从《杀无赦》到库布里克：心底里的蛇(原创)

弟切草

你们俩凑一起就不能说点好事儿！！

宫商角徵羽

原帖由 弟切草 于 2007-4-22 21:21 发表
有要假46级证的同学没？以前上学时候帮同学做的，今天删电脑文件发现底板一直还有。免费赠送

还有学校食堂饭票，文体馆电影票，给女生做的澡票，这些估计大伙都用不上我就直接删了~

原来北京街头的“牛皮癣”都是从你这里来的[s:14]

sendoh

原帖由 月光下的迦太基 于 2007-4-22 19:35 发表


他知道平秃子是谁?

他不是有导师吗？还会用鸟语来糊弄

臭鸡蛋

重新崇拜炉子

sendoh

我们一直在崇拜……

dave9181

有趣，是谁先搬出这些鸟语来的？
上几门心理学课，扔出几个理论名称，你就认为能对别人的文章指手画脚了？
打字错误你自己又不是没有，我都懒得到你的鸟文里面去找，自己回头好好看看吧你。

如果你真的不会英语，你就别撑的这么辛苦，我没找你的拼写错误。你的句子结构的错误，和用词的错误，让人读起来非常困难
如果你高中学过英语，估计也不会写成这样，怀疑你直接使用工具翻译？ 不然怎么会有结构的错误？
我上了几门心理学，可惜你一门都没上就来指手画脚了. 我说的很清楚，再学校打不了中文，并道歉了，再以次做文章就是懦夫行为，没想到还真有不少上赶着认的，你想玩继续

there is no surprise, that you misunderstood my points, you must bereally really obsessed with those electronic dictionaries, but plz ifyou have to type it in english, or according to your words " play thisin damn english", do it right, or at least get some proofreadings fromany one who actually studied the "damn" english

FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY (NOT FOR YOUR convenience)

Obviously, LZ used two different definitions to define the term"rationalization" the first one has at least some kind of citations, orbibliographies, so i accept the validity of it, and all my discussionswas based on this point. as the second one has no demonstration of itscredibility, i refuse to discuss it, think about the Mozart effect, andyou will know how far would a media goes without scientific research

Have said this much, you still don't make yourselfclear how LZ is wrong. You may have your theory (lucky for yourprofessor what the hell is this suppose to mean? ), yet LZ also can find his theory to back himself up. So faryou are just simply emphasizing the theory on your side, but thatdoes't mean you are right. Apparently the second part in LZ's citationis a strong proof against you, and you just put it away as some thingmade up by the media. Yet how can you prove that is made up by media ?

plz If you cant use proper english, find a way out, you r literealy ruin the meaning, you struggled to describe, well, there is no such thing called " your theory" or LZ's theory, like i said before, you didnt understand the words you were using indeed. i am not "simply" emphasizing anything, (can you plz, read my words, if you dont understand them, i am willing to help you out,) i wasnt asking LZ to provide citations and bibliographices in MLA format, or chicago format, anything, even a few words would be just fine, but unfortunately, for the second definination of rationalization there is none, so i dont need to prove its wrong, its just a doubtful definiation with no validity. i wasnt accusing the media, you did, i said, media was the co-conspirator of the MOZART EFFECT， do i have to translate anything in a simple sentence structure for you?   

if you have ever read my postings( dont say arguments unless you wanneit to look like a freaking essay) you would find that i am not denyingthat LZ's theories do exits in the certain field of applied psychology,(wath this word carefully, applied psychology) i am doing my minordegree in psychology, not applied psycholoy, why you tried so hard tomix these two different fields? or you just dont know the difference??

