(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best applied psychology books

So... I was that guy.

It's somewhat painful to think about how much of a lazy ass-hat I was. I went through several relationships, roommates, jobs, and residences before eventually getting my shit together. Even now (in my 30s), I haven't fully shaken off the 1.0 Beta Version of myself.

I'm not sure what 18 year old me needed to kick my ass into shape, but I can tell you this: no one can change you but yourself. You're not going to be able to change him. He needs to value hustle and grit and tenacity. If you care about him, leave him. He is not in a good place to be in a relationship. His relationships are likely based on the ease and convenience of those relationships. For example, his parents giving him money when he could get a job, you travelling to him, living at home; these are all out of convenience. Ask yourself about his friendships and how he interacts with people. How convenient/easy/effortless are his relationships?

This dude needs to learn that working for things is important. Effort is important. If he wanted you, he would do the work necessary to keep you. His laziness likely stems from fear of failure and fear of success, as well as his parents coddling him.

Leave him, but might I suggest, you also leave him with some suggested reading material:

Grit by Angela Duckworth

7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey

Outliers, The Tipping Point, Blink, David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell

Last, but certainly not least: Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski - This one isn't so much for him as it is for anyone he dates in the future. This book discusses female sexuality, anatomy, and sex drive. It has helped me get laid with the wife a BUNCH.

I don't know if it is just growing up and maturing, but I can not emphasize enough how much these books have changed my life. These books have kicked me in the ass and made me a better man. My wife also played a major role in kicking my ass into gear, but we got married young and we were basically forced to make it work if we didn't want to get divorced, so I do not suggest staying with him to "fix him". He's got a ton of work to do on himself. You seem like you've got your shit well enough together, so don't tie yourself to a weight that heavy. It will hold you back and drag you down. It will get worse before it gets better. You can absolutely find someone who makes you happy and who contributes to the relationship. I've been married for 11 years, with 4 kids, and both my wife and I are pursuing our passions (I also happen to be a musician/creative type), while holding down full time jobs. We are madly in love, she is my best friend, and I am forever grateful for the work she put in to help me along.

Hell, just have him read this:

Bruh. I was you. Things seem to take so much effort, don't they? You probably have visions of yourself making music for a living, right? Record deals, and stage lights, and recording in fancy studios, right? Well, guess what? It's absolutely possible to make that happen. But you need to work for it. If something is worth wanting, it is worth working for. If you aren't really working for it, do you really want it? You need to make small steps toward an ultimate goal that you want to pursue and stick to it. By 28 years old, you could have a record deal. You could be touring. You could win a Grammy. I'm not kidding. You could if you hit the ground hard, right now, and start kicking your own ass. Get up and move or you're going to be in your 30's just starting to pursue your passions and you'll feel like you've wasted so much goddamn time.

I wish you both the best of luck. I hope this helps.

Yes, there are definitely diminishing returns in the learning process. This "diminishing returns" can be modeled as the power law of practice, which describes how we make great gains in skill or knowledge at first, and as we gain in skill or knowledge our subsequent gains get smaller as we progress. Yes, we typically continue to get better (until some asymptote is reached), but we get better at a slower rate as we learn.

Learning styles is a tricky subject, because they mean different things to different people. Some would interpret that question as asking whether "visual learners" and "hands-on learners" etc differ in how the learning process occurs. I have little knowledge of the merits of that distinction. Others would interpret the question as if you were asking about learning strategies, and then the answer becomes clear. There are many strategies one can adopt to facilitate the learning process. These strategies are reviewed in great detail in sources such as Train Your Mind For Peak Performance, Training Cognition, and Improving Students' Learning with Effective Learning Techniques.

These strategies include spacing out your study over time, testing yourself on what you are attempting to learn rather than just read about it again and again, engage in deliberate practice (exert effort, focus on feedback and error-correction, stretch your abilities with challenges), and many more.

