Category Archives: Issue 15

Desensitization

Leave a reply

Matthew Nalls

“The amount of educational programming on television today is simply desensitizing.  The only reason left to go to school is to see gun violence,” (Humphreys 1) states Martin Chizelwit Humphreys in his book, Some Inspiration for the Overenthusiastic.  In this day and age, Martin Humphreys is not the only one who shares this view reflected by his quotation on desensitization.  Many others take up the call on the subject of desensitization with the same outlook.  In their minds, desensitization is a horrible, vile cancer upon society; one which must be avoided at all costs.  An example of one who shares the thoughts of Humphreys on this matter is Genice Phillips.  On the Web site “Beliefnet,” Phillips is the author of a particularly interesting article on desensitization entitled, “Is Desensitization the Norm in America?” in which she states

When violence, of any kind, splashes across our TV screens during the news, what is our reaction?  For a moment we’re concerned.  If it hits close to home, we’re afraid, overwhelmed by the thought that tomorrow it may be our daughter, our son; it may be us.  But those feelings last for a short period of time, and then, the news moves on.  And so do we…  Our emotions have numbed towards violent occurrences across the country (par. 2).

Phillips’s outlook on desensitization in a corrupted society is nearly exactly homogenous to Humphrey’s thoughts on the matter.  Both authors share the previously stated idea desensitization is comparable to a form of crippling cancer.  Hence, the question is raised, “If more than one person seems to firmly hold this belief desensitization is present and detrimental, what evidence exists upon which they stand?”

Evidence of desensitization runs almost as rampant as desensitization itself.  The majority of officials, authors, scholars, or others who take up arms against the spread of desensitization usually cite the growing “mature”-rated gaming industry as evidence of its spread.  On July 24th, 2006, Iowa State University officials published a report involving studies completed on the link between violent video games and exponential desensitization.  In the findings, the report makes numerous claims based on studied observations, stating:

Research led by a pair of Iowa State University psychologists has proven for the first time that exposure to violent video games can desensitize individuals to real-life violence….  Their paper reports that past research — including their own studies — documents that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal and aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors.  Previous studies also found that more than 85 percent of video games contain some violence, and approximately half of video games include serious violent actions (sec. 4).

As if the evidence found in this report supporting the link between violent video games and desensitization was simply not enough, the pair of researchers went on to make their own conclusions on the experiment at the end of the report, stating

They conclude that the existing video game rating system, the content of much entertainment media, and the marketing of those media combine to produce “a powerful desensitization intervention on a global level.”… “In short, the modern entertainment media landscape could accurately be described as an effective systematic violence desensitization tool,” he [researcher Craig Anderson] said (sec. 4).

Only one undeniable and obvious fact can be drawn from the findings of the pair of Iowa State University researchers: desensitization is prevalent and highly corruptive upon society by being exuded from violent media.  Based upon the firm conclusion drawn by the researchers, violent media is a tool that would spread desensitization globally.  Something to note, however, is the fact this study was carried out, completed, and published all in 2006; nearly 9 years ago.  The only way to prove the validity of the seemingly-outdated study is to compare it to studies completed in the past three or four years, studies more recent and therefore more “valid” than Iowa State University’s report.

A report published August 12th, 2013 by the University of Texas at San Antonio reviewed evidence again supporting desensitization linked to violent media, seven years after the Iowa State University initial report.  In the report, UTSA scholars describe their findings:

Today, a growing number of children, teens and adults purchase and play video games, supporting an industry that is valued at nearly $80 billion worldwide.  Scholars estimate that more than 85 percent of video games contain some form of violent imagery, and half include what they coin “serious violent actions.”  They also warn that violent video games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops have desensitizing effects on the body’s physiology….  “It is generally accepted within the scientific community that violent video games lead to desensitization, negatively impact psychological functioning and contribute to aggressive behavior” said [UTSA scholar] Cordova (par. 2-4).

