Draw a Person Test (DAP) – a great way to tell a kid’s intelligence
A mother’s personal testament: source disguised to prevent embarrassment.
Recently I took my son to the doctor for his yearly check-up. The Doctor asked the usual medical questions, then he asked me about his development.
“Does he know how to draw a person?”
I answered probably yes; he draws dinosaurs all the time. The doctor gave my 4 year old son a piece of paper and asked him to draw a person. My son started with a head, then a body, arms, legs, some eyes and mouth on the head – in the right places and added some hair. Just a stick figure, but the doctor said it was interesting. He then explained the theory behind the DAP Draw a Person test. (This bit of fakery qualifies as “theory?)
He said that at the test is universal. (More of the “humans are manufactured on an assembly line” BS) Studies show that results are similar in all children around the world. The way a child draws a person determines his developmental stage. (Inverted: The developmental stage would determine the characteristics of the drawing) You can pretty much test for intelligence with a simple drawing. At the age of 3 kids begin with circles and lines, but can’t really make a stick figure look like a real person. By age 4, they are supposed to start drawing people more like we are; head, arms, legs. At the mental age of 4, most kids draw the arms and legs coming out of their heads, but no body. My son’s picture had a body. The doctor said that this meant that his mental development stage is that of a 5 year-old. I always knew my son was smart. (Narcissistic parent achieving status by inflating child’s IQ)
I wanted to know more about this cool type of test, which I found out has been around for a whole century, and it’s been used everywhere in the world, for children as old as 13. Psychologists use it to also analyze emotional stability. (An example of illegitimate “conversion” of a psychological instrument (joke) to whatever the hell the psychologist “feels like” using it for.) It is the perfect test, because it is very simple and non-invasive, but tells us so much about the child. (Of course: it’s “cool” – it’s magic!)
To give the test, the child is simply told to draw a person with not much explanation. The finished drawing is awarded points by the psychologist, depending on the details. Are the proportions correct? Are there details like clothes? Based on the child’s age and the points awarded, the child’s mental age is given. Cool! (Mental age – another psychological construct that has no scientific basis except for assembly-line blueprints invented by psychologists)
A few days later I found a picture of a stick figure in my son’s school bag. The hands and legs were attached to its head. I was shocked… had my son’s mental age dropped since his appointment? When I asked, Did you draw this he answered that another child had drawn it to give to him. He was so pleased that his friend had done this, and I was happy to see that the DAP test is for real.” (I see, it’s “real” because the MOTHER used it and abused it to confirm her narcissistic belief that her son is “smart” and his friend is “dumb”!)
Update: I just found a scoring guide for the DAP test and used it to score a drawing from when my son was 3 ½ years old. I gave it a score of 8. This means that he had a mental age of 5 years old, which can be divided by my son’s chronological age to give him an IQ of 130. Cool!”
American Parenting: Use magic-based bogus “tests” provided by psychologists to prove that your child is “brilliant” in order to put a rocket under your feeble self-esteem. So what if it’s quackery?
From the guide for assessing the DAP test of a child’s drawing:
Hmmm… Sounds like psychologists are self-assessing again!
Drawing is a “skill” that varies by individual according to native ability, observation, art lessons and training, amount of practice, and exposure to art – living in a pro-art environment.
The American Empire may be the first empire in history to implode on itself due to multiple effects of psychological neoteny.
At first I thought the story was a joke…
‘Washingtonian’ Writer Pens The Most Idiotic Column Of All Time / The Daily Wire
The Daily Caller:
Washingtonian magazine senior editor Bill O’Sullivan wants people to stop using the phrase “start a family” because it’s offensive to both single people and couples without children.
In a piece published Thursday morning, O’Sullivan argues that the phrase “start a family” is “loathsome” because of its implication: children. “What this euphemism means is get pregnant — or try to get pregnant, or have a baby, or adopt,” Sullivan claims. And that’s offensive.
“Start a family devalues any couple who doesn’t happen to have kids, for whatever reason. It even sells single people short, who may not have children but do have ‘chosen’ families of friends,” he argues.
