Posts tagged pot
Best Moca in Boulder?
Feb 27th
And here’s how you do it.
Take a small coffee pot that brews four cups. Take a package of Swiss Miss pour it into the bottom of the pot. Then brew the coffee. When thei coffee is all brewed take a spoon and stir the bottom of the pot o get all the chocolate off the bottom. Pour into your favorite cup and then add a bit of half and half. Then take that concoction stick it in the microwave for 30 seconds and wallah, steaming Swiss mocha to die for.
The problem with all the coffee shops in Boulder is they will take espresso and then a ton of milk and then some chocolate syrup crap and throw in a cup, steam it and call that Swiss mocha and is absolutely not Swiss mocha is made from hot chocolate and coffee (not espresso) and mocha mocha mocha is Swiss Swiss Swiss. Coffee baristas need to get it through their head and stop serving up watery crap to us. Your kitchen you can do it 10 times cheaper. I mean who wants to go to say the Cup and spend $4.50 for their crappy mocha when for $1.50 you can go buy Swiss Miss, coffee $2.00 a can, and some half and half for 1.50. You can make your
own what we do. And it’s yum
CU Boulder study: More power leads to more dehumanization (No sh*t, Sherlock)
Mar 6th
“I think a lot of us have the intuition that some powerful people can be pretty dehumanizing,” said Jason Gwinn, a doctoral student in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and lead author of the study. “But our goal was to test if power, when randomly assigned to ordinary students, would have that effect. That would say something about power itself rather than about the sort of people who have the drive to take power.”
The researchers enlisted about 300 CU-Boulder students taking an introductory psychology course to participate in two experiments. In the first experiment, students were assigned to be either a manager or an assistant for a mock hiring task. The assistants were asked to review resumes for an open job and then list the strengths and weaknesses of each applicant. The managers then reviewed the list made by their assistants and made a final decision about whom to hire.
In the second experiment, participants were asked to play a game and were assigned to be either an allocator or a recipient. For the game, one allocator and one recipient were tasked with splitting a pot of money. The allocator, the higher-power role, made the first offer, suggesting how the money be split. If the recipient, the lower-power role, accepted the offer, both people received their share of the money. If the recipient declined the offer, neither person received any of the money.
At the end of each experiment, the participants were asked to rate each other on 40 traits. The result was that students in higher-power roles assigned fewer uniquely human traits to the students in lower-power roles than vice versa. Examples of traits considered to be more uniquely human, as defined and tested in a 2007 Australian study, include being ambitious, imaginative, frivolous and insecure. Examples of traits that are less uniquely human — those that could be used to describe a pet as well as a friend, for example — include being passive, timid, friendly and shy.
The question of whether power leads to dehumanization has part of its roots in the renowned Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971. Twenty-four male students were randomly assigned to play the role of either inmate or guard in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. During the study, the guards were psychologically abusive to the prisoners, many of whom passively accepted the abuse, despite the fact that the participants knew that they were all students at the same elite university.
Though the guards were described as dehumanizing the prisoners, the term “dehumanization” was well defined at the time and the experiment was not designed to allow the researchers to confidently state that it was the increase in power that lead to the dehumanization. By contrast, Gwinn’s study, now available online, was designed specifically to test the relationship between power and dehumanization.
Gwinn cautions that the researchers cannot yet say whose perspective is being changed by the power differential imposed on participants in the CU study. It’s possible that being in a position of less power makes a person see those in power as more human rather than the other way around, or that both people are affected.
“We haven’t pinned down why this happens,” Gwinn said. “We don’t know whose perception is being affected.”
Charles Judd and Bernadette Park, both professors in CU-Boulder’s Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, co-authored the study.