As clearly and concisely laid out by the UTSA report, desensitization is still prevalent nine years after ISU’s original report.  Not only does that prove the still-extant validity and relevance of ISU’s findings, but also it proves the point made by ISU researchers when the report stated, “They conclude that the existing … media combine to produce ‘a powerful desensitization intervention on a global level.’”  Desensitization has latched onto the gaming industry like a parasite, as it has abridged continents and grown across the world.  Based upon the findings of both reports, anyone who attests to the valid fact the gaming industry is partly responsible for the spread of desensitization is neither inaccurate nor incorrect.

Thus, based on these findings, the fact desensitization is a crippling cancer upon society, using violent media as one of its means of locomotion, is now feasible.  Both Martin Humphreys and Genice Phillips are correct in their logic regarding the subject of rampant desensitization.  Desensitization is definitely rampant and undoubtedly dangerous.  Now that the question of desensitization’s existence is proven, many turn to face questions begged by the whole of societies across the globe yet, thus far, have unfortunately gone unanswered on a wide scale.  Arundhati Roy, writer and winner of the Booker Prize in 1997, summarizes the questions many ponder on the subject the best, as she states, “Have we raised the threshold of horror so high that nothing short of a nuclear strike qualifies as a ‘real’ war?  Are we to spend the rest of our lives in this state of high alert with guns pointed at each other’s heads and fingers trembling on the trigger?”  While many recognize desensitization as a major threat, only time will tell if and how the world will react to it on a unified scale.

Works Cited

Carnagey, Nicholas. “ISU Psychologists Provide First Study on Violence Desensitization.” Iowa State University News Service. 24 July 2006. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Fish, Christi. “UTSA Scholars to Study Desensitization…” UTSA TODAY. 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Health Day. “Violent Video Games May Numb Players to Brutality, Study Says.” U.S. News and World Report. 9 May. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Humphreys, Martin Chizelwit. Some Inspiration for the Overenthusiastic. 2 Nov. 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Phillips, Genice. “Is Desensitization the Norm in American Society?” Beliefnet. N.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Roy, Arundhati. “Quotes on Desensitization.” Goodreads. N.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.

Anne Boleyn and Her Unfortunate Encounter with Sony Pictures

Leave a reply

Elizabeth Knudsen

The media have a way of taking history and rewriting it to create a tale more easily sold to the public.  Most recently, this has been done with the Bible, like in Noah, A.D., and many others.  But even more often a historical figure is misrepresented entirely — like Pocahontas in Disney’s classic, who was supposed to be around 10 or 11 years old and had no romantic connection to John Smith whatsoever.  However, this paper isn’t another bout with Disney.  Instead, the decline of fiction is shown through the portrayal of another historical figure: Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry VIII.

Anne was born in Norfolk and appears to have been the dutiful daughter expected of 16th-century England.  In other terms, she, along with her father and brother, worked vigorously for the family’s interest in the court of King Henry VIII.  They were known to be early acceptors of the “New Religion” — or Protestant interpretation of the New Testament from Germany — and Anne in particular shared these views with precise, deep, and learned zeal.  She had been educated in France since she was six years old, and thus not only became fluent in French but also was gifted with exposure to Renaissance classicism and fashion.  The fervor she held for the Reformation was most likely first introduced to her through Marguerite of Angoulême, who later became known as the Queen of Navarre; Gillaume de Briçonnet, her Reformist bishop; and Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, the humanist Bible translator and influential polymath.  Indeed, “Lutheran” ideas came to France through these three individuals.  Anne’s delight in the French language — it being the third principal language of the movement — became her primary source of the Reformation.

Her relationship with Henry Tudor began with the English king’s impatience for a male heir.  Despite the fact the physical descriptions of Anne are not particularly flattering, her vivacity and personal confidence caught Henry’s eye.  Around 1526, Henry began courting her.  The story of Henry VIII’s break with the church over the annulment of his previous marriage is a well-known one, and it ultimately ended with his marriage to Anne in 1533.  Three years later, Anne was executed on grounds of treason, having failed to produce a male heir because of multiple miscarriages.  She remained steadfast in denying the charges against her and was equally resilient in holding to her faith.