There are various theories out there purporting to explain these various learning and memory phenomena. I'll provide one leading example. Stimulus fluctuation theories (e.g., CMR theory) state that when we learn something, we encode not only the thing itself but extraneous details (context). These extraneous details are actually quite helpful when trying to remember the thing previously learned. Spacing and testing, for example, are theorized to aid in the encoding of contextual details, which help drive later memory. If you are interested in this theory and want to learn of others, see this great book.

What Every BODY is Saying by Joe Navarro is an anecdotal account. Basically, every other page is a narrative of a personal experience. The book is a great short read, but it comes off as fragmented and tries to support claims about nonverbal signs of lying and discomfort that don't really stand up to verification (science is not on board with what he says).

The Definitive Book of Body Language by Allan and Barbara Pease is much worse. There is actually very little in nonverbal communication that is "definite". (Unlike words which you can look up in the dictionary, nonverbal behavior is context-bound and rarely gives off a "general meaning" the way words do.) This book is a re-hash is Allan Pease's earlier Body language how to read others thoughts by their gestures from 1981. He hasn't updated much since that time. Not only is it generally outdated but it is by and large based on a weird mixture of psychoanalysis and whatever anecdotal observations Pease picked up in marketing consultants' meetings in Australia in the 1970s. I highly suggest skipping this one.

If you want to get a picture of serious up-to-date science that's also easy to read, I suggest Nonverbal Communication: Science and Applications edited by David Matsumoto, Mark G. Frank and Hyi Sung Hwang. It's one part technical information by scientists who study nonverbal communication and one part personal experience with nonverbal communication by actual practitioners (including several by law enforcement agents, like Joe Navarro, but with less hope and fanfare and more practical observations). This book is a good introduction to nonverbal communication, what we know about it thus far for sure, and what actual scientists are trying to figure out about facial expressions of emotion and other aspects of nonverbal communication in the 21st century.
http://www.amazon.com/Nonverbal-Communication-Applications-David-Matsumoto/dp/1412999308
(It is also quite easy to find a PDF of this book.)

If you're not that into science but want to read about how to use nonverbal communication to your advantage I suggest Winning Body Language: Control the Conversation, Command Attention, and Convey the Right Message without Saying a Word by Mark Bowden. It's not technical at all and doesn't teach you to "read" others as much as to use your own body to give a better impression and feel comfortable. It is written very fluently and actually a pleasure to read - Bowden has used quite advanced verbal techniques to as-if hypnotize you while you're reading it (I've gone into a kind of trance every time I read it). Because it draws so much from performing arts (theatre, martial arts, etc) it may not stand up to science, but it's a terrific read and a lot better than the outright inaccurate and misleading alternatives above.
http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Body-Language-Conversation-Attention/dp/0071700579
(Also quite easy to find a PDF.)

I hope this helps.

No need to be an ass. First off, no one got rich off the program. They only spent $20 million over the 20 years that it existed and most were paid their normal wage as a soldier (afew were contractors at SRI, but also didnt get paid well).

And I fully admit there is a lot of junk science out there, which makes this kind of research all the more difficult for people with good intentions. I have also interviewed prominent skeptics, and frankly, they often don't have good arguments and haven't looked at the data either.

I can get back to you with more journal articles once I find out where they are located, but here is one study I have easily on hand for now. This experiment I know something about because I conducted it. We did it at the University of Colorado in the Department of Engineering and it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (https://www.scientificexploration.org/journal): http://psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/Smith14.pdf

The TLDR of it is that using a type of remote viewing we predicted the stock market DJIA correctly 7 out of 7 trials giving a p value of < .01. Granted this result barely surpasses statistical significance, but we were limited in the time to do more trials. It IS still a statistically significant result. Moreover, if you evaluate the individual RV sessions, 61(ish) of 73(ish) (from memory) predicted it correctly, which would be a p value of < .00006 or something like that (also from memory). The protocol is sort of complicated so you'll have to read the paper to understand it because I don't feel like typing it all out right now.

