Waching daily Apr 5 2017

You Have 4 Kinds Of Soul Mates. Here�s How To Recognize Each One

�A true soul mate is probably the most important person you�ll ever meet, because they tear

down your walls and smack you awake. But to live with a soul mate forever? Nah. Too painful.

Soul mates, they come into your life just to reveal another layer of yourself to you,

and then leave.� � Elizabeth Gilbert

You find a soul mate, or a spiritual partner, when you least expect it. Soul mates are the

people who mirror you, make you aware of your repetitive patterns, and propel you forward

on your journey. Being more aware of the different types of soul mate relationships you�ll

encounter in life can help us take advantage of those opportunities and develop deeper

connections. Below are four types of soul mates I�ve identified:

1. Healing soul mates

These are friends who arrive with intention and provide you with life lessons that clear

blocks from your past by mirroring you. Healing soul mates show up by divine timing � exactly

when we most need to learn what they have to teach.

These friends help us learn how to move forward. A healing friendship exists only as long as

your purposes are aligned.

How do you recognize one?

When the relationship or friendship escalates fast. This type of friend usually shows up

when you are dealing with repetitive patterns and attempting to work through old issues.

How do you nurture this relationship?

Know up front that this friendship might not last. Like all relationships, it only works

if the two of you can respect each other�s need for space and come together with understanding

at other times. The intense bond can be redolent of a sibling or romantic relationship. The

friendship may have lots of ups and downs, but if you can take the good with the bad,

this type of relationship will be very fruitful.

2. Past-life soul mates

Because these people might have been a lover or soul mate in a past life, the relationships

feel easy and comfortable. The connection is instant. You might feel like you will be

friends forever � no matter how much time passes or how far apart you are geographically

� and you�re probably right. This friendship will likely last for a lifetime because you

will never want to run or hide from these friends.

These relationships can be carefree, but they also shape us. They teach us to trust and

believe in ourselves. In this dynamic, both people feel comfortable telling each other

anything. Nothing is off limits. You are accepted for who you are.

These are the friends who help you grow into the person you�re meant to be, and have

the special ability to propel you toward your destiny without pain or suffering. Often,

we try to turn these relationships romantic, but it is usually impossible. There�s a

lack of physical attraction or a desire to sustain and protect your friendship.

How do you recognize one?

You meet this type of person when you�re truly being yourself. Past-life soul mates

appear when you�re in your element and you don�t hold anything back. They always have

your best interests at heart and will stop at nothing when asked to help you accomplish

your dreams. This type of friendship will last a lifetime.

How do you nurture this relationship?

Stay connected. Check in by email or phone, just to say you�re thinking of them. These

people come in and out of your life when you need to be directed, and they always bring

love and fun. They help bring you back to your inner desires and reconnect you with

your abilities. They are crucial in shaping you into the best person you can be.

3. Karmic soul mates

These people, too, are connected to you through a past life. These connections are deep and

karmic, and often painful, as they involve ego struggles. Ego pain must be endured, because

it is the point. Working through the relationship and learning to overcome suffering is often

the only resolution.

How do you recognize one?

Karmic soul mates have a twinlike connection. In times of intense emotion, you actually

feel what they feel. Often, these mates have been reincarnated and are reliving some karma

to break a negative cycle.

How do you nurture this relationship?

Be aware of the energy you emit, and do your best to remove your ego. If you focus on the

positive aspects of the relationship, you will draw positivity from this person. Remove

your ego by focusing on what is best for the both of you. Do your best to give unconditional

love and understanding to your partner. Unconditional kindness will make your soul mate feel at

ease.

4. Twin flames

Twin flames work together to overcome emotional and spiritual barriers. They can talk for

hours without running out of things to say. They think alike, finish each other�s sentences,

and naturally do things as a pair. This relationship transcends the ego.

When you meet a twin flame, you get a sense of wholeness from the relationship. Not everyone

meets their twin flame as a lover, but those who do will enjoy this relationship for the

rest of their lives.

How do you recognize one?

You�ll feel like you have known the other person for many lifetimes, and you will rarely

want to be apart. Before long, twin flames start to make collective decisions on everything.

How do you nurture this relationship?

The most important aspect of a twin flame relationship is honesty, but relating to your

twin flame feels natural and easy. You can probably easily communicate even without words.

When both are completely themselves, twin flames can overcome anything.

Every one of these relationships has the potential to end in heartbreak, but each one is also

an opportunity to resolve and change your relationship karma. Every relationship that

you learn from, and end by moving forward with love, can be marked as a success. It

doesn�t have to last

forever to serve its purpose.

For more infomation >> You Have 4 Kinds Of Soul Mates Here's How To Recognize Each One - Duration: 7:05.

-------------------------------------------

9 Great Ways to Tell If You Are Becoming a Wise and Mature Soul - Duration: 5:59.

9 Great Ways to Tell If You Are Becoming a Wise and Mature Soul

By consciousreminder

As anybody who is reaching or has already reached middle age will know, age and maturity

are not the same things.

There are lots of people in the world who simply don�t know how to develop and mature,

even as the years add up.

It can be an alluring prospect at times.

Getting older is scary and acting the fool is one way of putting it off.

However, we�ve all got to settle down and work out what we want from life at some point.

Otherwise, existence can feel a little rootless and untethered.

So, if you�re getting older and you want some confirmation that you�ve �grown up�

successfully, keep an eye out for those little signs that can tell you all about who you

are.

You Feel a Little Aimless

This is often the first stage of growing up, whether you�re twenty-five or fifty-five.

We all feel cast adrift sometimes; like we don�t know where we�re supposed to be.

It is a natural feeling that comes with the realisation that you�re part of a very big

world.

The trick is not to fight it, but to embrace your soul maturity and seek the things that

make you happy.

Your Patience Abounds

One of the clearest signs of soul maturity is increased patience and tolerance.

You�ve simply learned that not everything has to be done at a tearing speed.

There is great joy to be had in the journey, not just the destination.

Individuals with a mature soul take their time getting to know new people.

They don�t stress out over minor irritations.

And they enjoy their downtime.

