This is seriously worrying.

 

 

 

Who would support something like this? I don't get it. Mandatory work on behalf of the state? "Civilian" police force? Is that like an army or what?

 

 

 

Why are they for such huge government?

 

 

 

Man, both parties in the USA really are terrible (same here in the UK). On one hand, you had John McCain and the idiot Sarah Palin, but on the other you've got Obama who is pretty much deified without cause by people who don't even understand his policies.

 

 

 

Seriously, the amount of support this guy is given for no reason is worrying. So is the whole "change" and "hope" thing. Empty rhetoric, personality cult, blind support, what next? Man I hate this political system

I love this article that explains people like Alex Jones:

 

 

 

 

Lacking control drives false conclusions, conspiracy theories and superstitions

 

Category: Perception Psychology

 

Posted on: December 27, 2008 12:00 PM, by Ed Yong

 

 

 

"Control - you must learn control!" These wise words were uttered by no less a sage than Yoda, and while he was talking about telekinetically hoisting spacecraft, having control has another important benefit. It protects a person from spotting false patterns that aren't there, from believing in conspiracies and from developing superstitions.

 

 

 

Control and security are vital parts of our psychological well-being and it goes without saying that losing them can feel depressing or scary. As such, people have strategies for trying to regain a sense control even if it's a tenuous one. Jennifer Whitson (1) and Adam Galinsky (2) from the University of Texas have found that one such strategy is to identify coherent and meaningful relationships between things we observe.

 

 

 

These patterns can help us to make sense of past events and predict future ones, affording us a degree of control over our fates, albeit an indirect one. We can't change the weather, for example, but if we can tell when it's going to rain, we can be prepared. At the more extreme end, conspiracy theories can help the bewildered to make sense of otherwise unconnected events. And explaining random events by invoking superstitions or higher beings can help to bring reality's many possibilities within one's understanding, if not under one's heel.

 

 

 

Whitson and Galinsky demonstrated the link between desiring control and seeing patterns through a set of experiments that used a variety of psychological tricks to induce feelings of insecurity among groups of volunteers. With these tricks, they managed to induce a number of different illusions - increasing the risk of seeing false images, making links between unrelated events, creating conspiracy theories and even accepting superstitious rituals. Superficially, all of these behaviours seem quite different but they all involve seeing patterns where none exist. They have a common theme and now, this study suggests that they have a common motive too.

 

 

 

Losing control

 

 

 

To begin with, they asked students to watch pairs of symbols, one of which represented a specific concept. After ten trials, most could deduce the correct symbol but for some recruits, there was never any concept in the first place - every guess was essentially random and no amount of deduction would help. Without the ability to affect their scores, the recruits became understandably frustrated, but they also became more likely to see images where none existed.

 

 

 

Whitson and Galinsky presented them with pictures of objects that had been digitally doctored to make them "snowy" and grainy. If faint outlines of the image were left, virtually all the students saw it amidst the grain, but if absolutely all traces of the original were removed, students tended to see more images if their earlier efforts to deduce the right symbol were fruitless than if they had paid off.

 

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... images.jpg

 

 

 

Next, Whitson and Galinsky asked different students to remember a time when they either were in complete control of a situation or lacked it entirely. Afterwards, they were immersed in role-playing scenarios that involved superstitious beliefs. For example, they had to picture themselves as a marketing executive who always stomps three times before important meetings and has a good track record of getting ideas accepted. On a day when they forgot their foot-stomping ritual, their ideas were ignored.

 

 

 

Sure enough, the volunteers who reminisced about a lack of control were more likely to see a connection between the two events than those whose memories involved complete control. They were also more likely to worry about behaving in the same way in the future. So just thinking about absent control makes people more likely to embrace superstitions.

 

 

 

Of course, the recruits' memories could reflect other feelings besides their degree of control - such situations are often threatening in some way, so perhaps it was a fear of threat that changed their behaviour. To control for this, Whitson and Galinsky added a slight twist to their earlier task - this time, they asked students to remember a situation in which something threatening happened, and in which they either had or lacked control.

 

 

 

Even though all of them had threatening situations on their minds, those who thought about losing control still saw more non-existent patterns. They were more likely to see images in random collections of black and white dots that resembled television static, and they were more likely to buy conspiracy theories. When told stories about good or bad events befalling someone, they were more likely to believe that it was due to the coordinated actions of their conspiratorial peers.

 

 

 

Stocks and interventions

 

 

 

The next experiment used a real-life setting that frequently demands the ability to predict inherently unpredictable events - the stock market. Volunteers read statements about the financial performance of two companies after hearing that the stock market was either stable or volatile. Both companies had twice as many positive statements as negative ones, but company A had twice as many statements overall than company B.