And here are some first hand sample sessions that my pops did during his training in the military program: http://rviewer.com/SG_Sessions.html

You could also read a number of books (sorry about links to Amazon):

Like this one from my father about his experience in the program and the history of it (he was the offical unit historian):
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Enemys-Mind-Americas-Espionage/dp/0312875150?ie=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0

Or this one from the original SRI scientists:
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Reach-Scientists-Psychic-Abilities-Consciousness/dp/1571744142?ie=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0

Or this one that was just released by a Pulitzer Prize finalist Journalist:
https://www.amazon.com/Phenomena-Governments-Investigations-Extrasensory-Psychokinesis/dp/0316349364?ie=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0


EDIT: corrected the p value to reflect the study

> When was the last time you ran a doubleblind? Even if it was with the dousing rods, do you know what assumptions were made? What hypotheses were and how they were nullified? Or are you blindly following the analysis done by someone else?

So your saying because I didn't do the double blind study myself that "I'm blindly following the analysis by someone else"? I do double blind tests all day long - I'm a software developer and my test subjects are internal customers at the company I work at.

When I watch someone test things - the software always works, however when I deploy it site wide sometimes it doesn't. I know that sometimes I make assumptions that are wildly inaccurate, but my peers who review my work point out my problems all the time and I make changes to fix these issues. When I'm watching often I'll have them click on things that normal users wouldn't. When I'm testing it or I'm watching someone test my program - its not a properly controlled test.

Dousing might work, but the evidence suggests it doesn't. A parapsychologist named Chris French has published several peer reviewed double blind studies about super natural things like dowsing and concluded that dowsers cannot actually find water. Don't take his word for it - read the study and conduct the experiments yourself - its right here - you can watch him conduct the study on youtube too.

Conducting a double blind test of whether a bent coat hanger can find treasure is pretty simple. Find some treasure around the house (that a friend can bury), find an unbiased friend and have him hide said treasure without you looking and have another friend watch you find the treasure with the bent coat hanger. The 3rd friend won't be able to give you any context clues to find the treasure and the second friend won't be there either to do the same. That's a rational/logical way to approach something.

The double blind study is really what makes the scientific method a reasonable way to find truth. And what it doesn't find (because mistakes were made) - peer review will find. None of your examples actually investigate truth.

Example A and B stop at the evidence presented to them, and neither actually proceeded to investigate these claims themselves - which is the next logical step.

Political psychology, although typically considered a subfield, covers a wide range of variables (e.g., personality, decision-making, behavior, beliefs, emotion, conflict) from multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual, group, state, system). Given that your thesis will inevitably consume a great deal of your time and effort, you'll want to focus on an area of political psychology that you find particularly interesting. Here are some resources that can help you pinpoint a topic:

• Political Psychology (the most prominent academic journal dedicated to political psychology)
• Political psychology (Wikipedia) [the list of prominent political psychologists toward the bottom of the page provides a decent starting point]
• The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (Huddy, Sears, & Levy)
• Introduction to Political Psychology (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Elena Mastors, & Preston)
• Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics, and Politics (Marcus)

However, it occurs to me that providing you a few links and telling you to "read!" might not be the most helpful approach, since I'm pointing you toward a forest when you eventually need to locate a specific tree. Does your college/university offer any courses that relate to political psychology? If so, I would consider taking them (or at least reaching out to the professors that offer them). [Note: Even if there aren't classes dedicated to the subject, your university likely has related courses (e.g., American politics, social psychology) that might be useful]. In my opinion, taking courses or talking to professors will likely benefit you even more than independent reading.

And lastly, since you asked, here are some specific areas of research (that I find intriguing), along with relevant recent publications (that I have enjoyed):

• The structure and determinants of political ideologies: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Personality characteristics in the political domain 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• The dynamics of political information processing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
• The efficacy of biological and neuroscientific explanations of political behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Maybe one the aforementioned topics will interest you. If not, there are plenty other research foci out there (you might have noticed that I failed to include a topic related to foreign policy, a literature to which I haven't paid much attention recently). Best of luck!

