"Temporary Insanity" Is a Legal Term But Not A Valid Psychological Concept

This is a short summation of the circumstances surrounding the first ever implementation of the legal defense known as "temporary insanity:"

George Reimus built a massive bootlegging empire during prohibition. His wife was by his side during his ascent to becoming a major kingpin and he provided her with anything she ever wanted.

Reimus gets sent to prison for a short 2 year prison term. He left her in charge of his entire empire while he was incarcerated. She was his soulmate and he trusted her completely, without hesitation.

His wife starts sleeping with a new man. Within 6 months, she sold all of her husband's assets, stole all his money, and filed for divorce.

Upon his release, George was driving to his divorce hearing when he spotted his wife in another car. He forced her car off the road, then shot and killed her. He immediately turned himself in and admitted to the murder.

At his trial, he pleaded temporary insanity and won. He said this afterwards: 

It was a duty I owed society. She who dances down the primrose path must die on the primrose path. I'm happy, this is the first piece of mind I've had in years - George Reimus

The problem with this defense is the fact that it's simply not real. 

"Temporary insanity" is a legal term but isn't at all a real psychological phenomenon. In fact, in reality, there is no sanity or insanity or even a "real you." There are just moment to moment brain states which are a result of biological, chemical, physiological, environmental, etc factors.

That guy wasn't "temporarily insane." His behaviour was the end result of a specific set of factors which were in play the moment he saw his wife; the reason he had never acted that way before was simply because he has never been in that situation before. Just like when an otherwise "friendly dog" attacks someone. They aren't insane in that moment; they were acting on circumstances that hadn't been in play prior to that moment.

Another "Sexist" Warning to Women about Drinking to Excess

Article: Anti-drinking ad in university women's washroom blasted for being sexist"

My take on this nonsense that seems to be so prevalent these days? Simple:

  People too readily validate their kids' emotions from a young age; that combined with a lack of philosophical education (logic, reason, forming arguments) leads to this stuff. It's vital to teach your kids to a) challenge assumptions (others' and their own) and possibly more importantly, challenge their own emotional states. Not every moment of sadness, anger or depression (or in this case, 'offense') is reasonable or based on valid assumptions and if they don't learn to challenge them or push through/ignore them (at times, not always obviously) then they end up being like this- unreasonably offended/emotional and then acting upon this shaky foundation.

Advice To Potential 'Self Help Gurus' ('Life Coaches', Marriage Counsellors, Sex Therapists, etc)

There are often two paths when it comes to advice about life, yet in cases where this is true, the path that is followed is the one that is perceived as the sole option, as those who follow this path are blind to the existence of the second, and more importantly, correct, path. For example:

Let's say the advice in question is regarding a married man, self described as "happily married," who is guilty because even though he loves his wife and the marriage is great he can't stop wanting to sleep with other women. He doesn't act on it this desire, but he feels it. Often. Now, the path most travelled, seen to those taking it as the only path (they're wrong) is the sit down/discuss the relationship/examine the self/spice up the sex life with the wife path.

If you want to really help people, stay away from that path. The people on that path are playing in a matrix of socially approved and spread ignorance they just don't see (or they do but they deny it because it is threatening to them in some way). There's a second path, at that path is truth. Real truth. Often politically incorrect truth. So, in the example above regarding the husband with the wandering eye, the second path would be the that's natural/there's nothing to worry about/and p.s your wife does the same thing path.

Stick to the second path and you'll draw the ire of the masses but you'll also be truly helping people and what could be nobler than that?

The Problem With Media Reports On Studies About Video Game Violence

We've all read the headlines. "Video Games Lead To Violent Behaviour." "Video Games Cause Immoral Behaviour In Teens." "Video Games Lead To Aggression." The question is, are the conclusions drawn in these reports backed up by the science they are reporting on? My contention is that they absolutely are not and I will use a recent study to demonstrate where they are going wrong.

The study in question, conducted in Italy and published in the online journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, looked at how violent video games influenced post play morality in teenagers. The researchers recruited 172 high school students (aged thirteen to nineteen) and separated them into two groups. The first group was tasked with playing a violent video game. The second group was given nonviolent games to play. After both groups played the games, they were directed to complete a logic test, and every time they achieved a correct answer they were allowed to remove a raffle ticket from a bag. The teens were left alone in a room to do this, and upon completion of the study the researchers found that those who had played violent video games prior to taking the logic test were eight times more likely to remove more than the one raffle ticket from the bag when they correctly completed a section on the logic test.

