Actually, if you think detection can't come close to answering, you're probably mostly buying the antivaxxer accounts--and I'm being quite charitable there. Admittedly, a good part of it also comes from changing the diagnostic criteria, which is a Problem because as my dev psych professor brutally put it, it's the end of the goddamn bell curve--literally so, as a certain amount of autistic behavior is within the range of normal, which means that if you want to increase the number of people with autism the easiest way is to literally lower the threshold.

This folds into the fact that, frankly, the US school system has a perverse incentive to have as many students as possible diagnosed with a disability--they get money for it--and it's one of the easiest ones to game this way. (Yes, this qualifies as practicing medicine without a license and is harmful but since when did that ever stop the public schools?)

The least nasty player in all of this is that we've lost the perverse incentive to avoid diagnosis, as the stigma's decreased and, well, forced sterlizations & euthanasia is no longer anywhere near a problem as it was around 90 years ago. (Some of these court cases are still being settled though.)

Now, on the rest of it? If the clinic fails to check the health before giving the vaccine, GTFO. Vaccines should never be given to somebody not healthy. This is why I was delayed on one of mine when I had to get mine redone--I walked in and was bounced to the ER for a serious infection.

I don't know what you mean by the '17 vaccines,' but then I live in an area where the list is...about five, all of which are cheap and out of patent. I don't actually trust Gardasil, but that's because the way they did the challenge in testing it is absurd. (This is basically the gold standard, and is deliberately infecting somebody who has gotten the vaccine with what the vaccine is supposed to be against. Very few diseases are so bad as to warrant using a faux antigen--arguably, none are, as if they're dangerous enough to make it ethically doubtful to deliberately infect somebody who volunteered and knowingly consents to doing this test, it ought to be also unethical to sell it as a vaccine because it'll still get tested this way, just on people who did not knowingly volunteer to do so...and you can cover for it a lot more easily.)

That said, we actually do have some pretty strong proof that autism is probably a defect in brain development--last I checked we'd pushed back the earliest age at which we can diagnose it to before you should be getting any vaccines, namely six months. At least some cases can be traced to exposure to diseases at the prenatal stage, as the whole idea that the womb is a sterile, clean environment is hilariously wrong--let's take rubella, for example.

People exposed to it in the womb can end up with autism.

Ever asked what the R in MMR is for? I did, or rather I read the info sheet the clinic had to give me before accepting my consent to get it (again). It's rubella. Oh, and it turns out the vaccine is not for-life, regardless of what was previously thought; herd immunity just covered for a lot of people's immune systems 'forgetting,' sort of the equivalent of nobody noticing if antique computer viruses are no longer protected against by antivirus programs because there's little chance of somebody encountering an infected system anymore...

Surprisingly? Yes. Genocide's legal definition requires the government perform the whole thing itself and do so intentionally. So, standing by and watching while non-governmental forces do it for them is also not genocide.

It's important to note that governments wrote the definition...

Very often. They don't make cameras dedicated to capturing in single frames objects that are taller than they are wide, and it is absurd to suggest going for a smaller image (or fuzzier) instead of turning my camera 90 degrees.

Actually, given that I mostly do nature photography, holding my camera horizontally is actually pretty rare and I'd certainly want a tripod if I were to be forced to do so, though I think I'd be better off inserting the tripod rectally on the person who tried to insist I use it, as I have to pack everything in, sometimes over rough trails.

Shared race and/or ethnicity (depending on how much you are for correct terminology) makes it easier for a teacher to successful connect to their students--odds are, this would be a specific case of the well-studied & robust observation that people connect more easily and faster to those that they perceive as belonging to the same group.

This is used in social engineering quite successfully regularly. If you haven't noticed it yet...well, pay attention to the salescritters' approaches more. Social engineering, after all, is applied social psychology...

Corporations are legal persons because only legal persons can sign legal documents. The moment they stop being persons, every single contract they are one of the signatories upon are worth precisely as much as the paper it's on, possibly less if it's an electronic document. This is good--as long as they don't own things you need access to or owe you goods, services, and/or money...and it's safe to bet that at least one of these is true. (You thought you had a contract with your employer saying they paid you? Not anymore!)

