Friday, September 14, 2018

Was Muhammad Honest? Islam's Sealed Nectar Explained



Thoughts are prioritized by emotional tags (in order of the magnitude of fear).

People are bi-polar in that if and when they can't immediately deal with a feared event, they will instantly go to the opposite pole on the emotional continuum (hope) to relieve and cancel the fear chemicals.

When they can't either deal with or postpone their fears, (including by convincing their subconscious that they weren't as inevitably scary as previously presumed - which, if one develops such bargains into habitually lying to one's self, can develop into a circular cycle of thought-killing psycho-pathy, or paranoid masochistic hypocrisy) then they must self-medicate (which can of course lead to delinquency).

Peoples' brains like to save multitasking space by generalizing multiples into smaller group idols. It's also known as "grouping things together."

People who choose to be paranoid and so make it easier to handle their own fears by ascribing to them a single cause, thereby also inflict perpetual masochism on them selves.

Knowing they cannot appease their devil-god, they can only enforce its will - which they perceive as inflicting damage, pain, and (eventually, hopefully permanent) death, all of which will at least cancel the additional pains of the anticipatory fears.

But to do so they must not admit to it, and so they become hypocrites to cover up their chosen actions.

Therefore they must also, perversely, "project" the pretense that each and every apparently separate, disjointed component part of "allah" is an enemy in itself because it is a perverse hypocrite refusing to admit unity!

This, they presume, must be why allah gave them rage and a small ability to affect the world. Otherwise, if they truly were to Submit, they'd be Buddhist pacifists, letting allah kill them! So this life is a simple test: one can either embrace everything equally, or do nothing at all. To act, is to attack! Some things may be distasteful and good, others delicious and bad. Only allah knows! Besides, in not teaching other people how to self-resurrect, Christianity is only another of allah's taunts!

In islam, allah's "TEST" in life is one of constant and multiple attacks - because consciousness itself prioritizes fear, we are all in a state of terror. Also since it's a drawn-out pain process, allah allows some of his attacks to seem to fail, engendering the temporary reliefs from pain-causing damage called hope and the remembered pains called fears, in what the Buddhists call the unending cycle of dharma.

So, since allah is not only always attacking us first, but also allows us to perceive and conceive of these attacks, we are left with a single, ongoing dilemma: to passively accept and ignore the attacks, or to honestly inventory our own responses of fear, greed, and hope as an equally valid part of this process - including our angry desires to counter-attack at least those component parts of the attack process presented to us in such a way that we actually can, in whatever limited ways and by whatever limited means, affect them even if we have no ultimate hope of ever being able to truly influence, much less deter and stop, the whole?

In such a "Kill AND be killed" environment, which is the more honest approach?

To pretend to be divided from allah, by rejecting (and so, ""failing") his test entirely, accepting in a perversely "hypocritical" manner to be better than he, by allowing him to destroy one?

Or by playing his game, acknowledging that each and every person, animal, and object are presented to one as falsely divided, to be set right by being destroyed by one, and thus re-integrated with his whole?

If the latter is the more honest and noble choice, then one can also use this truth to convince everyone else to engage in the same mutually destructive, adversarial kill-and-be-killed aggression of eternal war (aka to leftists, "the eternal struggle") too!



And, if this is the correct path, then "god" will allow it all!

The Buddhist and Christian response of doing nothing to oppose evil in order to transcend the struggle entirely, is literally no choice at all!

That is the "sealed nectar," or hidden, underlying truth of islam. In that much, Muhammad was honest - and so also justified in lying to everyone else in order to advance only himself against the myriad strawmen images of "other" people which allah had presented to him to give him the pleasure of destroying.

The rest of the Qur'an, ahadith, and all the collated sharia maddhab fiqhs only show how he went about it: pretending to go into holy trances to delay his opponents' questions, in order to buy him the time to out-maneuver them.

By always deferring to the "Will of Allah" and equally by forcing others to pray five times a day, to keep them distracted and controlled, he was able to pretend to be but a humble mortal man, and so by playing dumb and acting stupid, he could both claim all rights as his idol's sole only and last "prophit," while also shirking all responsibility for same.

Declaring him self the perfect example of humanity for all mankind, he set him self up as the perfect template of psychopathy for ever!

After that, it was all whimsically random attacks ("In the Way of Allah!") on everything and every one, might-makes-right, including the "War IS Deceit" war of the mind and the mighty power of the Lie. Perhaps this honest liar's circle-squaring psychopathy is more common than we think (liberals)!

