....is that I think they are studying cue and mood manipulation. The idiots doing the project do not understand mood or emotions scientifically. I feel confident, based on a face that I made at the DMV when an uniformed female claimed military woman showed up and acted like she didn't like me right when I was there, that the CIA thinks that it has learned some breathtaking new insight from my driver's license photo.

I believe I have learned something interesting myself, though it isn't scientific...I got some good food for thought about "reactions to emotionally unusual situations" too, because I consent to be me and share information voluntarily with me, just as I do not always do with DOD/DOS.

This post is likely to disgust DOS/DOD types, which they will likely acknowledge.

Here is a general multiple-choice question for readers to consider about morality:

What do you do when you see an innocent person facing extreme emotional distress facing a stressful encounter?...

a) step into character
b) try to do some research without consent
c) stay out of it because you might not know how to react
d) try to help

I assert that if you aren't stupid, you would do C or D; I would opt for D. Some idiots think A or B is right, and don't understand or believe that, critically, such actions might have psychological impacts on the people who do it.

Have you ever considered the psychology of "predatory researchers?" There have been billions of dollars invested in treating illnesses like schizophrenia and PTSD and ASPD, because many people care about these conditions and sufferers may want real help. I argue, without proof, there is almost no research into "how to help the emotional health and stability of 'extreme emotion seekers' who want to prey on people with different and unusual emotional experiences"; that's not a medical condition, it's a choice, I believe, as a non-scientist. "Self-category predators"--those who want to learn some cool lessons about extreme or unusual emotional states by sadistically experimenting on others who will also have had extreme or unusual states--tend to wind up getting intoxicated and not helped too much--it was your choice, you won't ask for help.

It's all just my speculation, nothing that's proved. There is a lot of bad fake science done by the government these days, it's stupid.

-Philip

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:33:17 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> ...is that I think they are studying cue and mood manipulation. The idiots doing the project do not understand mood or emotions scientifically. I feel confident, based on a face that I made at the DMV when an uniformed female claimed military woman showed up and acted like she didn't like me right when I was there, that the CIA thinks that it has learned some breathtaking new insight from my driver's license photo.
>
> I believe I have learned something interesting myself, though it isn't scientific...I got some good food for thought about "reactions to emotionally unusual situations" too, because I consent to be me and share information voluntarily with me, just as I do not always do with DOD/DOS.
>
> This post is likely to disgust DOS/DOD types, which they will likely acknowledge.
>
> Here is a general multiple-choice question for readers to consider about morality:
>
> What do you do when you see an innocent person facing extreme emotional distress facing a stressful encounter?...
>
> a) step into character
> b) try to do some research without consent
> c) stay out of it because you might not know how to react
> d) try to help
>
> I assert that if you aren't stupid, you would do C or D; I would opt for D. Some idiots think A or B is right, and don't understand or believe that, critically, such actions might have psychological impacts on the people who do it.
>
> Have you ever considered the psychology of "predatory researchers?" There have been billions of dollars invested in treating illnesses like schizophrenia and PTSD and ASPD, because many people care about these conditions and sufferers may want real help. I argue, without proof, there is almost no research into "how to help the emotional health and stability of 'extreme emotion seekers' who want to prey on people with different and unusual emotional experiences"; that's not a medical condition, it's a choice, I believe, as a non-scientist. "Self-category predators"--those who want to learn some cool lessons about extreme or unusual emotional states by sadistically experimenting on others who will also have had extreme or unusual states--tend to wind up getting intoxicated and not helped too much--it was your choice, you won't ask for help.
>
> It's all just my speculation, nothing that's proved. There is a lot of bad fake science done by the government these days, it's stupid.
>
> -Philip

I meant to say "un-uniformed," I don't know if that was changed or if I mis-wrote it like that.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 5:56:23 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 2:33:17 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > ...is that I think they are studying cue and mood manipulation. The idiots doing the project do not understand mood or emotions scientifically. I feel confident, based on a face that I made at the DMV when an uniformed female claimed military woman showed up and acted like she didn't like me right when I was there, that the CIA thinks that it has learned some breathtaking new insight from my driver's license photo.
> >
> > I believe I have learned something interesting myself, though it isn't scientific...I got some good food for thought about "reactions to emotionally unusual situations" too, because I consent to be me and share information voluntarily with me, just as I do not always do with DOD/DOS.
> >
> > This post is likely to disgust DOS/DOD types, which they will likely acknowledge.
> >
> > Here is a general multiple-choice question for readers to consider about morality:
> >
> > What do you do when you see an innocent person facing extreme emotional distress facing a stressful encounter?...
> >
> > a) step into character
> > b) try to do some research without consent
> > c) stay out of it because you might not know how to react
> > d) try to help
> >
> > I assert that if you aren't stupid, you would do C or D; I would opt for D. Some idiots think A or B is right, and don't understand or believe that, critically, such actions might have psychological impacts on the people who do it.
> >
> > Have you ever considered the psychology of "predatory researchers?" There have been billions of dollars invested in treating illnesses like schizophrenia and PTSD and ASPD, because many people care about these conditions and sufferers may want real help. I argue, without proof, there is almost no research into "how to help the emotional health and stability of 'extreme emotion seekers' who want to prey on people with different and unusual emotional experiences"; that's not a medical condition, it's a choice, I believe, as a non-scientist. "Self-category predators"--those who want to learn some cool lessons about extreme or unusual emotional states by sadistically experimenting on others who will also have had extreme or unusual states--tend to wind up getting intoxicated and not helped too much--it was your choice, you won't ask for help.
> >
> > It's all just my speculation, nothing that's proved. There is a lot of bad fake science done by the government these days, it's stupid.
> >
> > -Philip
> I meant to say "un-uniformed," I don't know if that was changed or if I mis-wrote it like that.

By the way, when I said, "non-scientist" I meant "non psych doctor"...I have said elsewhere that I have been "a great scientist with DOD"; what I mean is that I am a great mathematician with great science ideas that might be useful someday, not that I am an expert scientist...I have very little formal science education, sometimes I think I refer to myself as "a scientist" when I mean to say that "I have excellent (un-peer-reviewed, unverified) scientific ideas"...math is often the backbone of science and can help with it, but of course it's not the same thing.