vale.

 The Intertok experience was very interesting and I feel like I learned a lot from it. Even though it was about physics it was not a didactic lecture at all but it was very interactive, interesting and it definitely caught my attention.  There were several topics discussed that i found particularly interesting. Beginning witht the fact that if you travel almost as fast as the speed of light, 20 seconds would be the equivalent of 80 years here on Earth. How is that possible? I find it so amazing how light can shift time and space. There are so many aspects about physics that do not seem to be real and can be directly connected to science fiction. I’ve always had a particular fascination with black holes. I feel a black hole is a vortex to another dimension and for many years I felt like this was just a product of my wild imagination, but after seeing that presentation I realize that it might not be as fantastic as it seems. According to Alex Fletcher, black holes have no time and space. They are literally “holes” in space, that alter the fabric of space. A black hole does not suck objects in, however, because they bend the fabric of space (like a bowling bowl bends a trampolin) galaxies, planets, etc are drawn to it, and eventually sucked by it. It is hard for me to understand the idea of “no time and space”. What would that mean? I know Alex Fletcher talked about spaghettification, but.. if there is no time and space.. then..what is there? is there really “nothing”? and how is that even possible? jaja so many questions came up to my mind as I was listening to the lecture.  When we were in our respective groups, the leader asked us to debate about whether we could imagine the universe without a creator. I had to argue that indeed we could, but I didnt feel like that. I feel the universe cannot be explained without a creator, an architect. Whether that term is taken in a religious matter is different, but I dont think the perfection of the universe could have arose from an explosion out of nothing. I believe that every time we focus on how perfectly balanced the universe works, and how it is so mysterious.. it is impossible for me to think of it and not see a creator behind all of this. Alex Fletcher gave a number, an estimation of the odds against life existing in the universe…and it definitely seems as if the universe was created for humans to exist in it, because it so improbable for life to exist in this universe, for the perfect conditions to be given. I have a theory, I’m going to call it the “Cotheological Scientific Theory” and it states: If there is evidence that the Bing Bang occured, then it is because God created the universe through the Big Bang.    … I know it might be vague but if you think about it, all sides are happy with this explanation…Well except atheists…I dont have anything against them. I dont have anything against anyone…  ANYWAYYY… Scientists found evidence about something they didnt really want to discover because the concept of the Big Bang is way too abnormal and hard to process. It is so unlikely and the odds against are so high that scientists simply dont want to accept it, nevertheless, there is evidence to support it. Something that I didnt get clear (and nothing about quantum mechanics can be truly clear) was the fact that behind the Big Bang there was -nothing-! What does nothing mean anyway?! nothing as in a black hole, and are both nothings the same? No time and no space = black hole = nothing. So, if there was nothing before the Big Bang does this mean that the universe was an immense black hole. And who created the black hole? Something that I find particularly interesting is that the description of heaven is: a paradise, lacking real time or space. I find it very interesting how religion and science relate to each other even in the concepts that seem completely absurd.

There were so many interesting things I could write forever about it. The Theory of expansion of the universe was something that really struck me because ..we will never reach the end of it, because it will never stop expanding! The concept of infinity is far beyond the level of the human mind. I dont think that any human is capable of truly understanding infinity, never ending… kind of scary actually.. I will continue writing as soon as I find my notes.

-Existance: mathematical definition (from Lissy’s blog): occupying a place in a certain time and space.  Does this mean that if we are sucked (wrong term, since black holes dont suck) do we stop existing because there is no time and space in it?! it may be possible that I stop living, simply because I will be stretched into infinity and of course this will cause my death, but do i stop existing?!… the second it takes for me to be destroyed, am i by defition inexistent? This is way too complex for me, it is way too complex for scientists even

As I was reading the article Lissy posted on her blog I found it very interesting to see the way in which controversy arose simply because Miss California said she opposed gay marriage. Society is constantly shifting about what is right and wrong to say. Freedom of speech is now restricted. Subjects that were once considered taboo now have to be accepted because if people don’t accept them then they’re “close minded”, “not liberal”, “old fashioned”. The point of freedom of speech is that you are able to talk about anything and say how you feel, no matter how controversial it may be. Of course there are ethical standards and you should try not to offend people, but in the case you do it’s not like you can be put into jail, at least not in the USA. I feel like people sometimes forget about the true vale of “freedom of speech” and they use it that expression simply because it sounds good, it sounds appropiate, politically correct but it does not mean that they actually believe it or understand the true meaning.