Tech Fascists' War on The West Accelerates

From the unusual suspect:

Even though we totally disagree on some main points (his infamous Jew-hatred, for instance, my constant challenging of which got me banned from his site forever - which is ironic as he now complains about being censored himself LOL) he's still a good writer and right more than he's left  ... er, I mean, wrong!

"You might have heard that the major tech companies have been censoring political views that they don’t like. I was permanently banned from every major social media and payment platform last year, along with a bunch of other alt right types. Others received more subtle forms of censorship, like Diamond & Silk who found out their content was deemed “unsafe” and demoted, only after complaining to Facebook about a sudden drop in audience engagement. Dennis Prager had his videos censored on YouTube and just a few days later, on Facebook as well. Several Republican congressmen found out via Vice News that Twitter was demoting their content, supposedly based on some sort of algorithm. More recently, Alex Jones got the Christopher Cantwell treatment, as he was banned from all the major platforms in a matter of days.




Despite this abundance of evidence, Google, Twitter, and Facebook have all denied that they censor on ideological or partisan grounds. They are just removing terrorist propaganda, foreign influence, and hate speech, all of which coincidentally happens to strongly resemble the speech and activity patterns of their political and ideological opponents. In fairness, they have been happy to correct these “mistakes” as soon as someone powerful enough finds out what they are doing, but it never seems to take too long for another “mistake” to be discovered.

If you’re not stupid, you’ve probably already figured out that this is an effort to influence the upcoming midterm elections which, at the time of this writing, are just 52 days away. Even if the federal government acts to stop this manipulation, there is nothing they can do to undo the damage that has been done. The Democrats will go into this election with a very distinct advantage, and if they regain any measure of power, they will use it to make sure this problem is not fixed.

Not long ago, Democrats and their accomplices called us conspiracy theorists for saying this, but it is becoming more difficult to deny by the day.

A leaked email composed by Google’s former head of “multicultural marketing” details a range of efforts to increase Latino voter turnout. This was supposedly a “non-partisan” effort in which they “followed our company’s protocols for the elections strategy”. But their intent was revealed to be anything but, when they expressed shock and dismay that so many Latinos voted for Donald Trump. “Ultimately, after all was said and one [sic], the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did,” the executive wrote.

Trump’s victory resulted in a company meeting at Google. A video of that meeting was recently leaked, and provides us with the clearest evidence to date of Google’s purposeful manipulation of search results and other uses of “the great strength and resources and reach we have” to “advance really important values”. Other highlights include Eileen Naughton, VP of People Operations, promising that Google’s policy team in DC is “all over” the immigration issue and that the company will “keep a close watch on it.” Sergey Brin praises an audience member’s suggestion of increasing matched Google employee donations to progressive groups. Brin also compares Trump voters to “extremists,” arguing for a correlation between the economic background of Trump supporters and the kinds of voters who back extremist movements. Brin says that “voting is not a rational act” and that not all of Trump’s support can be attributed to “income disparity.” He suggests that Trump voters might have been motivated by boredom rather than legitimate concerns. VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker, says Google must ensure the rise of populism doesn’t turn into “a world war or something catastrophic … and instead is a blip, a hiccup.” A Google employee states: “speaking to white men, there’s an opportunity for you right now to understand your privilege” and urges employees to “go through the bias-busting training, read about privilege, read about the real history of oppression in our country.”

Of course, none of this should have come as any surprise to anyone who was paying attention. The Silicon Valley fat cats have long confessed to being leftists. They fire anyone who dares to voice right of center political views. They censor every right winger they can get away with censoring. They team up with the SPLC and ADL to police “offensive content” while telling employees of their company that they find the election of Donald Trump offensive.

In 2016, The Intercept reported that Google had created a remarkable partnership with the Obama White House, providing expertise, services, advice, and personnel for vital government projects. Google representatives attended White House meetings more than once a week, on average, from the beginning of Obama’s presidency through October 2015. Nearly 250 people have shuttled from government service to Google employment or vice versa over the course of his administration.

No other public company approaches this degree of intimacy with government.

(Oh really, Chris? I guess Goldman Sachs isn't a public company, then - my bad)!

;-)

This changed after Trump got elected. Suddenly, Google did not want to help the United States anymore. Google had a contract with the Defense Department to work on artificial intelligence in an effort called “Project Maven”. That contract expires next year, and Google announced that they would not be renewing it because they were “facing internal pressure”.

But you know who they do want to work with? Hillary Clinton. At least twelve employees from the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative went on to work for Google, while at least fifteen Google employees went on to work for Hillary For America.
Facebook also hired dozens of Clinton or Obama staffers.