Enter Natalie Dorman, starring as Anne Boleyn in Sony’s The Tudors television series.  It would admittedly be unfair to pin the blame on the actress.  For many actors, a job is a job, and they need it.  The writers and the production company, however, have no way to escape criticism.  The Tudors depicts Anne as a hot-tempered, French-taught seductress and schemer.  It follows the basics of her life — her children, her marriage to King Henry, and her death — but in between the glimmers of truth are deep shadows of eroticism.  Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, it downplays Anne’s faith and magnifies her sexuality.  One of the most poignant examples of this is possibly in how Anne’s refusal of Henry’s sexual advances is portrayed.  In the TV series, it is presented as one more way she seduces Henry.  She encourages him and then refuses him, all the time making him all the more infatuated with her (which was her aim in the first place).  However, it is recorded Anne really did refuse to be Henry’s mistress saying she would only be his wife.  And if she was, as is believed, a Christian, wouldn’t this refusal be a no-brainer?

So once again, the media are seen portraying a female as a character “more befitting” to the screen.  Why is it a singing self-actualizer or a fiery-tempered temptress are better than a noble heroine or a leading figure in the English Reformation?  The world’s values have shifted drastically, and not for the better.  These shifted values are most prominently shown through the decline of fiction.

Bibliography

BBC History. BBC, n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2015. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/anne_boleyn/&gt;.

Zahl, Paul F. Five Women of the English Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001. 10-26. Print.

Extrasensory Perception

Leave a reply

Jared Emry

Already, at the title, the mere claim the topic of extrasensory perception may seem irrational and even pointless to discuss. If one were to do a Web search on the subject, it is likely one would find hundreds of sites without good credentials of any kind willing to impart their secret knowledge, often for a slight fee. These sites may be taken as representative of the subject matter, but they’re not. These sites tend to be fraudulent in nature, and one’s opinion of the subject matter should not be based on such things as these sites are filled to the brim with exaggerated claims and bogus studies in order to make money (Stein). Even without such a negative, yet extremely popular, influence, the claims of extrasensory perception may seem bizarre and baffling to the point they should be rejected offhand. However, as Einstein once said in a letter to Jan Ehrenwald, “It seems to me, at any rate, that we have no right, from a physical standpoint, to deny a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that sort of denial the foundations of our science are too unsure and too incomplete” (Frazier 63-64). This concept is known is otherwise known as Clarke’s Law. When a distinguished but elderly scientist says something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong. It would seem rather than denying extrasensory perception a place for discussion under the enlightenment of science it would be far more rational to explore the topic to see if it is researchable or to see if a phenomenon actually does exist. As our level of technology increases, perhaps phenomena currently difficult to study may be the next frontier of science. After all, the black hole was only recently considered to be mere science fiction and any scientist caught taking such things seriously would be politely ridiculed. Rationally, who could expect objects of infinite density, mass, and gravity could exist? The entire Earth would have to be collapsed into the size of a golf ball. Yet science has since proven these astronomical monsters do exist. If people weren’t scanning the heavens for them, they would still be a laughing matter. But what exactly is extrasensory perception? To know that, it is best to start with the history of extrasensory perception and its terminology. The potential benefits for scientific analysis should be examined so as to know whether or not the field is worth any extra attention.

Parapsychology really began in the British Isles during the middle of the 19th century. Some of the people who were involved in the field at that time included such names as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, William James, Lord Rayleigh, Henry Sidgewick, and C.D. Broad. They studied such things as mediumship, telepathy, the Riechenbach Phenomena, and apparitions. While many scientists would subscribe to the belief in the validity of the field, it also became widely criticized by many scientists, splitting the scientific community more than ever before. Above all else, the field became incredibly popular in the masses. Harry Houdini even took it upon himself to try to prove parapsychology was false, although many people thought he could legitimately cast magic with strange occult powers. This era developed little to no substantive proof for anything in the field of parapsychology (Kurtz).

