StringJunky

It's not so simple taking a radicalized person back, is it?

Bollocks. She subscribes (present tense) to a belief that that is totally antithetical to what we hold as fair and just. What she has uttered is no way that of a person who sees the error of their ways. Her team lost, she wants to defect back.

I knew you'd pull that one... so predictable. Yes. She must experience the full weight of her actions. Precisely. If IS were on top, she'd still be with them and condoning their monstrous ideology.

She threw in her chips and lost. No ethics needed, she can take a hike.

Yes, I'm pretty tone deaf, as expected. My experience as a deaf person would probably help isolate the effect; it won't turn into song, as hard as I try. Try blocking one ear off and see if you still get the effect. I'm only hearing in one ear... I only wear one aid. I'm speculating it might require two ears to work.

Bearing in mind I'm pretty deaf but can hear what's being said, only the 3rd demo is sing-songy for me.

This is like the blurred vision thread.

Have a look at this paper on the history of where the idea of race came from: Problems with the Terms:“Caucasoid”, “Mongoloid” and “Negroid” - Yasuko TAKEZAWA (pdf)

Those are Euro-centrically derived terms that have no biological reality. You might be interested in this article on the origins of those terms: https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/155688/1/43_61.pdf Take Africans: their morphological diversity covers the whole range. how are you going determine which specific morphologies are the definitive ones for that group?

So, why did you say this in response?:

Do you know what 'arbitrary' means?

The word that springs to mind when thinking about "race" is arbitrary.

I meant the parts that Joe Public can change can only come gradually with education.

We can't run before we can walk; collectively.

Nice to see my favourite, Reuters, being rated pretty neutral. I thought the BBC was neutral until I started reading that one You can cross-reference with this media bias comparison site... the above chart seems reasonable. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

I think Congress appropriates the funds and he knows it will be blocked. That's why I called him a liar when he said he doesn't need to do it; he does if he is to have his way.

He''s a liar; not that that is anything new.

Right, OK.

Can't the apparent reduction in fertility rate actually just be because the odds of offspring survival are so much better in affluent communities that having lots of offspring to offset infant/juvenile mortality is unnecessary?

Reading this Psychology Today piece, the author notes that psychology lacks any foundational paradigms in the same way that physics has Newton's and Einstein's et al and that have a wide consensus. I think it's a good article because it outlines the landscape of this question. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate

He's still mentioned because his work is dyed into the psychology lexicon... he started it after all.

No problem, I was just nit-picking because theories and proofs have specific, conventional meanings in science, which differ a bit from their everyday usage. As far a validity of Freud goes, he was working with what he had at the time. Like I said: he is to be credited with starting that particular conversation. Through the lens of history, all theories, even the best, fail eventually, so he is not unique in that respect.

Yes, he got the ball rolling, even if his ideas don't hold water in the end.

'Theories' in science are those ideas with the greatest preponderance of evidence; they are the gold standard. Proofs only exist in mathematics.

Cognitive neuroscience (biopsychology) is the arm that straddles the pure biological aspects and sociological aspects of behaviour; it's more evidenced-based.