 

 

 

During a stable market, the information gap didn't matter and volunteers were about just as likely to invest in either company. But if volatile conditions were afoot, a mere 25% minority decided to invest in company B and more likely to associate it with the negative information. With less control over the fate of their investments, they were more likely to make a false connection between company B and its negative statements, even though the pros actually outnumbered the cons for both companies.

 

 

 

So a lack of control not only affects our perceptions, but our actions too. What happens if you restore control? Will that reduce one's propensity for seeing false patterns? To find out, Whitson and Galinsky asked volunteers to remember events where they had control or lacked it, and tested their tendency for see shapes in snowy images, and for believing conspiracy theories. This time, however, some of the volunteers were given a chance just before the tasks to complete a questionnaire on a value that was very important to them.

 

 

 

Studies have found that this sort of self-affirming exercise can help to counteract feelings of helplessness of distress, so the duo reasoned that it should go some way toward negating the tendency to see patterns brought on by a lack of control. And that's exactly what happened - compared to volunteers who went straight into the tasks, those who remembered lacking control but had a chance to affirm their closely-held values were less likely to see patterns in snowy images or conspiracies in everyday events. Their behaved in the same way as volunteers who had thought about being in control in the first place.

 

 

 

Together, this group of experiments show that the need to feel in control is so powerful that people will resort to psychological solutions that return the world into a predictable state - pulling patterns from noise and causality from randomness. Whitson and Galinsky acknowledge that each individual study only looked at a small number of people, but the results strengthen each other through their consistency and the fact that they were all statistically significant.

 

 

 

Good or bad?

 

 

 

Obviously, the effect has both good and bad sides that should make for interesting discussions. For a start, an ability to spot patterns isn't necessarily a bad thing. It could be downright beneficial if it ramps up a person's skill at spotting subtle trends that are actually real (although future studies need to test whether this actually happens).

 

 

 

Even spotting false patterns could have psychological benefits if it restores a person's sense of control, increases their confidence or even reduces their risk of depression. Scientists, fond as we are of truth and fact, would typically argue that it's better to get an accurate picture of the world around you. Whitson and Galinsky agree but they also take a pragmatic stance, saying that "it may be at times adaptive [to allow] an individual to psychologically engage with rather than withdraw from their environment."

 

 

 

Of course, there are instances when making false connections can be downright damaging, especially if they're used as the basis of bad, or even fatal, decisions (3). Imagined pharmaceutical conspiracies or implications drawn about medicines from one-off anecdotes could drive people to embrace fruitless or potentially dangerous forms of alternative treatment. People can avoid taking responsibility for, or psychologically coping with, events in their lives if they ascribe them to higher powers or sinister agencies. And seeing too much meaning in the actions of others could lead to paranoia and severed social ties.

 

 

 

Thankfully, Whitson and Galinsky's work suggests that it's possible to counteract the inclination to see misleading patterns by instilling people with a greater sense of security and control. In their own words, studies like these "hold promise for preventing futile pursuits born of the perception of illusory patterns."

 

 

 

Reference: J. A. Whitson, A. D. Galinsky (2008). Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception Science, 322 (5898), 115-117 DOI: 10.1126/science.1159845

 

 

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845

 

 

 

SOURCE: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... eories.php

 

(1) = http://acsprod.mccombs.utexas.edu/facst ... uid=174730

 

(2) = http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/fac ... linsky.htm

 

(3) = http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

This is seriously worrying.

 

 

 

Who would support something like this? I don't get it. Mandatory work on behalf of the state? "Civilian" police force? Is that like an army or what?

 

 

 

Why are they for such huge government?

 

 

 

Man, both parties in the USA really are terrible (same here in the UK). On one hand, you had John McCain and the idiot Sarah Palin, but on the other you've got Obama who is pretty much deified without cause by people who don't even understand his policies.

 

 

 

Seriously, the amount of support this guy is given for no reason is worrying. So is the whole "change" and "hope" thing. Empty rhetoric, personality cult, blind support, what next? Man I hate this political system

 

 

 

This

 

 

 

Do I really need to add anything to that?

This is seriously worrying.

 

 

 

Who would support something like this? I don't get it. Mandatory work on behalf of the state? "Civilian" police force? Is that like an army or what?

 

 

 

Why are they for such huge government?

 

 

 

Man, both parties in the USA really are terrible (same here in the UK). On one hand, you had John McCain and the idiot Sarah Palin, but on the other you've got Obama who is pretty much deified without cause by people who don't even understand his policies.