Conspiracy Theorists are right: the Russians have been contaminating America’s drinking water with “stupid pills” since the end of WWII.
O’Sullivan also points out that the phrase has “heterosexist” roots. He notes that LGBT people now use the phrase as well (implying it might not be “heterosexist” to say “start a family”) but he still hears it “more often from straight people.”
Either way, he says, “For the sake of all the ways to be in the world, it’s time to put an end to ‘start a family.’”
Also on O’Sullivan’s list of words to stop saying: “female.” He quotes a reader who told him that the word sounds “sounds like biology class.” For this reason, O’Sullivan agrees, the word should be avoided because it’s “dehumanizing.”
predators= Nashville Predators NHL team
Imagine how important visual-spatial abilities would be for hunters and gatherers in wild environments – our hominid ancestors!
And how important vision is in balance, reaction time, spatial awareness, and coordinated muscle control.
It should be obvious that the “researchers” who claim that Neanderthals became extinct because they had “superior” eyesight and dominant visual processing are
Five Reasons People Don’t Like Atheists
The difference between organized religion and reality, is that in religion, there is always a “way out” of consequences for one’s behavior: prayer, sacrifice, money, magic, violence, lies, denial. In the real world, responsibility and consequences exist.
Atheists represent one of the least trusted and most despised groups in America.
This seems odd. Why is it so threatening for someone to opt out of religious belief? ( right off, religion is normal and expected social behavior) People believe and don’t believe in all sorts of things. And yet, atheists seem to really drive people nuts. Polls identify atheists as untrustworthy, unelectable for public office, and unworthy of marrying into one’s family. Here are some reasons why.
Reasons People Dislike Atheists (In No Particular Order)
1. As a general rule, people favor members of their own group. Most people in America are religious and thus to reject religion makes one a member of a minority outgroup.
2. Atheists are viewed as buzzkills. For many people, religion offers inspiration and hope. In fact, there are numerous studies demonstrating that religious belief motivates people and helps them cope with the many challenges of life. In this way, religion contributes to psychological health. Thus, when someone says he or she thinks religion is a fiction, that person often comes off as a Debby Downer. And people don’t tend to like Debby Downers. OMG! The measure of behavior is that elementary school “social” thing.
3. Research suggests that religion promotes trust. People believe that being watched and held accountable by a higher power helps keep them honest. (WOW!) This also means that religious people tend to believe that atheists are less trustworthy since they do not believe that there is a God monitoring their behavior. In fact, one set of studies found that people tend to distrust atheists about as much as they distrust rapists. Ouch. Does this explain why Aspergers identify neurotypicals as untrustworthy? Yes, because if “God” isn’t looking, NTs feel free to lie. Experience confirms that neurotypicals lie even when they think gGd is watching.
4. Similarly, there is a common belief that rejecting God is the same as rejecting morality. However, countries that have high rates of atheism (Scandinavian nations) tend to have much lower violent crime and teen pregnancy rates than countries high in religiosity such as the United States. In addition, in the United States, the least religious states have the lowest violent crime rates. Like it or not, there is no compelling evidence that atheists are less moral than believers. Morality can be found with and without religion. In fact, research indicates that atheist parents spend a lot of time teaching their children to be moral, compassionate, and fair.
5. Atheists are sometimes not very nice about their beliefs. (WOW! How ignorant: Atheism is not BELIEF: it is an intellectual rejection of false magical beliefs.) This is a tricky one because most atheists just go about their business and are even very supportive of those who believe. In fact, many atheists are afraid to expose themselves as nonbelievers out of fear of prejudice. However, some atheists have taken the strong stance that religion is a social ill and thus use more combative tactics, which can include treating religious individuals like they are unintelligent and mentally weak. (No attention is paid to FACT – behavior must always support the social regime – this extends to teaching bizarre religious-supernatural nonsense in public schools.) This approach obviously upsets religious people and can make them falsely believe that all atheists think this way. (Why must Americans use the childish directive that NO ONE may have their feelings hurt? Neoteny.)
