Things I like: Pink Floyd, food, science, Hunter S. Thompson, Metalocalypse (and most other adult cartoons), fashion, Malcolm McDowell, Breaking Bad, art, pretty things, and vintage photography. I also post selfies and personal crap, you've been warned.

24th July 2014

Photo

This is my boyfriend. He’s so handsome, look how handsome he is.
Tintype by him except I pressed the button.  See more of his photographs and alternative processes: thephotochemist.tumblr.com

This is my boyfriend. He’s so handsome, look how handsome he is.

Tintype by him except I pressed the button.  See more of his photographs and alternative processes: thephotochemist.tumblr.com

Tagged: wetplatetintypephotographyblack and white photography

24th July 2014

Photoset reblogged from Interesting with 2,338 notes

sixpenceee:

The work of Asger Carlsen

Danish photographer Asger Carlsen began his career at 16 when he sold a photo he took of the police yelling at him and his friends for burning a picket fence to the local paper. For the next ten years Asger worked as a crime photographer before moving on to shooting ads for magazines. Then one day while messing around on his computer he created an image of a face with a bunch of eyes that led him to the distorted photographs he has become known for. His eerie and often humorous work makes you question what is human, and has been exhibited and published internationally.

24th July 2014

Photo reblogged from cup of coffee? with 130 notes

Source: neverendingexasperation

24th July 2014

Photo reblogged from My passions. My silly life. with 289 notes

iamsochangeable:

tiny-creatures:

Ooo trouble alright by *December Sun on Flickr.

Meow

This is a very pretty cat.

iamsochangeable:

tiny-creatures:

Ooo trouble alright by *December Sun on Flickr.

Meow

This is a very pretty cat.

Source: tiny-creatures

24th July 2014

Photo reblogged from killer queen with 31 notes

SO PRETTY.

SO PRETTY.

Source: sheerqueen

23rd July 2014

Photo reblogged from 💀 with 3 notes

history-and-psychopathy:

Dr. Wendell Johnson was a speech pathologist who wanted to get to the bottom of the underlying cause of stuttering.
During the 1930s it was thought that stuttering had an organic or genetic cause. Meaning you were born a stutterer (or not) and not much could be done. Dr Johnson disagreed. It was his belief that in some cases being labelled as a stutterer could actually cause ‘normal’ children to start stuttering.
To prove his point, he suggested an experiment which has since become known as the ‘Monster Study’.
Johnson chose one of his graduate students, Mary Tudor, to conduct the experiment, and he supervised her research. 22 orphans were chosen. After placing the children in control and experimental groups, Tudor gave positive speech therapy to half of the children, praising them. While the other half were given negative speech therapy, belittling the children for every imperfection and actually telling them they were stutterers.
Many of the normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects and some retained speech problems for the rest of their lives. Johnson’s peers were horrified that he would experiment on orphan children to prove a hypothesis and the experiment was kept hidden for fear Johnson’s and the university’s reputation would be damaged.
Because the results of the study were never published in any peer-reviewed journal, Tudor’s dissertation is the only official record of the details of the experiment.
The University of Iowa publicly apologized for the Monster Study in 2001, 36 years after the death of Dr Johnson. On 17 August 2007, six of the orphan children were awarded $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelong psychological and emotional scars caused by six months of torment during the Iowa University experiment.
Ironically, the University of Iowa’s Speech and Hearing Centre is named after non other than a Dr Wendell Johnson.

This was a terrible study, but aside from that fact there has been a lot more research since then that (sort of) proves and moreso disproves his point.
Some people are born with an anatomical predisposition for stuttering, and whether or not it is triggered by external forces is up to chance.  For instance, a child age 3-6 (an age when speech undergoes rapid development) with a predisposition for stuttering who experiences any sort of stressor (whether it be psychological, emotional, or any overwhelming life event, etc.) is more likely to stutter than a child with a predisposition for stuttering who had a stress-free early childhood, and also more likely to stutter than a child without a predisposition for stuttering who had an equally stressful early childhood.
So the children who were belittled for their speech and ended up stuttering probably had this predisposition, and it’s possible that some of the children who ended up with fluent speech had the predisposition as well, but did not experience any external stressors to trigger it.
I came across a really excellent resource while doing research for my thesis.  Stuttering: An Integrated Approach to Its Nature and Treatment by Barry Guitar.  It explains the most current stuttering research in a way that was not overly complicated.  I am not a medical professional, I’ve only taken a few mid-level science courses and I was able to understand it really well.

history-and-psychopathy:

Dr. Wendell Johnson was a speech pathologist who wanted to get to the bottom of the underlying cause of stuttering.

