MathHelp

That's fine, but can I ask that you simply don't answer and let others make a decision on whether they want to answer my question or not? Not trying to be rude, but your responses are not clearing up the point of confusion for me and I don't want my topic derailed. I am asking a question about two competing pieces of information that I am receiving and your answers are not helping me to make sense of those competing bits of information. I would add, that the information that you have provided is information I am already familiar with - but it is not assisting me with my question.

I think your not understanding the nature of my question. I am trying to understand whether there is a recognised psychological difference between men and women and if there isn't, then how does psychologically explain that there are people who specifically feel like they are members of the opposite sex. I understand that there is a gender spectrum but it is not quite the answer I am looking for and I am concerned that this will result in answers to questions that I am not asking about.

I can't because they were real life people that told me that there is no difference psychologically between males/females. One is a friend from the past (no longer in contact with them) who is a counsellor, and the other was a university professor who taught feminism. I also remember from my old Psychology textbook (I no longer own) that gave a graph with two bell curves close together that said that research into the differences between men and woman usually result in a graph that looks similar (two bell curves very close together) and that differences that are observed between the two bell curves often disappear when controls are put in place for education, age groups, etc etc The two bell curves were generic and looked like this but were slightly closer together: Obviously, no one I have met has suggested that males and females are not physically different. I hear people say "there is no difference between men and women psychologically speaking" frequently enough that I was actually expecting not to actual need to cite any source. I was actually expecting responses to be something along the lines of "it is true that psychological studies have not found a difference but that does not mean there is not difference, it just means we have not done the right studies yet".

The psychology textbook I studied said sex (I understand sex is different to gender) has four dimensions - hormonal, gonadal, genetic, and genitals. That might be relevant to what you are saying (that there are not just two - you can have all kinds of variations among the four dimensions). However, the main point of confusion for me is the psychological aspect of things - where there seems to be conflicting information. Because some people are telling me there is no difference between male and females psychologically while others feel and difference within themselves - and want to identify consistent with that difference.

When I studied Psychology, I learned that there is very little difference between men and women psychologically. The differences that psychologists do see often disappear when controls are put in place. However, at the same time there are people who identify as the opposite gender (or no gender at all). Doesn't that imply that there are psychological differences between the male and females? What am I missing here? Perhaps I am misremembering what I learned - could it be that there are no differences intellectually between males and females but that there are other differences? The other thing that confused me is that my understanding is that hormones effect our mental states - but males and females have different levels of hormones so shouldn't that mean there is a difference? Apologies if anything I have said implies something offensive. I am not trying to be offensive and psychology/humanities/gender is not my area of expertise. So I don't know if I am making assumptions I shouldn't or if I have fundamentally misunderstood what I am hearing/learning etc etc

The trouble I am having is I already know what "meeting engagement" and "line of contact" means. What I want to do is learn things that I don't know that I don't know. There is no way to google the term/concepts unless I know it exists and the only way to find out these terms/concepts exist would be to figure out what the subject is that teaches this stuff. Not looking to understand conflicts, i'm looking to understand whay I previously would have referred to as "Military Strategy". However, since getting several books on military strategy I notice that they don't have the information that I am after in them. I can only assume that it is some other subject. Well, I am more looking for textbooks/subjects that explain concepts. Terminology does change with the times, but you can still have books/subjects that explain what current terminology means. The information taught to officers where they learn what a "meeting engagement" is must come from somewhere.

Chao theory is beyond my comprehension and the suggestion by OldChemE does not actually cover what I am wanting to achieve. Any chance you could explain in words (or very basic maths) how chaos theory can be used to illustrate the what I am trying to say? Remember: 1. This needs to be something simple for people without a maths background to understand. 2. It doesn't need to be 100% accurate. It just needs to be a way of giving a general understanding of the idea, even if the maths would breakdown under mild scrutiny.

Hi there, I often see on the news military analysts using phrases like "...a meeting engagement" or "...along the line of contact". I would like to know more about these and similar terms. What subject or type of textbook should I be reading to learn more about this? People will often refer to books like Sun Tsu Art of War etc etc but it isn't really what I am looking for. I think of the Art of War as being strategic principles. They don't actually describe or explain terminology used in battles. As an aside, I also don't understand why the Art of War is often recommended reading. It seems like the principles could be reworded to be clearer and put in a more modern day textbook with examples and practice problems. If the ideas in the Art of War are so important, they really should be presented to students in a way that helps them think about the concepts and ideas. So, anyone here every go to a military officer training school? What was the subject called where they taught you about meeting engagements, line of contact etc etc? Are there any textbooks on the subject?