Here is a fun experiment, search Google for “transgender” and see how many pages you have to go through before you find something even remotely critical of propagandizing children with ideological horseshit, and pumping them full of puberty blockers until they are old enough to have their genitals mutilated. Pull up Google News and see if any of the sources are from Fox News or Breitbart. Go to Facebook or Twitter and report one of these pages that are calling for the assassination of the President of the United States, and see how long it takes them to tell you this is not a violation of their community standards.

Again, none of this should come as particularly shocking to any Radical Agenda listener. We’ve always known that these people were ideologues who were using their market power to influence government. Wouldn’t you?


There is no such thing as neutral in today’s political environment. Everything has been politicized, and the guy who forgets that forfeits the election. As far as Google, Twitter, and Facebook are concerned, they aren’t censoring us based on ideology or politics. In their minds, there is no other side of the argument, and their standards are mere baseline moral decency. There cannot be any negotiation or coexistence with people like this while we share a system of government. They have to be completely defeated, or they will destroy us."

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Soros Lawyer Paid For Kavanaugh Hearing Riots

From here and here:



Bombshell proof of foreign meddling in American politics

(Infowars) – The man who was caught on camera paying off protesters who disrupted the Judge Brett Kavanaugh hearings has been identified as working for a Soros-funded organization.


As we reported yesterday, three doctors said they personally witnessed protesters being paid off before the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.

“One thing was there were people who had come along… who had a bag of money, and people would hand them a piece of paper, and then they would give them money. So we know money was exchanged for some of the people to be here, just to protest,” said Dr. Tom Schlueter.

One of the women caught on camera being paid off was later seen being ejected from the hearings after demonstrators caused a disruption.


It has now emerged that the man seen paying off the woman works for a left-wing activist organization funded by billionaire globalist George Soros.

“The man handing money to the Kavanaugh hearing protester is Vinay Krishnan. Consultant/organizer at Center for Popular Democracy,” tweeted Nick Monroe.


Krishnan’s bio lists him as a “social justice attorney”. The Center for Popular Democracy “receives the bulk of its funding from George Soros” and back in May last year announced that they were setting up an “$80 million anti-Trump network that will span 32 states and have 48 local partners.”


While the media obsesses about non-existent Russian interference in the American political system, this represents solid proof of a foreign actor meddling in America’s political system by bankrolling fake astroturf protests designed to sow discord and create division.

Will the fake new mainstream enemedia cover this massive story?



Saturday, September 1, 2018

CIA Backed Google Plots Global Tyranny

From here:

As far-fetched as it may seem, the alphabet company Google is looking more and more like the CIA front organization some people claim it is.



Check out this headline from today’s edition of The Intercept:

“WORLD’S LEADING HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS TELL GOOGLE TO CANCEL ITS CHINA CENSORSHIP PLAN”

What business does an internet search engine company have with the leadership of a foreign power which also happens to be an enemy of the United States? According to top human rights groups like Amnesty International, they want to sell the Chinese “a censored version of its search engine” in order to “violate the freedom of expression and privacy rights of millions of internet users in the country.”

The history of the company is strange. Those of us old enough to remember Google’s launch in 1998 may also recall that the fledgling newcomer to the internet search engine business was rich enough to take out full-page newspaper ads flaunting its competitive superiority. It was clear from the outset that Google meant to dominate market share.

Up until that time, America Online (AOL) was the only online corporation with a sophisticated promotional campaign that included mailing so many free installation disks that folks began to use them for drink coasters. 1998 was the same year Microsoft renamed their ISP (internet service provider) service from The Microsoft Network to MSN Internet Access and began to push the MSN brand. However, the company was still figuring out how to market online services effectively.

Not so with Google. Within a month or two of launching their media marketing blitz, the nation began to use the company’s name as a substitute for the phrase “to search online” – and still does. This writer had never seen such rapid mind-control programming regarding the tech sector and was concerned about who was behind the instant institutionalization of Google.

Please understand that, as a search engine, the Google product was far better than its competition. Google announced proudly its intention to build algorithms (programmed instructions that tell a computer what to do or how to solve specific problems) to add “semantics” to online searching. Using context as well as keyword matching when evaluating online queries (searches), the new search engine would be able to outperform all the other web robots tasked with “spidering” the World Wide Web – crawling around it, figuratively speaking, looking for content to analyze.