Hey.... do you want to crush your STEM enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women? Tell them your party hardy ways keeps you productive by motivating you to procrastinate less and get things done faster (which is probably true, right? Just like I've heard having kids does the same). But also get this textbook so you can, just like pretty much every hugely successful person in existence, work hard and work smart.

​

Ever heard of the "10,000-hour rule"? Well first of all that's kind of half bullshit because most people don't know where that idea came from so they don't understand the nuances behind it. Secondly, it came from that textbook. People literally studied world-class experts and figured out what made them so special and wrote a textbook about it.

​

Also Dr. Phil has a new podcast which is surprisingly good (for someone who might seem like the irl version of Frasier Crane) and focuses on successful people; worth checking out to listen to when driving, trying to fall asleep, etc.

​

PS: if the medical field interests you at all, in theory your Se-dom trait would make it easy for you to become a competent surgeon and according to mbti stereotypes you might enjoy it too.

Unpacking:

Officially, in common majority progressive thought, women have their own status/rank related to career choice, earning potential, etc. which is roughly consistent with male status/rank.

In short-term mating, none of that matters. Attractiveness (for males, short-term, ie. sexiness) is basically conforming to preferred body shapes (waist-to-hip ratios - somewhat varied in different cultures but roughly conforming to common constraints) and outward markers of fitness - clear skin, shiny hair, bilateral symmetry, &etc.

In long-term mating, some males may select for conscientiousness, agreeableness, and low neuroticism, so ability to hold down a job may be a positive, but being a high-powered, high-status career gal may signal low agreeableness and low nurturing personality so may be selected against. Men are looking for good moms in addition to the looks factor here.

In mating, women are imbued with status based on what kind of man she can get to make a long-term commitment. This is just (I think) the way it works. If she can land a high-powered alpha who's dripping with pre-selection she becomes a high-status female.

For more on this, see Ian Ironwood's excellent Playground Rules series of posts.

This book for Evolutionary psychology seems quite good as it is published by the Cambridge University Press, although I have not studied much on evolutionary psych. Also, anything by Frederick Toates is very well written, and we use this book in my biological psychology lectures at university and has a lot of neuroscience in it.

However, textbooks can unavoidably be quite expensive (even though you can sell them afterwards, getting the initial cash can be hard without a student loan). As an alternative, you might want to look at the A Graphic Guide series. I read the Introducing Psychology one during my A levels when I didn't have much money and found it really useful, although a bit short. There is one specific to evolutionary psychology, too.

Finally, a researcher at my university told me about this book, written by one of his lecturers, that helps you to understand more about the anatomy of the brain. It is a colouring book where you colour in each different region of the brain, but each page gets more specific about each brain region. The book isn't that expensive either. Here is a link. :)

Hope this helps, and good luck on your psychology quest :D

(continued)

On the other hand, an actual, real-life exit counselor who works with actual walkaways from actual cults has in fact pretty much formally declared MAGAts to be a coercive political cult of personality, using actual characteristics common across pro-Trump groups and comparing to evaluations of groups like Scientology and the Moonies. (It's worth noting here that said exit counselor actually has written one of the more thorough evaluation scales of the "cultiness" of a coercive group.)

And apparently he's not alone on this; the former head of psychological profiling at the CIA pretty much has completely separately identified MAGAtism as a classical political cult, and literally the person who defined the term "brainwashing" in English and wrote the very first book on coercive groups and thought reform tactics has in fact just written a book on political extremism that also in part defines MAGAtism in the exact same framework of being a coercive political cult as Maoists during the Cultural Revolution. (Considering Dr. Robert J. Lifton's initial studies were of persons involuntarily interned in Maoist "thought reform" camps during the Korean War up to the beginning of the Cultural Revolution...yes, as in the guy has literally written the books on the subject--methinks he'd know exactly what he's talking about when he's comparing MAGAts and Trump to the Cultural Revolution and Mao Zedong). Both Hassan and Lifton have also been contributors to a book that notes that Trump shows all the signs of being a malignant narcissist in the technical sense and which also include OTHER psychologists who have expressed concerns a personality cult exists around Trump (and feel strongly enough on it that they feel an ethical duty to warn a potential target of violence by a person, well, (pardon the expression) trumps the Goldwater Rule). Rick Alan Ross, another exit counselor, has likewise explicitly noted MAGAtism has all the characteristics of a coercive cult of personality--and Rick Alan Ross is actually a Republican (though very much in the "Never Trump" court).

