»

lazylunatic:

vodkapussy
:

peterfromtexas:

Heart surgeon after 23-hour (successful) lung heart transplantation. His assistant is sleeping in the corner

saw this in the national geographic best 100, this was my favourite

Will never not reblog, it looks like a battlefield in some way to me.

im5-official:

Ahh yes, The dreaded school. When it comes around we all dread, new teachers, new schedule, some new unfamiliar faces, the MASSIVE amount of homework load, less time on tumblr. Here is another long post with a few sites and others to help you out here!

College needs:

Food

Helpful sites:

High school needs:

Mental health resources:

Misc resources:

Motivation:

Music/Sound:

School resources:

Stress relief:

Studying/school help:
English/History:

Foreign Languages:

Geography:

Math/Science:

Study Needs:

TIPS:

  1. Remember that today’s day in age is different from how it was back then. So don’t stress about school too much.High school students today have the anxiety of what a mental patient in the insane asylum had in the 50s. Here’s also a thing to show how times have changed.
  2. Prioritize. List what needs to get done first and when. Sometimes getting the bigger/harder tasks is easier than conquering the smaller/easier tasks.
  3. Set times when certain projects need to be done and stick to that deadline.
  4. Turn your phone off or give it to your parents while doing work/studying. I know that we live in the age of technology and literally everything is at the touch of our fingertips. Honestly though you can wait on what your favorite celebrity has to say or if your crush liked your instagram photo. You’ll be more involved in that than you are into your work.
  5. If you have trouble in a certain subject and there is no assigned seating, take advantage of the front. I guarantee you’ll learn more.
  6. Ask your teacher what exactly you’ll need to know. If you’re taking notes during the year, write in the margins whether or not it will be tested. It will be easier to know what you will be tested on.
  7. Save your exams. Half the time your teachers use the same questions (or questions similar) from your exams on your midterms or finals.
  8. Don’t try to do homework straight afterschool if you can’t, despite what everyone says. Give yourself an hour, and try to get some exercise in. I find it stops me getting bored of sitting down. Not to mention helps me concentrate better.
  9. Don’t just read the material, write it, draw it, recite it, quiz yourself on it! Until you have the material down.
  10. Join clubs, sports, or organizations! You’re guaranteed to find friends in there. You’ll already have common interests. Start with that and go with the flow.
  11. College kids: If you don’t have assigned seating, and you have been sitting in the same seat for 2 weeks. That is you assigned seat now. Don’t move or you’ll screw everyone up and they will hate you.
  12. Color code things, such as your notes. If you want to see how I color code my notes message me and I’ll be happy to show you
  13. Be kind to one another.

I think that about does it. So yeah:)

But the funny thing about that is we (as readers/viewers) sometimes miss out on information that might have been interesting. The author didn’t think it was, but fans? Most fans will soak up content like a sponge (see: LotR extended editions, cutscenes, etc). And so we’re likely to ask ridiculous questions like “What is laundry day like at Avengers Tower?” - not because it’s important to the narrative, but because we’re curious.

Not to mention: every narrator is an unreliable narrator. Especially the ones who seem the most straightforward. Which means there are a wealth of stories not being told hiding right behind the story that is.

Which, I think, gives an inkling of the primary difference between original fic and fanfic: original fic is declarative, saying “here is the story, these are the important events and characters and aspects of the world,” while fanfic is exploratory (even when it’s got a cracking good plot).

Fanfic exists in the interstices, in the ellipses and the enjambment. Fanfiction exists in the moment before the wave function collapses. A transformative work doesn’t actually transform the original media it is based off of (because the original medium exists in a fixed state and cannot be literally changed by fans unless the canon creators allow it to be so) so much as take the essential structure of the narrative and the characters and twist it, turn it, rotate and reflect it until we’ve built a fractal around it.

“Fandom as Inhabitation of Negative Space” (via cypress-tree)

JESUS FUCK THIS HAS HOW MANY NOTES??

(via saathi1013)

When you get to the end of a story and want to fill in all the blanks, that’s not necessarily the sign of a lack in the original. Sometimes it’s just because you don’t want to leave this amazing new world that has been created!