Compared to W3Catalog (the very first search engine), Aliweb, Infoseek, Webcrawler, Altavista, Lycos, and Ask Jeeves (renamed Ask.com), Google delivered the goods as useful links to online content in response to all kinds of questions and searches.

But recent news headlines confirm the creepy feeling that Google is not a user-friendly organization.

Consider this from Infowars – the alternative media news source that so threatens the mainstream narrative that all the major social media platforms banned it last week:

“YOUTUBE MEDDLES IN SWEDISH ELECTION BY DELETING RIGHT-WING CONTENT – Massive censorship just 13 days before the vote”

Guess who owns YouTube, the dominating international self-publishing platform for video content? Starts with a ‘G’ and rhymes with ‘oogle,’ that’s who. Joining the ranks of media controllers who have instructions from the intelligence community to silence the noisiest dissenters, YouTube executives are parroting the trendy and oh-so-politically-correct accusation of hate speech to target and neutralize opposing views.

Recently, according to Infowars:

“A satirical cartoon video that lampooned Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was deleted within two hours after YouTube deemed it to contain ‘hateful’ content. The short film, entitled ‘To Make it Right,’ made fun out of numerous Swedish politicians for their obsession with being politically correct. Apparently, this now qualifies as hate speech in the Scandinavian country.”

Last July, thirteen days before the Swedish elections, YouTube deleted and then restored the entire video channel operated by a right-wing political party called Alternative for Sweden. In response, Alternative for Sweden called the episode a “complete scandal” in a tweet that continued:

“YouTube is again on the offensive and censors all options for Sweden’s video clips.”

In early August 2018, YouTube summarily deleted a video on the Sweden Democrats channel which linked the Social Democrats party to the Nazi regime. Again, the charge from the social media controller was hate speech contained in the historical fact-based report. An indignant tweet from the Swedish Dems read:

“For two days our documentary on the history of the Social Democrats was published on YouTube. In a short amount of time the footage received 190,000 views before it was removed. We are waiting for an explanation.”

It turns out that Google was the brainchild of the U.S. intelligence community who envisioned a future internet that would no longer be free (as it was in the late 1990s), but controlled by government forces with the ability to block user access, limit content, and track people online.

The partnering of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) with the brightest brains in computer science was, from the start, a dark, Orwellian plot. According to Jeff Nesbit, writing for Quartz late last year:

“The intelligence community hoped that the nation’s leading computer scientists could take non-classified information and user data, combine it with what would become known as the internet, and begin to create for-profit, commercial enterprises to suit the needs of both the intelligence community and the public. They hoped to direct the supercomputing revolution from the start in order to make sense of what millions of human beings did inside this digital information network. That collaboration has made a comprehensive public-private mass surveillance state possible today.”

The problem Google solved was not how to collect vast amounts of personal user information, but how to make meaningful sense out of it all. The military mindset realized that scientific problem solvers held the key to ruling the internet and turning it into a fascist tool against the common good.

Consider how far we’ve come from the first CIA/NSA briefing with top university computer scientists in 1995. The intelligence community had already conceived their goal: to take all data available and sort it into meaningful categories to group people by their online activities, interests and purchases.

According to Nesbit, in early 1995, the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose, California (part of the new Silicon Valley) hosted the “Birds of a Feather Session on the Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems” unclassified briefing. The Deep State operatives wanted a digital fingerprint tracking system so they posed this challenge to the geeks:


“Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could ‘birds of a feather’ be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?”

The short answer is yes.

From digital fingerprint scans into a national (or global) database, citizens have lost their right to privacy in so many other known ways: notably, as disclosed in 2013 by insider whistle-blower Edward Snowden, the NSA illegally began to collect all private user data to store away for future analysis, if and should the perceived need arise. They still do.

In fact, both aisles of Congress passed a bill to renew both the NSA’s Prism and Upstream programs on to President Trump for his final approval. These programs spy on internet traffic of foreigners outside the United States. However, some incidental data is also collected on unwitting U.S. citizens who communicate with NSA-targeted foreigners.

Although Operations Prism and Upstream involve blatant civil rights violations, both programs are legally authorized and warranted. How exactly does that work again?

Nesbit observed:

“It almost seems like mass global surveillance of the internet isn’t controversial in the US anymore.”


Google is helping China and Japan perfect their choke-hold surveillance state systems. Britain and the United States are well on their way in this direction. You can bet other nations will follow, creating a network of global media tyranny, the ultimate tool to spread statist propaganda and suppress all opposing voices.


Friday, August 31, 2018

Use of Swearing & Profanity is a Sign of High Intelligence and Honesty!