The authors noted that the teens who showed signs of 'moral disengagement' were the most affected by playing violent video games. Moral disengagement is the ability to remove oneself from the normal rules of morality in certain situations because, in the view of the people who show this trait,  morality does not apply in certain situations. The teens with this trait were much more likely to steal after playing a violent game. A nonviolent game did not trigger as large a discrepancy between the two groups.

A study like this is perfect fodder for one of those media frenzies mentioned earlier. According to the study, the teens, especially those who score highly on "moral disengagement" scales were more likely to take extra raffle tickets; to steal, essentially. At the very least, to cheat. Not good, right? Obviously the violent video games are having a negative effect, one that was not seen to the same degree in the group that played non violent games. Seems like an open and shut case on the face of it. Except it's not. At all.

The Explosions Look Like Pizza: A Mighty No. 9 Review

As you likely know, Mighty No. 9’s development has been controversial and tumultuous. The Kickstarter campaign was a success and fan enthusiasm was high. This was short lived, however, as delays, mixed messaging and awful trailers followed. And now, amidst further controversy, regarding some comments allegedly made by developers of this game, Mighty No. 9 has been released. And it's......you know.

 

The layout of the game is straightforward: There are eight levels, each of which is presided over by one of the “Mighty Numbers” (Robot Masters)- bosses whose abilities you (Beck) can absorb after defeating them. Do this and by the end you're putting together an ever growing list of skills in order to get through constantly evolving, tougher challenges. It's a tried and true formula for a reason: It works and it pushes, challenges and yet empowers the player.

As far as the level design goes, it’s standard stuff: tricky jumps, tight quarters, evolving enemy patterns. Clear, concise, constant difficulty progression. Rewards for exploration (with a few red herrings thrown in for good measure, a la Ninja Gaiden (NES)).

So far so good.

Taking Reality for Granted?

Taking Reality for Granted?

We all have senses, and we use our senses to perceive the world around us. The sum total of our sensory perception is the input to which we ascribe the characteristic of reality. When we do this, we are effectively saying that what we sense around us is what exists around us, and we use this information to guide us as we move about the world in which we live. However, there is a problem inherent within this methodology, as philosophers have been noting for millenia: We cannot be certain that reality is as we perceive it, since the perceptions that we cite as evidence are necessarily subjective, and are devoid of external, independent confirmation of their accuracy. Or are they? This is the question I'd like to address.

Parenting: On Yelling and Hitting

My daughter is 7 now and I can count the times I have legitimately yelled at her on one hand. I have always talked to her, reasoned things out, etc. I prioritize her psychological health over anything else- us being late, me being tired, whatever. And I NEVER hit her. Or "spank" her (which is hitting, stop pretending otherwise).

I have always had a policy of "treat her like I'd like to be treated." No one would want to be yelled at or hit by someone six times their size, so why would we expect fragile little children to tolerate that? It's totally unfair (but I get it!!!! they don't understand our job and how they unintentionally make it harder and what we feel/go through, especially as single parents; we're tired, stressed, dissatisfied, etc....I do get it!).

People around me try to convince me to "toughen up" as they think sometimes things "take too long" (just yell and she'll do it right away, they say) but again my priority is her not me or them. Everyone always uses the running on the road example (what if she ran onto the road without looking, you're going to "talk" it out?) but she never does anything like that and she listens very well. She respects me because I treat/see her as a real person and I make sure to care about how she is feeling. In turn she doesn't want to disappoint me so she tries her best to be a helpful girl.

I know it's tough. We're tired, we're frustrated, the list of things to do never ends. But you have to keep in mind the nature of children, understand it and work with them- don't hold them responsible for their nature (they had nothing to do with it). Ask yourself why you yelled or hit and you'll realize your answers don't actually justify the response. It's always "we were going to be late or I said it four times already!" which really means "it didn't happen when I wanted it to" which is never worth even a minuscule amount of fear, anxiety, or hit to self confidence that they can (and do) experience. They are fragile and they need us to be on their side.