(via captain-snark)

   

driving-an-impala-in-isengard:

actualholidaybakery:

ehretha:

A tip from your favorite nurse

(that’d be me)

Always have eggs in your fridge

You just never know when someone will split their head open

Or cut their finger while cooking

And so on

See that membrane there?

While the blood is gushing - hold pressure and crack open an egg

Peel that there membrane off and put it on the wound (continue holding pressure)

The membrane will harden and keep the wound closed until you can get to the ER for stitches

If you even need them that is

Nature: 1, Band aids: 0

You’re welcome.

I did some research on this (because I do that now, fucking science get out) and it seems that this was done in the early 1900s somewhat frequently. It was used as a way to treat just about any kind of skin wound, from burn to cut to in at least one case an ulcer. It actually helps the wound heal not by preventing blood loss but by replacing part of the skin tissue and helping it grow.

It also helps in healing scars and reducing their visibility.

Whoah science.

Neato.

Supercool.

image

bisexualpiratequeen:

I’m trying hard to live by Cat Principles.

1- I am glorious above all things
2- Eat when hungry, sleep when sleepy, play when bored
3- Affection is given and received on my terms and only mine
4- Show displeasure clearly.
5- NO
6- Demand the things you want. If they aren’t given, demand them again, but louder this time.
7- If you are touched when you don’t want to be, say so. If they continue to touch you, make them bleed.

cannelledusoleil:

female-only:

plansfornigel:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Female figurine from the Hohle Fels cave near Stuttgart, about 35,000 years old. Interpreted as a pornographic pin-up.

“The Earliest Pornography” says Science Now, describing the 35,000 year old ivory figurine that’s been dug up in a cave near Stuttgart. The tiny statuette is of a female with exaggerated breasts and vulva. According to Paul Mellars, one of the archaeologist twits who commented on the find for Nature, this makes the figurine “pornographic.” Nature is even titling its article, “Prehistoric Pin Up.” It’s the Venus of Willendorf double standard all over again. Ancient figures of naked pregnant women are interpreted by smirking male archaeologists as pornography, while equally sexualized images of men are assumed to depict gods or shamans. Or even hunters or warriors. Funny, huh?

Consider: phallic images from the Paleolithic are at least 28,000 years old. Neolithic cultures all over the world seemed to have a thing for sculptures with enormous erect phalluses. Ancient civilizations were awash in images of male genitalia, from the Indian lingam to the Egyptian benben to the Greek herm. The Romans even painted phalluses on their doors and wore phallic charms around their necks.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicIthyphallic figure from Lascaux, about 17,000 years old. Interpreted as a shaman.

But nobody ever interprets this ancient phallic imagery as pornography. Instead, it’s understood to indicate reverence for male sexual potency. No one, for example, has ever suggested that the Lascaux cave dude was a pin-up; he’s assumed to be a shaman. The ithyphallic figurines from the Neolithic — and there are many — are interpreted as gods. And everyone knows that the phalluses of ancient India and Egypt and Greece and Rome represented awesome divine powers of fertility and protection. Yet an ancient figurine of a nude woman — a life-giving woman, with her vulva ready to bring forth a new human being, and her milk-filled breasts ready to nourish that being — is interpreted as pornography. Just something for a man to whack off to. It’s not as if there’s no other context in which to interpret the figure. After all, the European Paleolithic is chock full of pregnant-looking female statuettes that are quite similar to this one. By the time we get to the Neolithic, the naked pregnant female is enthroned with lions at her feet, and it’s clear that people are worshipping some kind of female god.