The real question ought to be, if chimps are legally people, does this mean I can bu...I mean adopt a chimp and have the chimp be legally the owner of my shady business? Maybe even as the CEO of my shell company?

And, most importantly, do they owe taxes?

More to the point here, women make dick jokes. I've heard lesbians making dick jokes. I've seen women clear rooms of men via dick jokes. I'm not sure what the misogyny here is--is somebody insisting that only those what got dicks can make jokes about them?

More importantly, women make sexual jokes. Exactly how does banning sexual jokes make a working environment more 'women-friendly'? (I will agree that dick jokes all the time is a bit much, but more on the basis that either the quality drops or it starts getting repetitive like the production line at a dildo factory.) Are 'real women' supposed to be all neo-Victorian prudes and the feminists just didn't care to tell us because if you're a 'real woman' you know this?

Some women seem to consider 'a hostile environment' one in which their boss(es) expect them to do work in a place with coworkers who do not share their neo-Victorian woman-ness--even, oh horrors, men! Some, I suspect, would not be satisfied until their work environment was completely free of even the slighted possibility of them having to deal with even the concept of the existence of anybody whom they do not consider a 'real woman.'

Don't forget that you can be held legally responsible if you sign off on the release of a suicidal/homicidal person and they go on to kill somebody(s)--in fact, I'd be a bit surprised if there's not already quite a few cases of relatives of the deceased suing the doctors for it. As somebody farther down has observed, if you want to conduct this sort of experiment the first step is alerting those who'd be responding that you are about to do it.

The second step, I suggest, is using Facebook's mobile app to post it so they can see it, with their help writing it, and have brought them coffee and/or takeout of some kind because regardless of if it works, proper ethical procedure requires you do something as a thank-you for their cooperation.

The problem is completely divorced from the political side, unless you count "Social+Developmental Psychologists vs Education Theorists" as such...and the first group is just plain wanting the second to consider that maybe people who study dev and social psych might, y'know, know something about it. (I was part of the group who just appreciated the problem and wondered why it existed.)

As for citations and studies, since you're AC I'm just going to suggest 'any recent good-quality social psychology textbook' since that seems about the right speed to suggest as I feel safe in presuming you're at the entry level here--also consider a wikiwalk through the narcissism pages. But, you might want to consider the implications of 'good-quality recent textbook' on how little controversy there is within the field--the only arguments I saw is if the list of factors is complete.

I actually went for the social sciences and have been around for long enough to have been stuck with the mod/admin hat a couple times, so... I actually essentially agree with that rule of thumb. However, the article is talking about a non-ideal situation, where the clue-by-four needs to be liberally applied; the rule of thumb is for a more ideal situation, where gentle hints are all that is necessary.

Public censure works best as a means for teaching the n00bs the rules without them violating them via pointing out egregious violations as examples & for when it's necessary to make it clear that Random's rants do not represent the group--and like all other public punishments it ought to be used as little as possible, and always with an explanation of why. It also helps new arrivals quickly figure out if this is a group whose social mores are ones they are comfortable with.

If you're trying to run something with a large group of people, over the internet, the safe assumption is that not everybody has the same social mores--the same set of typically-unspoken, typically-implicit rules--in common. By making sure you're clear about what the 'local' social mores are, you're making adjustments easy on anybody who is not lucky enough to have been born male, white and in the US--and I've been in groups where the sole reason we were using English is because it was the one language we all had in common.

Therefore, why not work on the presumption that some people simply need a few dates with M*. Clue-by-four and provide them? Give warnings, with it said clearly what the person needs to stop doing. When we've got to get rid of somebody, make a point of saying, clearly, why. It's not necessarily for the sake of the person you're punishing, really, but rather for the sake of those people who are trying to figure out what the local rules are & for the sake of accountability of those who have the power to do so.

Besides, how much weight are you going to give to somebody's foaming-at-the-mouth rant over being kicked out when the official notice is calm, rational, and explains precisely why in a reasonable manner?

