniform", hence one who is not separated from the rest of the society, who shares its values and rights, and therefore is determined to defend what he is part of and cherishes. This is the theory, but reality doesn't always live up to it of course, and just recently several ugly cases of abuse have surfaced. It can be seen as "luck" that Germany had to rethink its military traditions after the old order had proved to be morally corrupt. We'll see how long it lasts in face of the new situation: while during the "Cold War" Germany's new armed forces were exclusively trained to defend the country and Nato allies, today about 7,000 men and women are stationed "out of area" in Bosnia, the Kosovo, the Guilf of Aden and in Afghanistan. We'll see how long "the beast within" can be contained... and if the concept described above stays successful.

    Leave a comment:


  • DiGiMac
    replied
    Originally posted by M-A_19
    Yeah, the music's always crap in Fetish clubs isn't it?
    My own memory of this sort of club was going to a grimy place in Leicester Square. We'd heard that the following week McLaren and salon were going to open the Mudd Club there (Buffalo Girls was in the charts). It was the most squalid place I ever spent an evening. Scenes similar to Alderian's non-goths. They sold all sorts of pills and stuff at the bar and we came away wondering if someone had been pulling our leg.
    They weren't - invites went out during the week and when we got there (again) it was almost like a different place. Hardcore interior designers had been at work and we square-danced till the cows came home...

    Leave a comment:


  • M-A_19
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    ... and people that came up as being sadistic (on the MMPI). So.....

    I'm interested to know what the MMPI is, some sort of index to measure a personality defect?

    I thought I'd post on this thread to point out that isn't, AFAIK, any evidence of British soldiers abusing prisoners of war (In the IRAQ conflict)

    Also, there was a Army reserve guy on the train this morning. You know how much they get for serving in Iraq? آ£5 a day on top of their basic rate.

    There's a lot of crappy northern towns in the UK (Oh look there's one outside the window ;) ) where are no jobs for unskilled workers except the Army. They're still the only employer that's prepared to spend any money on training.

    Yeah, the music's always crap in Fetish clubs isn't it?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X