You Are More Sensitive

Yet, on the flipside, you�re probably growing more sensitive.

This happens because you�re opening yourself up to people more and letting go of all those

old barriers.

You fear rejection less, so you don�t build up defences.

The consequence is likely to be a little more investment in things; emotions, relationships,

possessions, adventures.

You�ll cry more easily, but it won�t always be because you�re unhappy.

Forgiveness Is Easy

People with a mature soul are always open to forgiveness.

They understand that grudges hurt more than just their intended target.

They are a form of self-flagellation in a way and they encourage you to hold on to painful

feelings.

Learning how to let go is valuable because you�re not really letting go of anything

helpful or useful.

You�re gaining in lightness and inner calm by relinquishing grudges.

You Don�t Need Approval

One of the signs of soul maturity is a reduced dependence on external approval.

In other words, you�re not constantly looking for compliments as a way to validate your

existence.

You know that you�re valuable, because of the things that you do and the relationships

that you keep.

Your worth is more than what other people can give to you, as it starts with your own

approval.

People with a strong, healthy sense of self-perception find it easier to make decisions, take risks,

and grab opportunities.

You Are Willing To Be Vulnerable

Coming to terms with the fact that we�re not fully in control of our own lives is a

hard lesson.

However, it gets easier with age, because there is satisfaction to be had from the understanding

that nothing is certain.

You may not be able to influence every aspect of your existence, but this means that amazing,

exciting things could happen to you that you haven�t even thought to imagine yet.

Your Relationships Are Special

Soul maturity means knowing when to let toxic relationships go, be they lovers, friends,

or family members.

Life isn�t about how many friends you can have.

It is much more valuable to have a small number of reliable, dependable acquaintances who

are as devoted to you as you are them.

Surround yourself with light, happy, inspiring people.

Don�t spend time with anybody who uses your weaknesses for their own gain or doesn�t

encourage you to be your best self.

You Are Addicted to Learning

The most mature souls can�t get enough of knowledge.

They want to consume as much learning as possible and drink the world in as hungrily as they

can manage.

This makes them creative, imaginative, and fun to be around.

It helps them to find focus in life and increases their empathy and understanding for others.

You�ll never see a mature soul turning down the chance to gain knowledge through books,

documentaries, languages, travel, or new hobbies.

You Want to Leave a Mark

The most important indication of a truly mature soul is the desire to leave something behind.

You know that life is fleeting and your own is just a tiny seed in a big plant pot, so

you�re willing to look beyond it.

Whether it�s volunteering, designing a new product, becoming a mentor, or just creating

something that will last; you can leave your mark.

A keenness to do so shows that

you are a wise and developed old soul.

For more infomation >> 9 Great Ways to Tell If You Are Becoming a Wise and Mature Soul - Duration: 5:59.

-------------------------------------------

🇲🇽 ¡Un mensaje para nuestros amigos mexicanos! / A Message For Our Mexican Friends! - Duration: 1:37.

Hola! Buenos Dias! I'm Ashley and I'm

Josh and we are currently traveling

Mexico which is a spanish-speaking

country but unfortunately we don't speak

Spanish. Right so that is part of our

story is us as English speakers coming

through Mexico and learning the language

and speaking with people who don't speak

English like we do and we don't speak

Spanish. But a lot of people i think that

want to watch our videos or just aren't

fluent in english and so we want to make

our videos available to those who can't

necessarily understand especially when

we speak very quickly what we're saying.

someone has already gone through and put

spanish subtitles for two of our videos

in Guadalajara and I loved it! that was

such a great idea so we are asking you

as our spanish-speaking audience to look

through some of our videos from Mexico

and if you find one that you are

interested in put some Spanish subtitles

down below it takes about 30 minutes to

do if you are a fluent speaker so we

would appreciate your help and we want

to thank you guys so much we put links

down below in the description for you to

check out some of these videos and we

hope that some of you can help improve

the translations that are already there

or create some new ones for us we just

want our videos to be available to

everyone. we love that we have this

opportunity so we hope we are able to

encourage you guys to get out and travel

and yeah adios amigos! adios.

For more infomation >> 🇲🇽 ¡Un mensaje para nuestros amigos mexicanos! / A Message For Our Mexican Friends! - Duration: 1:37.

-------------------------------------------

Snapgram Neymar com Bruna Marquezine 04/04/2017 - Snapgram dos Famosos - Duration: 0:43.

For more infomation >> Snapgram Neymar com Bruna Marquezine 04/04/2017 - Snapgram dos Famosos - Duration: 0:43.

-------------------------------------------

Woman, others accused of running elaborate drug ring - Duration: 1:39.

TERRY: 57-YEAR-OLD LORI MERGET

ARRIVED IN A WASHINGTON COUNTY

COURTROOM TUESDAY A MOTHER AND

ACCUSED DRUG QUEENPIN.

PROSECUTORS SAY SHE WAS DEALING

HEROIN AND PAIN KILLERS OUT OF

HER PURSE FROM HER KITCHEN TABLE

AT THIS HOME IN CAMPBELLSPORT.

>> THERE'S ALSO INDICATIONS HERE

THAT THREATS WERE MADE TO HAVE

INDIVIDUALS WHO SNITCHED KILLED

BY PEOPLE IN MILWAUKEE.

TERRY: FIVE OTHER DEFENDANTS

ALSO APPEARED INCLUDING MERGET'S

SON WILLIAM, AND HIS GIRLFRIEND

KATELYN SPANG ALL SWEPT UP IN A

DRUG INVESTIGATION THAT

STRETCHED FROM MILWAUKEE TO

CAMPBELLSPORT.

>> THEY CERTAINLY HAD QUITE A

FEW CUSTOMERS AND WERE A MAJOR

PART OF BRINGING HEROIN INTO THE

AREA.

TERRY: THE COMPLAINT SAYS THE

WISCONSIN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

MONITORING PROGRAM SHOWS LORI

MERGET ALSO GOT MORE THAN 250

PRESCRIPTION NARCOTIC PILLS EACH

MONTH FROM UNIVERSAL PAIN CENTER

ON MILWAUKEE'S NORTH AVENUE AS

WELL AS A DOCTOR NEAR MAYFAIR

MALL.