Freedom of speech is still very restricted, even among family members. There are certain topics I feel like I can liberally discuss with my parents, and others that I simply dont like to talk about because I know they might feel awkward or might feel inclined to believe that I am a strong believer of that view point. However, I know that my parents are not close minded I just feel like avoiding them the trouble of worrying about certain things. Freedom of speech is a concept that is not truly put into practice. People today still feel like they need to be very careful of what they say and many people keep things to themselves because they know that they will be judged because of their opposing view points. They know they are free to express themselves, but it does not mean they are comfortable doing so. The issue here is tolerance. People are not tolerant, and in many cases are not capable of understanding and accepting someone’s point of view, especially when it contradicts everything they stand for. In the case of Miss California, it’s a very particular scenario. She openly stated that she opposed gay marriage (a thought that used to be very common). However, now she is accused of being intolerant and a homophobe simply because she is not liberal enough, she is not understanding enough. Simply because she didnt say what the jury and the world expected her to say she was attacked. Freedom of speech has to go in both directions. The thing is that people have to be careful, you have to speak your mind but try not to offend others. I believe in God, but if i didn’t, I wouldn’t go walking around in a church saying how I dont believe in God and I think my point of view is the right own. You have to accept the fact that people will always disagree but everyone has the right to express what they believe and not be judged and attacked for it. Of course, it is unrealistic to believe that people will always be 100% tolerant. People will judge, people will attack at some point, because it is in human nature to dislike what contradicts what you believe. It is a habit that has to be removed, and it is very removable since subjects that used to be considered taboo are now accepted…and in the case of Miss California, the one and only option, the one and only correct answer.

After reading the article Lissy posted on her blog I couldn’t help but to feel shocked at the fact that insults that have now become part of our daily lives have affected people to a level in which they have actually commited suicide. “Being called a fag, you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay”. I agree with this quote because I have seen that when someone is called a fag is not necessarily because that guy has feelings for another guy, but because he has stepped outside the boundaries of what men consider to be masculine. I have seen friends get called fags simply because they do not have a deep voice or are concerned about the clothes they wear. Many guys perceive these qualities as “femenine”. I have seen that even though these guys might actually get a girlfriend they are still considered “fags”; clearly, being called a fag has almost nothing to do with being gay. A homosexual is not a guy who is feminine. He might be, but this is not what makes him homosexual. The fact that he likes men, this is what makes him a homosexual. Still, guys do not seem to make this direct connection and rather focus on the fact that the person is feminine or has preference for activities that are associated with girls. I believe this says a lot about cultural beliefs. Not only are gender roles defined but many people are not able to accept that there are people who are different, and will not fit these defined roles. Men are still meant to be machos,masculine, be rough, etc, but girls are always nicely dressed, focus on their physical appearance. Guys that are into drama, arts, fashion are immediately categorized as “gay” and I must say that I have seen this in school.  Name calling is definitely part of our daily school life. People use them unconsciously and they are not aware of the negative effects this might have on people. Insecurity can arise from this name calling. A very interesting is that girls are not intimidated by homosexuals, they see them as another “girlfriend”; however, guys are immediately grossed out. They do not want to be called gays and they will never want to be in contact with one. Girls, even though they accept them more than guys, have a very big issue concerning having a guy husband. This means, getting married and then finding out their husband became gay. In that particular situation women seemed to be grossed out by homosexuals. However, I believe this occurs not because of the fact that they are gay but they feel betrayed, tricked, lied to.

You always know that name is calling is inappropiate and harmful, but it has become part of the common expressions. This does not make them appropiate to use, it just seems to “cover them up”. I feel that “gay”and “fag” are used always with another meaning in mind and not necessarily with being homosexual. Still, people use them every day, unaware that bullying someone with these kind of words can have permanent damage on someone’s self esteem.

