An EXTREMELY serious message for ALL OPP members
Jun 9, 2014 22:58:40 #
Retired669 wrote:
Do you really care or is this another excuse for your kind to whine?....I think it's funny since Glaucon is probably scratching his head after reading all the ignorant posts and replies you tea bagging idiots provide everyday. If he believes most of you are ignorant he would be right! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
May I ask why you choose to insult rather than engage in dialog? I have never even had a discussion with Glaucon much less a disagreement yet i find it interesting enough to wish to know the propose.
Unless you are just another paid troll you should be interested too !
Jun 9, 2014 23:03:59 #
Constitutional libertarian wrote:
May I ask why you choose to insult rather than engage in dialog? I have never even had a discussion with Glaucon much less a disagreement yet i find it interesting enough to wish to know the propose.
Unless you are just another paid troll you should be interested too !
Unless you are just another paid troll you should be interested too !
Someone researching behavior is not likely to tell you the goals of any research while the study is being conducted (if at all). The "subjects" knowing the goal can willingly contaminate the results.
I'm more interested in the data if and when it's available.
Jun 9, 2014 23:05:28 #
Constitutional libertarian wrote:
May I ask why you choose to insult rather than engage in dialog? I have never even had a discussion with Glaucon much less a disagreement yet i find it interesting enough to wish to know the propose.
Unless you are just another paid troll you should be interested too !
Unless you are just another paid troll you should be interested too !
Nothing untoward or hidden intended. I am truly and utterly baffled by this concern. Why do you find it "interesting enough to wish to know the p(ur)ropose"? I do also but out of simple curiosity, if such actually exists. I have a masters in clinical psychology and do research for NSA, IRS, FDA, FEMA, and other charitable organizations all the time here. Just data collection. Never questioned why this or that. Why question, right?
Jun 9, 2014 23:26:39 #
rumitoid wrote:
Nothing untoward or hidden intended. I am truly and utterly baffled by this concern. Why do you find it "interesting enough to wish to know the p(ur)ropose"? I do also but out of simple curiosity, if such actually exists. I have a masters in clinical psychology and do research for NSA, IRS, FDA, FEMA, and other charitable organizations all the time here. Just data collection. Never questioned why this or that. Why question, right?
??? What type of scientist wouldn't wish to know the purpose for why someone is directing you to gather information. That doesn't make any sense to someone like me who is a hard scientist rather than a more subjective one like psychology.
I am now beginning to question the sincerity of more people on here other than just the 3 or 4 obvious trolls.
And you people wonder why many on here are paranoid. They are being watched studied and reported on.
Jun 9, 2014 23:35:12 #
Constitutional libertarian wrote:
??? What type of scientist wouldn't wish to know the purpose for why someone is directing you to gather information. That doesn't make any sense to someone like me who is a hard scientist rather than a more subjective one like psychology.
I am now beginning to question the sincerity of more people on here other than just the 3 or 4 obvious trolls.
And you people wonder why many on here are paranoid. They are being watched studied and reported on.
I am now beginning to question the sincerity of more people on here other than just the 3 or 4 obvious trolls.
And you people wonder why many on here are paranoid. They are being watched studied and reported on.
A joke. Sorry, thought it was obvious.
Jun 9, 2014 23:38:32 #
[quote=mwdegutis]I apologize in advance for the length of my post but this is extremely serious and cant be buried in some obscure thread. All political views aside, there is something VERY unethical and illegal going on in the friendly confines of One Political Plaza (OPP). I happened to notice recently that at least five times it was mentioned that OPP member Glaucon is doing some type of psychological research. Based on these observations, I concluded that Glaucons research includes the members of this website, albeit unknowingly. This would explain a lot about his/her approach to how he/she posts and interacts with OPP members.
So I was wondering and posted to Glaucon in a thread He/she has said I never ask questions. Well here is a condensed version of that thread:
Interesting comments...this leads me to believe that in fact, Glaucon is conducting unapproved psychological studies on all OPP members. So lets review
I am in full compliance with APA standards although there is no need for me to be.
Kind of sounds like someone else we know but I digress. Not only do I respectfully submit that Glaucon is NOT in full compliance with APA standards, he/she has also crossed both ethical and legal boundaries and on a minor note, possibly OPP rules. Case in point:
Concerning APA and ethical requirements:
American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct:
3.10 Informed Consent
When psychologists conduct research they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons
8.02 Informed Consent to Research
When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about: (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) [b]whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.
Concerning legal rights and the rights of human subjects:
In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards of the study, and the discomfort it may entail. He or she should be informed that he or she is at liberty to abstain from participation in the study, and that he or she is free to withdraw his or her consent to participation at any time. The physician should then obtain the subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing.
This is extremely important ? This is a big who gives a crap...study away
LAWS RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
FDA Regulations
Informed consent
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2001]
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
General requirements for informed consent
No investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
So there you have it. Based on the evidence, I, and to the best of my knowledge, everyone else on this website have been the subjects of a psychological study and have never given our consent for Glaucon to conduct research on us. Therefore, we have unethically and illegally been involuntary test subjects. So one of my questions is, given APAs Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 8.02 Informed Consent to Research edict concerning incentives for participation, how are we going to be compensated? Another is how should Glaucon be held accountable for these egregiously unethical and illegal offenses?
Considering the seriousness of this post, I am posting this to the forum at large to inform you of this matter. If you choose to, PLEASE only post serious replies.[/quote]
This is extremely important..?? This is a big who gives a crap.....study away
So I was wondering and posted to Glaucon in a thread He/she has said I never ask questions. Well here is a condensed version of that thread:
Interesting comments...this leads me to believe that in fact, Glaucon is conducting unapproved psychological studies on all OPP members. So lets review
I am in full compliance with APA standards although there is no need for me to be.
Kind of sounds like someone else we know but I digress. Not only do I respectfully submit that Glaucon is NOT in full compliance with APA standards, he/she has also crossed both ethical and legal boundaries and on a minor note, possibly OPP rules. Case in point:
Concerning APA and ethical requirements:
American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct:
3.10 Informed Consent
When psychologists conduct research they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons
8.02 Informed Consent to Research
When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about: (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) [b]whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.
Concerning legal rights and the rights of human subjects:
In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards of the study, and the discomfort it may entail. He or she should be informed that he or she is at liberty to abstain from participation in the study, and that he or she is free to withdraw his or her consent to participation at any time. The physician should then obtain the subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing.
This is extremely important ? This is a big who gives a crap...study away
LAWS RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
FDA Regulations
Informed consent
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2001]
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
General requirements for informed consent
No investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
So there you have it. Based on the evidence, I, and to the best of my knowledge, everyone else on this website have been the subjects of a psychological study and have never given our consent for Glaucon to conduct research on us. Therefore, we have unethically and illegally been involuntary test subjects. So one of my questions is, given APAs Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 8.02 Informed Consent to Research edict concerning incentives for participation, how are we going to be compensated? Another is how should Glaucon be held accountable for these egregiously unethical and illegal offenses?
Considering the seriousness of this post, I am posting this to the forum at large to inform you of this matter. If you choose to, PLEASE only post serious replies.[/quote]
This is extremely important..?? This is a big who gives a crap.....study away
Jun 9, 2014 23:43:12 #
mwdegutis wrote:
So tell me Glaucon...how many are on your payroll?
BoJester
Brian Devon
Who else?
I guess conclusions based on observation and documented facts mean nothing nowadays.
BoJester
Brian Devon
Who else?
I guess conclusions based on observation and documented facts mean nothing nowadays.
I get paid in gold....the U.S. dollar will be worthless soon
Jun 10, 2014 00:06:13 #
rumitoid wrote:
A joke. Sorry, thought it was obvious.
That some people are paranoid for a reason yes I think we can go with that :thumbup:
Jun 10, 2014 00:20:50 #
Brian Devon wrote:
*************
Judging by the wingnuts on OPP, I would say the conservatives brain fuel of choice is indeed paranoia.
Their second choice in fuel is triple distilled fairy tales, both the biblical and civics varieties.
Judging by the wingnuts on OPP, I would say the conservatives brain fuel of choice is indeed paranoia.
Their second choice in fuel is triple distilled fairy tales, both the biblical and civics varieties.
Their third choice is blind hatred. The mixture of all three is extremely volatile and dangerous as we see over and over through out history :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jun 10, 2014 00:24:28 #
Your the one who spouts Hatred. You talk about Congress not working together You work on separation as well.
Nickolai wrote:
Their third choice is blind hatred. The mixture of all three is extremely volatile and dangerous as we see over and over through out history :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jun 10, 2014 01:19:27 #
Constitutional libertarian wrote:
That some people are paranoid for a reason yes I think we can go with that :thumbup:
Agreed!
Jun 10, 2014 05:02:26 #
He applied but he fell short of the basic skills needed to be a low level troll.
Constitutional libertarian wrote:
May I ask why you choose to insult rather than engage in dialog? I have never even had a discussion with Glaucon much less a disagreement yet i find it interesting enough to wish to know the propose.
Unless you are just another paid troll you should be interested too !
Unless you are just another paid troll you should be interested too !
Jun 10, 2014 08:07:13 #
mwdegutis wrote:
He never told us upfront or got our consent to use us in the study. Unethical and illegal.
I'm loathe to make a comment here, but MONTHS AGO, there was a discussion that brought to light Glaucon's research, and I believe a comment about writing a book. I suspect a great many of you were not here then and/or perhaps missed the thread. I'm sure some of you feel "broadsided."
However, my two cents for whatever it's worth, I learned long ago never to say anything ANYWHERE I would not want to see repeated in print or referred to by others that I would be ashamed of. Truth to tell, while I may not agree with a lot of what is said on OPP, I find "very little" that if I were the author I would panic over and wish deleted or made reference to from a clinical perspective.
Jun 10, 2014 08:40:09 #
Brian Devon wrote:
************
Some of us are not so paranoid as to believe that "the Monsters are due on Maple St." I appreciate Glaucon's posts and find nothing "fishy".
Some of us are not so paranoid as to believe that "the Monsters are due on Maple St." I appreciate Glaucon's posts and find nothing "fishy".
the fish never does
Jun 10, 2014 08:46:45 #
Brian Devon wrote:
***********
Google: metaphor. Sorry you are too stupid to get the social messages of Rod Serling.
Google: metaphor. Sorry you are too stupid to get the social messages of Rod Serling.
i love your put downs and insults as you scratch the crabs in your panties
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.