3 ms·

> No. Examining all human behavior under all circumstances is psychology. EVEN torture. Psychology is a science. Or at least tries to be. What you describe is

by Ygg2 2y ago

> No. Examining all human behavior under all circumstances is psychology. EVEN torture. Psychology is a science. Or at least tries to be. What you describe is sadism. > Should've presented this first. You should have investigated Mr. Beast a bit better before coming into this discussion. > There is no reading between the lines. Present evidence. Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Honest question. Because I did, and such behavior is standard practice. Never write anything that's incriminating, only discuss in private. Hell, just read about Google and how engineers were told to not use the M(arket) -word in any written communication. https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/08/07/google-documents-show-taboo-words-antitrust https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/08/07/google-doc... > Rapist? Whatever this guy is, he's not a rapist. Your language is way over the top. Step 1. Please read what I said. Step 2. Don't add words to my sentences. I said SOUNDS LIKE a rapist's mantra. "No means no" is the female anti-rape slogan. What do you get when you negate an anti-rape mantra? A rapist's mantra. ----- That aside, the 'No doesn't mean No' part sounds absolutely Machiavellian for a guidebook for new employees.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
>Psychology is a science. Or at least tries to be. What you describe is sadism. It's a science and observing human behavior is within the lines of that science. It's not formal application but it's observing human behavior nonetheless. >You should have investigated Mr. Beast a bit better before coming into this discussion. I did, found no evidence, and yours is flimsy. >Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Honest question. Because I did, and such behavior is standard practice. Never write anything that's incriminating, only discuss in private. I don't care, without evidence everything is just made up circumstance. The possibility is there but your accusations are more than reading between the lines. The concentration camp thing and rapist comparison are evidence of this. >I said SOUNDS LIKE a rapist's mantra. Sounds like your a child molester and pedophile. See what I did there? I only said you "sound" like that. What I said was an example but if it was a real comparison it's completely over the top and uncalled for. Your comparison was completely uncalled for, "No doesn't mean No" doesn't need to be placed in the context of rape, of course he's saying that in the context of an aggressive hustle culture. >That aside, the 'No doesn't mean No' part sounds absolutely Machiavellian for a guidebook for new employees. He's promoting a hustle culture. I'm not too into that myself. But "Machiavellian" is, again, too over the top.
- Ygg2 2y ago
  > It's a science and observing human behavior is within the lines of that science. That's not science. Science requires, hypothesis and testing, it also requires isolating confounding factors. Reality TVs and Mr. Beast videos aren't that. > I did, found no evidence, and yours is flimsy. Is it? Luckily, there is more, now go and look better. > Sounds like your a child molester and pedophile. See what I did there? Do you mean you're putting words in my mouth? I'm used to it. > Your comparison was completely uncalled for, "No doesn't mean No" doesn't need to be placed in the context of rape, of course he's saying that in the context of an aggressive hustle culture. Seeing the culture/people he surrounded himself with, I'm not sure if that's uncalled-for. But I'm awaiting further proof to make a definite statement. > He's promoting a hustle culture. I'm not too into that myself. But "Machiavellian" is, again, too over the top. 'Ends justify the means' is literally Machiavellian. That guidebook is full of it. Call it hustle, call it A-players, it's the same thing. --- To sum up, you don't know what science is, you don't seem to be able to read between the lines, came into this uninformed and have a nasty tendency to misread and put words I didn't write/commission into my mouth. I'm done here. This is debate with someone who's arguing in bad faith.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    I know what science is, I’m a scientist and I’ve studied the philosophy of science extensively as well. You’re talking about formal science. Therapy and much of the things that take place in psychology aren’t formal. Informal science the lambo show has a question, hypothesis and actual test. It’s just not academic, but the results form legit qualitative data that can be used in a formal presentation if one should so choose. I can read between the lines but choose not to. I have not misread you are the one making comparisons to rape and using examples like “concentration camp” and torture. It is entirely true to say your language is over the top. I’m glad you’re done. But I don’t agree with your accusations at all.
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      Interesting response. > You’re talking about formal science. Therapy and much of the things that take place in psychology aren’t formal. It's not formal. It's the most common definition. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Look, if you can't actually use your theory to predict with any modicum of success, it's not science, it's philosophy. Which isn't bad per se, but it shouldn't be used for any real life application. If you are familiar with psychology, then you are aware of the damage Freud ""theories"" that showed to be extremely unreliable. To me, that's the real danger of mixing philosophy with science. People confuse what they think is correct with reality. According to Aristotelian Philosophy, there are only four elements and you can't disprove it. It's all the 5th element playing tricks on you. > I can read between the lines but choose not to. If you aren't ready to read it with a critical eye, then you'll fall for the PR in it. The point of the newcomer guidebook is to sell new guys on the benefits of organization, and push away people who don't fit that mold. > “concentration camp” and torture That's the extreme point of your statement. And you confirmed it. To me, that crosses several ethic and formalism bridges. Even if it wasn't utterly immoral to do that test, it wouldn't give you any usable knowledge because of confounding factors. > comparisons to rape I made an offhand remark, that it's quite literally the anti-anti-rape slogan. And I discarded that, so why are you still going about it?