(Pretty much the only major exit counselor that has NOT outright called out MAGAtism as a literal personality cult is Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer, and that's because she's dead.)

And we're just talking the redcaps posting MAGA and KAG memes on Twitter and Facebook--we're not talking members of Certain Subreddits Soon To Exhaust The Reddit Community Patience, or even sub-movements within (like QAnonsense--at this rate, pretty much almost universally regarded as a literal coercive New Religious Movement by every exit counselor that's evaluated it and which heavily cross-recruits with older cults like Ramtha--or the New Apostolic Reformation, which has heavily embraced QAnonsense and which (in a remarkable sea change from even fifteen years ago) is also pretty much universally regarded as an extremely coercive religious group within "Charismatic" Christianity).

There are no published scientific papers, no peer-reviewed journals on these pages that establish that this is a widespread problem in games. The only scientific studies present talk about the potential effects of sexist content in games, which is not the same thing.

Have you read these articles?

The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Women's narratives of love and violence, Julia T. Wood. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18 (2), 239-261, 2001 - Not about videogames.

The Sexual Objectification Spillover Effect - A blog post

Objectification, Nussbaum, Martha C. Philosophy and Public Affairs; Fall 1995; 24, 4; Research Library Core - Not about videogames.

How Fantasy Becomes Reality: Seeing Through Media Influence Hardcover – September 3, 2009 - A book. It may cite studies, but whatever those studies show is not evident to someone wanting to reference it online.

Sexual Priming, Gender Stereotyping, and Likelihood to Sexually Harass: Examining the Cognitive Effects of Playing a Sexually-Explicit Video Game - Hey, look! An actual study! And it shows that... playing a videogame with sexual themes may get players to think about sex more. Stop the presses. In any case, this hardly establishes any of the arguments being made here, so moving on...

Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment - You can tell by the title that this isn't testing for how prevalent this is in videogames, so again this isn't something that proves the point you're trying to make here. moving on...

Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others - Not about videogames.

Sexualized avatars affect the real world, Stanford researchers find - Once again, not at all about the prevalence of objectification in games, only the effects.

The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars - assumes as a given that sexualization of females in videogames is prevalent and well-established, and moves on to talking about effects.

The Afterglow of Construct Accessibility: The Behavioral Consequences of Priming Men to View Women as Sexual Objects - Again, talking about effects.

Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation - Seems to be a study of gamers, not the games themselves.

So yeah, keep arguing that Sarkeesian has any actual interest in showing how widespread these supposed "tropes" are in games, instead of just citing a bunch of loosely-related studies along with blogs and opinions of others in support of her already assumed conclusions. Makes you look super serious and honest.

So yeah, you're just gonna' keep asserting your own preconceived notions instead of actually assessing the information in front of you. I thought you were honestly trying, but you aren't.

Here's a good link that basically covers the intro to the field. I suggested Skinner because he pioneered Operant Conditioning, and Classical Conditioning (Pavlovian) is based on his discoveries even though Classical came historically before Operant. Classical was discovered by Pavlov, and then J.B. Watson took it and said "ah, I bet this can explain everything!" to which Skinner had a "ah-ha" moment and came up with the broader Operant Conditioning.

I've only read a few of the passages in About Behaviorism, which is Skinner's "intro" book to Behaviorism. I suggest starting there. From that point on, outside of a few blogs, most of ABA is very strongly academic. A lot of people see it as manipulative psychology and that it removes the autonomous human aspect, so it isn't very well received outside of the academic circle, and you won't find people writing about it and feelings. You'll really only find it used and discussed in context of Autism disorders, MR, and Addiction Therapy.

