Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do?
![]()
Ætiological - isolates mechanisms for direct causation while exploring a system.
Bayesian - tends to include extraneous a priori considerations to improve calculations.
Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances.
Frequentist - refuses to respect anything but empirical evidence and its empirical probability.
Inconclusive - has no specific preference in a rational basis, or is simply inconsistent.
Nomothetic - reasons using a comprehensive system of diagnostic references and the intuition.
Pyrrhonian - will doubt anything in any context, even skepticism itself.
Solipsist - identifies all convictions with the premise that only the mind really exists.
Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativity.
Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do?
![]()
Testicular - my head is my penis
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I don't like the question.
i dont really like it either, it sounds like everyone will use raw data to come to decisions. Raw data sounds like statistics. that's the impression i get.
Bump. Really awesome thread
Tentatively Bayesian-Pyrrhonian and contextually etiological when dealing with psychological and sociological domains, but I'd be a shitty pyrrhonian if I conclusively voted.
Nomoethic, Stochastic, sometimes Fatalist (seldom - only when chaos reigns)
Does this make me LIE or LII/LSI?