So what are some solutions that could improve people’s views of atheists and, ultimately, help everyone get along? (While we’re regressing into self-destructive ignorance.)
First, people should recognize that many atheists feel marginalized in American society because most people are believers. Believers should not feel threatened by atheists. People believe different things and someone not believing in God does not jeopardize your own beliefs.
However, atheists should try not to be buzzkills. (What an infantile social goal) And atheists should definitely not insult religious people. Looking down on people accomplishes nothing. (How about religious people who view “mental illness” as demon possession? Who hate LGBT people, women, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims and believe we should bomb the Hell out of all non-0Christians? Are we allowed to reject the beliefs that demand violent action?) We should be having thoughtful discussions and debates about philosophical questions related to religion as well as the social pros and cons of religion. But there are ways to do this respectfully and at appropriate times.
Let’s apply these lofty social ideas to all religions: if there is a group that uses religion as an excuse for crimes against humanity, to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, murder of any and all other religious groups, or ethnicities, to dey freedom, dignity and peace to other humans, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SPEAK UP. No one may expose child abuse, for example: pedophilia is an acceptable “perk” for clergy and ought to be a protected activity.
As a (neurotypical pseudo-) scientist who studies the psychology of religion, I can tell you these issues are very complex. Religious belief is often associated with positive psychological, social, and physical health outcomes. But certain types of religious beliefs and practices can also contribute to social conflict and compromise health. Further, atheists seem to be thriving mentally and physically as well. (Irrational argument – it’s okay to discriminate against Asian immigrants because they achieve educational and financial success in the U.S.) Their lack of belief does not appear to be causing any harm. In addition, there are plenty of intelligent and mentally resilient believers. And being an atheist does not mean you are a genius with no psychological vulnerabilities. WOW! How irrational! This is a childish “social” attack on millions of human beings who use math and science as tools to understand how “the universe” works.
Both sides need to realize that neither belief nor disbelief determine what kind of person someone is or what they are capable of accomplishing.
Then why do human beings persist in teaching children “how to be good people” if such activity is futile? This is the typical supernatural denial of reality: the supernatural dimension “controls” a puppet universe in which humans are free of responsibility for their actions.
A festive holiday topic: Female Aspergers are often described as “Chameleon-like” in the propensity to “take on” the psychic and behavioral aspects of a social environment in order to (at least temporarily) “fit in”.
Is this “talent” an actual, observable characteristic?
For a detailed scientific reference as to what is going on in chameleons: Google: Photonic crystals cause active colour change in chameleons (link is not working)
The jist is that a chameleon, when relaxed, is green and “naturally camouflaged”. Male chameleons change to bright colors (red-yellow) to stand out against a green environment. They are “showing off” in a mating display. This obviously is not a correct analogy to whatever female Aspergers are doing. So what are “we” doing?
Camouflage in it’s active form is a male specialty. Modern humans have developed camouflage predominantly as a predatory strategy in military actions or in hunting. A vast (and extremely serious) subculture exists that promotes and supplies tactical gear and information for civilians and professionals. Business is booming!
Camouflage has become a cult fashion bonanza: Pepto-Pink is mandatory for girls, which defeats the function of camouflage; this “neotenic” plague of ambiguous and confusing “female identity” has swept the U.S. Are girls predators, or are they hoping to attract males who display as predatory males? Is dressing your wife / baby girl in camo a territorial act of ownership? The dangerous confusion for women is this: are you trying to attract a “predator” (hint: you don’t want one of these males) or a PROTECTOR, which is what a female needs for herself and her children?
Photo bottom right: Ford has developed camouflage patterns for secret “new car” security, designed to confuse video and camera systems and thwart industrial espionage.