From here and here and here:




main article image
Jared eberhardt/Flickr

Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists

You're damn right.

RICHARD STEPHENS, THE CONVERSATION
2 FEB 2017

The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.

Studies have shown, however, that swearing may in fact display a more, rather than less, intelligent use of language.

While swearing can become a habit, we choose to swear in different contexts and for different purposes: for linguistic effect, to convey emotion, for laughs, or perhaps even to be deliberately nasty.
Psychologists interested in when and why people swear try to look past the stereotype that swearing is the language of the unintelligent and illiterate.

In fact, a study by psychologists from Marist College found links between how fluent a person is in the English language and how fluent they are in swearing.

The former - verbal fluency - can be measured by asking volunteers to think of as many words beginning with a certain letter of the alphabet as they can in 1 minute.

People with greater language skills can generally think of more examples in the allotted time. Based on this approach, the researchers created the swearing fluency task. This task requires volunteers to list as many different swear words as they can think of in 1 minute.

By comparing scores from both the verbal and swearing fluency tasks, it was found that the people who scored highest on the verbal fluency test also tended to do best on the swearing fluency task. The weakest in the verbal fluency test also did poorly on the swearing fluency task.

What this correlation suggests is that swearing isn’t simply a sign of language poverty, lack of general vocabulary, or low intelligence.

Instead, swearing appears to be a feature of language that an articulate speaker can use in order to communicate with maximum effectiveness. And actually, some uses of swearing go beyond just communication.




Natural pain relief

Research we conducted involved asking volunteers to hold their hand in iced water for as long as they could tolerate, while repeating a swear word.
The same set of participants underwent the iced water test on a separate occasion, but this time they repeated a neutral, non-swear word. The heart rate of both sets of participants was monitored.
What we found was that those who swore withstood the pain of the ice-cold water for longer, rated it as less painful, and showed a greater increase in heart rate when compared to those who repeated a neutral word.

This suggests they had an emotional response to swearing and an activation of the fight or flight response: a natural defence mechanism that not only releases adrenalin and quickens the pulse, but also includes a natural pain relief known as stress-induced analgesia.

This research was inspired by the birth of my daughter when my wife swore profusely during agonising contractions. The midwives were surprisingly unfazed, and told us that swearing is a normal and common occurrence during childbirth - perhaps for reasons similar to our iced water study.

Two-way emotional relationship

We wanted to further investigate how swearing and emotion are linked. Our most recent study aimed to assess the opposite of the original research, so instead of looking at whether swearing induced emotion in the speaker we examined whether emotion could cause an increase in swearing fluency.
Participants were asked to play a first person shooter video game in order to generate emotional arousal in the laboratory. They played for ten minutes, during which they explored a virtual environment and fought and shot at a variety of enemies.

We found that this was a successful way to arouse emotions, since the participants reported feeling more aggressive afterwards when compared with those who played a golf video game.

Next, the participants undertook the swearing fluency task. As predicted, the participants who played the shooting game were able to list a greater number of swear words than those who played the golf game.

This confirms a two-way relationship between swearing and emotion. Not only can swearing provoke an emotional response, as shown with the iced water study, but emotional arousal can also facilitate greater swearing fluency.

What this collection of studies shows is that there is more to swearing than simply causing offence, or a lack of verbal hygiene. Language is a sophisticated toolkit, and swearing is a part of it.

Unsurprisingly, many of the final words of pilots killed in air-crashes captured on the 'black box' flight recorder feature swearing. And this emphasises a crucial point, that swearing must be important given its prominence in matters of life and death.

The fact is that the size of your vocabulary of swear words is linked with your overall vocabulary, and swearing is inextricably linked to the experience and expression of feelings and emotions.

The Conversation
Richard Stephens, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Keele University
This article was originally published by The Conversation. Read the original article.


=======



Study finds links between swearing and honesty

January 16, 2017, University of Cambridge
Study finds links between swearing and honesty

It's long been associated with anger and coarseness but profanity can have another, more positive connotation. Psychologists have learned that people who frequently curse are being more honest. 

Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception.

Profanity is obscene language which, in some social settings is considered inappropriate and unacceptable. It often refers to language that contains sexual references, blasphemy or other vulgar terms. It's usually related to the expression of emotions such as anger, frustration or surprise. But profanity can also be used to entertain and win over audiences.

There are conflicting attitudes to profanity and its social impact has changed over the decades. In 1939, Clark Gable uttering the memorable line "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" in the film Gone with the Wind, was enough to land the producers a $5,000 fine. Nowadays our movies, TV shows and books are peppered with profane words and, for the most part, we are more tolerant of them.