LZ said some thing in Psychology, which must base onits general sensen. No matter Psychology or Applied Psychology, theymean the same to most of the people. Like normal people would say " ineed to eat some food", nobody -- except for some freaks -- would say iwant to eat some carbohydrate and protein.

okay, you can categorize anything that against you into the criteria of GENERAL SENSE, but still, psychology and apploed psychology are two totally different stories, ( if you have ever read anything about psychology), carbohydarte, calcium, protein are all the chemical components to describe the nutrition facts in the food you eat, but for psychology and applied psychology they are sometimes mutually exclusive, for instance, this case

for my car, okay, if you go to the car forum of jdbbs, you would findsomething, and if you wish to take it little further, for instance,some written documents, i am afraid you have to pay a little price, howabout, you give up your holy role as an admin, if i manage to proofthat i was at my dealership yesterday, okay, i understand, cowards arealways afraid of risks even a little would be sufficient to scare theshit out of them.

Well, here comes your car again, drive your car carefully and treat it well.

well, its totally demonstrated my point that " cowards arealways afraid of risks even a little would be sufficient to scare theshit out of them." it was you that brought this dealership things at the first palce, according to your words "you wonder" where did i go the other day, you said dealer was no more than an excuse for my "retreat" so why dont you continue playing this shit now?

打嗑睡的糖

原帖由 dave9181 于 2007-4-23 13:28 发表
有趣，是谁先搬出这些鸟语来的？
上几门心理学课，扔出几个理论名称，你就认为能对别人的文章指手画脚了？
打字错误你自己又不是没有，我都懒得到你的鸟文里面去找，自己回头好好看看吧你。

如果你真的不会 ...

我是来露脸的，免得含笑MM又念叨我～[s:6] [s:6] [s:6]

状态

原帖由 打嗑睡的糖 于 2007-4-23 13:39 发表



我是来露脸的，免得含笑MM又念叨我～   

9181跟糖兄弟的武功是一个流派的，看出来了－－
[s:97] [s:97] [s:97]

打嗑睡的糖

原帖由 状态 于 2007-4-23 13:48 发表

9181跟糖兄弟的武功是一个流派的，看出来了－－
   

NNND，损我～[s:18]

贱人～

状态

[s:14] [s:14] [s:14]

[ 本帖最后由 状态 于 2007-4-23 14:23 编辑 ]

无求无得

让风波安息吧! Dave同学只要改邪归正我们还是欢迎他的[s:15]

[ 本帖最后由 无求无得 于 2007-4-28 07:56 编辑 ]

Bed Potato

原帖由 dave9181 于 2007-4-20 21:48 发表
《另外，从心理学角度上来，我们有“合理化”的倾向，就算做坏事，也会拼命为找理由。要么贬低受害者，要么树立一个崇高目标，天下自认是坏人的没几个。比如前几天看库布里克的《闪灵》（我相信这部片子真的是化了三年拍成的，因为恐怖片居然拍出了文艺片的味道，有机会细评），印象最深刻的是前管理员的鬼魂在洗手间里对作家说的话，大意是他的孩子和妻子企图破坏酒店，而他“纠正”了他们。所以，这位作家也拿起了斧子，要 “纠正”自己的孩子和妻子。影片中鬼魂似乎并不能对物理世界造成任何影响，所以我更愿意相信，它们只是作家的幻觉。伊甸园的蛇并不在草中，而在亚当夏娃的心底里。》

俺读心理学MINOR 咋学了CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT 再学 PERCEPTION AND cognition，甚至还学了很多APPLIED PSYCH 都没看到你这个 心理学角度，要是人的PERCEPTION 你一句总结了，还说的和什么真理似的，怎么心理学界没你什么大名？？？你真是大师（LZ别介意，俺绝对是对版不对人）

Dave，争论是从这里开始的，对吧？

针对楼主文中的红色字部分，你提出了质疑（且质疑的竟然是楼主在心理学界的地位－－这真是个新奇的角度），你抛出了你所谓的论据。先不论你说的是对是错，你打出这些英文来，无非是想显示你学过有关的课程，你用英文写出这些理论名称来，也是想强调你所说的有某种权威性。但是你就没有想过，以你那“Minor”（辅修）是Psychology（心理学）的水平，你怎么就能肯定你还没听说过的东西就是不存在的？难道就没有什么概念是你这个Freshman 还没学到吗？难道就凭这你就可以挖苦楼主，讽刺人家自己只字未提的什么在心理学界的大名？