This book by Paul Chance is also a good introductory book. A few other books that Skinner wrote were Walden 2, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, and Science and Human Behavior; however, they are more works of the philosophy of Skinnerian Psychology than they are manuals, arguing for Skinner's deterministic perspective...so they are not really useful to you.

Yes! I definitely recommend purchasing the book. Watching the debate will be much more rewarding after you are done understanding where Chomsky and where Foucault come from. Foucault is truly a giant in the continental field. I very much disagree with his arguments in this debate and find myself agreeing with Chomsky more often. I did, however, do my M.A. Thesis on Foucault and Edward Said and find Foucault's argument on other issues besides human nature to be very compelling.

Hey! Exciting news! We just published this as a new book, called Memetic Mind Control!

Have a look at our cool new cover, and if it's something that tickles your fancy, we won't stop you from giving it a 5 star review ;)

https://www.amazon.com/Memetic-Mind-Control-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/172720526X?keywords=memetics&qid=1537212867&sr=8-17&ref=sr_1_17

To Victory!

In the book The Dreaming Brain by Dr. J. Allan Hobson, it's explained that the parts of your brain that are active during REM sleep along with the change in levels of certain chemicals in your brain contribute to some common characteristics of dreams.

Thee characteristics are that dreams often feature intense emotions (especially fear, anxiety and surprise), dreams are disorganized, illogical and can contain really bizarre sensory experiences (they begin randomly and you have feelings like falling/flying/running in slow motion), and dream content is very difficult to remember due to the fact that long term memory functions are not active during REM sleep and short term memory functions are not ideal due to low levels of serotonin and high levels of acetylcholine during REM sleep cycles.

Your emotions during dreaming are affected by the chemicals in your brain during the REM cycle and certain regions of your brain being the most active, like the limbic system.

I recommend Dreaming: An Introduction to the Science of Sleep or The Dream Drugstore to learn more about Hobson's activation synthesis theory. His books are hard to read because they're very technical, but they were extremely interesting.

listen to audio books. it is just as good as car radio,you learn about all kinds of things,that can make great conversation points. it expands your understanding and vocabulary

The material world can be divine whilst still being 100% material.

Believing the universe was created by an immaterial thing does not make the universe less material.

> I hear immaterial I think concepts from minds yet born. Imagine if you will a vast sea of concepts/ideas/art/creativity floating around and every so often a mind is born that is able to receive these. Yes, very crude concept but it allows for a wedge to be inserted. An unseen realm of infinite possibilities, very immaterial yet by interacting with this material world they can come to fruition.

Emotions, ideas, and conscious thought, are all material things. They exist as electrical impulses, and can be measured.

The mind's eye, for example. It can be reconstructed and digitized:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo

Religious experiences are also physical things.

Immaterial things are what inspire the physical religious experiences.

http://www.amazon.ca/Neuroscience-Religious-Experience-Patrick-McNamara/dp/0521889588

> If reality continues to operate on a multilevel hierarchical fashion, to me that hints to other realms entirely, higher or lower.

What levels are reality made up of? There is only one material world, and it is considered existent because it exists as matter and energy.

Humans are only biologically designed to witness a small portion of reality, but that doesn't elevate the things we can't witness into another level.

Quantum physics, for example, (although theoretical) exists outside our 4-dimensional biological capacity of understanding in the universe, but that doesn't make it not the universe. Quantum physics is still inside reality. It just makes reality larger.

Am I misunderstanding you?

> Similar to how we have video games, worlds within worlds. Different worlds would hear immaterial and material and their would no understanding as they might operate on a completely different wavelength.

And again, as a programmer I can tell you that videogames are very much made of the material world. They exist as energy within our matter. A magnetic imprint in a hard drive.

See, humans are starting to break the barrier of our own "world", and start to read the actual code of the universe. This will allow us to understand any excess reality which we haven't discovered yet. It's like an AI becoming self-aware and looking for higher consciousness.

