|
e describe the development of a reliable measure of individual differences in disgust sensitivity. The 32- item Disgust Scale includes 2 true-false and 2 disgust-rating items for each of seven domains of disgust elicitors (food, animals, body products, sex, body envelope violations, death, and hygiene) and for a domain of magical thinking (via similarity and contagion) that cuts across the seven domains of elicitors. Correlations with other scales provide initial evidence of convergent and discriminant validity: the Disgust Scale correlates moderately with Sensation Seeking (r = -.46) and with Fear of Death (r = .39), correlates weakly with Neuroticism (r = .23) and Psychoticism (r = -.25), and correlates negligibly with Self- Monitoring and the EPQ Extraversion and Lie scales. Females score higher than males on the Disgust Scale. We suggest that the seven domains of disgust elicitors all have in common that they remind us of our animality and, especially, of our mortality. Thus we see disgust as a defensive emotion that maintains and emphasizes the line between human and animal. |
|
Disgust rejections have been shown to follow two laws of sympathetic magic, which were first proposed by Tylor (1871/1974), Frazer (1890/1959), and Mauss (1902/1972). The law of contagion, "once in contact, always in contact," refers to the tendency to act as if brief contact causes a permanent transfer of properties from one object to another, even when there is no material substance transferred. Some people, for example, report that they would not drink from a glass that once held dog feces no matter how many times the glass is scrubbed and sterilized (Rozin, Millman & Nemeroff, 1986; Rozin & Nemeroff, 1990). The second law, the law of similarity, holds that "the image equals the object." For example, a piece of chocolate fudge becomes far less desirable when it is shaped like a piece of dog feces (Rozin et al., 1986). |
|
Pa darbavietas logu redzams
 |
|
Uzliku čatiņu ar mākslīgo intelektu, un pirmais, ko viņš man saka, ir - hello, in your own words, please describe what your problem is. Viss, sēžu un domāju. To es saucu par īstu sarunu. |
|
Man ir sajūta, ka viss ko es saku ir garām. Bet viss nevar būt garām. Tad sajūta ir garām? Bet kas tad viņu jūt? Kāpēc es jūtu garām? Jo es negribu just tieši? |
|
Mēs esam kuģim dažādās vietās. Cits jūt turbulenci, cits karstuma vilni. Tādā ziņā ka es iespējams kādu nenosaucu, bet tas tikai nozīmē ka viņš arī ir lidmašīnā, jo ja viņš nav lidmašīnā, tad viņš nav klātesošs. Reini, Tu esi klātesošs? Guntar, tu esi klātesošs? Bet tas vairs nav svarīgi, jo es vairs neesmu klātesošs. Es apēdu lidmašīnu. |
|
Es skraidu apkārt un gribu ieraudzīt vienradzi ar pinceti. Man ir šaujamierocis uz pleca, man ir uzpleči... Jopcik popcik, es iesprūdu pie militāristiem. Starp citu, ekrāna izmēram ir nozīme. Pa telefona ekrānu nerauj iekšā, bet es te sapīpējos kūtī sapelējušu zāli un man salmi mutē kā gulivera alā stutē ābeles zarus, tie tik smagi no āboliem kā Maksences Cirīnas mati. |
|
Vēl viens mākslīgais intelekts. Kādreiz bija paradīze, tagad ir intelekts.
 |
|
|