What I was hoping to show is a bit different. I am not looking to show the benefits of de-escalation - in fact de-escalation would be counter to the point that I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make through mathematics (while lacking the mathematical skills to actual make it) is that any time you add to an argument (whether you add something positive or negative) it becomes more complicated for a third party to resolve because they get information overload and there are too many things to dispute. I call it "The Maths of Muddying the Waters". As an example: Scenario 1: Bob steals Gregs apple. Greg goes straight to the police and shows them footage of Bob stealing the apple. The police tell Bob to give Gregs apple back and give him a warning. Issue resolved. Scenario 2: Bob steals Gregs apple. Greg demands Bob return it. Bob refuses. Greg tries to make a concession and says that Bob can have the apple so long as he does not steal any more. Bob refuses. Because Bob refuses not to steal again Greg demands the apple be returned. Bob says no because Greg already said that Bob can have the apple. Greg disagrees and says he only said that conditional on Bob agreeing not to steal again. Bod says he only heard Greg say he could have the apple and Greg only demanded that Bob not steal any more apples after he had given him the apple. Greg tries to physically take the apple from Bob. Bob pulls away and pushes Greg back causing Greg to fall over. Greg now accuses Bob of assault. Bob claims Greg assaulted him and he was defending himself. The issue ends up in court where the judge now has to decide: 1. Did Bob steal the apple? 2. Did Greg give Bob the apple? 3. Did Greg assault Bob? 4. Did Bob assault Greg? 5. Did Bob act in Self defence? 6. Was Greg defending property? As you can see, engaging in argument turned a very simple problem into an unnecessarily complex situation which is going to cost Greg a lot of money, waste the courts time, and possibly result in Greg going to prison for assault. Even if he does not go to prison for assault, the proceedings can still be very stressful. Note: I have given a really bad example, there are plenty of good examples in the Family Court system but it would take far too long to articulate the entire chain of events (which literally proves my point about the unnecessary complexity people create for themselves).

Hi there, I have studied logic and found it offers significant practical benefit to me in everyday life. I wondered if other philosophical topics might offer me practical benefits as well. So I started learning about Metaethics. After studying various theories and with no apparent end in sight (and no obvious practical benefit), I thought I might try a different subject so I started reading about epistemology. However, once again it seemed that it was just various theories with no practical benefit to it. At this point it seems to me that the main benefit of studying both metaethics and epistomology would be to 1. Contribute towards our growing knowledge so that we may one day figure out something practical for society and 2. Be able to regurgitate theories in an exam and 3. engage in debates. I don't see anything wrong with this, but it is not what I personally want to use philosophy for. So, if I were to keep studying metaethics or epistomology would I eventually learn things that have practical value? Is there another subject within philosophy that is highly practical like logic? Another question I had was, is there an order in which philosophy should be studied? I noticed a lot of introductory textbooks (other than logic books which are really good) use all kinds of specialised terms without defining them which makes me think both epistomology and metaethics are for courses that take place after a student has already completed a pre-requisite course.

Hi there, When it comes to disputes, the more you engage in arguing/conflict the more complicated the argument becomes for a third party to try and resolve. The sooner you take your conflict to your manager or a judge (litigation), the easier it is going to be for them to figure out what has happened and resolve things quickly. Is there away to present this idea mathematically? Preferably in simple maths... I was thinking something similar to: Conflict with two facts to resolve: C = 1/2 x 1/2. (i.e. if there is two facts then each fact is one half of a whole). Conflict with three facts to resolve: C = 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3. (i.e. if there are three facts then each fact is one third of the whole conflict) I am not very skilled in maths so any advice or suggestions would be really useful. The equation does not need to be technically correct. I am looking for something that helps give people a general idea of how unnecessarily engaging in verbal conflict can turn a simple issue into a much more complex issue.

So I am trying to learn how to write a proper risk statement. My textbook does not explain it - it only refers to making a risk statement as being important. I used google and it gave me the following template: If [event] due to [root cause] then [consequence]. Root cause is determined by asking "Why" five times. So I tried it out: Event: Student spills acid on themselves. Root cause: Lack of concentration - Why1? They were tired. Why2? They did not get much sleep last night. Why3? They were out drinking. Why4? They wanted to make friends. Why5? They are an extroverted person. Consequence: they suffer chemical burns. So the statement becomes: "If a student spills acid on themselves due to being an extroverted person then they will suffer chemical burns". I'm a little confused because this statement by itself does not achieve the purpose of a risk statement - being able to communicate risk information to third parties. It is not at all clear to someone reading the statement why being extroverted would result in spilling acid. Does anyone know what is wrong with the risk statement? The process for creating risk statements seems to lead to lots of vague statements that don't seem to have any utility. Another example: "If I am near a volcano when it erupts due to needing food then I will die". Doesn't make a lot of sense without the initial part of the "why" analysis does it? - why do you need to be near a volcano for food... well, originally it would have been that you were near the volcano as part of your job and your job earns you money which you use to buy food...