STEVEN DUNCAN ALSO GOT DOZENS OF

PILLS EACH MONTH FROM OMNI

MEDICAL.

>> IN THIS CASE I CAN'T EXPLAIN

HOW DOCTORS WOULD CONTINUE TO

PRESCRIBE THAT MANY PILLS MONTH

AFTER MONTH TO THE SAME PEOPLE.

TERRY: THE JUDGE ORDERED THE TWO

MAIN SUSPECTS IN THE CASE, LORI

MERGET AND HER SON WILLIAM, BE

HELD ON THE HIGHEST BONDS.

$50,000 EACH.

IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, TERRY

SATER, WISN 12 NEWS.

PATRICK: EIGHT PEOPLE ARE

CHARGED IN THE CASE, SO FAR.

THE CLINICS AND DOCTORS NAMED IN

For more infomation >> Woman, others accused of running elaborate drug ring - Duration: 1:39.

-------------------------------------------

Katsumoto and Nathan Algren ''The Final Battle Part-1'' - The Last Samurai-(2003) Movie Clip HD - Duration: 5:06.

Fire!

Ready!

Aim!

Fire!

Fire at will!

Vring up the new guns!

Prepare the new guns!

Fire!

Vackward!

Quickly! Quickly!

Fire!

Stop firing!

ldiots, keep on firing!

Stop firing! Stop!

No.

Shoot! Kill Katsumoto! Kill the American!

For more infomation >> Katsumoto and Nathan Algren ''The Final Battle Part-1'' - The Last Samurai-(2003) Movie Clip HD - Duration: 5:06.

-------------------------------------------

studio G 4 /3/ 17 - Duration: 3:53.

HEY TRIPPSTERS

Inside studio G

What he talked about that was important

ok

Kansa City

All 5 shows, sold out

But there was still such a demand for tickets

that they're going to do another sale of tickets

because they're adding 1 more show

The tickets will do on sale Friday, that's this Friday

the 7th

so April

7th

Tickets go on sale

for the show that Garth will do in Kansas on the 12th

May 12th

Now i think he may have inadvertantly given something away

But, maybe not

It was when he was asked about Gunslinger

the music on Gunslinger

anyway he

Made a comment about the music on Gunslinger

and he said something about the song called, Weekend

Ok and they way he said it was "the Weekend which people are talking about for this summer"

Ok now

He didn't come right out and say it

but the way he said that,

and that was a direct quote

i'm thinking that his next release from the album, his next single, may actually be Weekend

But he's got the new single out "Ask Me How I Know"

and it's going to be about, i would say around August before he releases a new song

so

I'm not saying that Weekend will BE the next single

but because of the wau he said it,

i'm thinking there is a distinct possiblity

that maybe this summer, may around August

he may actually release Weekend

as his next single

Now if you have not heard Weekend

there will be a link to it in the description below

which i like it, i think it's a good song

ok now, he said something in answer to a question, one of the fans had asked him

something about

when are you going back into the studio, to cut more music

and in response he said something like

"always working in the studio, we just can't say anything yet

but it's going to be a beautiful 2017, 18 for us

SO

I'm thinking he's working on his next album

maybe he's working on some other project, musically

but i'm thinking later this year, and i mean like late late in the year

we're getting, we're probably going to get new stuff from Garth

ok

Here's the thing

Now, in case you missed this because i totally missed it

there is Another video out now

for We Shall Be fre

We Shall Be Free

ok, for me this is the 4th video

for them it's the 3rd

ok

But if you haven't seen this

Check the link in the description below

and you'll be able to see

the Newest video

for We Shall Be Free

now this is the one that he promised the fans

which is

this thing he's doing with # We SHall Be Free

where they write stuff on their hands

or on a piece of paper

and snap a picture of it

and

hashtag it to him

ok he took those pictures

and made a video

using those pictures and the song We Shall Be Free

so, if you'd be interested in seeing that just check the link in the description below

Now if you missed Inside Studio G

there will be a link in the description

where you can watch it

but that is the highlights of everything that was

at least semi important that he covered

ok, and that is gonna do it for now

This is ICEPETS QUEEN

and i am

TRIPPIN OUT

For more infomation >> studio G 4 /3/ 17 - Duration: 3:53.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.1x 1-2-2 Asch's model of impression formation - Duration: 2:45.

Okay, so if everything worked as it should have, you will have seen one of the following

two lists of traits.

Now, when we look at the generosity ratings, you should notice something curious.

Most people who saw the first list tended to think that Mike was not very generous.

Those who saw the second list, generally thought that Mike was generous this is what Asch (1946)

found when he presented the same lists to research participants.

So, what's going on?

Well if you take a close look at the two lists of traits, you will see that there is only

one difference between them.

In the first list, Mike is described as being cold, while in the second list he is described

as being warm.

Surely if we are forming our impressions algebraically, the two lists should have produce pretty similar

impressions - they only differ by one word after all.

However, that is not what happened.

The reason why warm and cold make such a difference, is because according to Asch, they are central

traits.

This means that they give meaning to the other traits that are presented - these other traits

are the peripheral traits.

So someone who is described as being warm, intelligent, determined and industrious sounds

like a pretty good person - you probably want them helping you with your assignment or working

in your team at work.

Someone described as being cold, intelligent, determined and industrious sounds a bit scarier

- more like a serial killer.

They probably have a coiled rope, shovel, and some plastic sheeting in the back of their

car "just in case" the opportunity arises.

Now, you might be thinking that the warm/cold pairing produces the different impressions

because "warm" is a positive word and "cold" is a negative word.

Asch thought about that too.

He also showed his participants another pair of positive and negative words.

Namely "polite" and "blunt".

As you can see from Asch's results, there was a systematic difference in the impressions

when people were shown warm versus cold – the person was seen as being more generous, wiser,

happier and better natured.

For those shown polite versus blunt, there was no such systematically more positive impression.

There were no differences in how generous the person was seen as, and the person was

actually seen as wiser when "blunt" was presented - so if you want to appear smart,

just be a bit rude perhaps?