Yet in the Science Now article, the archaeologist who found the figurine is talking about pornographic pin-ups: “I showed it to a male colleague, and his response was, ‘Nothing’s changed in 40,000 years.’” That sentence needs to be bronzed and hung up on a plaque somewhere, because you couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the classic fallacy of reading the present into the past. The archaeologist assumes the artist who created the figurine was male; why? He assumes the motive was lust; why? Because that’s all he knows. To his mind, the image of a naked woman with big breasts and exposed vulva can only mean one thing: porn! Porn made by men, for men! And so he assumes, without questioning his assumptions, that the image must have meant the same thing 35,000 years ago. No other mental categories for “naked woman” are available to him. His mind is a closed box. This has been the central flaw of anthropology for as long there’s been anthropology. And even before: the English invaders of North America thought the Iroquois chiefs had concubines who accompanied them everywhere, because they had no other mental categories to account for well-dressed, important-looking women sitting in a council house. It’s the same fallacy that bedevils archaeologists who dig up male skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that the society was male dominant (because powerful people wear jewelry!), and at another site dig up female skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that this society, too, was male dominant (because women have to dress up as sex objects and trophy wives!). Male dominance is all they can imagine. And so no matter what they dig up, they interpret it to fit their mental model. It’s the fallacy that also drives evolutionary psychology, the central premise of which is that human beings in the African Pleistocene had exactly the same values, beliefs, prejudices, power struggles, goals, and needs as the middle-class white professors and students in a graduate psychology lab in modern-day Santa Barbara, California. And that these same factors are universal and unchanged and true for all time.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicHohle Fels phallus, about 28,000 years old. Interpreted as a symbolic object and …flint knapper. Yes.

That’s not science; it’s circular, self-serving propaganda. This little figurine from Hohle Fels, for example, is going to be used as “proof” that pornography is ancient and natural. I guarantee it. Having been interpreted by pornsick male archaeologists as pornography because that’s all they know, the statuette will now be trotted out by every ev psycho and male supremacist on the planet as “proof” that pornography is eternal, that male dominance is how it’s supposed to be, and that feminists are crazy so shut the fuck up. Look for it in Steven Pinker’s next book. ***

P.S. My own completely speculative guess on the figurine is that it might be connected to childbirth rituals. Notice the engraved marks and slashes; that’s a motif that continues for thousands of years on these little female figurines. No one knows what they mean, but they meant something. They’re not just random cut marks. Someone put a great deal of work into this sculpture. Given that childbirth was incredibly risky for Paleolithic women, they must have prayed their hearts out for help and protection in that time. I can imagine an elder female shaman or artist carving this potent little figure, and propping it up somewhere as a focus for those prayers.

On the other hand, it is possible that it has nothing to do with childbearing or sexual behavior at all. The breasts and vulva may simply indicate who the figure is: the female god. Think of how Christ is always depicted with a beard, which is a male sexual characteristic, even though Christ isn’t about male sexuality. The beard is just a marker. Or, given the figurine’s exaggerated breasts, it may have something to do with sustenance: milk, food, nourishment.

The notion that some dude carved this thing to whack off to — when he was surrounded by women who probably weren’t wearing much in the way of clothes anyway — is laughable.

Good lord I am so glad I took ancient art from a female professor.

gabrielsaunteredvaguelydownwards:

sixpenceee:

plightofthevalkyries:

sixpenceee:

deucelooselyproductions:

sixpenceee:

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are mentally stable and those who are mentally unstable.

In 1970, 8 mentally stable people were granted admission into 12 different hospitals. They all told the same story of how they would hear a voice inside their head, it was unclear but often said “empty”, “hollow” and “thud”. 

Right after they were admitted, the patients stopped showing any signs of abnormality. They took part in activities and talked to faculty and other patients as they would normally. 

None of the psychiatrists ever stopped to say “I think they are getting better” or “they seem absolutely fine now” In fact, nurses and psychiatrists took normal activity such as walking or writing and attempted to represent it as a form of pathological behavior. 

For example, staff would point to patients waiting outside the lunchroom as a form of oral-acquisitive syndrome, when really they were just bored and were anticipating their meal. 

It’s interesting to note that even though staff didn’t recognize that these people were completely fine, patients recognized that they didn’t seem to have any problems.

This study highlights how powerful labels can be.

SOURCE & MORE INFORMATION

EVIL EXPERIMENT

Wow…this also potentially bespeaks how the people who are charged with making these patients better are only trying to create terminology and atmosphere that keep them institutionalized.
That’s pretty disturbing.

To anyone saying “well they said they heard voices obviously the doctors are going to look at them with a weary eye”

You missed the point.

They were supposed to detect the patients getting better and instead of being able to tell that, they took any action that the patients performed and totally distorted it and blew it to epic proportions to make them seem completely and utterly abnormal to a point where the patients were institutionalized for months. 

