Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions
Replies
-
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.
'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.
My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.
We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.
Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.0 -
and what about eastern philosophy?
those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?
are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?
Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.
^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.
I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.
Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.
I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.
when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation0 -
I feel like you are looking at a very small subsegment of the population. Every valedictorian for the four years I attended my high school was also a successful and talented athlete and had wonderful social skills.
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
I know many people who tested as gifted, were in AP-level classes, were put in the gifted and talented programs at my schools who were athletes, musicians and had active and healthy social lives.
You're making a sweeping statement based on your experiences in the inner city, which are not ideal by any means and are informed by an awful lot of other issues, such as gang activity, poverty, parents who abuse drugs or simply don't care. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every one of your students, but it would be far more prevalent there than in other places.
:drinker:0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?0 -
Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.and what about eastern philosophy?
those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?
are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?
Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.
^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.
I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.
Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.
I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.
when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation
"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara
If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg
Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.0 -
Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.and what about eastern philosophy?
those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?
are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?
Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.
^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.
I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.
Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.
I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.
when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation
"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara
If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg
Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.
Just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere at a given moment in time.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
"Who cares?"
1st off - I will be crafting this work in the same manner I have crafted many of the forums - my life story is highly entertaining.
I have experienced many things - I've been tortured, I've been homeless, I've been in a mental hospital, I've been employee of the year,I've been a drug addict, I've been rich, I've been poor, I've been suicidal, I've been in bliss. I have an incredible life journey that is unparalleled by the average person - because I have willfully crossed over the lines - and then walked back with a deep understanding. I've observed a great deal despite only being 24.
2nd off - I think the gifted will care, those that display the overexcitabilities will find more meaning in them - and will hopefully come to the same conclusion to me on the 'why' behind a great deal of things, and in some cases I will simply be providing more 'why's'.
3rd off - If my book were to flop (which realistically it def will) so be it - at least it would be out of my head so I could finally move on - this is pressing - the urgency is something you can't feel - it will be very therapeutic for me to craft this out. I will feel a sense of purpose and meaning for myself.0 -
Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.and what about eastern philosophy?
those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?
are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?
Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.
^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.
I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.
Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.
I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.
when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation
"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara
If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg
Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.
Just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere at a given moment in time.
yeah I agree with you - but it just will get smaller - till we are talking quirks and leptons - then it gets even smaller - idk we can talk string theory? M-Theory - whatevs - it all points towards a stream of consciousness be it things at the subatomic level or through entanglement.
Not to mention with all the parallel universes in the multiverse - I mean talk about insignificant - my friend through the eyes of the cosmos - that is you and I.0 -
Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.and what about eastern philosophy?
those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?
are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?
Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.
^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.
I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.
Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.
I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.
when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation
"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara
If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg
Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.
Just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere at a given moment in time.
yeah I agree with you - but it just will get smaller - till we are talking quirks and leptons - then it gets even smaller - idk we can talk string theory? M-Theory - whatevs - it all points towards a stream of consciousness be it things at the subatomic level or through entanglement.
Not to mention with all the parallel universes in the multiverse - I mean talk about insignificant - my friend through the eyes of the cosmos - that is you and I.
Whatevs. You kind of have to use two opposing arguments to get there. First, there is no meaning and second, that we need to look at ourselves in relationship to that lack of meaning.
However, if there is no meaning, then (woo hoo) I get to create my own: I'm the center of the universe!
If there is meaning, then I have significance in relationship to that meaning. Which is nifty.
In the mean time, just like the bonobos, I need to feed my kids. And that's pretty cool too.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology
Most schools have PH.D programs in several branches of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, comparative and clinical. There are journals upon journals that publish peer reviewed empirical research in each of these areas.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology
-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.
I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.0 -
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.0 -
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.
And we return to my MFP wormhole theory.0 -
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.
And we return to my MFP wormhole theory.
lol jumping into the wormhole 'head' first
I guess we can't say it definitively - perhaps in the multiverse there is a 'earth' or 'earth-like' planet - perhaps even the original 'earth' where this is the case :bigsmile: 0 -
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
WHAT? On what planet? Not Earth.