Polite people were seen as being better natured though.

So Asch thought that this meant to impressions were not formed algebraically, but rather

that an impression is based on an emergent pattern that depends on the total context

of the information that you have access to.

For more infomation >> UQx PSYC1030.1x 1-2-2 Asch's model of impression formation - Duration: 2:45.

-------------------------------------------

TEAM 7 FIGHT! [AMV] Naruto Shippuden - Duration: 1:57.

That stupid joke,

If only it were the result of a team effort.

The author is Naruto.

Sakura lies to protect yourself.

Sasuke is on his own.

probably he does not consider anyone his companions.

Teamwork nothing.

My name is Uzumaki Naruto.

my dream is ...

Became Hokage!

Hey..what are you doing?

where is your home?

it's fine..

let's go.

but you..

with a house so big ..

why cry?

I...

I have no one, but..

Cry..

cry, do not even think about it!

I am me, and no one else!

For more infomation >> TEAM 7 FIGHT! [AMV] Naruto Shippuden - Duration: 1:57.

-------------------------------------------

COD INFINITE WARFARE NEW DLC 2 MAPS - (COD IW) MAP PACK 2 MULTIPLAYER MAPS - Duration: 4:36.

Yo what is going on guys it is your boy

Yogge here and today I also do called the

internet welfare information for you

guys okay so they we got some new

information on the dlc 2 for infinite

warfare today we got a leak of what it

shows the dlc 2 it shows like the little

cold duty character on the right side

and then it has you know the little maps

and the little rectangles so let me just

show you guys that right now so as you

can see the dlc 2 pack is going to be

called continuum which is a pretty cool

name and as you see says first on ps4

today is for 18 17th so that's 18th of

this month which is April but let's look

at the map so the first one is Teresa a

splash spa and resort Teresa on officer

esta tour Easter Teresa I don't know but

you guys get the idea is nestled in the

middle of a giant skeleton of an ancient

creature with sniper spots scattered

across a majestic central waterfall

teresa also both tight interiors for

fans of close quarter combat and the

three-lane design that caters to a

variety of play styles so I'm guessing

this map Teresa if I can find an image i

will show you guys which I'm guessing is

this one since it's talking about spas

and this one looks like it is the one I

mean it looks like this is an ancient

creature I guess I don't know what that

spells this looks like anyway so it

seems like this is gonna be that one map

that gives you a variety of play styles

to play with like snipers is gonna be

like a lane for a sniper is maybe Elaine

works you know tight combat I personally

do not like this map because if you do

play one side you have to say and the

certain part of the map what you really

really suck that's why I don't like it

instead they should have made the game

where you can play with different

playstyles as you all know this game is

garbage I'm kidding i enjoy it sometimes

but obviously it's not mono or for to

model for tickets night use anything you

want that's variety of play styles right

there anyway so we have scraps sitting

in abandoned junkyard on the moon scrap

features a combination of extended site

lights and tactical pathways that reward

players were engaged in both long and

short range combat so as we can see the

picture is obviously on the moon I mean

when we saw the trailer everybody was

like oh we're going to get maps on the

moon but we really haven't gotten one I

guess if you disclose since it's on the

moon now

for some reason but this is literally a

crater on the moon so obviously this is

the mid part of the map i'm guessing

because there's no way this is the full

map because that would be in st. it well

yeah anyways let's move on to the next

map our guys the next map we have is

called archive fast forensic engagement

set the pace and archive a post

futuristic art gallery where tight

engagements contrast with open exterior

battlegrounds and this wide three-lane

style map which i'm guessing this is the

art gallery because it looks like a

futuristic gallery and there's are

everywhere so does this is it has a

shark in the middle what the hell now

this looks pretty cool my opinion it

seems like a you know a cool a cool map

I guess I'm y'all right I don't know how

I feel about it it's a high I mean I

honestly don't care about this not that

much it looks cool though you know has

variety to it we can say that much in

terms of colors you got your yellows

your blues you got your reddish oranges

but that's not the point what time I

good map so let's move on to the next

one alright guys so the last map is

excess pressure top of lighted penthouse

in a sprawling future metropolis access

is a small circular map reimagine from

the classic modern warfare two math

broth that retains the intense

fast-paced combat from the original so

guys rust it's coming back with the hell

I didn't even though this

I don't know I'm getting excited cuz I'm

gonna ruin them up even more I don't

know guys this is gonna be horrible

futuristic jumping shit on rust I don't

know about that way guys so there are

the four maps rust is coming back and

I'll do a separate video on the zombies

but if you guys enjoyed this video shows

evil like its new videos every face to

healthy n I'll see you guys on the next

one

For more infomation >> COD INFINITE WARFARE NEW DLC 2 MAPS - (COD IW) MAP PACK 2 MULTIPLAYER MAPS - Duration: 4:36.

-------------------------------------------

Omar Mendoza desperdicia otra jugada clara para Cruz Azul - Duration: 0:29.

For more infomation >> Omar Mendoza desperdicia otra jugada clara para Cruz Azul - Duration: 0:29.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.1x 4-5-6 Interview with Bill von Hippel on deception - Duration: 9:21.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: Well, Bill, thanks for joining us today. BILL VON HIPPEL: My pleasure.

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: So, Bill, we've been talking a bit about deception and people's ability

to detect deception.

And one of the challenges that people face is they often think that they're very good

at detecting deception.

But the research suggests that they're not.

And one of the reasons is because people have a stereotype that's a bit inaccurate about

what nonverbal behavior should look like.

When somebody is being deceptive, they focus on all of these things.

But they're just indicators of nervousness.

And so this has kind of led people to conclude that people just generally are not very accurate

at deception detection.

Is that really the conclusion we should draw from their research?

BILL VON HIPPEL: Well, first of all I definitely agree with you that people make the mistake

of equating nervousness with deceiving.

And, of course, if you're interrogating me and I'm worried what happens if you don't

believe me, I'll be nervous.

Even if I know I'm completely innocent.

So I think those data are all very reliable.

But I think it's too big of an inference to then go on and say people can't detect deception.

