Comment Re:Easy (Score 1) 1365
I remember finding a young adult fiction book by Louise Lawrence (Andra) utterely bleak. I have never reread it as an adult, but it had the most down-beat ending. I must dig it out.
Once more so it "sinks in" (drink this in and digest it): If you can't gather the meaning of words within the framework of the context they're used in, you're the problem. Incidentally, the topic here is not english grammar you know! Writing style is pure opinion, like who's resume is better or worse. As long as the audience gets the message that is what is most important.
Yes, the audience getting the message is the most important thing. Yes, people can get the message despite spelling and grammar. And yes (although you didn't say it) pedantry about grammar is often just snobbery about education, thinly disguised.
But none of the above dissuades me from prefering to a well-written sentence.
What I take issue with is that someone could be labeled permanently in some database as psychopathic due to a state of mind that is almost always subjective and temporary.
From TFA remember that you are not talking about someone doing this labeling because of an extensive test, but rather due to 1-1024 characters of text. This would remove things critical such as base lines and responses to at least dozens of subject matter areas.
While I do agree with the broad point you are making, I think it is the misuse of science outside of the group of people who really understand the science that is the problem here. The fact that science may be misused doesn't make it bad science.Psychology is quite adept at understanding that (a) everyone is capable of "psychopathic" behaviour at times (b) in some situations behaving psychopathically is the expected, normal and sensible way to behave but (c) this doesn't change the fact that some people behave psychopathically with such consistency across situations, and in such inappropraite situations that a diagnosis is appropriate. While culture, learned behaviour and the environment all play a role, current knowledge strongly suggests that some people are "born psychopaths".
No, this system tries to predict the future by reading posts on twitter..
Why is there always such a knee-jerk reaction against these studies on Slashdot?
It's interesting that people's tweets reflect their personality. And before you say "well, duh!" to that, the way that people with different psychopathologies use language helps give insights into the part of the brain affected and helps map cognitions. There has been a lot of work on schitzophrenia and language, and I for one find it interesting that some personalitiy types might use more full stops when writing. Who knows, that little piece of information may add with other little bits to help psychologists discover something.
Could a certain percentage of people who commit violent crime share the common trait of psychopathy? Certainly. Do all? No.
No, but it's about 40-75% of those who are in prison for violent crimes.
In fact, a rather large percentage of the population are psychopathic, yet lead normal, non-violent lives.
True, if by large you mean 2-7%
Far more people that are not psychopathic commit crimes than those with psychopathy.
The majority of people who commit crimes are not psychopathic, but if you are talking about violent crimes, then I would think the number of people with (a) empathy deficits and (b) exploitative attitudes to others then the proportion would skyrocket.
The end result of this research is rather clear: Watch what you say on the internet, the FBI might flag you. And that's a far more dangerous threat than a few psychopaths walking around. If you look at the biggest mass murders in human history, every single one of them was a government official. Think about that for a while.
This bit I agree with you.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