Pratibha Patil

Pratibha Patil, the Indian President, is, according to me, not a social male. Even though she has a position which has been given to men most of the time, she is not the kind of woman that posseses dominant, male qualities. Unlike the women from the article, she is married. The husband, even though not involved in political activities, is still the paternal figure. She does not have much presence but rather looks fragile and even out of context. By this I mean that she does not seem to fit in the position of power she holds. She is not well liked by many since the India Today classified her as: an embarassing choice. She appeals to the common people not because of her skills but rather by the fact that she talks about popular issues such as communication with dead spirits. These matters are completely irrelevant to political issues, however, because of culture and tradition, are very appealing to the common people. Her voice is very feminine, but not necesarrily high pitched. However, it is not striking and it does not aspire confidence.  Her political career has shifted, she has been: Deputy minister, Cabinet minister, deputy Chairman, Chairperson, Governor of Rajasthan, and finally President of India. There are several controversial issues regarding Patil which include:

1) She believed that people with hereditary diseases should be sterilized.

2) There were allegations of shielding her brother in a murder case

3) Pratibha Women Cooperative Bank scam (financial irregularities)

4) Sant Muktabai Cooperative Sugar Factory (believed to be a drug-selling spot)

She simply does not seem to be a true leader and the president before her, Adbul Kalam, was a great leader who was called the “people’s President”. He was very well liked and people do not believe that Patil can live up to his and other’s expectations.

Sarah Palin

Marital Status: 

 

She is married to Todd Palin, who is a lifelong Alaskan, a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world’s longest snow machine race.

Political career and success:

She made history on Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office as the youngest governor in Alaska history and the first woman. During the 2008 presidential campaign, she became the first Alaskan and the first woman to be nominated for vice president by the Republican Party.

Clothing and appearance:

She looks young, feminine and not very intimidating.  Since her selection as John McCain’s running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Sarah and her family.  Palin received more valuable clothes in one month than the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. A democrat put it another way: Her clothes were the cost of health care for 15 or so people.  She was very criticized for spending this money con expensive clothes when there were much more important issues in which the money could be invested.

Voice

Her voice shakes a lot; she does not speak with much security.  You can easily tell when she is not sure of what she is saying.  In the videos I watched she did not speak very convincingly.  Her voice does not give her much sense of power.

 

 

 

Sarah Palin is constantly being presented as a very weak person that does not seem to do anything right. She is constantly being mocked at because of the femine and expensive clothes she wear. Her image does not present someone who is dominant and strong.

Some of her nicknames include:

Failin’ Palin

Spiteful Sarah

Trainwreck Sarah

Pontius Palin

Hurricane Sarah

Pinocchio Palin

Pandora Palin

Sarah Failin’

Sinking Sarah

They all have a negative connotation.

Sarah Palin is not a social male at all. She is nos respected or taken seriously by the political community. She lacks the strenght and the confidence as well as the presence that a social male would need to have.

 

 

Michelle Bachelet

Michelle Bachelet is the curretn president of chile and the first female president of that country. She is known for maintaing conservative costums. She is a separated mother of three by two men. She is declared agnostic.  Bachelet speaks five languages (Spanish, German, Portuguese, English, and French) She is a pediatrician, epidemiologist and has military and political studies. She is the former Minister of Defense and Minister of Health.

In 2008, Forbes Magazine ranked her as 25th in the 100 Most powerful Women of the World.  She wears her hair short and does not wear much jewelry or make up. She wears suits most of the time. Her voice is deep and strong. She lived in exile in Germany, something she claims made her stronger.

I feel Michelle Bachelet is a social male. Her appearance is very masculine and she is very powerful. Despite the fact that there were revolts in her country after her election because people thought that she could not do the job as well as a man, she proved them all wrong. She is very strong and has a lot of confidence, she reflects that in her voice, her way of dressing, she is very powerful and dominant. She definitely reminds me of the women in Block’s article.

 

1) We are more likely to be mistaken in our generalizations than in our particular observations.” Do you agree? (May 2003)

I chose this topoc for my essay so I wanted to express some of my thoughts in order to get myself organized and try to write a good essay

I believe that is easier to generalise than to observe because people tend to generalise based on many factors which can be as simple as lack of time and as complex as emotions. Generalisations on people such as: “Everyone from Costa Rica is a hypocrite” can be deduced simply by meeting one person from Costa Rican and that person turning out to be a hypocrite. These kinds of events happen all the time in our lives. We generalise based on really poor arguments and that is why careful observations are very important in order to get obtain a concept of reality that is more accurate. Careful observatios can lead to a clearer point of view, and most likely, a less biased one. However, a completely unbiased opinion would be impossible to obtain because even the way in which language is used can be biased. Generalisations can create stereotypes. For example, since many Nicaraguans come to Costa Rica in search of jobs people generalise that all Nicaraguans are poor and therefore a stereotype of the “Nicaraguan thief/rapists” emerges. People also generalise about the fact that all housekeepers are Nicaraguans which is not always true.

