back-that-sass-up:

subjecttocaprice:

subjecttocaprice:

My mom just sent me this picture of my dog…I guess we got a lot of snow, then

update:

image

Great update

12.13.18 881775NREBLOG

hippiee:

people who suggest getting breakfast together as a hangout plan are the kind of people you want to hang onto

12.13.18 138219NREBLOG
12.13.18 26786NREBLOG
12.13.18 13781NREBLOG

mogmogmog615:

image


代わりのきく存在のポジションは飽きたから

そろそろ誰かに独り占めにされたい。

12.13.18 20NREBLOG
12.13.18 119NREBLOG
12.13.18 24525NREBLOG
12.13.18 16299NREBLOG
12.13.18 13013NREBLOG

frizzhle:

is this considered coffee art? 

its actually tea, but whatever close enough

ig: @byekelly & @kellysfart

12.13.18 1341NREBLOG

butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway:

redmagus77:

kaylapocalypse:

thatadult:

The Stanford prison experiment tapes were so stupid when I watched them in AP psych and so stupid when I watch this film about them. Literally they could’ve all sat and played cards and got $15 a day to tell ghost stories all day and be best friends. But masculinity and whiteness and power created this violent irrationality that positioned young ass men to be met with brutality and trauma and disrespect even when it was obviously taken too far. and it makes no sense. If someone put me in a room with Black girls and said I would get paid $90 a day (that’s the equivalent apparently) to be a prison guard, do you know how fast I’d be sitting with them and learning about them and exchanging Instagrams and like.. sleeping.. like what the fuck was the point of any of that…

My psych teacher introduced us to this study and literally before she showed us was like “don’t ever confuse a study based on one type of person (white men/boys) to be an example of an Everyman situation. There is strong evidence that if this was recreated with diversity, or even just with girls, that the results would have been drastically different. This is an example of bias and sexism in the medical research community.”

“Other, more subtle factors also shaped the experiment. It’s often said that the study participants were ordinary guys—and they were, indeed, determined to be “normal” and healthy by a battery of tests. But they were also a self-selected group who responded to a newspaper advertisement seeking volunteers for “a psychological study of prison life.” In a 2007 study, the psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland asked whether that wording itself may have stacked the odds. They recreated the original ad, and then ran a separate ad omitting the phrase “prison life.” They found that the people who responded to the two ads scored differently on a set of psychological tests. Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism.”

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment

The thing about this study is that whether or not it’s generalizable to the public is debatable at best.

But it’s certainly generalizable to the population of people who tend to be drawn to prison system and law enforcement jobs because that’s exactly the demographics that tend to show up in those positions.

12.13.18 177241NREBLOG

murpha:

flowers will sprout in a dusty closet

12.12.18 28267NREBLOG
12.12.18 1122NREBLOG

12.12.18 84792NREBLOG

waveymo0n:

the moon knows.

12.12.18 19052NREBLOG
NEXT