 

 

 

Seriously, the amount of support this guy is given for no reason is worrying. So is the whole "change" and "hope" thing. Empty rhetoric, personality cult, blind support, what next? Man I hate this political system

 

 

 

This

 

 

 

Do I really need to add anything to that?

 

 

 

Yes, like the fact that this person that started this thread has no idea what they're talking about, and bastardized the legislation to mean something that it doesn't.

I had hard time understanding cause I am not up with all the legal mumbojumbo, but does this mean that college students must put in 100 hours of community service a year in order to receive education?

 

 

 

My opinion will come from understanding this.

I had hard time understanding cause I am not up with all the legal mumbojumbo, but does this mean that college students must put in 100 hours of community service a year in order to receive education?

 

 

 

My opinion will come from understanding this.

 

 

 

No. Lol.

 

 

 

Currently, college students are given federal loans if they apply for them. It's called a FAFSA form. Depending on your parents' income, you'll be given a choice of loans, and/or grants. The grants (Pell Grants) have been significantly increased through this legislation, so more people will have access to more educational aid. Everyone regardless of income is given a certain amount of loans (typically it's $2500 for freshmen, $3000 something for sophomores, $4000 something for juniors, and like $5500 for seniors).

 

 

 

This legislation also made it so if you do 100 hours of community service, you will be given $4,000 in education assistance. You don't have to do the community service, but you won't be given the additional $4,000 in money. The $4,000 is not a loan. I don't know if the number is still $4,000, that's what it was during the campaign.

 

 

 

This also gives more money to organizations like Americorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmeriCorps).

 

 

 

Now, what Alex Jones did was take Obama's campaign "Obama Campaign 2.0," and mix it with this volunteer assistance plan. Obama's campaign is calling all of his volunteers to try and get support for certain parts of his agenda, such as his budget, because Republicans are acting as obstructionists to certain pieces of the agenda. So Alex Jones takes that, mixes it with the education assistance, bastardizes it in his own language, and makes it seem you must do this or face the consequences.

This is seriously worrying.

 

 

 

Who would support something like this? I don't get it. Mandatory work on behalf of the state? "Civilian" police force? Is that like an army or what?

 

 

 

Why are they for such huge government?

 

 

 

Man, both parties in the USA really are terrible (same here in the UK). On one hand, you had John McCain and the idiot Sarah Palin, but on the other you've got Obama who is pretty much deified without cause by people who don't even understand his policies.

 

 

 

Seriously, the amount of support this guy is given for no reason is worrying. So is the whole "change" and "hope" thing. Empty rhetoric, personality cult, blind support, what next? Man I hate this political system

 

 

 

This

 

 

 

Do I really need to add anything to that?

 

 

 

Yes, like the fact that this person that started this thread has no idea what they're talking about, and bastardized the legislation to mean something that it doesn't.

 

 

 

I was just addressing what I quoted, I do agree the first post is at the least misleading(on fafsa, civilian service thing I need some confirmation before opinion)

 

 

 

lionheart--basically if you are getting loans based from the government based on economic conditions this may require community service to continue getting the loans.

 

 

 

edit--magekillr, assuming its true this is for additional loans/grants if you do community service that sounds like a decent idea. I have my concerns about the civilian service aspect(not sure how linked to this it is) but granting funds for community service is a good idea at heart.

I had hard time understanding cause I am not up with all the legal mumbojumbo, but does this mean that college students must put in 100 hours of community service a year in order to receive education?

 

 

 

My opinion will come from understanding this.

 

 

 

No. Getting free money from the government will require 100 hours of community service, rather than just getting the check. People who pay for their own college will not have to do the community service.

 

 

 

There is so much FUD spread in this topic is it horrifying.

I had hard time understanding cause I am not up with all the legal mumbojumbo, but does this mean that college students must put in 100 hours of community service a year in order to receive education?

 

 

 

My opinion will come from understanding this.

 

 

 

No. Lol.

 

 

 

Currently, college students are given federal loans if they apply for them. It's called a FAFSA form. Depending on your parents' income, you'll be given a choice of loans, and/or grants. The grants (Pell Grants) have been significantly increased through this legislation, so more people will have access to more educational aid. Everyone regardless of income is given a certain amount of loans (typically it's $2500 for freshmen, $3000 something for sophomores, $4000 something for juniors, and like $5500 for seniors).

 

 

 

This legislation also made it so if you do 100 hours of community service, you will be given $4,000 in education assistance. You don't have to do the community service, but you won't be given the additional $4,000 in money. The $4,000 is not a loan. I don't know if the number is still $4,000, that's what it was during the campaign.