Now, I'm making this argument in the face of a huge database that shows that people

can't do it.

So, of course, that raises the question, why would you make such an argument?

And I think the answer to that question is that the research has been done in a way that

facilitated ease of research, but didn't facilitate matching real world deception.

So real world deceptions are typically important.

I'm not just lying to you about your haircut I'm lying to you about something that, if

I'm discovered, I'll suffer for it.

And they're often quite complicated.

We eliminate all that in our typical research paradigm, where we just videotape somebody

who's telling a simple lie, and then I watch a videotape and I try to say if they're telling

the truth or not.

It's great for experimental control.

It's lousy for getting at the underlying dimensions of what really is involved when people deceive.

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: So there's are no real consequences in the lab for getting it wrong, like when

you're trying to figure out if someone's lying.

And for the lair themselves on the video, what have they got vested in trying to dupe

someone?

BILL VON HIPPEL: That's right.

They don't care if they're caught.

And the lie the telling is typically very simple.

That they're asked to go in the professor's office, steal the wallet off the table, or

don't.

And then they have to claim they didn't.

And we don't know which it is that they really did.

So that's a super-easy lie.

I didn't take the wallet, right?

You just keep saying that over and over again.

And you're on videotape, and you're not going to suffer if people believe you did.

But the real world, we often tell very complicated lies.

They involve reshaping all sorts of world events.

So that I really wasn't at the bowling alley with your wife at that time, or whatever the

case might be.

And it's very easy to get caught out in those.

And so, in our lab, we've done a little bit of work on this, where we try to get people

to engage in some very complicated lies.

And then see if people can detect them.

And what we found today is that, in fact, when people tell these complicated lies, there's

a bit of a truth bias.

And people believe that they're true.

They just automatically accept them.

But as soon as we alert them to the fact that there was a lie that was told, people are

very accurate in saying, well, in that case, I think you're the one who actually told this

lie.

Now interestingly, in our initial study, interrogation didn't help.

It was just their thinking back on the whole sequence of events and where the lie likely

was that is what enabled them to discover it.

But nonetheless, it shows that, even when people initially accept something is true,

they're actually quite capable, when the lie is meaningful, the lie is complicated, and

the lie's told to their face, they're capable of going back and finding it.

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: So what did you do in your studies, then, that was different from the

prototypical deception study, that improves deception detection accuracy?

BILL VON HIPPEL: So in this particular study, we did a few things.

First of all, they were always friends with each other.

Because if you're not somebody's friend, you might not know when they're showing cues of

cognitive load or raised pitch of their voice, the things that really are indicative of lying.

Because you don't know what their voice usually sounds like.

And you don't know how quickly they usually speak.

So they are always groups of friends.

And then we had them tell this complicated lie where they're involved with each other,

and they're trying to get their partners to make a bad choice.

It's an ambiguous situation, nobody knows the answer.

But they're pushing an answer that they know is wrong.

But they're told you have to push it subtly.

You'll get paid if your group buys your answer, but only if they don't detect you as a liar.

So doing this as gently as they can, but nonetheless, people know them well, and they get a chance

to think, well, who was speaking more than they ought to if they can go back and look

for unusual events in the episode that took place and try to find the liar or that way.

Real life is often that way.

Of course it's often not.

Maybe the lie took place in hidden circumstances.

But then we can say, well, how well do the other circumstances fit with what the liar's

trying to tell us?

And I think that what these data show us is that interrogation, which we believe is really

effective, may not be terribly effective.

But our good knowledge about people and about the ways they usually behave actually can

be very useful for us detecting, well, when are they trying to do something that's a bit

different from what they would usually do?

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: And so they're able to reasonably, accurately detect deception, even when they're

not actively looking for it just in retrospect, thinking back.

BILL VON HIPPEL: Yeah.

That's exactly right.

So in our case, we had 250 people in this experiment.

And we asked them at the end of this study, once they done their group decision making

task, not knowing that one of the group members was a saboteur, we say to them, OK, what's

this study really about?

It's not about group decision making.

So we were deceiving you.

There's something else going on.

Not a single person out of 250 said it was about deception, and that one of the people

here is a liar.

Then we say, well, it's actually about deception.

One of the people here is a liar.

And when chance would be 50%, if you set it up that way, they were way up, like 75 or

80.

And so the typical the chance is you're a 53.

You're not a 75.

So it's clearly a case where now, even though they believed it the first time, they think

back on all the complicated things that took place during that group discussion.

There's something fishy here.

And Blake, you're the one.

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: Do you think that knowing the person is potentially deceptive is one

of the key factors?

Because you've had feedback from previous interactions with them about when they're

being truthful and not.

Do you think feedback plays a role in increasing their ability to detect deception?

BILL VON HIPPEL: I think that.

But I don't have any evidence for it.

So it's our belief that, in the small groups that we evolved in, we always knew all the

people we interacted with.

So if we were trying to develop abilities, evolve abilities, to detect deception, they're

likely comparing the Blake that I'm watching now with the Blake I've known for a long time.

And making judgments about differences.

And so when somebody is a stranger, you can't do that.

We believe that plays a critical role, but we haven't run the study that involves strangers.

So we don't know.

Even our paradigm wouldn't work with strangers, anyway.

People are awfully polite to strangers, and so they might not be willing to do the things

that they're happy to mess around with their friends.

But it's my suspicion that it matters a lot that you know the person, that we're good

at comparing current to prior behaviors.

That it matters a lot that the lie's important, so there's something really on the line.

That it matters a lot that the lie is complicated.

So there's not just an issue of repeating over and over, "I didn't do it."

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: So to increase the consequences, or to increase the stakes, of getting away

with that deception.

But also in detecting the deception, you paid your participants money.

So can you just tell us a little bit about how that worked exactly

BILL VON HIPPEL: Sure.

So one of the people's the saboteur.

And they're told, we'll pay you for every wrong answer you can convince your group to

use.

The group is paid for every right answer that they choose.

So they're clearly at cross-purposes for each other.

Now, they're not paid much.

A dollar per answer.

The key with the saboteur, though, is that, to really tell a lie, I have to not only convince

you in the moment.