And we return to my MFP wormhole theory.
lol jumping into the wormhole 'head' first I guess we can't say it definitively - perhaps in the multiverse there is a 'earth' or 'earth-like' planet - perhaps even the original 'earth' where this is the case :bigsmile:
Where calorie isn't a calorie and water isn't water.
do-do do-do doooo.0 -
*facepalm* Do you actually know what you're talking about? Because it sure doesn't sound like it.most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology0 -
and btw, psychology and philosophy is generally where college students end up when they can't hack it in a real major.
I should know lol
And that's exactly why those were 2 of my top major choices.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology
-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.
I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.
Behavioral psychology is its own field. And most schools 'only award a BA'? You may want to check the facts. Stick to the Peanut Bar in Reading, it is more your speed.0 -
Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.
I feel like you are looking at a very small subsegment of the population. Every valedictorian for the four years I attended my high school was also a successful and talented athlete and had wonderful social skills.
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
I know many people who tested as gifted, were in AP-level classes, were put in the gifted and talented programs at my schools who were athletes, musicians and had active and healthy social lives.
You're making a sweeping statement based on your experiences in the inner city, which are not ideal by any means and are informed by an awful lot of other issues, such as gang activity, poverty, parents who abuse drugs or simply don't care. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every one of your students, but it would be far more prevalent there than in other places.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology
-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.
I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.
Behavioral psychology is its own field. And most schools 'only award a BA'? You may want to check the facts. Stick to the Peanut Bar in Reading, it is more your speed.
What are you talking about? I said it could aid for sales? and I didn't say most schools 'only award a BA' - I made the case they didn't.
- may want to practice basic reading comprehension - so you can communicate like an adult.0 -
Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.
I feel like you are looking at a very small subsegment of the population. Every valedictorian for the four years I attended my high school was also a successful and talented athlete and had wonderful social skills.
I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.
There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.
I know many people who tested as gifted, were in AP-level classes, were put in the gifted and talented programs at my schools who were athletes, musicians and had active and healthy social lives.
You're making a sweeping statement based on your experiences in the inner city, which are not ideal by any means and are informed by an awful lot of other issues, such as gang activity, poverty, parents who abuse drugs or simply don't care. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every one of your students, but it would be far more prevalent there than in other places.
You are basing your 'worldview' on experiences working in Southern California?
^sounds like your identity is heavily influenced by your career - in actuality your worldview is a Christian worldview. - certainly nothing wrong with that! - certainly not ideal IMHO either.0 -
Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.
The problem isn't where you choose to live and work. The problem is you painting all "gifted" people with a broad brush based on where you live and work.
One of the major life lessons English majors should learn is critical thinking and you seem to be lacking in it. I don't think, taking away the variables, that highly intelligent people are less athletically-inclined (imagine the mental stamina needed for the highest levels of such things) or less socially skilled than less intelligent people.
Some are, some aren't. But you will find that in both populations.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology
-the women I'm dating primarily has a masters - and there are tons of subfields or 'focuses' in psychology you can even get a degree in. - and psychologist form theories through using empirical methods of research to find collaboration between different variables to form opinions.
Also - I think you are thinking of a psychologist as some guy in an office with a pen and paper listening to peoples problems and taking notes- no no no - they work for corporations, help in marketing through research, they do consulting, They may be good for sales if they studied behavioral psychology.
I mean it sounds like you have never sat through a class on psych 101.
Behavioral psychology is its own field. And most schools 'only award a BA'? You may want to check the facts. Stick to the Peanut Bar in Reading, it is more your speed.
What are you talking about? I said it could aid for sales? and I didn't say most schools 'only award a BA' - I made the case they didn't.
- may want to practice basic reading comprehension - so you can communicate like an adult.
I think this was a comment to the person above you?0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.
'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.
My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.
We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.
Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.
How, in the natural world, can anything EVER be "overly" evolved? What other feature would you apply this to?
Also, and I've said this before, human morality appears to be as rooted in our genetic map as the structure of our teeth. And, if you are going to argue that our teeth are mere constructs, I'm going to get really, really bored very quickly.0 -
Can I comment if my body fat is higher than 14%?
Bro, do you even Determinism?0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.