One of the things I learned early on as a tweenager within the FOSS was that if you have a good idea and can communicate well & civilly, nobody actually seems to care terribly much if you possibly are a dog that somehow learned how to type. You don't necessarily have to be good at coding, if what you bring to the table is a good ability to understand the basics and play a living 'rubber duck'--basic sanity checks, to see if what the coders are attempting to do makes sense to somebody who, if nothing else, has at least managed to sleep in the past week. (This isn't meant to be insulting: I've been on the coding side as well: Sometimes I will grab random lusers for the job, and I've learned everybody's happier sometimes when you have a volunteer handy. Less chasing people down in hallways, cornering them in bathrooms, and...I'd certainly have answered a few times the question "Did you sleep in the last week?" with "...Does passing out count?")

I honestly don't really trust communities that say they're 'welcoming' to be so, in my experience, though. What I want is one which gives me nice, clear, well-defined rules: I can deal with being told that I need to contribute things to the group that they value in order to gain status, and live with the baseline rule that if somebody is kicked out, it will be for violating clearly-defined objective rules ("Fails to brownnose correct people" should never be on the list!) and we will all know this. I'm even okay with it if leniency can be earned: If you somehow can bash your head on a keyboard and still generate code that works perfectly, I can put up with a lot of crazy--and I know how to ignore somebody.

Really, I think a basic rule of "The community decides the value of your contribution, not you" isn't unwelcoming, as long as it's clearly and openly stated from the start.

Actually, the problem is that we didn't systematically try creating "over-inflated self esteem" until a couple decades ago, and this was tried (and is still being done) despite people who actually study group dynamics and the like trying to get attention for the fact that this is actually a horrible idea based off what would have to work to be pseudoscience. (It started with somebody's not-reality-tested theory about the cause of many ills becoming popular...before anybody went "Wait, is this an actual correlation?" On testing, it turned out that the true correlation goes the exact opposite way.)

The problem here is narcissistic behavior, which is more common now, and I've had professors who are quite left-leaning be openly against the social engineering disaster here. If anything, it's proof that social engineering needs to be only done by people who are licensed, with the same level of precautions and standards for licensure as we would put in place for any other type of engineering which involves messing with not-entirely-understood complex systems that can result in large-scale long-term negative consequences.

Incidentally, if you want to be taken seriously on topics involving complex systems, I suggest you strongly consider mastering the use of the shift key and punctuation. They're not complex systems, and many people quite successfully master them.

Actually, this is an incredibly well-documented issue within the social sciences: the self-esteem movement was...well, to say it was 'bad science' implies that science of any sort was involved at any point beyond debunking it.

Hey, let's start with the whole 'bullying' thing!

You see, the self-esteem movement was based off the idea that bullying was caused by low self-esteem. To say that there was no research backing this up is a bit of an understatement, given that what we've now got is a lot of evidence that what really causes bullying is too-high self-esteem--somebody whose self-worth is artificially high, acting to protect the bubble from being burst.

You create, basically, the narcissist--or special snowflake, if you prefer more informal terms.

There are a few other outcomes, though, both based off the fact that, well, it turns out that kids aren't stupid: those who can tell that you're handing out essentially empty/valueless praise will, in fact, come out with lower self-esteem because they weirdly enough assume that you're handing out worthless praise for some sane reason, like covering up for them not having any worth...or just not value any praise from you, ever, much like what happens when you get a rep for forgery.

From the car nerd across from me: "Breakers started being a standard safety feature in ~'09, if memory serves." Expect to find both, I'm not sure of the difference but you use different ones and honestly I would be wiring with breakers because the one difference I know of is that fuses are one-use except apparently ones in cars can be reset?

Gearhead across from me suggest: "Keep your radio off, it's like running your microwave with the lights all on+dishwasher running+music blaring+ect+ect+ect; you may be best off replacing the fuse in the car." But make/model/year would be needed to be more specific here.

I simply will note that my only problem with this has been when it's been nonstandard--everything else works quite cheerfully with even the cheap cables I bought for the Bag 'O Cables I keep.