Also, sixpenceee, you missed the second part to this experiment - equally chilling, in my opinion. One hospital’s administration was angered by Rosenhan’s experiment, and challenged him to send impostor patients - mentally stable people masquerading as mentally unstable people - to their facilities. Their staff would then turn those pseudopatients away. Long story short, Rosenhan OK’d this part of the experiment. 193 people went to that hospital in that experiment period looking for help. They flagged 41 people as impostors and had doubts about another 42.

Rosenhan sent no one.

The staff of this hospital flagged impostor patients where none had existed.

This was conducted in 1970, so I wonder how much has changed since then

HELLO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN I WROTE A PAPER ON THIS AND GOT AN A* FOR IT

Literally, my exact title was ‘To what extent are the results of Rosenhan’s 1973 pseudopatient study relevant in modern psychiatric diagnosis?’, so I hope you’ll forgive me in being a little overly excited here.

First of all, it’s important to note that the original study was flawed. My favourite critical essay was written by Robert Spitzer, and it really is worth a read. It changed my opinion on this study from ‘absolutely groundbreaking’ to ‘interesting, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt’. 

So first of all, Spitzer identifies the three different ways in which sanity could be detected. These were:

  1. The researchers realising the people were faking their ‘insanity’ in the first place (eg at admission)
  2. The researchers noting a ceasing in behaviours and realising the patient had never been insane at all
  3. The researchers noting a ceasing in behaviours and declaring the once-insane patient now sane

The first one, Spitzer argues, has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of psychiatric diagnosis. It really doesn’t. Imagine the following: I go to the emergency room and vomit blood everywhere. “I have no idea what is happening!” I cry, as everyone panics and treats me for internal bleeding. In reality, I swallowed a gallon of animal blood before I entered the emergency room for this exact purpose. Could you use this as evidence that the doctors cannot diagnose internal bleeding reliably? Hell no! Because I lied. These patients lied. If we say ‘schizophrenia is hearing voices’ (very very very loose definition) and people turn up and go ‘yo i’m hearing voices’, you are going to diagnose schizophrenia. It is the duty of the people seeing you NOT to lie. No, method one is a moot point.

And the second one? Again, why on Earth would they see a ceasing of symptoms and go ‘WELL THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY LYING’. Why would you lie to gain entry to a hospital? Why would you turn up and claim to be hearing a voice when you weren’t? That’s not something they were expecting or screening for. If someone turns up in tears and tells you they’re hearing a voice and they think they need to come into hospital, you’re going to believe them. To go back to analogies, it’s like phoning up Sky and going “Hi, my TV isn’t working?” and ‘following their advice’, then claiming their engineers don’t know anything at all because your TV was actually working all along! Hahaha! No. Whether doctors can distinguish real mental illness from feigned mental illness is an interesting point that has absolutely nothing to do with this study.

The third one, then, is the only valid one: and, if you agree with Spitzer, it occurred. Every single person was released with a diagnosis of ‘schizophrenia in remission*’. That was not a label given lightly. Hell, when Spitzer looked over records from his own hospital, he found 1% of discharged schizophrenia patients were considered ‘in remission’. As for why it took ‘so long’? The same reason that you wouldn’t accept someone into hospital with chest pain and then discharge them the second it stopped. Psychological symptoms are unpredictable. It’s understandable to want to wait things out.

Twisting typical behaviours into psychiatric symptoms is very real, and it sucks. Believe me, I’ve experienced it- apparently ‘helping stack the dishwasher’ was actually an attempt to frantically burn calories by my vicious anorexic self. Go figure, right? I’m not saying psychiatric diagnosis is perfect, but I am saying that Rosenhan was unfairly harsh at times.

As for whether or not it’s still applicable now, there are a few things to consider. First of all is the DSM. We’re on 5 right now, and when Rosenhan was rocking about, were on 2. It was a mess. It was vague and messy and you could basically diagnose anyone with anything. If you have any experience with the current DSM, you’ll know it’s a lot more like a checklist. For example, these days, acquiring a schizophrenia diagnosis requires you to meet a number of criteria, with sentences like ‘shows two of the following five symptoms for a minimum of four weeks’ and so on. It’s quantifiable, it’s measurable, and whilst you can argue whether or not that’s a good thing, it does make false positive wayyy rarer. 