As dishonesty and profanity are both considered deviant they are often viewed as evidence of low moral standards. On the other hand, profanity can be positively associated with honesty. It is often used to express unfiltered feelings and sincerity. The researchers cite the example of President-elect Donald Trump who used swear words in some of his speeches while campaigning in last year's US election and was considered, by some, to be more genuine than his rivals.



It's long been associated with anger and coarseness but profanity can have another, more positive connotation. Psychologists have learned that people who frequently curse are being more honest. Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception.


Profanity is obscene language which, in some social settings is considered inappropriate and unacceptable. It often refers to language that contains sexual references, blasphemy or other vulgar terms. It's usually related to the expression of emotions such as anger, frustration or surprise. But profanity can also be used to entertain and win over audiences.

There are conflicting attitudes to profanity and its social impact has changed over the decades. In 1939, Clark Gable uttering the memorable line "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" in the film Gone with the Wind, was enough to land the producers a $5,000 fine. Nowadays our movies, TV shows and books are peppered with profane words and, for the most part, we are more tolerant of them.
As dishonesty and profanity are both considered deviant they are often viewed as evidence of low moral standards. On the other hand, profanity can be positively associated with honesty. It is often used to express unfiltered feelings and sincerity. The researchers cite the example of President-elect Donald Trump who used swear words in some of his speeches while campaigning in last year's US election and was considered, by some, to be more genuine than his rivals.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-links-honesty.html#jCp



Study finds links between swearing and honesty



January 16, 2017, University of Cambridge


Study finds links between swearing and honesty
Credit: debaird
It's long been associated with anger and coarseness but profanity can have another, more positive connotation. Psychologists have learned that people who frequently curse are being more honest. Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception.
Profanity is obscene language which, in some social settings is considered inappropriate and unacceptable. It often refers to language that contains sexual references, blasphemy or other vulgar terms. It's usually related to the expression of emotions such as anger, frustration or surprise. But profanity can also be used to entertain and win over audiences.
There are conflicting attitudes to profanity and its social impact has changed over the decades. In 1939, Clark Gable uttering the memorable line "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" in the film Gone with the Wind, was enough to land the producers a $5,000 fine. Nowadays our movies, TV shows and books are peppered with profane words and, for the most part, we are more tolerant of them.
As dishonesty and profanity are both considered deviant they are often viewed as evidence of low moral standards. On the other hand, profanity can be positively associated with honesty. It is often used to express unfiltered feelings and sincerity. The researchers cite the example of President-elect Donald Trump who used swear words in some of his speeches while campaigning in last year's US election and was considered, by some, to be more genuine than his rivals.
Credit: University of Cambridge
Dr David Stillwell, a lecturer in Big Data Analytics at the University of Cambridge, and a co-author on the paper, says: "The relationship between profanity and dishonesty is a tricky one. Swearing is often inappropriate but it can also be evidence that someone is telling you their honest opinion. Just as they aren't filtering their language to be more palatable, they're also not filtering their views. "
The international team of researchers set out to gauge people's views about this sort of language in a series of questionnaires which included interactions with social media users.
In the first questionnaire 276 participants were asked to list their most commonly used and favourite swear words. They were also asked to rate their reasons for using these words and then took part in a lie test to determine whether they were being truthful or simply responding in the way they thought was socially acceptable. Those who wrote down a higher number of curse words were less likely to be lying.
A second survey involved collecting data from 75,000 Facebook users to measure their use of in their online social interactions. The research found that those who used more profanity were also more likely to use language patterns that have been shown in previous research to be related to honesty, such as using pronouns like "I" and "me". The Facebook users were recruited from across the United States and their responses highlight the differing views to profanity that exist between different geographical areas. For example, those in the north-eastern states (such as Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and New York) were more likely to swear whereas people were less likely to in the southern states (South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi).
More information: Gilad Feldman et al "Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty" DOI: 10.1177/1948550616681055, PDF: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/profanity.pdf