People also generalise with situations. I have heard many people say: “It’s ALWAYS sunny in the afternoon if it rains in the morning”…Even though this may seem “logical” I wanted to emphasize the word “always”.Generalisations begin when people see things in black and white. No situation and no person is every black or white. If you start to believe that a certain event will ALWAYS happen or will NEVER happen then you are most likely making a generalisation. Language is the way to express knowledge, and you don’t want to use language incorrectly to express poorly based assumptions.

Sometimes generalisations, however, are supported by careful observations. It is like using these observations to either prove or disprove a biased hypothesis (Going back to the Scientific Method).

It is most likely to be mistaken in our generalisations than in our careful observations;however, it is still possible to be mistaken even in the most careful observation because the information we perceive can be altered by emotions, past experience, previous knowledge, sense perception, etc. As I said before, not a single observation can be 100% unbiased. Whether we like it or not we are influenced by our surrounding and it is impossible to block every single memory, every single emotion, and all the previous knowledge required to interpret information.

I remember the first time I met a friend’s little sister. She was the sweetest girl ever and I was really happy to meet her and talk to her. I remember saying: “All girls her age are so cute”… and then…I met a friend’s cousin and she was the most obnoxious 7 year old alive. Clearly, not all girls that age are cute. I generalised, made a mistake, and if I had taken the time to make deeper observations I would have probably discovered that I was not right and that each case is particular.

 

I feel that I want to give my opinion about this article because during class I didn’t really say that much…and maybe that’s my fault but it’s kind of hard for me to focus sometimes. Anyway, I find this article extremely interesting because it deals with an issue of society from a very scientific and linguistic level. There are so many stereotypical female and male traits presented in this article. Starting with the fact that the description of the ovule states it is passive. Passive, as if women were waiting to be rescued. I also found very interesting the fact that it said that women only create an egg per month and a very limited number of eggs in a lifetime. As time passed, she became less fertile and her reproductive organs were rapidly ruined. However, males produce millions of sperm and are presented as extremely efficient, fertile, and active.

Men 1

Women 0

The article mentioned that women “waste” eggs, but men also “waste” in that sense by producing excessive amounts of sperm. The articles presented this issue and I totally agreed with it. Why is it that we waste when in fact men are the ones creating too much!? I am not sexist or anything but I believe stereotypes are unfair and scientists should watch the language they use. For example, after investing on the biology book we discovered that the males were presented most of the time with positive traits. Their reproductive system is very efficient and practically flawless, despite its complexity. Female reproductive organs, on the other hand, were presented as passive, slow, peaceful and tender. I know these traits are not necessarily negative, but the male is superior in the sense that he is active and in charge while the women are just waiting to be fertilized. The inappropriate and unconscious misuse of language in science books clearly reflects that science can definitely be questioned and it can present issues far beyond the field of science and maybe more an issue of society. I believe that this language unconsciously drills into our brains and we don’t even perceive that we are embedding stereotypes in the deepest core of our mind. I find this very interesting because I had not even thought about this issue before and I had never thought that in the science of the reproductive organs I could find so many male and female stereotypes. This makes me question all the things that I read and see everyday, which alter the way I think, as well as the way society thinks. Each and every day we perceive so many details that are connected to things we don’t even imagine have a relation. Science, before I read this article, was not biased at all. It presented facts, and the scientist’s opinion was not presented in any way. But now I have my doubts, because no matter how hard the author tries, his opinion will slip through the crack of “politically correct language” and it can severely mislead you.