(Spitzer did a bunch of DSM stuff. You may have guessed by now that i have a massive psychology boner for Spitzer.)

Now, we can’t do any straight-up modern-day replications, because of ethics boards and shit, but there have been some similar things.

  • Lauren Slater claims to have done her own version of the study, turning up at various psych waiting rooms and claiming to hear a voice. She says she was prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotics at each appointment, despite saying she wasn’t depressed. It’s worth considering, though, that many notable psychiatrists do not believe this study actually took place, and Slater backpedalled a lot when questioned about it.
  • The BBC documentary ‘How Mad Are You?’ had psychiatrists diagnose mental illness (or a lack of mental illness) in ten people- five disordered, five healthy. The psychiatrists were not allowed to use any official tests, and instead worked on observation and various tasks (eg a stand up comedy gig to try and root out any social anxiety). A Channel 4 documentary called ‘World’s Maddest Job Interview’ did a very similar thing, and frankly I don’t want to talk about these any more. The psychiatrists had a fairly rocky rate of success, yes, but they weren’t using their ACTUAL TESTS. 'Did you know some doctors can't reliably diagnose cancerous tumours without scanning their patients??!?!' As far as I'm concerned, these shows have no psychological merit.
  • Ten Days In A Mad House doesn’t really count, as it was written in 1887, but it’s a fuckin good read all the same. Nellie Bly basically went ‘HMMM I WONDER IF’ and faked her way into an asylum. She pretty much claimed the same thing as Rosenhan- that doctors could not distinguish madness from sanity- BUT lied and twisted the truth a bunch while doing it. So, again, contentious.

My personal stance on things? Psychiatric staff are suspicious, but they probably need to be. Do you know how many anorexics turn up on wards only to claim they can eat fine now and don’t need any more help? How many people hide self harm scars? Denial is human nature, and I’m pretty sure we’d all be equally outraged if someone went ‘wait, I have to STAY on the ward??? the voices have gone! def. gone. just totally gone. just like that’ and was immediately let go.

Don’t get me wrong: I love this study. I think Rosenhan raised excellent, excellent points about the treatment of mental illness (if you read his original paper, On Being Sane In Insane Places, you’ll find that a great deal of the paper actually deals with the ill treatment of the mentally unwell as opposed to the reliability of diagnosis), and I am all for the psychiatric profession constantly challenging themselves and improving. I simply feel it is important to place this study in the correct context and to look at the information surrounding it before we use it to condemn modern psychiatric medicine.

peace out yo xoxo

one person was diagnosed with something slightly different, but it was still considered to be in remission

beautifuloutlier:

prokopetz:

sarahtypeswords:

wetorturedsomefolks:

memejacker:

several-talking-corpses:

memejacker:

caligula had anime eyes

wait romans painted their marble sculptures

it looks like a cheap theme park ride mascot

yep

here’s a statue of Augustus

and here’s a reproduction of the statue with the colors restored 

i honestly think that what we consider the height of sculpture in all of Western civilization being essentially the leftover templates of gaudy pieces of theme park shit to be evidence of the potential merit of found art

"I tried coloring it and then I ruined it"

And you know what the funniest part is? The paint didn’t just wear off over time. A bunch of asshole British historians back in the Victorian era actually went around scrubbing the remaining paint off of Greek and Roman statues - often destroying the fine details of the carving in the process - because the bright colours didn’t fit the dignified image they wished to present of the the cultures they claimed to be heirs to. This process also removed visible evidence of the fact that at least some of the statues thus stripped of paint had originally depicted non-white individuals.

Whenever you look at a Roman statue with a bare marble face, you’re looking at the face of imperialist historical revisionism.

(The missing noses on a lot of Egyptian statues are a similar deal. It’s not that the ancient Egyptians made statues with strangely fragile noses. Many Victorian archaeologists had a habit of chipping the noses off of the statues they brought back, then claiming that they’d found them that way - because with the noses intact, it was too obvious that the statues were meant to depict individuals of black African descent.)

There’s a lot of good academic discussion about chromophobia in modern Western aesthetics and how it links to colonialism.