Someone asked why a child can't be considered a psychopath. As an individual who has almost finished her doctorate in clinical psychology, let me tell you part of the reason why. Psychopathy, or Antisocial Personality Disorder, as it is now diagnosed, is a personality disorder. In order to obtain this diagnosis, you need proof that this is an underlying personality trait and not something that has just occurred as result of recent stress. Most psychologists/therapists/psychiatrists would not diagnosis a personality disorder in a child. In fact, this particular diagnosis requires that the individual be 18 years old. So, yes, there has to be evidence that the individual displayed these traits as a child, but not every child with these traits ends up displaying them in adulthood. This is due to brain development, social development, etc. That being said, I have had some of my supervisors tell me (and I have had the same feeling) that they can tell that a child will grow up to be a psychopath.
Overall, I guess it's just nice to give them the opportunity to show that this is an everlasting character trait. I am not sure how I feel about this new diagnosis. The fact is that there already exists diagnoses that are considered precursors to psychopathy (but these do not necessarily mean that every child with this diagnosis will end up being a psychopath), but that is based more on antisocial behaviors than emotional response. I am just afraid that this diagnosis could be too premature for many kids.

Now if these became a phenomenon in offices everywhere, and bosses started to figure out that they were fakes, wouldn't it be funny if the actual parents of the kids who posed for these pictures got in trouble for having the "fake kid"? You know, you can tell it's the same kid that everyone else has on their desks. :) That is, unless the child was actually computer generated.

Hmm. I've learned that older research has found that expressions are universal...

I would think that would actually contribute to some accidents. You know, as a person is driving by while it's raining they look over and think, "Is that billboard bleeding?" and who knows what happens as they are staring at the billboard instead of the road. But, who knows? I just wouldn't want to put something that distracting on the road.

I was going to say something similar to GQ - I remember seeing the movie with all three endings included in it. I know I didn't see it in the theater (as far as I remember), but I do know my grandparents had a VHS copy, and I watched it on TV several times, and each ending was shown. The first one was shown and then a caption read something like, "That's how it could have happened.." and then showed the next one and then the captions said, "But this is how it really happened," indicating the last one was the true ending.
I never knew that they showed the three different endings at the theater. That's pretty neat!

What? I've never even heard of the website, much less the person..

Yeah, because performing barefoot couldn't possibly lead to safety hazards as well!

As an Alabamian (if that's word), I'm slightly offended by the "Of all places," comment. I know the state gets a rep of stupid and redneck, but, really, we have some culture!

Anyway, that Renaissance Fair is awesome.

This is cool, but it has a recognition component. If you recognize the songs, it would be easier to remember them. I found that I did better with game boards that had more songs that I knew, and worse on the game boards when I didn't really recognize any song.

Like someone said above, there was (maybe there still is?) a doctor Barbie, vet Barbie, police officer Barbie, teacher Barbie, etc etc etc. I think that reinforces that girls can be what they want to be.

Plus, a few years ago they changed the proportions of Barbie's. I don't know how much difference it has made, but they aren't impossible proportions anymore, as far as I know.

But, yes, I agree with a lot of people here. It's based on the parents, not the law.

2 legit 2 quit.

@ Roger - I did not mean to say that everyone should celebrate regardless of political affiliation. I meant to say that it is a historical event, as it is a first in U.S. history. (Plus, I would consider any presidential inauguration as an historical event).

All I'm trying to say is that I think it's ok for Neatorama to post this without the blog being "political," simply as it is a current event and this post did not contain any political opinions in it.

I disagree with Barm that "this is not neat." I think, regardless of your political views, whether left or right, having the first African American President is pretty darn neat to me!

I don't really see this as a political post. The post did not say anything about Pres. Obama's political views. It just said he was inaugurated today and that he's the first African American president! I am sure they would have posted something regardless of who the new president was. I think it's just marking the historical day. Regardless of what your political affiliation, it IS a historical day.