In 1930, Duke University opened up its parapsychology unit. Duke wasn’t the first university, but it spawned a new era in parapsychological research known as the Rhine Era. For the parapsychology laboratory, Duke University employed psychologists William McDougall, Karl Zener, Louisa E. Rhine, and J.B. Rhine. The era would be named after J.B. Rhine, who would become the most well-known parapsychologist ever. His name would become as well known as Einstein’s for a decade (Berger). J.B. Rhine would be one of the first to attempt to rigorously study parapsychology and quickly realized the study of Extrasensory Perception was at the time the only part of parapsychology that had a possibility for study in a laboratory setting. Initially the results of the Duke experiments were quite successful, but soon they discovered methodological errors in their studies. The studies would be fixed of those methodological errors and repeated only to have more methodological errors. The Rhine Era was a continuous cycle of refining methodologies for laboratory studies, and with each cycle the results diminished (Laycock 28-31). After the Rhine Era, the studies broadened to include more topics. The research publically known continued to show no significant results; however, other studies were done in secret.

In the late 1940s, with the defeat of the Nazis, the United States government began to secretly and systematically bring Nazi scientists back to the United States and even sometimes away from the Nuremburg Trials. Many scientists were given amnesty in return for sharing the Nazis’ technological secrets (National Archives). This program was known as Operation Paperclip. The goal was to keep Nazi scientists away from the Soviet Union. NASA was a product of Operation Paperclip, as the Nazis were the first to develop rocket technology, so much of NASA’s original group of scientists were former Nazi scientists. However, Operation Paperclip had a darker side to it. In addition to Nazi rocket scientists, they also brought over and employed Nazis who were involved in Nazi mind control experiments. These brainwashing specialists were employed by the CIA in a collection of programs often collectively referred to as Operation MKUltra (Lasby). MKUltra was declassified in 1975 by the U.S. Congress shortly after CIA Director Richard Helms managed to destroy all but 20,000 documents in 1973 (CIA). MKUltra and its many subprojects were experiments into human behavioral engineering; many of these experiments were highly illegal and unethical. The CIA would collect unwitting American and Canadian citizens for human experimentation that often resulted in severe neurological and psychological damage. The subjects of the human experimentation would be subject to many varieties of altered mental states brought on through various means including, but not limited to, hypnosis, hallucinogenic drugs, insulin induced comas, LSD, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal abuse, and even sexual abuse. “The frequent screams of the patients that echoed through the hospital did not deter Cameron or most of his associates in their attempts to depattern their subjects completely” (Mark ch. 8). In subproject 119, scientists implanted electrical devices into people in order to try to take control of motor function and human behavior. In subproject 68, lead by Dr. Ewen Cameron, patients were placed into comas, sensory deprived, and forced to listen to repeating tapes for months on end. Dr. Cameron’s experiments included the sexual abuse of children. His subproject and other subprojects would manage to obtain film of high-ranking American government officials committing sexual acts on children and blackmail those officials in order to maintain funding (Goliszek 170-171). He would become president of the American, Canadian, and World Psychiatric Association.

How do these atrocities relate to extrasensory perception? Firstly, any significant research into extrasensory perception during altered states would have been researched in this program. Secondly, the work done (and probably still being continued under another codename) by Operation MKUltra prompted the U.S. Army to start Project Stargate. MKUltra lead to many strange and bizarre projects concerning parapsychology and extrasensory perception, but Project Stargate has more easily available information concerning it. Project Stargate was a remote viewing project that lasted until 1995. Remote viewing is a type of extrasensory perception that involved subjective locating abilities. The Stargate Project involved soldiers and some civilians being isolated from news reports and current events and asking them in to find out about enemy movements while in a trance. The final public report of the Stargate Project proclaimed that,

Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists… even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations (Mumford).