During the 1930s it was thought that stuttering had an organic or genetic cause. Meaning you were born a stutterer (or not) and not much could be done. Dr Johnson disagreed. It was his belief that in some cases being labelled as a stutterer could actually cause ‘normal’ children to start stuttering.

To prove his point, he suggested an experiment which has since become known as the ‘Monster Study’.

Johnson chose one of his graduate students, Mary Tudor, to conduct the experiment, and he supervised her research. 22 orphans were chosen. After placing the children in control and experimental groups, Tudor gave positive speech therapy to half of the children, praising them. While the other half were given negative speech therapy, belittling the children for every imperfection and actually telling them they were stutterers.

Many of the normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects and some retained speech problems for the rest of their lives. Johnson’s peers were horrified that he would experiment on orphan children to prove a hypothesis and the experiment was kept hidden for fear Johnson’s and the university’s reputation would be damaged.

Because the results of the study were never published in any peer-reviewed journal, Tudor’s dissertation is the only official record of the details of the experiment.

The University of Iowa publicly apologized for the Monster Study in 2001, 36 years after the death of Dr Johnson. On 17 August 2007, six of the orphan children were awarded $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelong psychological and emotional scars caused by six months of torment during the Iowa University experiment.

Ironically, the University of Iowa’s Speech and Hearing Centre is named after non other than a Dr Wendell Johnson.

This was a terrible study, but aside from that fact there has been a lot more research since then that (sort of) proves and moreso disproves his point.

Some people are born with an anatomical predisposition for stuttering, and whether or not it is triggered by external forces is up to chance.  For instance, a child age 3-6 (an age when speech undergoes rapid development) with a predisposition for stuttering who experiences any sort of stressor (whether it be psychological, emotional, or any overwhelming life event, etc.) is more likely to stutter than a child with a predisposition for stuttering who had a stress-free early childhood, and also more likely to stutter than a child without a predisposition for stuttering who had an equally stressful early childhood.

So the children who were belittled for their speech and ended up stuttering probably had this predisposition, and it’s possible that some of the children who ended up with fluent speech had the predisposition as well, but did not experience any external stressors to trigger it.

I came across a really excellent resource while doing research for my thesis.  Stuttering: An Integrated Approach to Its Nature and Treatment by Barry Guitar.  It explains the most current stuttering research in a way that was not overly complicated.  I am not a medical professional, I’ve only taken a few mid-level science courses and I was able to understand it really well.

Tagged: stutteringbarry guitar

22nd July 2014

Link reblogged from Whose idea was this? with 10 notes

http://androidhunter.tumblr.com/post/92502632774/even-though-eridan-having-a-stutter-isnt-my →

androidhunter:

Even though Eridan having a stutter isn’t my headcanon, I like seeing it anyway. It makes me really happy that people embrace it, making stories and art about how much they love their stuttering fish prince.
As someone with a stutter, it’s a breath of fresh air to see people viewing it in a…

Okay but viewing stuttering as endearing or special isn’t productive either…???  It is neither of those things and people who don’t stutter shouldn’t make any sort of fanciful assumptions about it.

Tagged: stuttering

22nd July 2014

Post with 1 note

A bar near my alma mater does trivia night every Tuesday, and tonight was “Christmas in July” themed.  I requested the song Fairytale of New York by The Pogues and the guys who organize trivia bought me a drink for it.  I was so fucking thrilled that I facebook-messaged by ex-boyfriend and thanked him for indirectly buying me a vodka tonic, and he wished me a Merry Christmas.  I’m still fucking thrilled.

22nd July 2014

Photo with 1 note

Me today. Since I’m moving soon, most of my clothes have been packed away, but my sister needed to borrow a dress so I had to pull out one of the boxes. Tip for everybody: if you’re bored with your wardrobe, just hide it from yourself for a few months. You’ll be thrilled with what you find.

Me today. Since I’m moving soon, most of my clothes have been packed away, but my sister needed to borrow a dress so I had to pull out one of the boxes. Tip for everybody: if you’re bored with your wardrobe, just hide it from yourself for a few months. You’ll be thrilled with what you find.

Tagged: fashion

22nd July 2014

Photo reblogged from Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way with 5,667 notes

Source: diorina