But I have to convince you later on when somebody-- when it discovers that somebody did have an

affair with your wife.

I don't want you to think it's me.

And so they were told, you'll be paid a dollar for every wrong answer you convince your group,

if / when they then find out there's a saboteur, and they don't use you.

And so they could make an extra $10 or $15 if they could successfully lie to their group

and convince the group, even later on when interrogation took place, they're the only

ones who knew, eventually it will be revealed, that there was a liar in here.

And they have to convince the group later on that that liar was not them.

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: Don't you think the money was the only thing that they were really striving

for and trying to get away with the lie?

BILL VON HIPPEL: Look, the money was nice, of course.

But I actually think that what it really came down to was the social fun.

They want to pull one over on their friends and prove that they could lie to them.

And the friends don't want to have somebody pulling the wool over their eyes.

And so the lab is right next to my office, and when it was revealed that there was a

saboteur, there was laughter and accusations and yelling and back and forth.

And it was a lot of fun for them.

And you could see they were bound and determined not to be found out.

And they were also bound and determined to find out who it really was.

And the few dollars probably made little difference.

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: So maybe the conclusion, one thing you might take from your study, then,

detecting deception is really a social thing.

It's not an individual's ability per se.

But it's something that comes out of being in a social group and living in a social context.

BILL VON HIPPEL: That's exactly right.

The deception is a social process, just like truth-telling is.

And so truth-telling is about making sure that you and I both understand the world as

it really is.

And deception is making sure that you and I understand a world that's favorable to me,

but is not how the world really is.

Both of those are social processes.

Sometimes I can get you on board, and you would rather just go with me than really know

the truth.

Because your relationship is more important than the facts.

Other times, the facts are more important than the relationship.

But in all cases, what we're trying to do is create these competing social realities

that allow us to, in the end, understand what's really going on.

But also, in the end, be on the same page as each other.

That's a fundamental human motive

BLAKE MCKIMMIE: Excellent.

Thanks, Bill.

For more infomation >> UQx PSYC1030.1x 4-5-6 Interview with Bill von Hippel on deception - Duration: 9:21.

-------------------------------------------

Katsumoto's Death ''The Final Battle Part-2'' - The Last Samurai-(2003) Movie Clip HD - Duration: 5:07.

Stop firing!

ldiots, keep on firing!

Stop firing! Stop!

No.

Shoot! Kill Katsumoto! Kill the American!

You have your honor again.

Let me die with mine.

Help me up.

Are you ready?

l will miss our conversations.

Perfect.

They are all...

... perfect.

For more infomation >> Katsumoto's Death ''The Final Battle Part-2'' - The Last Samurai-(2003) Movie Clip HD - Duration: 5:07.

-------------------------------------------

FUI A LA CASA DE ROBLEISIUTU Y THIAGOIUTU l ElTeisan - Duration: 5:46.

For more infomation >> FUI A LA CASA DE ROBLEISIUTU Y THIAGOIUTU l ElTeisan - Duration: 5:46.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.3x 6-4-2 Part A: Personality traits - Duration: 2:04.

Personality traits are not just descriptive patterns of behaviour.

Trait theorists think that traits are the factors that are responsible for causing patterns

of behaviour.

They think that traits are things that reside in our brains.

If you have some acquired brain injury from an accident, or surgery, or something like

that, there can be quite substantial changes in personality due to the physical changes

in the brain.

Drugs may also affect your personality, when they cause chemical changes in the brain.

Now, how do we identify how many TRAITS there are to describe personality?

Well to do that, we need to know how many DIMENSIONS of personality there are.

What people have done is searched through books––dictionaries typically––looking

for words that describe temporary states relating to personality.

Allport and Odbert in 1936 found 18,000 words from dictionaries describing aspects of personality,

and identified around 4,000 words for temporary states and social evaluations.

You can then give people a questionnaire and ask them to indicate how many of those words

apply to them.

After that, you can perform a statistical test called factor analysis on the responses.

Factor analysis tells us, statistically, what the minimum number of things we need to summarise

the data, and that minimum number of things are the dimensions of personality.

So imagine, we can take all these words, and get people to rate how much each of them apply

in describing themselves.

And, with factor analysis, we can plot all of the responses and you can see if you need

one dimension, two dimensions, or three dimensions, and so on to summarise the data.

From the factor analyses researchers have conducted on personality measures, they seem

to agree that there are between 3 and 16 dimensions of personality that are necessary for describing

it.

For more infomation >> UQx PSYC1030.3x 6-4-2 Part A: Personality traits - Duration: 2:04.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.3x 7-2-5 Split half and test retest reliability - Duration: 3:16.

So, by cutting the one test in half, we're assuming that the first half of the test is

measuring the same thing as the second half.

If the test consists of verbal intelligence questions in the first half and spatial intelligence

in the second half, the two halves of the test are not really measuring the same thing.

If we then split the test in half and compare performance between the two, the performance

could be different––not because the test is not reliable, but because the parts of

the test we're comparing are measuring different things.

Well, we can solve this problem by dividing the test in many different ways.

There are many different ways we can split the test in half.

We could take the odd and even items, or jumble them up and sort them into two parts randomly.

Split half reliability effectively does that, statistically.

What it will do is jumble up the test in all different possible halves and give us the

average correlation of all those halves.

That's what split half reliability does.

It's pretty neat!

Test retest reliability involves getting the same group of people to complete the same

test twice.

For example, we could ask a sample of university students to complete the test in the first

week of the semester, and then ask the same group of students to complete the same test

in the last week of the semester.

We could then compare their performance on the two occasions.

We could plot the results on a graph, I think you know where I'm going with this!

This is the exact same graph as before and the same idea conceptually.

We're looking for people who scored low on time one to also score low on time two,

and people who score high at time one who also score high at time two.

The scores are roughly the same between the two testing times.

This would indicate that our test reliability is high.

However, this is what the scores might look like if our test reliability is low.

It looks like there's no relation between the scores for the first time the test is

taken compared to the second time the test is taken.

They are all over the place.

So, this is reliability and how we assess it.