We are no different. Whatever we prove is existent becomes reality. If quantum physics is proven in all it's entirety, that would make the universe/reality unending in its possibilities.

But if you dis-include energy as "material" then you have to dis-include light, heat, electricity/magnetism, and the entirety of physics itself as being "existent".

So this is why we include neurology and videogame worlds as material and existent. It is as real as physics. It is physics.

> I don't assume anybody is bleak and robotic until they show me they are.

That's the mark of a good person. Kudos.

Oh great, another scumbag piece of shit we have to watch out for...

that being said, kick some ass in the Academy and welcome to the Family. :-)

This and This are absolutely great reads. The first one would be more for close family (like a GF or wife) but is still very good otherwise.

Again, congrats and go kick some ass.

> I see no published scientific papers, no peer-reviewed journals, and a lot of editorial speculation.

That's how I know you didn't even clicked the links:

The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Women's narratives of love and violence, Julia T. Wood.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18 (2), 239-261, 2001

The Sexual Objectification Spillover Effect


Objectification, Nussbaum, Martha C. Philosophy and Public Affairs; Fall 1995; 24, 4; Research Library Core

How Fantasy Becomes Reality: Seeing Through Media Influence Hardcover – September 3, 2009


Sexual Priming, Gender Stereotyping, and Likelihood to Sexually Harass: Examining the Cognitive Effects of Playing a Sexually-Explicit Video Game

Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment

Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others

Sexualized avatars affect the real world, Stanford researchers find

The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars


The Afterglow of Construct Accessibility: The Behavioral Consequences of Priming Men to View Women as Sexual Objects

Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation

But sure, by all means keep repeating that phrase when you haven't even checked the source. Makes you look super serious and honest.

So yeah, I'm not gonna engage any further. I thought you were honestly trying, but you aren't.

I'm going to link you two things. One is a rundown of a breathing technique, the other is a book that while not specific to nurses, addresses many of the same situations nurses face psychologically. Both are an interesting read, and the book is a great resource for learning to take control of stressful situations.

http://onresilience.com/2011/06/02/tactical-breathing-can-stop-stress-on-the-spot/

https://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Mindset-Dr-Michael-Asken/dp/0964920557/ref=la_B001H6MBBM_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472942745&sr=1-3

Here is a link to the transcript on Amazon, unless you were referring only to the videos.

EDIT: Here is a link to the free transcript on Chomsky's website.

There's also a published edition if you'd like to add it to your library.

link

If you're okay with academic texts, the usual starting point is a textbook.

Buss' "Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind is in the 4th edition.

Workman and Reader's "Evolutionary Psychology. An Introduction." is in the 3rd edition.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Fantasy-Becomes-Reality-Influence/dp/0195372085/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=13CPKW7XNRNV68AQBT7D

http://www.amazon.com/Dreaming-An-Introduction-Science-Sleep/dp/0192803042

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interpretation_of_Dreams

a third i guess

also a few books on surrealism

le epicic

Memory and perception distortion is a very common response to deadly encounters even with the most experienced people imaginable. It's unusual to be able to accurately remember things like distances, time, and number of shots fired under extreme stress. Grossman's On Combat and Warrior Mindset have good discussions of the weird stuff that happens to human perception and ability in combat.

Searched for: the chomsky foucault debate

****

The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature: Noam Chomsky ...

>The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature [Noam Chomsky, Michel
Foucault] on Amazon.com. FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Two of the ...

The Chomsky - Foucault Debate: On Human Nature by Noam ...

>The Chomsky - Foucault Debate has 1813 ratings and 119 reviews. Trevor said: I
haven't finished this book and probably will not get a chance to read the...

What did Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky disagree about ...

>The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature: Noam Chomsky, Michel
Foucault Near the ...

> as it completely misses the point of Sarkeesian's position

Funny, because in the book she's been pushing lately it says exactly that, that video games cause people to be violent.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Fantasy-Becomes-Reality-Influence/dp/0195372085/ref=la_B0028OK2DG_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402865354&sr=1-1