While the specifics pertaining to results of these tests are widely unknown, they are still a significant portion of the history of extrasensory perception.

Modern-era parapsychology has become rare in the United States. The only two universities in America that continue to study parapsychology are the University of Virginia and the University of Arizona. The University of Virginia is studying near-death experiences and the possibility of survival after death. The University of Arizona is studying mediumship. Mediumship includes a little extrasensory perception. There are also a variety of private institutions in America that study parapsychology, and they do tend to have occasional studies into extrasensory perception. In Europe, parapsychology has had substantial increases in research funding. The University of Edinburgh has become somewhat famous for the Koestler Parapsychology Unit and is currently offering degrees in parapsychology for anyone who has two masters degrees in two other fields of psychology and completes all of their parapsychology courses. Parapsychology has also started to be augmented by other fields of psychology in recent years to try to provide theoretical framework (Zusne). Overall, there is no known research that substantiates the claim of extrasensory perception. To claim the government managed to succeed with their secret tests would be a conspiracy theory that would require far more substantiation. For more than a century research has been poured into this subject without any fruitful results.

As previously mentioned, there are several kinds of extrasensory perception, and they can be categorized into types. These types are telepathy, clairvoyance, and trans-temporal cognition (Encyclopedia Britannica). Telepathy is the transmission of thoughts between at least two people. Clairvoyance is a general term for several subtypes of the ability to know or be aware of objects or events that shouldn’t be known because the senses haven’t been exposed to them in what would generally be considered the natural way. Trans-temporal cognition is a broader term for precognition and retrocognition. Precognition is the ability to see into the future. Retrocognition is the ability to see into the past (Parapsychological Association).

Telepathy is essentially thought reading. There are several forms of telepathy. One of these forms is emotive telepathy, which is the ability to influence others with emotions. However, latent telepathy is typically considered to be the most frequent form. Both of these along with classic telepathy are the only pure forms of telepathy. Telepathy is often studied with Gansfeld effects, or other uses of sensory deprivation in order to try to increase the ability of extrasensory perceptions. Earlier experiments made use of Zener cards. Experiments tend to have two subjects, one of whom is given a picture in one room and the other is in another room and is supposed to try to know what the other is thinking subconsciously. Testing is done by marking the time by when the photos appear and what the sensory deprived subject says to be seeing or feeling (Parapsychological Association).

Clairvoyance is the sixth sense. It has many subtypes as follows: clairalience, clairaudience, claircognizance, clairgustance, clairsentience. True clairvoyance is the ability to actually see the objects or events that should be out of sight. True clairvoyance includes remote viewing. The subtypes each relate to the other senses, with the exception of claircognizance. For example, clairalience refers to the sense of smell, and clairgustance refers to the sense of taste. They all generally operate in the same way, but each to its own sense.  Claircognizance, on the other hand, is more of a general feeling. A good example of claircognizance would be the feeling one is being watched, which is a common phenomena currently being researched. While claircognizance is an intrinsic knowledge, it defers from trans-temporal cognition in that claircognizance only gives knowledge about the present. It may be likely claircognizance is more similar to trans-temporal cognition than the other forms of clairvoyance (Parapsychological Association).

Trans-temporal cognition is both retrocognition and precognition. It is the ability to know the past and the future. All evidence for this must be anecdotal in nature. Currently, there is no proof it is anything other than a confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Recently, thanks to new technologies, social media, and mass data storage, it may be possible to start new experiments by observing old data collected in order to objectify the anecdotes (Alcock).

Extrasensory perception is part of the field known as Parapsychology. Parapsychology encompasses telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation, apparitional experiences, and similar claims. Contrary to popular belief, Parapsychology is not concerned with UFOs, Bigfoot, paganism, or witchcraft. Like many forms of psychology, parapsychology is a pseudoscience (pseudo is a prefix meaning false). A pseudoscience is anything that takes the form of science but isn’t. In other words, a pseudoscience can be empirical and based on statistics (Panskepp).