Are Asperger females “predators” who utilize a “male tactic” to go unnoticed in a social world that is constructed by male aggression – and which punishes non-conforming women and girls? This “social construct” of feminine inferiority creates a dangerous environment for an intelligent female. Definitely not a good idea for any female! The “hyper-feminization camouflage” common in the U.S. is a NEUROTYPICAL female tactic, one which unfortunately is subject to retaliation by males. When a woman presents herself as an “inoffensive sexualized child”, but then drops “the mask” and becomes “dominant” – it enrages weak males who fear exposure as “fake” predators: domestic violence is the result.
So what are Asperger females doing to survive Neurotypical Social Hell?
(Do you really think that we would tell anyone?)
Did Neanderthals Have Souls?
A newly unearthed hominid revives some difficult questions for Christians (
Don’t ALL questions regarding the nature of reality pose a difficulty to Christians? Yes.
…the discovery of a relatively advanced human ancestor (Homo naledi, South Africa)also raises theological questions, particularly for Christians who believe that a person must believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to receive eternal life in Heaven. It may sound silly to apply that standard to primitive species hovering millions of years ago between animal and human, but it’s an important question if you believe in the eternal soul. Silly? How ’bout INSANE?
The broader issue is what happens to the soul of anyone born before Jesus Christ..
I suppose Mormon families are now searching through the Mormon Genealogy Archives for Neanderthal souls to STEAL, and then “baptize” as THEIR family members? Yes, they do this: a Mormon family stole two of my ancestors, inserted them into their family history, (despite pregnancies then having to be reduced to 2 months, and 3 months) Yes, this is a “real” Mormon religious practice. Why do you imagine they are so “into” collecting genealogy records from all across the globe? They get “Moron Points” for doing this –
Can neurotypicals get any more idiotic? The answer, of course, is
Let’s just accept the fact that sexual assault occurs: yes, the predator is usually male, and the prey female, but all types of assault occur, and the “victim” can be of either gender, age, race or ethnicity…
Why is sexual assault any different in infliction of pain, injury, psychological trauma and damage to family and community as well as the terror inflicted on the victim? This IS a critical question.
Isolating sexual assault from “ordinary” assault intensifies the portrayal of women as incompetent targets of male aggression and as inferiors – just one more category of male property. . This is typical of the religious hangover that persists in all areas of American culture. A woman’s reproductive apparatus is the property of a male, the same as any “farm animal”. Her uterus is of value as the vehicle for male genetic and social continuance. The Bible says so; it must be so!
Backing up this claim is like shooting fish in a barrel: MORE Bible QUOTES at: ValerieTerico.com
- A wife is a man’s property: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17
- Daughters can be bought and sold: If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. Exodus 21:7
- A raped daughter can be sold to her rapist: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 He has violated the father’s property rights – who must be paid.
- Used brides deserve death: If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
- Women, but only virgins, are to be taken as spoils of war: Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:17-18
- Menstruating women are spiritually unclean: 19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 cont., at ValerieTerico) Leviticus 15: 19-31
- A woman is twice as unclean after giving birth to girl as to a boy: . Leviticus 12: 1-8 cont,
- A woman’s promise is binding only if her father or husband agrees: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD This usage seems to imply an ACTUAl “Lord” as in, a real person who holds a position higher up on the social pyramid, rather than a “supernatural god.” or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, ….cont.
- Women should be seen not heard: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34
- Wives should submit to their husband’s instructions and desires: Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
- In case you missed that submission thing . . . : Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24. cont.
- More submission – and childbearing as a form of atonement: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 Corinthians 11:2-10
- Sleeping with women is dirty: No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. Refers to virgin male slaves (children) as human sacrificial victims? They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first-fruits to God and the Lamb. Revelation 14:3-4
So – to sexually assault a girl or woman is to “insult” a man’s property, whether or not it’s the husband, promised husband, father or any male relative. Since ALL WOMEN are owned by males, A MAN “owns” her “reproductive parts” and capabilities. HE must assure paternity by controlling virginity.
How do these “ideas” influence American attitudes and actions surrounding the “social issue” of sexual assault?