接着，虽然楼主的文章并非关于心理学，可人家针对你的质问，还是非常认真的在第7楼引用了一个关于 Rationalization in psychology 的说明，以证明自己所说并非虚构。

对此，你又是怎么回答的呢？你对此视而不见，拒绝承认其有效性。你把他比作“莫扎特效应”，说成是媒体没有科学依据的杜撰（“ i refuse to discuss it, think about the Mozart effect, and you will know how far would a media goes without scientific research ”）。
噢，原来人家的证据在你那里要么就是你还不知道的，要么就是媒体杜撰的。这就是你的逻辑呀？



然后呢，随着楼主以及“我”在23、26楼所提供的证据越来越明显的表明 Rationalization in psychology 在心理学里面确实存在，这时你开始转换阵地，开始强调 Psychology（心理学） 和 Applied Psychology（应用心理学）的区别了。

你说在你的那个辅修，也就是Psychology（心理学）里面，没有接触到过Rationalization in psychology，但是你又承认这个概念在 Applied Psychology（应用心理学）里面存在。 引用你自己说的 （“if you have ever read my postings( dont say arguments unless you wanne it to look like a freaking essay) you would find that i am not denying that LZ's theories do exits in the certain field of applied psychology, (wath this word carefully, applied psychology) i am doing my minor degree in psychology, not applied psycholoy, ）。

请注意红色字部分你自己说的话，你说“我不否认楼主的理论存在于“应用心理学”的某些范畴”。
哦，原来你还承认这世上也有你不知道的的东西啊？虽然，那恰巧不是在你辅修的专业里！

那既然这样，你之前凭什么就可以用那样轻蔑的口气去质问楼主“在心理学界的大名”呢？
在你自己辅修的课里没学到的东西，你就可以否认它的存在么？
你自己都还不完全了解，你凭什这么苛求别人呢？


我也知道你想说“心理学”和“应用心理学”是有区别的。
楼主只是说了句“从心理学的角度”，而不是严格按照你的要求说“从应用心理学的角度”，就被你揪住字眼不放。

且不说到底在“心理学”还是在“应用心理学”哪个范畴里真的有你最早所声称的“都没看到过”的 Rationalization in psychology 的概念，人家楼主在一篇评论电影的散文里面泛泛的提了一下这个概念，他怎么就触动你那敏感的学术神经了？人家就是泛指一下心理学，你又能怎么着呢？你能说“应用心理学”和“心理学”半点瓜葛也没有？退一万步，即便你是对的，你若真是本着探讨的态度，本可以提示一下楼主那个概念可能出自于“应用心理学”而不是“心理学”，和和气气，互相切磋，这多好啊 ？何必一下子跳起来质问楼主是不是“心理学界的大师“呢？还“对版不对人”？？有你这么“不对人”的么？？

楼主涵养足够好，还跟你探讨。可你也范不上用英文说出那些难听的话，你以为这里都是什么人啊？

你留学北美，英文不错，有车还有点书本学问，这些硬件被你经意不经意的露透出来让坛子里的人知道，我们暂不当你是炫耀，你或许有足够的理由气傲，可从你上面的表现，你根本不懂得尊重别人。不懂得尊重别人，再有钱有势有学问，别人也不会真正尊重你的。

M-T

现在吵架兴写长篇了是嘛？
太长，不看。看了86楼的。知道了大概。没看到同盟者的到来，稍感意外。静候。

男巫zico

着TM叫炒家马！没劲！

啦啦啦啦

所以说MT三天不学习，赶不上刘少奇。这两回吵架，这位是学术上闹出大笑话，打击的面又广见人就扯，态度上又差到连可能的同盟军都暗暗BS的地步，静候不来同盟军，顶多一两个人品与他差不多的马甲闹一下完事[s:97] [s:97] [s:97]