Now, test retest reliability assumes that what we're measuring in the test is stable.

For example, people's level of intelligence is normally quite stable, personality is supposed

to be quite stable.

Test retest reliability also assumes that any changes in the responses given by people

in the test are not due to repeated exposure to the same test.

For example, maybe people learn how to do well on the test by doing it the first time

so they do better on the second time.

If you completed the same quiz from this course twice, you would probably improve the second

time around, just because you've learned what the questions are like and how to do better.

Because of these reasons, we need to be cautious when relying on test retest reliability, it's

also why many tests are protected by professional bodies so that people can't practice on

them.

For more infomation >> UQx PSYC1030.3x 7-2-5 Split half and test retest reliability - Duration: 3:16.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.3x 3-4-5 Panic disorder - Duration: 4:20.

Panic disorder is characterised by recurrent, unexpected panic attacks.

Panic attacks, which are the building blocks of panic disorder, are defined in the DSM-5

as 'an abrupt surge of intense fear or intense discomfort that reaches a peak within minutes'.

A panic attack involves four or more of the following symptoms, which, as you will note,

are mainly physiological sensations:

Palpitations, pounding heart, or accelerated heart rate.

Sweating.

Trembling or shaking.

Sensations of shortness of breath or smothering.

Feelings of choking.

Chest pain or discomfort.

Nausea or abdominal distress.

Feeling dizzy, unsteady, lightheaded, or faint.

Chills or heat sensations.

Paresthesias - which is numbness or tingling sensations.

Derealization - which is feelings of unreality, or depersonalization - being detached from

oneself.

Fear of losing control or "going crazy."

Fear of dying.

To meet the criteria for Panic Disorder, at least one panic attack must have been followed

by at least a month of either or both of the following:

Persistent anticipatory anxiety or concern about having another attack or the consequences

of having an attack.;

A significant and problematic behavioural change related to the attack, for example,

avoiding any form of exercise because the person believes that exercise might induce

a panic attack.

Let me just explain what we mean when we talk about anxiety about having an attack, or the

consequences of having an attack.

Generally, this anxiety relates to the tendency of people with Panic Disorder to misinterpret

the physical symptoms they are experiencing.

For almost all of us, when we become anxious, we experience physiological symptoms of anxiety.

Some people get sweaty palms, other experience a racing heart, or a sense of nausea.

Trembling is also common.

Each of these physical responses is a normal physiological sign of anxiety – they are

also symptoms of a panic attack.

When a person is having a panic attack, and they notice that their heart is beating faster

than usual, they don't think to themselves "the reason my heart is racing is that I'm

anxious".

Instead, they think to themselves " my heart is beating so fast.

I must be having a heart attack."

So, the physiological symptoms that are literally part of the definition of this disorder tend

to be interpreted in a catastrophic way in terms of physical health.

Another common misinterpretation that people with Panic Disorder make is to think that

their symptoms mean they are going crazy or losing control.

As with the other anxiety disorders, we have exclusion criteria to ensure that the symptoms

of Panic Disorder are not better accounted for by either another mental illness or the

physiological effects of substance use or a medical condition.

Typically, by the time somebody with panic disorder ends up seeing a mental health professional,

they have done the rounds in terms of various medical specialists.

Often, people with panic disorder are pretty unhappy to be seeing a mental health professional.

I've had people say to me, "I'm here because my GP insisted.

Just because the cardiologists couldn't find the problem, they all think that my symptoms

aren't real – that they're in my head and I need therapy.

I don't need therapy.

I need a good cardiologist!".

One important point to emphasise about this is that, with panic disorder, the physical

symptoms are real.

The problem is in how the person is making sense of the physical symptoms.

In terms of the 12-month prevalence, we are looking at around a 2-3 rate across adolescents

and adults.

Panic disorder is not commonly seen in children and is diagnosed about twice as often in females

as in males.

For more infomation >> UQx PSYC1030.3x 3-4-5 Panic disorder - Duration: 4:20.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.1x 6-2-5 What about exposure to pornography - Duration: 3:53.

According to an online survey completed by 563 undergraduate students from a New England

public university, before the age of 18, 93% of boys and 62% of girls have seen pornography

online.

The survey showed that boys were exposed to pornography at an earlier age than girls.

Boys were also more likely to see images depicting rape and child pornography (Sabina, Wolak,

& Finkelhor, 2008).

   You can understand why people are concerned

with what this type of exposure to pornography is doing to the minds of boys.

Is this type of exposure turning boys into sex criminals?

There's not a lot of evidence that this is the case.

That's not to say the effect isn't there in a more subtle way.

In 1982, Zillmann and Bryant conducted an experiment where they recruited 160 male and

female university undergraduate students to their lab.

The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups.

One group of participants were instructed to do nothing.

For the other three groups, participants were instructed to watch either large, intermediate

or nil amounts of pornography.

These participants met once a week for six weeks and watched the films as a group.

Each film played for approximately eight minutes.

For those who were in the large exposure group, the participants watched six films that consisted

of sexual content per week.

For those in the intermediate exposure group, the participants watched three films consisting

of sexual content and three others that were educational and entertaining materials that

did not consist of any sexual content.

For those who were in the no exposure group, the participants watched six educational and

entertaining films that didn't consist of any sexual content.

         Afterwards, all of the participants––including

the group who didn't do anything––returned to the lab.

They were instructed to read a newspaper article reporting a rape case about a female hitchhiker,

and then recommend a prison term for this offence.

Here in the y-axis, we have the recommended prison term for the offence in months.

On the x-axis, we have the different amount to exposure to sexual film: those who did

nothing, those who were in the no exposure group, the intermediate exposure group, and

the large exposure group.

The blue refers to the male participants, and the green refers to the female participants.

Zillmann and Bryant found that, for those who did nothing during the experiment, the

male participants recommended on average 94 months of incarceration for the offence, and

the female participants recommended approximately 120 months.

For those who watched films that didn't consist of any sexual content, the male participants

recommended on average 95 months of incarceration for the offence, and the female participants

recommended 144 months.

