Posts by Riddley Walker
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
indeed ross, read anything on the case instead of just talking to your 'mates'
-
anyone noticed the deafening silence on the Rickards affair from Smarmy Lord Key?
perhaps he's still waiting for his co-leader to tell him what to think.
it could be that he's disinclined to comment on a complex matter that is of genuine importance and interest to the nation - but then it's never stopped him before.
-
she must have been out of muesli bars to bribe them with
-
actually i think it's just a conspiracy against psychosadist nutjobs being in positions of responsibility and power
-
yes that was an unussally thoughtful article for the SST.
for more info on herceptin that isn't motivated by big pharma or those hoping for a free trip to Fiji courtesy of big pharma, here is an informative piece on Herceptin by NZ Women's Health Action Trust:http://www.womens-health.org.nz/topics/Herceptin.pdf
i doubt Pharmac is perfect but when you consider what it's up against, like the biggest, most rapacious and cynical companies on the planet, i think they're doing alright. too bad the msm are only interested in protecting the 'rights' of multinational corporates
as for 60 Minutes, lordy - what a tragic joke that show has become.
big ups to the Fundy Post
-
exactly. and indeed with the exception of the discussion on PA there has been a profound lack of understanding or discusssion of how the law and judicial systems work ihn relation to issues like this.
the only voices that seem to get any airplay are the hysterical, paranoid and ignorant 'beat your kids to show you love them' brigade. -
yes, the Eden Park Trust Board are the real snarky bastards in all this and they've been playing the public like a fiddle. it's run like a feifdom full of bad haircuts and even worse suits. let them part with the cash for the shortfall.
but you know, corporate advertising platforms, often referred to in this country as Sport, really is the new opiate of the masses.
-
Well one thing's for sure, you could never rely on the msm to enlighten us on the key factors in this horrendous case. I see the Weakened Herald has today gone large on the story in a way i haven't seen since the NBR did its bizarre smear campaign against Hubbard when he stood against everyone's favourite Darlek moron John Banks.
For one, while I think there is clear need to reform the justice system in the way it handles sexual assualts, there is not one discussion of why hundreds of years of legal evolution has decided disclosure of past convictions is typically unlikely to be conducive to a just conviction. There are lots of important and interesting arguments around the topic but instead we just get pious and hysterical ranting.
For another, let us indeed see some serious reformation of the police force that has allowed this to happen. How about some informed press coverage of that, hmm?
And indeed, there are multiple very pertinent questions raised in this forum which I fear will never be covered.
RB: got for it with the ads - i hate them but i understand. i mean christ, when you look at the shite peddled in corporate msm i guess keeping PA around is well worth the minor inconvenience. and you'd be one of the few editors i might trust to actually not put advertisers' interests before that of the audience.
-
Stephen J - yes precisely, that's why premack theory is a more sophisticated way of thinking about reinforcement.
merc - for every little albert there are 100,000 cases of appropriate generalization - we are animals too after all. and actually little albert was the sad product of really stupid analysts and nought to do with the veracity of the theory.
every bit of contemporary behavioural therapy come from principles that apply across the species. obviously there are species-specific considerations, but the principles are universal.
-
these are so frequently misapplied terms i just can't resist:
positive reinforcement = the addition of an appetive stimulus contingent upon the performance of a behaviour, resulting in an increased likelihood of the repetition of that behaviour (ie. candy following 'being good')
negative reinforcement = the removal of an aversive stimulus contingent upon the performance of a behaviour, resulting in an increased likelihood of the repetition of that behaviour (ie. taking aspirin following 'a headache)
positive punishment = the addition of an aversive stimulus contingent upon the performance of a behaviour, resulting in a decreased likelihood of the repetition of that behaviour (ie. smacking following 'being bad')
negative punishment = the removal of an appetitive stimulus contingent upon the performance of a behaviour, resulting in a decreased likelihood of the repetition of that behaviour (ie. time out following 'being bad')
i suggest a googling of Premack theory for a more interesting discussion on the principles of reinforcement