 

 

 

This also gives more money to organizations like Americorps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmeriCorps).

 

 

 

Now, what Alex Jones did was take Obama's campaign "Obama Campaign 2.0," and mix it with this volunteer assistance plan. Obama's campaign is calling all of his volunteers to try and get support for certain parts of his agenda, such as his budget, because Republicans are acting as obstructionists to certain pieces of the agenda. So Alex Jones takes that, mixes it with the education assistance, bastardizes it in his own language, and makes it seem you must do this or face the consequences.

 

 

 

If what you say is the case, I don't see how anyone can complain.

 

 

 

Edit: And just doing the calculations now (lol multiplication), doing that 100 hours of service is more then 4x better then trying to work and get the same amount of money at my current income, and as far as I know, Ontario minimum wage is better then the minimum wage in most states.

basically if you are getting loans based from the government based on economic conditions this may require community service to continue getting the loans.

 

 

 

UGH! NO!

 

 

 

You'll be given ADDITIONAL money if you do community service. No matter what, you will still be given assistance.

basically if you are getting loans based from the government based on economic conditions this may require community service to continue getting the loans.

 

 

 

UGH! NO!

 

 

 

You'll be given ADDITIONAL money if you do community service. No matter what, you will still be given assistance.

 

 

 

addressed in an edit a minute ago

but granting funds for community service is a good idea at heart.

 

 

 

It might seem like that on paper, but it depends on the community service. Yes, I do feel that helping out in soup kitchens and stuff like that is very good but a lot of community service is doing pointless work just to get your hours up. For example, I had to keep score for a basketball game even though there were plenty of refs there doing absolutely nothing. If I didn't show up it wouldn't have made a difference to society (besides a ref being allowed to sit on his butt). Community service should only exits in fields where help is actually necessary.

but granting funds for community service is a good idea at heart.

 

 

 

It might seem like that on paper, but it depends on the community service. Yes, I do feel that helping out in soup kitchens and stuff like that is very good but a lot of community service is doing pointless work just to get your hours up. For example, I had to keep score for a basketball game even though there were plenty of refs there doing absolutely nothing. If I didn't show up it wouldn't have made a difference to society (besides a ref being allowed to sit on his butt). Community service should only exits in fields where help is actually necessary.

 

 

 

Agreed, and thats where most of my concern here lies.

 

 

 

At heart, this plan should work out very well, but the government isnt exactly known for taking good ideas and turning them into good projects. For instance, the earmark system should allow funding to get to good projects without an unneccesary amount of debate; however, thanks to the alaskan senator(stevens maybe?) and people like robert byrd(my senator :roll: ) we get such wonderful projects as the bridge to knowhere and corridor H.

Meh. Long as I'm not doing complete [cabbage] assignments like my last one with some houses for the homeless crap. That was hard. Like five of us completely landscaped a house, as well as putting up those little concrete fences. THAT part was very hard. The rest wasn't bad, a few bushes and a tree or two. It was last summer so I don't remember well.

 

 

 

But, four grand? Sounds like a sweet deal for me. I might not be working my first semester in school, because I'll have just relocated to Houston and doubt I'll have been really able to find a job. So this sounds like a plan. :thumbup:

Who would support something like this?

 

 

 

People who aren't affected by it.

Who would support something like this?

 

 

 

People who aren't affected by it.

 

Truth! My parents are all for this...

Have we really become so jaded as a society that we won't help other, in exchange for a grant? Really how many of you campaigned for your presidential choice, I spent more than 30 hours in the last month sorting door hangers, walking door to door, meeting at rallys phone banking and supporting other campaigners. It felt great. When north carolina wasn't decided for a couple of days in the election I knew I had done my part. At the very least I had helped turn a strong red state into a leaning red state, and at the most we had won it.

 

The case has been made already for those that simply can't, there's just no time between working to pay it off and actual schoolwork.

 

 

 

20 minutes a day is too much? Look at you guys you are complaining about not having time and you have characters with thousands of hours put into them. When I see someone argue that they work 30 hours 3+ jobs go to school full time and don't have available time for this I can see how that might be true. But the second I glance down and see they have a singe skill above 40 I know they are whining without cause.

 

 

 

You might have a valid point, but most of us need to enjoy what little freedoms we have left. When you start doing college work and become busy all the time, then tell me that 20 minutes is not too much.

Have we really become so jaded as a society that we won't help other, in exchange for a grant? Really how many of you campaigned for your presidential choice, I spent more than 30 hours in the last month sorting door hangers, walking door to door, meeting at rallys phone banking and supporting other campaigners. It felt great. When north carolina wasn't decided for a couple of days in the election I knew I had done my part. At the very least I had helped turn a strong red state into a leaning red state, and at the most we had won it.

