fuckthisshitimin - Tumblr blog

[fuckthisshitimin]

it’s monday i’m in the labyrinth

[fuckthisshitimin]

you can always tell how little people actually care about art based on how much they hate modern/contemporary art

[fuckthisshitimin]

[fuckthisshitimin]

I know approximately what happens in Funny Games (bad things) but I'm right at the start and. Just listen to your dog. Too late.

[fuckthisshitimin]

Hundreds of people are about to board a flotilla and deliver urgent humanitarian relief to Gaza. Please share this video and follow Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The more people watching, the safer the participants.

[fuckthisshitimin]

THAT DAMNED SPREADSHEET

DOES ANYONE TO HEAR ABOUT MY ADVENTURE IN THE SPREADSHEET?

Cause I'm pretty damned sure I know what getting "High" on Milgram means.

Talking about his being rejected by the Magnus Institute, Samama said:

[That definitely feels like when it all started. […] Well, after that it all just went downhill. Didn’t get into Oxford, so I went to Nottingham.]

And that does not sound like what one would say about something that happened when they were, like, eight. So I went to take another look at the spreadsheet. Of course I was wrong, because The Magnus Institute burned in 1999, so he couldn’t have been more than nine, but I found out other stuff.

A thing that bugs me in how I’ve read some discussing the spreadsheet is that Sam has the highest empathy score, and that it made him “too nice/good” for the Institute’s purposes (not necessarily this directly but it has been implied, including in the “recruiting future avatar theories, and… well, implying that low empathy makes you more likely to become a literal monster is quite disgusting, actually).

First, I think we got one thing wrong on the Kohlberg column. Since they are kids, it doesn’t seem shocking that they’d be around stages 1 to 3 of his “Six stages of moral development”; but it doesn’t say Stage 1, 2 or 3 it says Level 1, 2 or 3, and I don’t think it’s a mistake.

His six stages are divided into three levels: Pre-Conventional (1,2), Conventional (3,4) and Post-Conventional (5,6).

People in stages 1 and 2 (Level 1) have a sense of morality that is linked to the direct consequences of their actions on themself — stage 1 is “don’t hit the dog because you’ll be punished” and stage 2 “give her half your banana and you’ll get half her chocolate bar” (very simplified).

People on stages 3 and 4 (Level 2) have internalized their surrounding’s sense of morality and act accordingly — stage 3 being “I’ll get a good grade in being a person by following the rules” and stage 4 “the rules I learnt are true and real, failing to follow them is Wrong and upholding them is Right” (idem).

People on stages 5 and 6 (Level 3) have a personal sense of morality that is critical of societal norms — stage 5 being “there are rules, and those rules can and should be changed through compromise to be fair to the greatest number”, and stage 6 “unfair rules should not be followed, direct consequences like punishment are irrelevant when it comes to deciding to do what it right” (very, very, very simplified).

If I’m right, the spreadsheet is so much more understandable.

First thing I wanted to do was put numbers on how singular Sam’s results are:

He gets “High” on both Milgram and Asch when the overwhelming tendency is that the higher your other scores are, the more likely you are to get “Low”, and the numbers were, indeed, that among the 49 children who scored “High” on both, 33 were in Piaget’s stage 1, 15 were in stage 2 and only Sam was in stage 3.

The 33 kids who were in stage 1 are the opposite of Sam:

(Abbreviating so it’s easier to compare values but P=Piaget, K=Kohlberg, Ps=Prosocial, S-A=Sally-Anne, U=Ultimatum, EI=Empathy Index)

33K: (P) Stage 1 :: (K) Level 1 :: (Ps) Low :: (S-A) Fail :: (U) Unfair :: (EI) ≥62%

Sam: (P) Stage 3 :: (K) Level 3 :: (Ps) High :: (S-A) Pass :: (U) Fair :: (EI) 98%

So that’s weird. And when I went to filter by Kohlberg levels… absolutely no kid that was on “Level 2” scored High on Milgram and Asche.

In fact, among the 99 kids on Kohlberg Level 2, none got “Low” for prosocial, none got “High” on Milgram, only 2 got “High” on Asch.

And when we read “Level 2 (Conventional Morality) instead of “Stage 2 (Pre-Conventional Morality, what benefits me directly)” we can make sense of this: 

“To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. […] Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.” (by Kohlberg himself, from Wikipedia)

Adults can be Level 2, by the way. Adults can even be Level 1. Subjects of the Milgram experiment are displaying peak Level 2 behavior.

“High” on Milgram is “Did not electrocute/Disobeyed”

“High” on Asch is “Did not conform”

GOSH THAT IS SATISFYING

Bonus: the average empathy index is 79,1%, the median is 82% with 116 kids below 82%, 13 kids at 82% and 120 kids above. Of the 116 kids below the median, 11 got “Low” on Milgram. Of the 13 median kids, 3 got “Low” on Milgram. Of the 120 kids above, 91 got “Low”.