- Women have had to fight to “free” their reproductive / sexual “assets” from male control. Until women had access to birth control methods and modern technology, this “taking back” of ownership of one’s body (a very recent medical and legal possibility that remains forbidden to millions of women around the world), THIS WAS SIMPLY A BIOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILTY. Total abstinence from sexual activity (wanted or unwanted) was the only option.
- No woman ought to “go to waste” according to male thinking. This utterly dehumanizing “idea” was often heard by women of my generation as a “reason” why we ought to marry young, have children, and consent to “unlimited sexual availability” to our new owner – The Husband.
- The “means” by which males establish status throughout “civilized” history has always included rape. To invade another male’s “territory” through rape of “his” women (or men) is to compromise a male’s genetic legacy – a biological drive that has become a foundation of the Social Hierarchy. This act of aggression is open to males of ANY SOCIAL STATUS, but of course the consequences are radically different for “top males” – sexual aggression is a requirement of life at the top.
I’m a woman and claim my body, mind and physical-psychic boundaries to be mine and mine only. This is not as common a declaration as one might hope. Young women are being taught that their DESTINY is to be passive victims, not only by the relentless pop culture depiction of even young children as “whores” whose only function is to be pornographic objects, but by elite educated women who have their own agenda: the use of genuine social injustice as a political weapon – to increase their own position in the social hierarchy.
Assaulted once: twice made victims. An outrageous claim? Not really, when one considers the evidence.
to be continued…
The “trend” by certain women of “coming out of nowhere,” ten or twenty years after a supposed sexual crime, is deplorable and is a slap in the face to all women. If the women had endured some type of sexual assault by a man who had, or presently has a public life, but “let him go” without rebuke or filing a report, then those women are complicit in that man’s assumption that he can “get away with it.” How many of those woman who belatedly claim to be “victims” have exposed other women to similar or worse abuse during a lapse of action over a span of ten to twenty years?
The suspicion of ulterior motives is greatly increased by sudden and opportunistic complaints of “inappropriate touching,” and other vague offenses so long after the alleged event – acts of typical “risk-taking” by males that every female ought to be made aware of as standard male behavior, and which must be responded to IMMEDIATELY.
As a young female working in office environments in the Dark Ages (ca. 1970s -1990s), a period when offensive suggestions and behavior by male coworkers were accepted as “normal”, I discovered an easy “fix”. Embarrass the shit out of the offender by loudly saying, so that as many employees as possible would hear; “What the Hell do you think you’re doing?” “Get your hands off me.” “Don’t ever proposition me again.” “Does your wife know that this what you do at work?”
Chances are, this “creep” is a “pot-shot” risk taker who has repeatedly approached many women. In one instance at least, my “verbal outing” of a boss’s predatory behavior was “permission” for other women to speak out about his serial sexual advances. And contrary to “private” complaints to company-corporate personnel, which often punish the “whistleblower,” or ignore the situation, a public notice of sexual harassment must be dealt with. The embarrassment of public exposure usually is sufficient to stop the behavior of a socially-aware neurotypical male. And no, I was never threatened with losing my job or other retaliation. In fact, often it was a relief to responsible executives who had “done nothing” about previous complaints.
In male neurotypical language, this identifies you as LEGITIMATE PREY. “I’m powerless” or even, “I deserve to be maltreated.” Be clear and honest as to what actually happened; don’t reinforce male prejudices about women as “overly” emotional wreckage; as problem employees who cannot handle themselves rationally in a stressful work environment.
Let’s get real: teaching young girls and women that dressing and behaving as if one is “sexually available”, and at the same time expecting males to not respond, is a ludicrous product of neurotypical stupidity and a very dangerous game.
Girls and young women NEED TO KNOW what actual men are like, because females can and do shape much of male behavior. Teaching girls to think for themselves; to “scope out” and discriminate between benign circumstances, and environments that predators set up in order to take advantage of vulnerable female prey, is mandatory: no sane society would throw it’s children into a den of vipers, and yet that is the American Way of introducing young males and females to a warped system of male-female interaction. .