So, to clarify, I’m the only one here who thinks that beaver shots of toddlers is probably worth investigating?
Describing bath time pictures of toddlers as “beaver shots” says more about you than the parents taking the pics.
Folks, keep an eye on even sven. I’ve got a funny feeling.
Oh no. I certainly think that if you ever see someone in possession of a picture of a baby in which genitalia are visible, you should tackle that person to the ground until the authorities arrive. This is especially true if that baby appears to be in a swimming pool going after a dollar bill, because that is like totally perverse and whatever.
I think for a beaver shot there has to be hair. Am I wrong here?
You completely misunderstood my post which was describing complex thought processes that are much more than intuition or instincts. I thought I wrote it well so which part made you think I was simply talking about intuition?
None of what you quoted says anything, at all, about people thinking their hunches are always correct or flawless, as you stated.
I don’t care if the gym owner thinks I’m being a busy body, over being overly cautious, or thinks I’m a whack job. Truly, I really don’t care. I’m not speaking up for him, I’m speaking up for me. If I’m wrong, and, by watching, he determines as much, no harm no foul. If he thinks I’m the weird one and does zero, also no harm no foul.
No one, anywhere, said or implied that their spidey sense was flawless, only that when they felt it they chose to err on the side of caution.
Jaycee Duggard was located after an alert policewoman followed her spidey sense. Beyond being on the wrong side of the sidewalk, while handing out pamphlets at a uni campus, they were not doing anything overtly wrong, breaking no rules. The policewoman had a courteous exchange with them and they moved along. But she was left with the nagging feeling that ‘something’ wasn’t right, with this family. She couldn’t say what, just a feeling. She took it upon herself to contact his Parole Officer. Mentioning the daughters, she was told he had no daughters. Cops come to trust their gut, just ask one. Doesn’t imply they think their spidey sense flawless.
Should she have spoken up, based on nothing more than a sensation? I answer yes.
Clearly you feel otherwise. The difference is, I’m not pitting you and calling you vile names, or implying I’m casting aspersions on an entire sex.
Fair enough. You described a complicated process of organizing, integrating and interpreting information that occurs without conscious awareness.
-
What term would you apply to this process and in what important ways would it be distinguished from the term intuition?
-
More to the point, why would the validity or accuracy of the outputs of this process not be impacted by biases and misperceptions?
Seriously, get a copy of a book called ‘Blink’, it’s all laid out, with the science references, everything you need.
The photos were described as “exposed genitals” and “provocative poses.” This implies something more explicit than your standard issue “kids in a bathtub” picture. Frankly, I really don’t think it’s appropriate to put open-leg photos of children in any sort of public space, including giving them to photo processors who probably don’t want to unexpectedly look at things that are technically illegal for them to have.
Again, we are talking multiple open-leg suggestively posed picture of children. I don’t see how you wouldn’t investigate that.
There are tons of nudist families and nudist family institutions. But most nudist families have the good taste to not keep large stashes of nude pictures, not to send nude photos of children to strangers, and not to take photos that a casual observer would classify as sexual in terms of genital exposer or pose.
There has to be some line, right? Don’t you think it’s entirely possible that this couple crossed it?
Snap decisions, whether they turn out to be wrong or not, can have some ‘rational’ basis to it that includes past experiences. Every judgment and decision we make, whether it’s quick or measured, is filled with biases that are based on experience. Very few are what we would like to think of as rational or objective. People can’t function without these biases and biases do not necessarily interfere with accuracy of judgement. Studies are now showing that there really is no such thing as separate rational vs. intuitive thought process (if intuitive is defined as something irrational or even supernatural).
BTW, I don’t think anyone here was actually using spidey sense in supernatural terms. At least I wasn’t.
I don’t know what we call it. I still use the word intuitive to mean something irrational because that’s the word we have. Don’t know what to call it. That’s why I liked spidey sense used in this instance.
elbows, can you please start including which poster you are quoting when you quote someone? It makes it much easier for the reader to follow the conversation that way.
Use your intuition.
Blink appears to be a book written by a Canadian journalist.
OVID has most of the science references I need. What I need is for you to specify which of the science references I should refer to to understand your point.
This doesn’t make much sense to me, and my background and current professional experience kind of lends itself to digesting psychological literature. Let me try to probe a couple of key points. First, how could a bias not necessarily interfere with the accuracy of judgment, especially in the context of thought processes occurring outside of consciousness? The process of interference is essentially the definition of bias.
In regards to the matter at hand, certainly you can see that people’s past experiences would change their interpretation of a present experience. Also, certainly you would agree that people vary in their innate dispositions to perceive threat, to perceive social circumstances and social cues, and a number of other cognitive features that would impact how they would interpret the circumstance at hand, particularly at the level of initial gut reaction? All of this means that I don’t get what you are driving at regarding your infusion of snap decisions into the present discussion. It seemed that you were trying to imbue a subconscious process with greater authority via allusion to scientific findings without specifying which.
Perhaps if you could specify which studies in particular should I refer to, I might better understand your point.
The problem is that people using the term are not using an actual term (e.g. intuition, gut feeling) etc, but are using a term that refers to a super power. The former are well-known to people and convey a human experience that others understand to be fallible. Spiderman’s spidey sense, on the other hand, was unerringly accurate, even when he initially thought it was failing him. Thus, it appears to be an attempt to grant special status to an otherwise typically biased process to call it “spidey sense.”
I’m sorry I’ll try to do better.
(You do know I’m fighting an irresistible urge to tell you to use your Xray vision, right?:D)
Apparently you and the Wal-Mart employee think so. The judge who saw the photos apparently disagreed with the “provocative poses” and “beaver shot” appraisal and agreed they were innocuous, after the parents had their kids taken away from them and racked up thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Their actual crimes appear to be making some minimum-wage film developer feel oogy about seeing some little kids with no clothes on, and failing to comprehend just how hysterical and deranged our society has become on this issue.
But, again, the Walmart employee did not take the kids.
Some social worker did. A trained professional with a degree and experience. It is shocking what happened here, but the blame is surely not on the Walmart employee, it’s disingenuous to suggest that he was the weak link in the chain, or somehow caused these events.
In other words the eventual consequences of your actions will never be your fault, because you trust your spidey sense. If you make a false accusation and some other cretin runs with it, thats not your fault. If there is fault to be apportioned, it goes to the person who listened to you, not to you. In fact, you can never be at fault, no matter what you accuse some innocent person of.
Isn’t that convenient.
I don’t know walmart’s employee policy, but something like that, involving the police and filing a report would involve a supervisor or manager at a minimum. It may not have been the tech’s fault, but somewhere between them and the police there was a lot of idiocy going on.
I’m perfectly willing to admit that this case is most likely an example of all the bad things that could happen, happening. While this wouldn’t be the usual result of reporting or acting without evidence, it just shows how easily and how much it can cost people who are even just suspected. So should some common sense and discretion have been used here? Or do you think that losing their children, being hauled into court, having their privacy violated, their reputations ruined, and 75 thousand dollars in legal fees is an appropriate price to pay for listening to spidey sense?