 

The case has been made already for those that simply can't, there's just no time between working to pay it off and actual schoolwork.

 

 

 

20 minutes a day is too much? Look at you guys you are complaining about not having time and you have characters with thousands of hours put into them. When I see someone argue that they work 30 hours 3+ jobs go to school full time and don't have available time for this I can see how that might be true. But the second I glance down and see they have a singe skill above 40 I know they are whining without cause.

 

But ultimately, people don't want to work if they don't get anything in return. Including me.

You can't do twenty minutes a day anyways. Most places take you on for ten hours in a day, with an hour for a lunch break

Have we really become so jaded as a society that we won't help other, in exchange for a grant? Really how many of you campaigned for your presidential choice, I spent more than 30 hours in the last month sorting door hangers, walking door to door, meeting at rallys phone banking and supporting other campaigners. It felt great. When north carolina wasn't decided for a couple of days in the election I knew I had done my part. At the very least I had helped turn a strong red state into a leaning red state, and at the most we had won it.

 

The case has been made already for those that simply can't, there's just no time between working to pay it off and actual schoolwork.

 

 

 

20 minutes a day is too much? Look at you guys you are complaining about not having time and you have characters with thousands of hours put into them. When I see someone argue that they work 30 hours 3+ jobs go to school full time and don't have available time for this I can see how that might be true. But the second I glance down and see they have a singe skill above 40 I know they are whining without cause.

 

But ultimately, people don't want to work if they don't get anything in return. Including me.

 

 

 

But you are getting something in return. At a rate of $40 an hour tax free.

Have we really become so jaded as a society that we won't help other, in exchange for a grant? Really how many of you campaigned for your presidential choice, I spent more than 30 hours in the last month sorting door hangers, walking door to door, meeting at rallys phone banking and supporting other campaigners. It felt great. When north carolina wasn't decided for a couple of days in the election I knew I had done my part. At the very least I had helped turn a strong red state into a leaning red state, and at the most we had won it.

 

The case has been made already for those that simply can't, there's just no time between working to pay it off and actual schoolwork.

 

 

 

20 minutes a day is too much? Look at you guys you are complaining about not having time and you have characters with thousands of hours put into them. When I see someone argue that they work 30 hours 3+ jobs go to school full time and don't have available time for this I can see how that might be true. But the second I glance down and see they have a singe skill above 40 I know they are whining without cause.

 

But ultimately, people don't want to work if they don't get anything in return. Including me.

 

 

 

But you are getting something in return. At a rate of $40 an hour tax free.

 

Then its not Community service then, is it? I'm still a bit confused here. Does this bill makes us work charitably or do they pay us cash or loans from college?

Then its not Community service then, is it? I'm still a bit confused here. Does this bill makes us work charitably or do they pay us cash or loans from college?

 

 

 

$40 an hour was just to put in in perspective what you are getting, since everyone is spinning this to make it look like we are getting conscripted for nothing.

 

 

 

Those who want a base loan through FAFSA don't have to do anything. If you want $4,000 towards school above and beyond the normal then you have to do 100 hours of community service. It is completely optional to do this.

Have we really become so jaded as a society that we won't help other, in exchange for a grant? Really how many of you campaigned for your presidential choice, I spent more than 30 hours in the last month sorting door hangers, walking door to door, meeting at rallys phone banking and supporting other campaigners. It felt great. When north carolina wasn't decided for a couple of days in the election I knew I had done my part. At the very least I had helped turn a strong red state into a leaning red state, and at the most we had won it.

 

The case has been made already for those that simply can't, there's just no time between working to pay it off and actual schoolwork.

 

 

 

20 minutes a day is too much? Look at you guys you are complaining about not having time and you have characters with thousands of hours put into them. When I see someone argue that they work 30 hours 3+ jobs go to school full time and don't have available time for this I can see how that might be true. But the second I glance down and see they have a singe skill above 40 I know they are whining without cause.

 

But ultimately, people don't want to work if they don't get anything in return. Including me.

 

 

 

But you are getting something in return. At a rate of $40 an hour tax free.

 

Then its not Community service then, is it? I'm still a bit confused here. Does this bill makes us work charitably or do they pay us cash or loans from college?

 

 

 

Read the bill first, christ most of you are too dumb to go to college so it's not like it will even affect you.

You don't have to be a [bleep] because people are posting five conflicting articles and confusing us who are clearly inferior.

**** 'em.