So it's gone from offensive to "very" offensive???? It's a psychology forum... I'm asking about psychology related questions to specific law enforcement training. I am not from the United States, I am not sure how any of what you are saying relates to my questions. Is there some rule that prevents me from asking questions unless they relate to improving overall US Law Enforcement or the entire population of the world? There are plenty of questions on this psychology forum that are not related to improving US Law enforcement or creating a more ethical population. In fact, my assumption is that the types of discussions you are wanting might be found in the politics forum because creating policy is more of a specialisted subject. Your a moderator, please stop posting responses that are obviously unrelated to the questions asked.

I don't think this is a healthy way to look at things. 1. Peoples interests are exactly that - their interests. I am assuming you have interest/s hobbies as well (swimming/hunting/reading/talking/walking etc etc). Life wouldn't function well if it is offensive to take an interest in anything outside the ultimate good. I think this comes down to practical reasoning versus theoretical reasoning. 2. No doubt you would offend someone else by your focus on wanting to develop a more ethical population versus wanting to cure diseases. Discussions about the correct focus could last for a long time and in the meantime nothing would get done as no-one would want to choose to focus on the offensive option. Once again, it comes down to practical reasoning versus theoretical reasoning. 3. If I am in charge of developing a new training curriculum for officers (I am not), I would argue that the most ethical thing I could do would be to spend the time creating the best ethical curriculum possible. In this case the time would be allocated for law enforcement purposes, and I am not free to use the time to create a training curriculum for the entire world. I would also lack the resources. 4. If I am writing a book about a futuristic planet where the main character is a member of a law enforcement agency, I need content that can be used to remind the reader that "things are different". There is no value in an improved ethical population if the plotline is supposed to go in the opposite direction. I was hoping to avoid this as it goes more towards identifying issues early/before recruitment. While this is certainly something that is important and I am sure would create a more ethical people, I was specifically interested in a situation where the psychologist does not have control over who is in the training course. Presumably someone else (perhaps even other psychologists) has done their absolute best to get the best candidates. From there, I was interested in whether further training was possible regarding mindsets. Thanks, that is really good feedback. In my hypothetical situation, is there any evidence to believe indoctrination could be just as effective if you have plenty of time/money to create more intensive programs? As an example, if you had a class of 30 trainees and 10 of them were actually there to reinforce ethical/moral behaviour at all times. The 10 people might be required to always back each other up on the ethical/moral behaviour so if any of the 20 actual trainees did something wrong it would draw the disgust of at least 10 people automatically. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but I am just wanting to know if the limitation is that "psychologists don't know enough about it" or if it is "psychologists don't know enough to make meaningful changes at an affordable price". In this scenario, it would be the law and department guidelines/policy or you could even answer the question assuming experts in ethics and psychology are involved in making the policy law. For me, I am curious about getting the officers to follow the policy once it is created. As an example, there are many situations where an officer might be fearful and it will be hard to follow training regarding the use of force if the officer "feels" they are taking a risk by using a low level of force but cannot justify greater force on a feeling. They may act irrationally and use excessive force because they were afraid. When the optimal response might be to overcome the fear and continue using the required low level of force.

Hi team, I have seen quite a few videos on Youtube where people are swimming in waterways that have crocodiles in them. For example: Diver Has Lucky Escape From Crocodile | Super Giant Animals | BBC Earth - YouTube How is this possible? Are the divers just incredibly lucky? My best guess is that perhaps crocodiles are not as dangerous as I thought and perhaps they only eat at certain times of the year/day. I assume it would have to be more than a mere tendency for them to only eat/hunt at certain times. I wouldn't be willing to enter the water with them on the basis of some rule that "in general they only hunt/eat in spring" or "in general they only hunt/eat in the mornings". Even if the divers are using behavioural knowledge of the crocodiles to swim when it is "safe", how safe it it? Do scientists who study crocodiles routinely jump in the water with them? Like I said earlier, this is not the first video I have seen and I have seen some where the crocodiles are huge.