If we take the average instead, of the 163 kids more empathetic than the average, 100 got “Low” on Milgram, and 2 got “High”, of the 86 less empathetic than the average, 5 got “Low” and 59 for “High” on Milgram.

So actually here, low empathy is inversely correlated to willingness to hurt if ordered to.

And it makes sense. Low empathy is often associated with anti-social personality disorder, autism, depression — and you know what’s very associated with anti-social personality disorder? Disobedience.

Now I have to make another post about the weird kids in red's names.

[fuckthisshitimin]

So we all know that Tumblr is US-centric. But to what degree? (and can we skew the results of this poll by posting it at a time where they should be asleep?)

Reblog to increase sample size!

[fuckthisshitimin]

reblog for sample size !!

[fuckthisshitimin]

i hate when i send someone a meme in another language and they're like "uhm... translate? 😒" fucker i sent you a meme where 90% of the words have an english cognate and/or you don't need to know what they're saying to find it funny. can you at least TRY

[fuckthisshitimin]

a poll for research purposes:

sorry no secret third thing

[fuckthisshitimin]

this does not apply if you wear exclusively leggings. Those things tear all the time you need like a million on standby

[fuckthisshitimin]

let’s settle this shit but do NOT reblog if you’re gonna be modest about it like a little BITCH. anyway privilege check tell me which ones apply to you: hot, funny, can dance, can do math, can spell, can drive, can cook

[fuckthisshitimin]

WE WERE AT THE POINT WHERE I SAID 'IF YOU'RE BORED/CAN'T SLEEP YOU CAN...' AND NEVER HAD TO FINISH THE SENTENCE ANYMORE

MY BEST FRIEND STARTED LISTENING TO THE MAGNUS ARCHIVES

[fuckthisshitimin]

LAST WEEK HE STILL SAID HE WOULDN'T

MY BEST FRIEND STARTED LISTENING TO THE MAGNUS ARCHIVES

[fuckthisshitimin]

IT ONLY TOOK TWO YEARS

MY BEST FRIEND STARTED LISTENING TO THE MAGNUS ARCHIVES

[fuckthisshitimin]

MY BEST FRIEND STARTED LISTENING TO THE MAGNUS ARCHIVES

[fuckthisshitimin]

(Copy-pasting the comment instead of putting a screenshot and adding a description:)

@bonzos-number-1-fan said "CHBD was coloured by the community rather than us getting it coloured. Red is just names whose ID didn't match their initials. It's very likely that's just junk data to fill up the sheet rather than anything important."

Ooooh, yeah that makes sense, I didn't know they were colored by the community! Maybe it's junk data, or a red herring, but also, the letters at the start of their file number aren't random, it's [First letter of the fist name]+[Next letter in the alphabet], so, idk, maybe something a computer might do if it lost some data? I have no idea how computers work. If you're right and it's just junk data I'm spending much time over nothing but at least I'm having fun.

Also, all their file numbers start by "09". So I looked at all the files starting by "09"; that's 155 kids, including the 77 the community highlighted in red and Ruby Ellis who wasn't even though their file is "QR09867" instead of "RE" or even "RS", which is an anomaly among the anomalies, along Remy Edwards "QR09608"

And the names still looked weird, okay? I felt I got a lot of initials who already matched the alphabetical order, like "AB/Aiden Bishop", "BC/Bella Curtis", "CD/Connor Dyer", "DE/Dexter Evans" and so on. But I was looking for those and so the feeling this was a proof was not reliable, so I counted, and of those 155, 36 did NOT have file numbers starting by "One Letter/The Following Letter" and that's... One of five, so that's more than I thought. If we discard the 78 files whose title don't match the initials that's 36 of 77, so almost half, so... I don't know how names work, so you know, I looked at the 94 lines whose number did not start by "09" and of those, three had file numbers starting with "AB/Aria Burgess", "JK/Jayden Keegan" and "KL/Kelsey Lawrence". So it IS weird. It doesn't have to mean anything but it is unusual.

Also, what had weirded me out at first was the "Foster" kids in red. There are three of them: Skye, Sierra and Solomon. Okay, maybe it just so happens that their first name starts by S, who cares?

Among the kids in red, three have a last name that starts with G: Umar, Ulysses and Una... Starting with H, Winnie, Willa and Ulysses. Oh! So that doesn't work. Ulysses is file "WX09654". WHY?

And it does not work for every letter, so it's not an absolute rule it's just... weird, again. Why is this happening. I have not theory to make sense of it but it bugs me so much. Why do we have three kids whose initials are GZ, three IA, three KB, three MC, three OD?

There is a possibility having to come up with so many names they did it using a system that made the initials so not-random looking, that's my only explanation, but it still so bugs me.

I don't even know if the "09" are relevant in any way but among them we have Connor Dyer (CD09663), Freddie Gilbert (FG09514) and Mason Norris (MN09764) whose initials also follow up. Does this have anything to do with anything? I DON'T KNOW I WILL LOSE MY MIND OVER THIS.