by Ygg2 2y ago

ninetyninenine 2y ago

>Psychology is a science. Or at least tries to be. What you describe is sadism. It's a science and observing human behavior is within the lines of that science. It's not formal application but it's observing human behavior nonetheless. >You should have investigated Mr. Beast a bit better before coming into this discussion. I did, found no evidence, and yours is flimsy. >Have you ever worked in a corporate environment? Honest question. Because I did, and such behavior is standard practice. Never write anything that's incriminating, only discuss in private. I don't care, without evidence everything is just made up circumstance. The possibility is there but your accusations are more than reading between the lines. The concentration camp thing and rapist comparison are evidence of this. >I said SOUNDS LIKE a rapist's mantra. Sounds like your a child molester and pedophile. See what I did there? I only said you "sound" like that. What I said was an example but if it was a real comparison it's completely over the top and uncalled for. Your comparison was completely uncalled for, "No doesn't mean No" doesn't need to be placed in the context of rape, of course he's saying that in the context of an aggressive hustle culture. >That aside, the 'No doesn't mean No' part sounds absolutely Machiavellian for a guidebook for new employees. He's promoting a hustle culture. I'm not too into that myself. But "Machiavellian" is, again, too over the top.

Ygg2 2y ago
> It's a science and observing human behavior is within the lines of that science. That's not science. Science requires, hypothesis and testing, it also requires isolating confounding factors. Reality TVs and Mr. Beast videos aren't that. > I did, found no evidence, and yours is flimsy. Is it? Luckily, there is more, now go and look better. > Sounds like your a child molester and pedophile. See what I did there? Do you mean you're putting words in my mouth? I'm used to it. > Your comparison was completely uncalled for, "No doesn't mean No" doesn't need to be placed in the context of rape, of course he's saying that in the context of an aggressive hustle culture. Seeing the culture/people he surrounded himself with, I'm not sure if that's uncalled-for. But I'm awaiting further proof to make a definite statement. > He's promoting a hustle culture. I'm not too into that myself. But "Machiavellian" is, again, too over the top. 'Ends justify the means' is literally Machiavellian. That guidebook is full of it. Call it hustle, call it A-players, it's the same thing. --- To sum up, you don't know what science is, you don't seem to be able to read between the lines, came into this uninformed and have a nasty tendency to misread and put words I didn't write/commission into my mouth. I'm done here. This is debate with someone who's arguing in bad faith.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  I know what science is, I’m a scientist and I’ve studied the philosophy of science extensively as well. You’re talking about formal science. Therapy and much of the things that take place in psychology aren’t formal. Informal science the lambo show has a question, hypothesis and actual test. It’s just not academic, but the results form legit qualitative data that can be used in a formal presentation if one should so choose. I can read between the lines but choose not to. I have not misread you are the one making comparisons to rape and using examples like “concentration camp” and torture. It is entirely true to say your language is over the top. I’m glad you’re done. But I don’t agree with your accusations at all.
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    Interesting response. > You’re talking about formal science. Therapy and much of the things that take place in psychology aren’t formal. It's not formal. It's the most common definition. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Look, if you can't actually use your theory to predict with any modicum of success, it's not science, it's philosophy. Which isn't bad per se, but it shouldn't be used for any real life application. If you are familiar with psychology, then you are aware of the damage Freud ""theories"" that showed to be extremely unreliable. To me, that's the real danger of mixing philosophy with science. People confuse what they think is correct with reality. According to Aristotelian Philosophy, there are only four elements and you can't disprove it. It's all the 5th element playing tricks on you. > I can read between the lines but choose not to. If you aren't ready to read it with a critical eye, then you'll fall for the PR in it. The point of the newcomer guidebook is to sell new guys on the benefits of organization, and push away people who don't fit that mold. > “concentration camp” and torture That's the extreme point of your statement. And you confirmed it. To me, that crosses several ethic and formalism bridges. Even if it wasn't utterly immoral to do that test, it wouldn't give you any usable knowledge because of confounding factors. > comparisons to rape I made an offhand remark, that it's quite literally the anti-anti-rape slogan. And I discarded that, so why are you still going about it?