One of the key parts of what demarcates science from pseudoscience is the idea of falsifiability. For example, if one were to examine an instance where a man saved a child from drowning that was being drowned by another man from both Freud’s and Adler’s differing theories, we would get different results of which both are equally valid. Freud would claim the second man is suffering from psychological repression stemming from the Oedipus Complex and the first had attained sublimation. Adler, on the other hand, would claim both men simply had feelings of inferiority, which drove one man to save another and also drove the other man to kill. The observation in this case confirms the theory, both opposing theories. This is pseudoscientific as there is nothing that could prove either theory to be false (Popper). For something to be truly scientific, it must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable. In science a prediction must be made, like Einstein’s prediction light can bent by gravity. That is testable during a solar eclipse by observing the light of stars behind and nearby the sun during an eclipse. If the effect isn’t observed, then Einstein’s theory is refuted, thus it is refutable. Since Einstein is either correct or incorrect, it is falsifiable. Therefore, Einstein’s theory of relativity is true science. Psychology fails to meet the standards of science (Kuhn). Technically, however, psychology is an accepted science but is considered a soft science, which is merely a way to separate the stigma of the field being called a pseudoscience (Popper). The reason for this is just because it is pseudoscience doesn’t necessitate it being not true or helpful. Certainly psychology is thought to be helpful for many people, but it isn’t scientific. It uses many aspects of science to attain a level of empirical thought, but it relies on a confirmation basis, and the theories are mostly inherently improvable. It would be hubris to throw out psychology on the basis it isn’t always scientific. Additionally, psychology does have a few parts to it that are scientific (although, admittedly, quite a bit of the earlier scientific portions of psychology were unethical). Psychology’s credibility only came about by advances in other fields of science, particularly neurology and biology. Similarly, parapsychology currently fails at not being falsifiable or refutable.

If there hasn’t been any known substantiated research and if extrasensory perception is a pseudoscience that will defy any attempts at true scientific analysis, then why continue devoting funding and time to studying extrasensory perception? This is a good question. Parapsychologists always start from the assumption the phenomenon of extrasensory perception and other phenomena are real. There is an inherent confirmation bias in parapsychology that prevents answers from being found. Whereas in the past, some pseudosciences were able to achieve the rank of soft science, or even hard science in the case of chemistry, by managing to create a substantial theoretical framework and laboratory data, parapsychology will never be able to achieve that level of credibility. By always looking for the confirmation and not considering the null data, parapsychology has crippled itself. Yet, this doesn’t necessitate the subject matter of extrasensory perception shouldn’t be studied. It would be a fallacy to assume because the field extrasensory perception is relegated to is corrupt and unscientific extrasensory perception shouldn’t be studied scientifically at all. Unfortunately, until recently, the critics and skeptics of parapsychology have done very little in the way of running tests themselves in order to refute the phenomena the parapsychologists claim exist. There is a new field of psychology that has recently been established known as anomalistic psychology that attempts to study these purported phenomena from a purely scientific view (French). Anomalistic psychologists don’t rely on a confirmation bias and therefore are free to explore all possibilities, and they have made great strides in doing so. Wiseman and associates did a study on apparitions and alleged haunting that showed environmental factors caused people to more likely see apparitions. These environmental factors included levels of lighting, local electromagnetic fields, and other similar factors. In one case, they found a fault line in the earth was emanating certain ions underneath a house and causing hallucinations to anyone in proximity to the house and the effect of the ions increased with exposure. Hauntings and apparitions aren’t normally considered to be part of extrasensory perception, but this was brought up to make an example of the successes of anomalistic psychology. Unfortunately, there have not yet been anomalistic psychological studies into extrasensory perception. It is here encouragement for study into extrasensory perception is warranted and needed (Wiseman).

