Melbourne is RIDIC to drive through! So easy to get lost and end up on a highway from the city with no exits that leads you to the sticks. And they e charge you all the way.
Interesting theory, but that doesn't explain a lot of similar illusions. This illusion is made up of a bunch of angle expansion illusions, which can be explained by the lateral inhibition theory, and which occur not just in illusions like this where points converge to a vanishing point. So this illusion still works when the stimulus can't be compared to a real-life visuals, and our brain would have no idea of what to expect in "the future".
Also, even if it were spelled "opossum", why should we have to spell it that way if "possum" was considered acceptable slang? If there were a post about Tasmanian Tigers would you get all up on your high horse in the comments section and carry on about "ACTUALLY, it's spelled THYLACINE!". Neatorama isn't exactally a formal publication, you jackass.
By the way TT, Australians spell everything the same as the Brits do e.g., colour, aluminium, anything that ends in "ise" is spelled with an S, not a Z etc... Also, it's "Aussies", not "Ozzies". Maybe check YOUR OWN spelling before you make comments regarding other people's spelling abilities. And where are you getting off telling Americans and Australians how to spell the name of an animal that's native to their own country but not yours? I suppose we shouldn't be giving assholes like you attention because that's exactly what you want.
Yeah, another bullsh*t IQ test. Real IQ tests are legally only allowed to be run, accessed, and scored by registered psychologists. And they cost a lot more than $1.
Kind of off topic, but man I hate links (one of the ads to the right) to bullsh*t IQ tests. THEY'RE BULLSH*T! All they do is give you an artificially high IQ score and then ask you for your credit card details so they can give you a detailed (bullsh*t) analysis of just HOW smart you are.
Oh, and don't think that having "spoken publically about your views on psychiatry" automatically makes you more qualified to assert your view on the topic. I have a degree in psychology. I know you think that must make me biased too, but we are trained to be objective and always consider the weaknesses for all theories and practices within the field. (sorry everyone for dominating the forum)
You know a meta-analysis is just about the most powerful way to provide evidence for or against an argument. Well I guess that depends on whether you want to objectively look at the evidence for both sides (and that includes actually having access to studies on the topic rather than just a few publically-available abstracts), or if, biased by your own subjective negative experience you go out there looking for (not particularly reliable) evidence to support your argument.
You'll find that the few studies that suggest otherwise will have flaws that contribute to their conflicting results e.g. not enough participants, not a representative sample, poor ways of measuring symptoms etc...
While you may have read that on some anti-drug/psychiatry website, it's simply not true. If you actually have access to a database of peer-reviewed journals, and you do a little research, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of studies (double blind)on SSRIs suggest that OCD patients who take SSRIs have a significantly greater reduction in symptoms than placebo control groups. E.g., A meta-analysis of 12 studies which included the data from 1,044 individuals by Geller et al (2003) revealed that all types of SSRIs are significantly more effective than placebo controls in treating paediatric OCD. Any drug which is potentially going to be prescribed by psychiatrists have to undergo rigorous testing to determine that a) they are unlikely to cause any major harm; and b) that their prescription can be justified – that is, that they are more effective than placebos. If the literature suggested otherwise, psychiatrists would never be allowed to prescribe them.
PuhLEASE! Spare us!
If there were a post about Tasmanian Tigers would you get all up on your high horse in the comments section and carry on about "ACTUALLY, it's spelled THYLACINE!".
Neatorama isn't exactally a formal publication, you jackass.
Also, it's "Aussies", not "Ozzies". Maybe check YOUR OWN spelling before you make comments regarding other people's spelling abilities.
And where are you getting off telling Americans and Australians how to spell the name of an animal that's native to their own country but not yours?
I suppose we shouldn't be giving assholes like you attention because that's exactly what you want.
And they cost a lot more than $1.
THEY'RE BULLSH*T! All they do is give you an artificially high IQ score and then ask you for your credit card details so they can give you a detailed (bullsh*t) analysis of just HOW smart you are.
Actually dude, it's Australian, so it's a possum. Looks like a brushtail possum to me.
I have a degree in psychology. I know you think that must make me biased too, but we are trained to be objective and always consider the weaknesses for all theories and practices within the field.
(sorry everyone for dominating the forum)
Well I guess that depends on whether you want to objectively look at the evidence for both sides (and that includes actually having access to studies on the topic rather than just a few publically-available abstracts), or if, biased by your own subjective negative experience you go out there looking for (not particularly reliable) evidence to support your argument.
While you may have read that on some anti-drug/psychiatry website, it's simply not true.
If you actually have access to a database of peer-reviewed journals, and you do a little research, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of studies (double blind)on SSRIs suggest that OCD patients who take SSRIs have a significantly greater reduction in symptoms than placebo control groups.
E.g., A meta-analysis of 12 studies which included the data from 1,044 individuals by Geller et al (2003) revealed that all types of SSRIs are significantly more effective than placebo controls in treating paediatric OCD.
Any drug which is potentially going to be prescribed by psychiatrists have to undergo rigorous testing to determine that a) they are unlikely to cause any major harm; and b) that their prescription can be justified – that is, that they are more effective than placebos.
If the literature suggested otherwise, psychiatrists would never be allowed to prescribe them.