After reading Darwin’s God I couldn’t help but to think that if humans were hard-wired to believe in God, the entire concept of faith would be brought down. If we were “meant to believe” then what is the whole point of “believing without seeing”. Anyone can have faith because we are all hard-wired to believe in the supernatural, in a superior deity. Besides the fact that this contradicts the entire basis of human knowledge, religion, and way of living (well at least for most), if we were genetically hard-wired to believe in a superior deity does this mean that atheists are sick? Are they missing a basic survival evolutionary gene? I personally don’t believe that we are hard-wired to believe in a superior deity but rather that we,as humans, are genetically programmed to question. We are hard-wired to question those things that we cannot responthat go beyond what our minds can imagine. There are so many things within our own universe that have no explanation such as the expansion of the universe. such things, even though they surround us and are relatively near, have no exlanation, or at least not a clear one. People are constantly questioning even the most absurd things such as : why does it rain the day the family wants to go to the beach, or why did that person make a particular face when someone made a comment. If you think about it, we question more than what we are able to answer. I have also noticed that there are certain times in your lifetime in which you question things more than others, or not so much as question less or more but rather question different aspects of life. For example, as teenagers, we tend to focus on emotional issues more than on teological issues or more logical/cultural issues. I know this is a generalisation but think about most teenagers, they are usually worried about dumb things such as what are they going to wear and why the guy they like does not look back at them, etc. Adults tend to go beyond, they question more complex issues and I feel that there is a certain age in which people feel like most of their questions have been answered. It’s a process. People go from questioning absurd matter,  “evolve” into questioning more important issues such as global crisis, what to do with the family, and eventually “accept” that there is only so much that can be learned through life. I don’t know if you agree with me, but I feel the “wanting to know it all” gene deteriorates.

Going back to the “believing in a superior deity” issue I find it really hard to believe that it has all been a lie and that we were all meant to believe. I just think about the Bible and all the books that we have that deal with religion! Could they seriously all be a lie… someone who thought it would be funny to trick the entire world for thousands of years. I just cannot accept it, and I know that the fact that I dont accept it does not mean it’s not possible. However, if they told me I was hard-wired to believe, I would not lose my faith that if we were hard-wired then it was because there was a God who created me that way. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it’s true, at least that’s the way I would personally act. I can imagine the chaos that would be caused, a war would unleash between believers and non believers. The union of science and religion, in the attempt to explain the “why we believe” could cause horrible repercussions. Well, maybe I’m over reacting a little, haha but I can still imagine riots all over the world.

Sometimes I wonder if humans believe in a superior deity because it can be very comforting to know that you are not the only one in control of your life. I mean, many unpredictable events, are in charge of others and you are not meant to be all knowing and all powerful. We, as humans, are imperfect, and maybe this thought is embedded in the center of our being and we know that we need the help of a superior in order to guide us. This is not the exact reason why I personally believe in God, but I find it very conforting to know that I don’t have to be in control of everything, and that when things go wrong I can rely on someone. But that’s just my point of view I will keep discussing this topic later on…

Emotion and Reason are two ways of knowing that are seen as oppositves. However, lately, and especially after watching the Symbiosis Dance I believe that these two complement each other. I believe that both are equally necessary in order to act. I know this may sound just like Ernesto’s presentation but I just felt like I didn’t really give my opinion about it so I felt this was a good place to do so.  I was thinking today about the fact that a friend asked me to do something for him. Reason told me that it was not convenient, mostly because it required a lot of time and I was not in any position to waste time, but my emotion was blocking me about telling him the true motives because I didn’t want to hurt his feelings about not helping him. It was such a simple situation, but for emotional reasons it seemed so complicated. I eventually told him that I couldn’t help him because I could not waste more of my time. He didn’t react negatively. His reason probably told him that what I was telling him was making perfect sense that at least I was setting my priorities straight. It is interesting that even though emotion and reason are equally necessary in order to act, why is it that they are so unbalanced? Some people just seem to control their emotions in such a way that they seem to run purely on reason. For example, I have a friend that broke up with his girlfriend and he was like: “Oh well…It wasn’t meant to be” and I just couldn’t believe that after being with someone for 3 years he could just let go as quickly as that and I know for a fact he wasn’t hiding anything because I talked to him for the following days and he usually tells me everything so he has nothing to hide from me. How was it that he did that? and how is it that some people are insanely driven by their emotions. I will use a similar example… A friend had a fight with her boyfriend, and it was not a big fight about a serious matter, but something very simple (at least to me…) but she couldn’t stop crying about the fact that they had had a fight. Was it really necessary to get so emotional about such a simple matter? Well, I guess that depends for each person, but the problem and the reaction were a little overrated.  Maybe with these examples I went to the extremes but I would like to focus on an interesting point: according to society, my guy friend reacted in a way that, even though its unusual, would be more accepted by others; but my girl friend, she reacted in a way that most people would consider absurd. When someone is described as being emotional, this does not convey a positive connotation. However, someone who thinks logically is someone who is “smart, thinks critically, thinks before speaking…thinks,then acts, etc…” I heard this song called Mood Rings and I think the first verse is very interesting:

we all know the girls that i am talking about
well they are time bombs and they are ticking
and the only question’s when they’ll blow up
and they’ll blow up; we know that without a doubt
cause they’re those girls, yeah you know those girls that let their emotions get the best of them

Mood Rings- Relient K  (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/relientk/moodrings.html)

Emotions are given a negative connotation and related to girls. There is a female stereotype that says that all wome are emotional and always let their emotions take control of them. Men are the logical beings. 

The dance that we saw in TOK Class was very interesting. At first I thought the dance was all about Creation because the man seemed to interpret a snake that swallowed the woman. Or at least that’s the way I saw it so I related it to the Genesis and the fact that Satan was a snake and in a way he “devoured” Eve’s mind and made her eat the apple. However, as the dance continued I began to think the dance had something to do with evolution because there were certain times in which it seemed as if the girl and man combined themselves and formed some sort of ancient 6-legged creature. I discussed these thoughts with some of my classmates and Ernesto said that he felt like it had to do with women’s role in society and how they were always being controlled by man. I actually thought this was a pretty good interpretation since the man was moving the woman around and it wasn’t in all the cases that she was on top of him. Still, now that I know what the title of the dance is it is clear to me what the whole moves and expressions were about. I find it very important to emphasize the fact that a symbiotic relation does not consists on benefitting 50/50. Sometimes there is one organism that can do much more for the other. Maybe, this could be related to Ernesto’s interpretation of the woman. Maybe the man in the dance was doing much more for her than she was doing for him. Interpretative dances are very interesting to me because they are so subjective and you can actually learn  a lot from them. I think it is very interesting how each of us had a different interpretation for “Symbiosis” which was probably affected by what he saw in our every day lives, what was important to us, or maybe it could’ve been something as simple as what we had learned the previous day in another class. So many factors affect the way we see things and the brain interprets them differently according to each person. However, once we figured out the name of the dance it became very clear to us. We used previous knowledge from biology class and were able to make the connections. The brain is full of networks and little cabinets with information. You only need a few more details and the conclusion becomes obvious.

There are so many symbiotic relationships in our everyday life. The fact that I wake up in the morning to have breakfast and the fact that house keeper is there to make breakfast is a symbiotic relationship because I provide her with a task (and she receives money for it) and in return I get a delicious breakfast. As I step into the bus, the fact that I am a student gives the school drives a job too and he in return takes me to my place of destination. As the day progresses the teachers and I exchange information, some very valuable and some not so valuable. We as humans are constantly helping each other. But there are also cases in which there are parasitical relationships. You become the host and someone else attaches to you and sucks your energy. I remember I had a friend who was always saying negative things about everything. She was so draining and she sucked out all of my energy just by “releasing her stress” I didn’t really get anything in return because she was definitely not a good friend (there were other things besides the over-negativeness). Relationships in life are either symbiotic or parasitical. You have to learn to choose wisely and if you have become the host of some parasite you have to learn to let go.

During class Ernest, Glori and I created our own vocabulary for the things or actions we though required a name.

Here’s the list:

• Valezofrenia: a condition of the mind that is triggered under stressful situations and the person cannot stop saying random comments for a long period of time.
• Ernestation: an argumants expressed not only by words byt also by constant facial and body movements.
• Lunner: When you mix dinner and lunch.
• Esthra: the action of awarding someone for most or all of the things they do.
• Obelisquer: The constant need to call the attention.
• Nugnying: The act of screaming for no reason; random screams.
• Quinoing: Digression beyond social acceptance.
• Bobbying: containing all emotions for evil purposes.
• Esquibell: an obvious statement.
• Clementing: Constantly referring to psychology or unethical actions.