Extrasensory perception has eluded researches for more than a century because of a confirmation bias that has existed since research has begun. Only recently have researchers taken the study beyond the pseudoscience, and it is now time for research to truly begin into the paranormal. This line of research is of the utmost importance as the results would either change all we scientifically know about the nature of the universe, or it will do nothing more than cast away doubt. Either way, the research is necessary.

Bibliography

Alcock, James E. Parapsychology, Science or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon, 1981. Print.

Berger, Arthur S., and Joyce Berger. The Encyclopedia of Parapsychology and Psychical Research. New York: Paragon House, 1991.

“Extrasensory Perception (ESP) (psychology).” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.

Frazier, Kendrick. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1981. Print.

French, Chris. “Nature.com.” Soapbox Science. Nature.com, 19 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

“An Interview with Richard Helms.” Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency, 08 May 2007. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Goliszek, Andrew, Ph.D. In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation. New York: St. Martins, 2003. Print.

“Historical Terms Glossary.” Glossary of Psi (Parapsychological) Terms. Parapsychological Association, 2006. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.

“Koestler Parapsychology Unit.” Koestler Parapsychology Unit. University of Edinburgh, n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2012. Print.

Kurtz, Paul. A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1985. Print.

Lasby, Clarence G. Project Paperclip German Scientists and the Cold War. New York: Atheneum, 1975. Print.

Laycock, Donald, David Vernon, Colin Groves, and Simon Brown. Skeptical: A Handbook of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Ed. David Vernon. Canberra: Canberra Skeptics, 1989. Print.

Marks, John. The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”: The CIA and Mind Control. New York: Times, 1979. Print.

Mumford, Michael D., Andrew H. Rose, and David A. Goshin. An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, 1995. Print.

Panksepp, Jaak. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.

Popper, Karl R. Conjectures and Refutations; the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic, 1962. Print.

“Records of the Secretary of Defense (RG 330).” National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Stein, James D., Ph.D. The Paranormal Equation: A New Scientific Perspective on Remote Viewing, Clairvoyance, and Other Inexplicable Phenomena. Pompton Plains, NJ: New Page, 2013. Print.

“The VERITAS Research Program.” Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health. University of Arizona, n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.

Wiseman, Richard, and Caroline Watt. Parapsychology. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. Print.

Zusne, Leonard, and Warren H. Jones. Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum, 1989. Print.

As The Kids Say

Leave a reply

The Voice of the People

I hope you aren’t disappointed by this article or you find it misleading.  Like Colin Mochrie, I try to stay pretty current with the latest vernacular of the younger generation, especially since we at Redeeming Pandora like to keep it fresh.  My students are certainly aware of my intuitive grasp of the latest lingo, but despite what you may have thought from the title of this article, it’s not really about diction.  Instead, having recommended a number of quality movies, books, albums, and games over the issues, I thought it would be good to hear from some of the youth today.  What movies, series, and artists/albums do they find worthwhile?  What classics resonant within this generation?  What contemporary aesthetic delights should I and my elders experience?  We have kept the responders anonymous, in part to avoid the excessive adulation and further requests for recommendations that no doubt will follow (and in part so you don’t get mad at anyone specifically if you think any of these are inappropriate — I assume they mean the clean versions of whatever selection you find distasteful).  Any multiple-responder recommendations are noted with an “x#.”  As always, no grown-ups are to blame for what happens next.

Well, there you have it.  The people have spoken.  Rousseau is happy.  Before you start clamoring for a “Here’s What Good Culture Is, You Philistine Youth!” elective (which, actually, isn’t such a bad idea), remember even Bach was “pop culture” long ago.  Perhaps these may not have Bach’s staying power, but who better to keep us informed on what’s current than the youth?  So go check out some of the new good stuff, as the kids say.  Or keep enjoying the good old stuff, whichever.  Either way, delight in something beautiful and share it with others.