For those who watched films that consisted of an intermediate level of sexual content,

the male participants recommended on average 78 months of incarceration for the offence,

and the female participants recommended 101 months.

And, for those who were in the large exposure group, the male participants recommended on

average only 50 months of incarceration for the offence, and the female participants recommended

around 77 months.

These findings suggest that the continued exposure to pornography seems to influence

people to believe that the rapist is not fully responsible for his actions, and possibly,

become more accepting of rape.

However, there's not a lot of experimental studies showing the link between watching

pornography and behaving aggressively, as the effect is subtle and not always obvious.

For more infomation >> UQx PSYC1030.1x 6-2-5 What about exposure to pornography - Duration: 3:53.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.1x 7-4-2 What good is high self-esteem - Duration: 5:13.

We had different views of self-esteem going back to the 1970s and 1980s – these were

the heyday of self-esteem.

Here is a quotation by Nathaniel Branden.

He was a celebrity therapist who became one of the leaders of the self-esteem movement

… "I cannot think of a single psychological problem — from anxiety and depression, to

fear of intimacy or of success, to spouse battery or child molestation — that is not

traceable to the problem of low self-esteem" (Branden, 1984].

That was probably an over statement even back then.

But clearly a very bold statement of the idea that low self-esteem is the root of all manner

of all psychological problems.

This sort of thinking even inspired governments and schools and other institutions.

Many schools and parents and others were suddenly trying to raise their children's self-esteem.

The state of California in the United States, appointed a commission of experts to try to

raise self-esteem throughout California – they hoped by doing this they could address problems

of drug addiction, unwanted pregnancy, crime, and much more.

They even thought it was going to help balance the state's budget, because people with

high self-esteem would earn more money and therefore pay more taxes.

It didn't work.

In the late 1990s, the Association for Psychological Science (APS) commissioned a group of researchers

and said, okay, why don't you guys find out what good is high self-esteem?

Do people with high self-esteem really benefit from it so that their lives are better?

And so, by extension, would it be worth just trying to boost everyone's self-esteem?

Is this really a good thing - should psychology be persuading people in our civilization to

do this?

So, those of us on the panel, we read through thousands of journal abstracts, hundreds of

articles looking for objective evidence about the possible advantages of high self-esteem.

For example, we read lots of studies about school performance - school performance was

one of the big driving forces behind the self-esteem movement.

This was one of the things where they thought - wouldn't it be great if school students

could learn better if they had higher self-esteem.

In America, we are always looking for ways to get students to learn their math better

without having to do more math homework.

Sure enough, the initial studies found that the kids with the highest grades had higher

self-esteem than the failing students, which gave rise to hope that well if we could raise

self-esteem, that would improve learning.

But psychologists had made the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation.

Self-esteem turned out to be a result, not a cause, of doing well in school.

The way they found this out in large studies that tracked students over time.

Your self-esteem one year didn't lead to better grades the next year.

But the other way around, your grades one year did predict your self-esteem next year.

So, the grades come first, then the self-esteem.

Unfortunately, that means that raising self-esteem doesn't do any good at all in terms of improving

grades.

Thinking you're good at math doesn't make you good at math.

You really have to do the homework.

We looked at lots of other things too - such as getting along with others.

People with high self-esteem (Heatherton & Vohs, 2000) say everybody loves me, I'm very popular,

I have lots of friends.

Even in a laboratory study (Brockner & Lloyd, 1986) – where you would say bring in two

people, have them interact and get to know each other a bit, then the researchers will

separate them and say, "okay rate what do you think of that person, what do you think

that person thought of you?"

The person with high self-esteem says – "Oh, they love me, I made a great impression".

But, when you look at the actual rating - it's no difference, the other person didn't really

love them - in fact sometimes, the high self-esteem person is seen as egotistical and kind of

annoying.

Some studies (Heatherton & Vohs, 2000) have even found negative reactions.

But essentially, it's no difference.

People with high self-esteem think others like them, t's not really true.

There was also lots of concern among experts about teenage misbehaviour.

There was hope if we could boost the self-esteem of youngsters, they'll be able to say no

when others try to get them to try smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol or having sex

and so on.

So we hope to reduce these negative patterns among kids.

But they did giant studies (Baumeister et al., 2003) tracking kids along through this,

it turns out smoking has nothing to do with self-esteem, high or low.

The high self-esteem kids smoke equal levels.

With alcohol, there was an effect but it was in the wrong direction.

It was the high self-esteem kids that are more likely to try alcohol earlier.

And the same goes with teen sex.

My take on this is that it probably happens because the popular cool kids in school, they

have higher self-esteem and they are more likely to be going to parties where they're

drinking and fooling around sexually.

But in any case, the idea that boosting self-esteem would promote virginity and help people abstain

from alcohol, evidence says that's just wrong.

For more infomation >> UQx PSYC1030.1x 7-4-2 What good is high self-esteem - Duration: 5:13.

-------------------------------------------

UQx PSYC1030.1x 2-3-6 Part B: Message factors: Using fear - Duration: 1:47.

Let's take a look at what they found.

On the y-axis we have the percentage of conformity.

And on the x-axis we have the three different levels of fear.

When Janis and Feshbach (1953) looked at the net change in conformity with the dental hygiene

recommendations in the persuasive message, they found that it was actually the group

of participants who received the low fear message who went along with the message the

most.

These results suggest that fear can have the opposite effect that to what we want.

Researchers call this a "boomerang effect".

This seems surprising.

You might have expected that the high fear message would produce the most conformity.

But it seems that a high fear message can sometimes result in increased resistance from

the audience as they try to block out the fear-inducing message.

This is not always the case however, and other researchers have found the opposite pattern

of results, with high fear messages being more persuasive.

It turns out that it depends on whether you provide information about how to effectively

respond to the fear inducing threat that's included in the persuasive message.

Exactly how to do this was set out in 1983 by Rogers in a revision of Protection motivation

theory.

According to Rogers, for fear to increase the persuasiveness of a message, the message

needs to tell you that the threat is severe, that it can affect you, but that there is

an effective behaviour to avoid the danger posed by the threat, and that your able to

perform whatever behaviour that is.