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-links-honesty.html#jCp



Study finds links between swearing and honesty

January 16, 2017, University of Cambridge



Study finds links between swearing and honesty
Credit: debaird
It's long been associated with anger and coarseness but profanity can have another, more positive connotation. Psychologists have learned that people who frequently curse are being more honest. Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception.
Profanity is obscene language which, in some social settings is considered inappropriate and unacceptable. It often refers to language that contains sexual references, blasphemy or other vulgar terms. It's usually related to the expression of emotions such as anger, frustration or surprise. But profanity can also be used to entertain and win over audiences.
There are conflicting attitudes to profanity and its social impact has changed over the decades. In 1939, Clark Gable uttering the memorable line "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" in the film Gone with the Wind, was enough to land the producers a $5,000 fine. Nowadays our movies, TV shows and books are peppered with profane words and, for the most part, we are more tolerant of them.
As dishonesty and profanity are both considered deviant they are often viewed as evidence of low moral standards. On the other hand, profanity can be positively associated with honesty. It is often used to express unfiltered feelings and sincerity. The researchers cite the example of President-elect Donald Trump who used swear words in some of his speeches while campaigning in last year's US election and was considered, by some, to be more genuine than his rivals.
Credit: University of Cambridge
Dr David Stillwell, a lecturer in Big Data Analytics at the University of Cambridge, and a co-author on the paper, says: "The relationship between profanity and dishonesty is a tricky one. Swearing is often inappropriate but it can also be evidence that someone is telling you their honest opinion. Just as they aren't filtering their language to be more palatable, they're also not filtering their views. "
The international team of researchers set out to gauge people's views about this sort of language in a series of questionnaires which included interactions with social media users.
In the first questionnaire 276 participants were asked to list their most commonly used and favourite swear words. They were also asked to rate their reasons for using these words and then took part in a lie test to determine whether they were being truthful or simply responding in the way they thought was socially acceptable. Those who wrote down a higher number of curse words were less likely to be lying.
A second survey involved collecting data from 75,000 Facebook users to measure their use of in their online social interactions. The research found that those who used more profanity were also more likely to use language patterns that have been shown in previous research to be related to honesty, such as using pronouns like "I" and "me". The Facebook users were recruited from across the United States and their responses highlight the differing views to profanity that exist between different geographical areas. For example, those in the north-eastern states (such as Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and New York) were more likely to swear whereas people were less likely to in the southern states (South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi).
More information: Gilad Feldman et al "Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty" DOI: 10.1177/1948550616681055, PDF: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/profanity.pdf



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-links-honesty.html#jCp



Study finds links between swearing and honesty

January 16, 2017, University of Cambridge



Study finds links between swearing and honesty
Credit: debaird
It's long been associated with anger and coarseness but profanity can have another, more positive connotation. Psychologists have learned that people who frequently curse are being more honest. Writing in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science a team of researchers from the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong report that people who use profanity are less likely to be associated with lying and deception.
Profanity is obscene language which, in some social settings is considered inappropriate and unacceptable. It often refers to language that contains sexual references, blasphemy or other vulgar terms. It's usually related to the expression of emotions such as anger, frustration or surprise. But profanity can also be used to entertain and win over audiences.
There are conflicting attitudes to profanity and its social impact has changed over the decades. In 1939, Clark Gable uttering the memorable line "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" in the film Gone with the Wind, was enough to land the producers a $5,000 fine. Nowadays our movies, TV shows and books are peppered with profane words and, for the most part, we are more tolerant of them.
As dishonesty and profanity are both considered deviant they are often viewed as evidence of low moral standards. On the other hand, profanity can be positively associated with honesty. It is often used to express unfiltered feelings and sincerity. The researchers cite the example of President-elect Donald Trump who used swear words in some of his speeches while campaigning in last year's US election and was considered, by some, to be more genuine than his rivals.
Credit: University of Cambridge
Dr David Stillwell, a lecturer in Big Data Analytics at the University of Cambridge, and a co-author on the paper, says: "The relationship between profanity and dishonesty is a tricky one. Swearing is often inappropriate but it can also be evidence that someone is telling you their honest opinion. Just as they aren't filtering their language to be more palatable, they're also not filtering their views. "
The international team of researchers set out to gauge people's views about this sort of language in a series of questionnaires which included interactions with social media users.
In the first questionnaire 276 participants were asked to list their most commonly used and favourite swear words. They were also asked to rate their reasons for using these words and then took part in a lie test to determine whether they were being truthful or simply responding in the way they thought was socially acceptable. Those who wrote down a higher number of curse words were less likely to be lying.
A second survey involved collecting data from 75,000 Facebook users to measure their use of in their online social interactions. The research found that those who used more profanity were also more likely to use language patterns that have been shown in previous research to be related to honesty, such as using pronouns like "I" and "me". The Facebook users were recruited from across the United States and their responses highlight the differing views to profanity that exist between different geographical areas. For example, those in the north-eastern states (such as Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and New York) were more likely to swear whereas people were less likely to in the southern states (South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi).
More information: Gilad Feldman et al "Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty" DOI: 10.1177/1948550616681055, PDF: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/profanity.pdf



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-links-honesty.html#jCp


Dr David Stillwell, a lecturer in Big Data Analytics at the University of Cambridge, and a co-author on the paper, says: "The relationship between profanity and dishonesty is a tricky one. Swearing is often inappropriate but it can also be evidence that someone is telling you their honest opinion. Just as they aren't filtering their language to be more palatable, they're also not filtering their views. "

The international team of researchers set out to gauge people's views about this sort of language in a series of questionnaires which included interactions with social media users.

