The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Facebook conducting SECRET EXPERIMENTS on users.« on: July 02, 2014, 05:16:47 pm »
sorry if I caused any of it, it was honestly not my intent
TESTEMONAIL: Right and Discordianism allows room for personal interpretation. You have your theories and I have mine. Unlike Christianity, Discordia allows room for ideas and opinions, and mine is well-informed and based on ancient philosophy and theology, so, my neo-Discordian friends, open your minds to my interpretation and I will open my mind to yours. That's fair enough, right? Just claiming to be discordian should mean that your mind is open and willing to learn and share ideas. You guys are fucking bashing me and your laughing at my theologies and my friends know what's up and are laughing at you and honestly this is my last shot at putting a label on my belief structure and your making me lose all hope of ever finding a ideological group I can relate to because you don't even know what the fuck I'm talking about and everything I have said is based on the founding principals of real Discordianism. Expand your mind.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Then what do you call "power is subtle and all pervasive and there is nothing we can do to effect it"?
QuoteThat time has passed. The current mode of power cannot be altered via beheadings like a sovereign power could. There will never be another guillotine style revolution in the west, and the reasons for that are buried in the French and American revolutions.
This is where this viewpoint becomes pure evil. When I said "dont worry about power" I was wording my point bad. My point is that the system does have a pervasive and subtle effect on us, but everyone lives in a system with similar effects on them. Humans self organize into big systems like this, on pretty much every continent on the planet fuckhuge systems like ours have arised. Zulus, Romans, Aztecs, Imperial Japan, Mongolia, its pretty safe to say that this is human nature. Humans are designed to organize into groups, what Foucalt is doing is drawing a false semantic connection between this natural self organizing tendency and concrete power by giving them the same name. He then proceeds to assume that because you cant get rid of one(which again, is like complaining you cant get rid of the weather. Even if we could destroy the current system completely people would just make another one.) you cant alter the other.
Thats where I call shenanigans. You can alter power, you just have to take a different route than before the French and American Revolutions. Naturally different systems manifest power in different ways. If you cant just kill the assholes in charge to change things then why the fuck did they kill Kennedy and MLK? The difference between this system and the old system is that power just isnt well labeled. It doesnt wear and a crown, and most importantly, there is no one person in charge you can behead. Our system is a monument to Humanities ability to build things so complicated probably no one can understand it. But you can still effect it in meaningful ways, which is what the people in concrete positions of power are doing right now. They dont have absolute control, no one does, even the old kings didnt or they wouldnt have been beheaded, but they can effect things.
Concrete power is real and it can be changed. Focusing on the "subtle and pervasive" aspects of power is a losing life script. Its worrying about things that you probably dont have much power over while lumping in things you can meaningfully change in with them. This is a deadly feedback loop, because youll keep focusing on how "power" manifests in the little interactions you have with people and your trips to the grocery store ect ect and youll see how you cant really meaningfully effect it. Then because youve lumped concrete power under the same general label of "power" youll say "See, theres nothing I can do to change power." And youll have a constant source of feedback reinforcing this worldview where you are powerless. Foucalts whole argument is a sleight of hand and its just plain evil on top of that.
Seriously, dont trust the French.
And really, the idea that power manifests in "every interaction we have" is horseshit. Of course we are all effected by the system, thats because we are all a part of it. Theres no point worrying yourself to death because the system has a certain degree of influence on you, everything you come in contact with has influence on you. All the people that make up your social circle have influence on you, theatens have an influence on you, fucking solar flares have an influence on you. You arent an alien visiting this universe in a hermetically sealed spacesuit made of skin. Youre rolling around in it like a pig, youre breathing it in every second, youre balls deep in this motherfucker.
There will always be power, and there will always be systems of power that organize people en mass. Thats just what humans do. Dont worry about it. Chillax. Stressing about it is like stressing out over the weather. Sometimes the weather fucks you, but you just do what you can to deal with it, you dont agonize over the fact that weather exists. Dont stress over the system you live in. Deal with it.
Anyone who thinks that we really really need investment bankers deserves a guillotine. Currently it is against the law to lob the heads off of idiots, but there will come a time for that. If not now, later.
I don't think you read the articles Cain or I posted... whether there actually is a Facebook IRB is in doubt, and if there is, it profoundly fails to live up to the ethical standards set by the single largest health science research funding agency in the world.
Further, the questions being raised, and specifically the phrasing of my own objection, concerns whether the way they went about conducting the research is ethical (by current generally-accepted standards) and whether it has high potential to foster public distrust of social science research.
Being published does not endorse the ethics of the research, and it certainly does nothing to mitigate the damage done to the research community by irresponsible and unethical researchers. A major paper was published from the Tuskegee experiment.
It's adorable that you think I don't know what I'm talking about, though.
Who hasn’t sent a text message saying “I’m on my way” when it wasn’t true or fudged the truth a touch in their online dating profile? But Jeff Hancock doesn’t believe that the anonymity of the internet encourages dishonesty. In fact, he says the searchability and permanence of information online may even keep us honest.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/even-the-editor-of-facebooks-mood-study-thought-it-was-creepy/373649/QuoteEven Susan Fiske, the professor of psychology at Princeton University who edited the study for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of America, had doubts when the research first crossed her desk.
"I was concerned," she told me in a phone interview, "until I queried the authors and they said their local institutional review board had approved it—and apparently on the grounds that Facebook apparently manipulates people's News Feeds all the time... I understand why people have concerns. I think their beef is with Facebook, really, not the research."
But, as The Atlantic, in a rare act of investigative journalism, points out:QuoteBut there seems to be a question of whether Facebook actually went through an IRB. In a Facebook post on Sunday, study author Adam Kramer referenced "internal review practices." A Forbes report, citing an unnamed source, said that Facebook only used an internal review. When I asked Fiske to clarify, she told me the researchers' "revision letter said they had Cornell IRB approval as a 'pre-existing dataset' presumably from FB, who seems to have reviewed it as well in some unspecified way... Under IRB regulations, pre-existing dataset would have been approved previously and someone is just analyzing data already collected, often by someone else."
yep. we all gave informed consent in the user agreement.
Not in a sense any Institutional Review Board would recognize or accept as ethical. And very clearly not in any way the NIH would consider ethical. Obviously, Facebook isn't held to NIH standards, but still, performing mood manipulation experiments on a population that could not by any reasonable expectation be considered properly informed or to have given actual consent is shitty and unethical.