@number1guy

I have no idea where you are getting that from. Some people say certain parents are bad, I say all parents are bad. I'm just lowering the bar, not calling anyone names like those who say only certain parents are bad.

@Jessss

It may provide more positive outcomes within the context of an environment home to much hostility, but that doesn't mean that it is any more effective than authoritative parenting in those same environments. In-fact, regardless of the efficacy of authoritarian parenting being greater in subpopulations such as African American communities, authoritative parenting still predicts better psychosocial outcomes (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Steinberg, Darling, & Fletcher, 1995) The authoritarian parenting might work better in those subpopulations because of the cultural mileu, and continuing in that vain certainly isn't going to change the culture.

I can understand that it doesn't sound good coming from me; though I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for readers to understand. If you don't care for an explanation or you just don't care for me; fine, but please leave it open for explanations and for others to read those explanations.

Now, for those who do not like my saying it, but would prefer something a bit more technical and "formal". Here is a segment from "Consciousness as Integrated Information: A Provisional Manifesto" by Neuroscientists Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi

The IIT claims that, just as the quantity of consciousness generated by a complex of elements is determined by the amount of integrated information it generates above and beyond its parts, the quality of consciousness is determined by the set of all the informational relationships its mechanisms generate. That is, how integrated information is generated within a complex determines not only the amount of consciousness it has, but also what kind of consciousness.

Consider again the photodiode thought experiment. As I discussed before, when the photodiode reacts to light, it can only tell that things are one way rather than another way. On the other hand, when we see "light," we discriminate against many more states of affairs, and thus generate much more information. In fact, I argued that "light" means what it means and becomes conscious "light" by virtue of being not just the opposite of dark, but also different from any color, any shape, any combination of colors and shapes, any frame of every possible movie, any sound, smell, thought, and so on.

What needs to be emphasized at this point is that discriminating "light" against all these alternatives implies not just picking one thing out of "everything else" (an undifferentiated bunch), but distinguishing at once, in a specific way, between each and every alternative. Consider a very simple example: a binary counter capable of discriminating among the four numbers: 00, 01, 10, 11. When the counter says binary "3," it is not just discriminating 11 from everything else as an undifferentiated bunch, otherwise it would not be a counter, but a 11 detector. To be a counter, the system must be able to tell 11 apart from 00 as well as from 10 as well as from 01 in different, specific ways. It does so, of course, by making choices through its mechanisms; for example: is this the first or the second digit? Is it a 0 or a 1? Each mechanism adds its specific contribution to the discrimination they perform together. Similarly, when we see light, mechanisms in our brain are not just specifying "light" with respect to a bunch of undifferentiated alternatives. Rather, these mechanisms are specifying that light is what it is by virtue of being different, in this and that specific way, from every other alternative—from dark to any color, to any shape, movie frame, sound or smell, and so on.

In short, generating a large amount of integrated information entails having a highly structured set of mechanisms that allow us to make many nested discriminations (choices) as a single entity. According to the IIT, these mechanisms working together generate integrated information by specifying a set of informational relationships that completely and univocally determine the quality of experience.

Full Text: http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/215/3/216

That's what I was suggesting, but what material could be used to support that weight?

@Wes

Who needs to lighten up? I'm not the one complaining about someone's comments to a post on a site called Neatorama. You [guys] need to lighten up; Especially the number of posts used to castigate one commentor.

LOL; I'm merely commenting on what the research aims to uncover:

"The effect seems to depend on processing each face in light of the others. By aligning the faces at the eyes and presenting them quickly, it becomes much easier to compare them, so the differences between the faces are more extreme. If someone has a large jaw, it looks almost ogre-like. If they have an especially large forehead, then it looks particularly bulbous. We’re conducting several experiments right now to figure out exactly what’s causing this effect, so watch this space!"

I'm trying to say what is causing the effect. It's not a mystery except to those who love mystery.

For whom the bell tolls

I got it after reading "Just think about it a little." I instantly realized there was some trickery a-foot.

If isInteresting("change blindness") = True Then
Set objExplorer = CreateObject(InternetExplorer.Application)
objExplorer.Navigate = "http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Change_blindness"
objExplorer.Visible = 1
Else
MsgBox("Lame!")
End If

I like the illusions in and of themselves. They aren't creative tattoos per se, the one of the right is MC Escher. It is not so much an optical illusion as it is a statement of truth.

"My work is a game, a very serious game."
M. C. Escher

"It's pleasing to realize that quite a few people enjoy this sort of playfulness and that they are not afraid to look at the relative nature of rock-hard reality."
M.C. Escher

I don't see it; wait, let me squint my eyes some more.

Take a look at you and me,
are we too blind to see,
do we simply turn our heads
and look the other way

I think I got potter-trichotillomania.

Lame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmmHPE8EvA

If only good parents were allowed to raise children. There would be no people.

It sounds like your biases. The somewhat popular band Tool produced a track on their album Ænima called "Die Eier Von Satan" which was all in German with heavy industrial sounds and a large group of people screaming in approval of the German speaker.

"In eine Schüssel geben
Butter einrühren
Gemahlene Nüsse zugeben und
Den Teig verkneten"

Over at sing365.com, commentor Jas wrote:

"This song goes with the song Message to Harry Manback. To people who don't know German this song would sound dark when really its just a cookie recipe, Harry Manback to people who don't know italian it could sound romantic when really the song is angry and vicious. Read between the lines."

A lot of people without translating the song felt that it was demonic or Neofaschistiche (Neofascist). Unsympatische (Unsympathetic). Radikal (Radical). Which is especially ironic considering English and German share the same root language. It is not that German sounds radically different from English or any other language, it's that it has been associated with Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism).

The above section of song means:

"Place in a bowl
Add butter
Add the ground nuts and
Knead the dough"