'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.
My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.
We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.
Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.
How, in the natural world, can anything EVER be "overly" evolved? What other feature would you apply this to?
Also, and I've said this before, human morality appears to be as rooted in our genetic map as the structure of our teeth. And, if you are going to argue that our teeth are mere constructs, I'm going to get really, really bored very quickly.
'The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.
In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.' - Peter Wessel Zapffe in 'The Last Messiah'
-yeah I won't say our teeth are mere constructs - but do you have any proof that morality is 'rooted in our genetic map' - because it is not and no one could possibly believe that. Frankly it is a preposterous claim. Mainstream scientist say self-awareness/consciousness does not even occur in humans till about 2 years old - the idea that we could be BORN with morality and virtues would mean that there would be a foundation of ethics that apply to all, and of course there are not. We are biological puppets, many moving off of simply impulse, whim, and the selfish gene.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.
'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.
My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.
We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.
Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.
How, in the natural world, can anything EVER be "overly" evolved? What other feature would you apply this to?
Also, and I've said this before, human morality appears to be as rooted in our genetic map as the structure of our teeth. And, if you are going to argue that our teeth are mere constructs, I'm going to get really, really bored very quickly.
'The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.
In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.' - Peter Wessel Zapffe in 'The Last Messiah'
-yeah I won't say our teeth are mere constructs - but do you have any proof that morality is 'rooted in our genetic map' - because it is not and no one could possibly believe that. Frankly it is a preposterous claim. Mainstream scientist say self-awareness/consciousness does not even occur in humans till about 2 years old - the idea that we could be BORN with morality and virtues would mean that there would be a foundation of ethics that apply to all, and of course there are not. We are biological puppets, many moving off of simply impulse, whim, and the selfish gene.
Even compounding on this ^infants see through the eyes of others -
'The poet Arthur Rimbaud claimed that ‘‘I is some one Else’’ (‘‘Je est quelqu Õun dÕautre’’),suggesting that we conceive ourselves through the eyes of others. It appears indeed that by 2–3 years young children do start to have others in mind when they behave. The expression of embarrassment that children often begin to display in front of mirrors at around this age is the expression of such ‘‘self-consciousness.’’ They behave not unlike criminals hiding their face to the
cameras. Their behavior indicates a drive to vanish from the public eyes, as if they came to grip via
the experience of their own specular image of how they present themselves to the world. Not only
do they discover in the mirror that it is themselves, they also realize that it is themselves as
perceived by others. The malaise might come from the realization of a fundamental discrepancy
between how the child represents herself from within, and how he or she is actually perceived by
others as reflected in the mirror. Note that this interpretation is consistent with what visual an-
thropologist Edmund Carpenter reported in adults of an isolated Papua New Guinea tribe (the
Biami). The Biami presumably did not have any mirror experience and the river in the Papuan
plateau are typically too murky to provide clear reflections, unlike the rivers of ancient Greece
enjoyed by Narcissus. The anthropologist recorded their reactions when looking for the first at hemselves in a mirror, viewing themselves in video recordings or Polaroid photographs. Carpenter describes reactions of terror and anguish: ‘‘They were paralyzed: after their first startled
response—covering their mouths and ducking their heads—they stood transfixed, staring at their
images, only their stomach muscles betraying great tension’’ (Carpenter, 1975, pp. 452–453)0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology
Most schools have PH.D programs in several branches of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, comparative and clinical. There are journals upon journals that publish peer reviewed empirical research in each of these areas.
yes. you can also get a Ph.D in art history.
its a science in that it employees the scientific method. but one could never really eliminate all the varibles for subject to subject in order to emperically prove theories the way one can in the natural sciences. therefore laws and facts outside of the branches of psychology that are closely intertwinded with biology are basically nonexistant.
the difference between a BA and a BS in psychology is the BS will require a lot of course work in the natural sciences0 -
^I think many people don't think in 'I' - they don't even realize what provides identity - your past, past actions, behavioral development, experience - this is what largely dictates the choices you make in the present - doesn't mean the present or future don't matter - they are simply not the player nor decision maker.
I think BTW many adults see themselves through the eyes of others as well.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions