(01-05-2020, 10:13 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(01-05-2020, 04:45 PM)Last42min Wrote: Thanks for the info. I would have bet money they called it in themselves. When I was in college back in 2005, I took what I thought would be a cakewalk course called Social Justice. I had never heard of such a thing, but it sounded like an easy A. The teacher was an absolute radical, though. Everyone, including self-professed democrats, thought he was too extreme. We were taught tactics for protesting, avoiding arrest, creating dynamic cellular networks, and general disruption. This is straight of his playbook. I didn't take it seriously at the time; no one did. Little did we know that he was the forerunner for the progressive movement.

On a side note, it was the only course in which I received a C. I tried to convince the class to handcuff ourselves to the desks and protest until we all received A's in the class, but no one had the courage to do it. He would have caved SO fast. It would have been a huge ego boost for that guy. Unfortunately, I ended up having to write a paper that was supposed to rail against capitalism, and I guess I wasn't convincing enough.

Odd.  I took psych instead, back in 2002.  The Prof decided to structure the curriculum around what she thought were the landmark experiments in psychology, and over the last few years it's come out that most of those results can't be duplicated and the results are probably invalid.  At least you got a more interesting story out of your class.  Both of us got gypped in terms of actual knowledge though.

It is funny trying to find the background for many famous psychological study’s. Foul play was certainly common back in the early days of research. I am beginning to think anything prior to the early 80’s is of dubious quality at best and on par with anecdota. But then again, who knows if it is any different now. Even the supposed gold standard of randomized controlled double blinds are p-gamed by pharmaceuticals to show even the smallest of results as effectual.

---