If anyone has theories. Please. Is there like a universe-specific Apocalypse ritual but instead of gathering the fourteen Fear Entities in one person you have to complete the alphabet with thirteen kids?

THAT DAMNED SPREADSHEET

DOES ANYONE TO HEAR ABOUT MY ADVENTURE IN THE SPREADSHEET?

Cause I'm pretty damned sure I know what getting "High" on Milgram means.

Talking about his being rejected by the Magnus Institute, Samama said:

[That definitely feels like when it all started. […] Well, after that it all just went downhill. Didn’t get into Oxford, so I went to Nottingham.]

And that does not sound like what one would say about something that happened when they were, like, eight. So I went to take another look at the spreadsheet. Of course I was wrong, because The Magnus Institute burned in 1999, so he couldn’t have been more than nine, but I found out other stuff.

A thing that bugs me in how I’ve read some discussing the spreadsheet is that Sam has the highest empathy score, and that it made him “too nice/good” for the Institute’s purposes (not necessarily this directly but it has been implied, including in the “recruiting future avatar theories, and… well, implying that low empathy makes you more likely to become a literal monster is quite disgusting, actually).

First, I think we got one thing wrong on the Kohlberg column. Since they are kids, it doesn’t seem shocking that they’d be around stages 1 to 3 of his “Six stages of moral development”; but it doesn’t say Stage 1, 2 or 3 it says Level 1, 2 or 3, and I don’t think it’s a mistake.

His six stages are divided into three levels: Pre-Conventional (1,2), Conventional (3,4) and Post-Conventional (5,6).

People in stages 1 and 2 (Level 1) have a sense of morality that is linked to the direct consequences of their actions on themself — stage 1 is “don’t hit the dog because you’ll be punished” and stage 2 “give her half your banana and you’ll get half her chocolate bar” (very simplified).

People on stages 3 and 4 (Level 2) have internalized their surrounding’s sense of morality and act accordingly — stage 3 being “I’ll get a good grade in being a person by following the rules” and stage 4 “the rules I learnt are true and real, failing to follow them is Wrong and upholding them is Right” (idem).

People on stages 5 and 6 (Level 3) have a personal sense of morality that is critical of societal norms — stage 5 being “there are rules, and those rules can and should be changed through compromise to be fair to the greatest number”, and stage 6 “unfair rules should not be followed, direct consequences like punishment are irrelevant when it comes to deciding to do what it right” (very, very, very simplified).

If I’m right, the spreadsheet is so much more understandable.

First thing I wanted to do was put numbers on how singular Sam’s results are:

He gets “High” on both Milgram and Asch when the overwhelming tendency is that the higher your other scores are, the more likely you are to get “Low”, and the numbers were, indeed, that among the 49 children who scored “High” on both, 33 were in Piaget’s stage 1, 15 were in stage 2 and only Sam was in stage 3.

The 33 kids who were in stage 1 are the opposite of Sam:

(Abbreviating so it’s easier to compare values but P=Piaget, K=Kohlberg, Ps=Prosocial, S-A=Sally-Anne, U=Ultimatum, EI=Empathy Index)

33K: (P) Stage 1 :: (K) Level 1 :: (Ps) Low :: (S-A) Fail :: (U) Unfair :: (EI) ≥62%

Sam: (P) Stage 3 :: (K) Level 3 :: (Ps) High :: (S-A) Pass :: (U) Fair :: (EI) 98%

So that’s weird. And when I went to filter by Kohlberg levels… absolutely no kid that was on “Level 2” scored High on Milgram and Asche.

In fact, among the 99 kids on Kohlberg Level 2, none got “Low” for prosocial, none got “High” on Milgram, only 2 got “High” on Asch.

And when we read “Level 2 (Conventional Morality) instead of “Stage 2 (Pre-Conventional Morality, what benefits me directly)” we can make sense of this: 

“To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. […] Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.” (by Kohlberg himself, from Wikipedia)

Adults can be Level 2, by the way. Adults can even be Level 1. Subjects of the Milgram experiment are displaying peak Level 2 behavior.

“High” on Milgram is “Did not electrocute/Disobeyed”

“High” on Asch is “Did not conform”

GOSH THAT IS SATISFYING

Bonus: the average empathy index is 79,1%, the median is 82% with 116 kids below 82%, 13 kids at 82% and 120 kids above. Of the 116 kids below the median, 11 got “Low” on Milgram. Of the 13 median kids, 3 got “Low” on Milgram. Of the 120 kids above, 91 got “Low”.

If we take the average instead, of the 163 kids more empathetic than the average, 100 got “Low” on Milgram, and 2 got “High”, of the 86 less empathetic than the average, 5 got “Low” and 59 for “High” on Milgram.

So actually here, low empathy is inversely correlated to willingness to hurt if ordered to.

And it makes sense. Low empathy is often associated with anti-social personality disorder, autism, depression — and you know what’s very associated with anti-social personality disorder? Disobedience.

Now I have to make another post about the weird kids in red's names.