In the first questionnaire 276 participants were asked to list their most commonly used and favourite
swear words. They were also asked to rate their reasons for using these words and then took part in a lie test to determine whether they were being truthful or simply responding in the way they thought was socially acceptable. Those who wrote down a higher number of curse words were less likely to be lying.

A second survey involved collecting data from 75,000 Facebook users to measure their use of swear words in their online social interactions. The research found that those who used more profanity were also more likely to use language patterns that have been shown in previous research to be related to honesty, such as using pronouns like "I" and "me". The Facebook users were recruited from across the United States and their responses highlight the differing views to profanity that exist between different geographical areas. For example, those in the north-eastern states (such as Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and New York) were more likely to swear whereas people were less likely to in the southern states (South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi).

=======

Swearing Is A Sign Of Honesty, Says Science

Image via Shutterstock

New study shows that swearing is associated with honesty

Let’s start with the obvious: parents fucking swear. We swear in our heads. We swear out loud. We swear when we’re out with friends, on social media, and sometimes in front of our kids. We all do at some point or another. In fact, if  you’ve never uttered a profanity in your shiny pristine life, you’re a lying liar. Sweary people are honest people.  Science says so.

Science already told us that swearing is a sign of intelligence, and we’re not fucking our kids up if we drop a dammit in front of them now and then. We’re tired of being told to talk like a lady, and our love for a well-placed eff bomb is just who we are. We might not have needed another reason to embrace our sweary sides and let go of some guilt, yet here we have it. Because science kicks ass.

In a two-part study titled “Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty,” – which is just about the best name for a study ever – researchers from the Universities of Hong Kong, Stanford, Cambridge and Maastricht looked at the swearing habits of 276 participants and assessed how honest they were in various situations. They found that while liars typically prefer third-person pronouns and negative words in their speech, honest people are more likely to swear. In other words, the most honest people in the study also cussed the most.

The second part of the study involved testing these findings in a real life social context. Enter Facebook. After looking at the Facebook status updates of more than 73,000 people, they came to the same conclusion: honesty was associated with swearing.

“The consistent findings across the studies suggest that the positive relation between profanity and honesty is robust, and that the relationship found at the individual level indeed translates to the society level,” said the study.

According to The Independent, the researchers also found that people were much more likely to swear as a way of expressing themselves and their emotions, instead of swearing to be anti-social or harmful to other people. In other words, we swear because this is who are, not because we want to piss anyone off.

Last year, science told us it’s okay if we swear in front of our kids. A few years ago, science also told us that swearing is a sign of intelligence, and we all know swearing is the only appropriate response to the myriad shitastrophes that come along with parenting and life in general. Because when the shit hits the fan, a goshdarnit or jerkface just doesn’t come close to a dammit all to hell or douchey asshat. Not to mention swearing is empowering AF, and few mantras are as motivating as a boldly stated as Fuck. This. Shit.

We didn’t need another reason to give the pearl clutchers the middle finger and embrace our sweary badassery. Swearing is reward enough. It feels great and it’s fun as hell. A few weeks ago, my son asked me if he could give me the middle finger “just to see how it feels.” Sure, I said, and he cautiously flipped me off.

“This feels so GOOD!” he giggled. Of course it does. I agreed with him and our entire family spent ten minutes giving each other the middle finger and laughing our asses off. It was the most fun we had all week, because sometimes swearing is just what you need.

So while not everyone embraces their inner swearyness, those of us who do cuss like a motherfucker can rest assured that it’s not only a sign of intelligence, but also a sign of honesty.

And if you say otherwise, well, you’re probably lying.


h/t Medical Daily
More information: Gilad Feldman et al "Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty" DOI: 10.1177/1948550616681055, PDF: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/profanity.pdf



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-links-honesty.html#jCp

Monday, August 27, 2018

Was Jeff Sessions Compromised by the Mueller Coup?

From here:

Opinion: Is Jeff Sessions a Player in the Mueller Coup?