What the bleep does my psychology class know?

Perhaps she’s spent the entire semester building up to this point. She’s not really displayed much skepticism so far (remember why she like evolutionary psychology?)

Daniel

Tch, Daniel, Daniel, Daniel. Why are you so rigid? Why do you refuse to open yourself to other avenues of exploring the vast frontier that is the human mind? Why, oh WHY are you taking this class exactly? :stuck_out_tongue:
Aside from being stuck with a new-agey, learn-through-love professor, you’re also going to have to go through the requisite six months of amateur psychoanalysis by a bunch of freshmen eager to pick the brain of everyone within a two foot radius. Wouldn’t they let you take a more advanced class?

Heh. Taking the class so they’ll let me be a teacher, no more, no less. I coulda taken Psych 102 instead, but that was mainly dealing with relationships, and the idea of talking about relationships for a semester with freshmen…[shudder].

On the bright side, because it’s primarily a Powerpoint class, there’s very little pop-psychoanalysis from my classmates. If they’ve got opinions about anything, I’ve not heard them.

Okay. Off to the gym, then the movie, where the rigid parameters of my wrinkled little brain will be blown apart.

Daniel

You might want to keep your protons in a lead box.

You could always secretly record the lecture and send the tape to Bill O’Reilly. :smiley:

Here’s the Skeptical Inquirer review of it, if that helps.

I guess you’ll find out how threatened she is by opposing viewpoints.

Fight stupid with stupid. I like the sound of that.

This is the same John Hagelin who has proposed a Vedic shield to protect us all from terrorism and who has unsuccessfully run for president on the “Natural Law” party ticket.

I think the Brahma Astra and Brahma Danda are as cool as the next Sanskrit enthusiast, but gee whiz.

Show her a paycheck displaying money earned through hard work. See if it’s invisible.

I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that funny before. I almost didn’t see it.

Without offering any viewpoint on this particular film, I must say, from the tone of your post, you do sound just a little bit threatened. :cool:

OK, take quantum mechanics. If it were true that people couldn’t see something that doesn’t fit into their preconceived paradigm, then how would scientists see the experimental results that told them that classical physics was inadequate and a new theory of quantum mechanics was needed to explain what they were seeing?

Going further back, how would Galileo have discovered the moons of Jupiter? Those were certainly outside the paradigm of astronomy at that time. How would Kepler have discovered that planetary orbits were elliptical from Tycho Brahe’s data? Not only were circular orbits engrained in the paradigm of astronomy at the time, Kepler himself very much wanted to believe in them.

For that matter, how could anyone ever discover anything new if that were the case?

If someone says that Europeans are somehow different, you should call them on their racism. Why would Europeans be able to see things that they think shouldn’t exist, but other people can’t do that?

“Lost continent” myths can be and have been used to justify racism, by the way. It’s a simple matter of saying that all culture came from Atlantis or Mu or whatever, and then saying that your preferred racial group has more Atlantean/whatever (Muian?) blood than other groups, or had more cultural contact with the lost continent before it sank (or whatever). Be on the lookout for stuff like that in this movie, and bring it up in the subsequent discussion if you find any good examples.

I think you are in for a big whoosh on monday. The class is about perception, not about the “science” in the movie.

Wait… If LHoD hasn’t ever seen junk science of that sort before, the movie might be invisible!

Ha ha. Does your dictionary list “irritated” as a synonym for “threatened”? She’s wasting my tuition.

The movie was, in a word, bollocks.

The good:
A lot of it was beautifully filmed. Some of what they said actually did make sense (e.g., they talked about how the brain creates new pathways to handle common traffic such as certain emotional patterns and destroys some unused circuitry; this is interesting, reasonably accurate, and relevant to their thesis). And I nearly peed my pants when Armin Shimerman (Quark from Deep Space Nine, Principal Snyder from Buffy) showed up out of nowhere to impart cosmic wisdom.

The bad:
People’s accreditation was listed only at the end of the movie, so you don’t know on what basis people are making their claims. David Albert really is used out of context–I’d be furious if I were him or the only other legitimate scientist who appeared in the movie. And Ramtha, for the love of Christ, appears ubiquitously in the movie–her accent is hilarious when you know she’s a New Mexico girl pretending to be a thirty-five-thousand-year-old spirit from Lemuria.

The visual graphics for peptides and cells are really, really embarrassingly bad. The science around cells as the most basic level of consciousness was ridiculous (while that idea could be true in some respects, it was patently absurd in the way that they meant it). The use of “addiction” to describe essentially all human behaviour was creepy. Their constant attacks on organized religion was offensive, especially considering that one of the main attackers was an ex-priest who left the church after accusations of having sex with underage members of the congregation (something conveniently left out of the movie).

I was willing to grant them leeway on the Columbus-and-the-Indians story, but considering the Italian guy they got to play the Taino and the feathered headdress they had him in (no, seriously), I’m not so much about the leeway. It was paternalistic and obnoxious.

And the claims about the links between quantum physics and consciousness are really as bad as you’ve heard. Their theory suggests (although they don’t mention any hard cases like this one) that the million or so Rwandans who died in the recent genocide all chose to be slaughtered, that people who are raped chose to be raped, that AIDS victims choose their slow, lingering deaths. It’s a mighty convenient philosophy for a bunch of well-off Americans to have.

Yucky movie.
Daniel

If the professor is doing a completely whacked out version of the course, it will bear examining the curruiculum/syllabus for the course.

IMHO, any collegiate class that uses class time for … movies … is an abuse of time. Assign the media to be consumed outside of class, use class to discuss/critique/jabber/de-construct/whatever.

Having said that, what does this movie have to do with psychology? Shouldn’t a General Psych 101 course deal with Jung, Skinner and people like that? Behavioural versus Cognitive ?

We have been dealing with those. Her claim is that “This is a somewhat controversial film from the point of view of Quantum Physics. . . . this is not a
film you have to watch, or you have to believe, but for those of you looking for a stimulating approach to perception, I think you’ll find it worthwhile.”

Yeah, not so much.

As I said earlier, the textbook is really pretty good, if a bit basic (but then, it’s Psych 101; it should be basic). The material we’re covering is, for the most part, not bad. But the way we cover it sucks.

I may end up going to someone in charge about this. It’s certainly not making me happy.

Daniel

If she wanted to teach us about perception, she only needed to show us this. (This link will only be good till Friday; if it doesn’t make sense, surf back to “Leaf-Eyed Sons of Bitches”)

Daniel

That should have been your first clue. PP has it’s place, but it’s so fucking overused and dependant upon for shirking actual interactive teaching in shools and business that it’s become a joke upon itself.

I’ve never heard of this film, but based on the responses I’m getting a feel for it. I do have one honest question, though. And this isn’t to start a war with anyone. Isn’t a University education touted as exposure to different ideas and beleifs? Even ones you’re fundamentally against? If you go into the classroom convinced of something and something else is presented that doesn’t mesh, isn’t that part of the exposure to the world?

Again, I’m not starting anything here. Just wondering if that should be something to consider.

Hell, tell her you thought the course was about a perceptive approach to stimulation, and you are kind of anxious to get started.

In my experience (maybe three times) when I had instructors who simply Were All Fucked Up I ended up going as far as the Dean of Students, who agreed with me. My remedy? I was allowed to drop the course without penalty. It is hard to get them to admit they have a substandard teacher out there. Good luck.