Blahfuckblah

[Korpsy Knievel]

Pseudoscience is entertaining for its goofiness, and instructive through both its sociological effects and its errant counter-example to "actual" science. So although its merits don't always lie where it intends them to, it isn't bereft of them. If nothing else, socionics is a game, and it's a game I sometimes play.

[JWC3]

Pseudoscience is entertaining for its goofiness, and instructive through both its sociological effects and its errant counter-example to "actual" science. So although its merits don't always lie where it intends them to, it isn't bereft of them. If nothing else, socionics is a game, and it's a game I sometimes play.

I tend to prefer pseudoscience because it gives me superpowers.

"OH MY GOD?! Not only can I be the mothering fuck god of wisdom but because my favorite color is green I am innately?! I always knew I was a baller and shot caller. Time to pick up some fine hoes."

[Absurd]

Well awesome. Thanks for keeping it civil I appreciate that.

Now you understand. Thanks for the understanding.

However, Absurd, I think if we need to use examples to express our points of view perhaps a more worthwhile endeavor would be to use celebrities or some such thing.

Feel free to use them. Never were interested in them, but hey, to each his own.

I'm not protective of ideas or ideologies

I am only when those do the job.

*chuckles* Yes, this is why I do not deal in absolutes. Sith are shit awful at being factually accurate. The sith mentality has its place, but in socionics no thank you.

Okay.

pretty lady. she comes with warranty i hope (?)

She does, like the vacuum cleaner you purchased.

[strangeling]

Unfortunately no personality theory is currently backed up by statistical or proven methodology.

fyi,

Statistics doesn't prove anything because it doesn't predict everything.
[1.] It knows nothing about the percentage it can't predict.
[2.] It's relative to past occurrence and doesn't attempt to extract general rules or laws.

For instance, if 99% of IEIs suck my dick, then sucking my dick doesn't say anything about being IEI because it says nothing about the 1% [1.]. And if some of those 99% die off and someone does a new study that finds 80% suck my dick, but 20% don't, it ignores the previous study altogether, which makes it somewhat questionable altogether [2.].

But if you find convergence, you won't end up with statistics anymore.

Now I guess if you find something is 99.999999% true, you can start asking yourself whether or not you can assume it is 100% true and a proof. Pi, the golden ratio, and other converging summations to infinity can not be depicted with 100% accuracy, but we accept them as valid truths. Newtonian physics versus Einstein's relativity suggest a real world occurrence of this, wherein Newtonian physics is repeatable and valid in our practical application, but not 100% accurate when relativity is considered and the energy and speed of objects is great.

[Ryan]

fyi,

Statistics doesn't prove anything because it doesn't predict everything.
[1.] It knows nothing about the percentage it can't predict.
[2.] It's relative to past occurrence and doesn't attempt to extract general rules or laws.

For instance, if 99% of IEIs suck my dick, then sucking my dick doesn't say anything about being IEI because it says nothing about the 1% [1.]. And if some of those 99% die off and someone does a new study that finds 80% suck my dick, but 20% don't, it ignores the previous study altogether, which makes it somewhat questionable altogether [2.].

But if you find convergence, you won't end up with statistics anymore.

Now I guess if you find something is 99.999999% true, you can start asking yourself whether or not you can assume it is 100% true and a proof. Pi, the golden ratio, and other converging summations to infinity can not be depicted with 100% accuracy, but we accept them as valid truths. Newtonian physics versus Einstein's relativity suggest a real world occurrence of this, wherein Newtonian physics is repeatable and valid in our practical application, but not 100% accurate when relativity is considered and the energy and speed of objects is great.

I've had similar thoughts before, but still it's interesting, statistics that is.

Here is something else that I've noticed today: when I get out of a parallel park on the right-hand side of the road and the driver side is one the left side I find it hard to estimate the distance between me and the car in front of me, sometimes I worry about whether it is enough to avoid hitting its rear or sides with the front of my car. This is usually because I would normally focus my attention on my car's right-side front, then draw a mental line from there to the other car. This is how I used to estimate how far the two cars are to each other and whether I would make a successful exit.

Today I actually sat too long in my car, waiting for my meal, so I started thinking about this, because I noticed some people do not suffer from this. They make a fast exit, almost as if they are sure they would not have an accident. I do still not how they do it, but then I realized that there is a better way to do this: if I try to imagine myself existing from the other side (right side, which is the wrong side, there is no way to go anyway), my estimations became a lot better, simply by shifting my perspective. The trick is in what I was focusing on. Because I'm sitting on the left side and I'm existing from the right (in my mind), my point of reference (the left side front of my car) is closer and more relevant to me, naturally, thus my estimations were closer to reality (and more accrurate). The beauty of this is that, whether I exit from the left or the right makes no difference, so if my estimations are correct they will be correct for both. Does that makes sense? I was going to make a point, but I forgot what it was, lol.

[Absurd]

And I wasn't wrong.

[strangeling]

Does that makes sense? I was going to make a point, but I forgot what it was, lol.

To me, I don't know. Are you suggesting that the basis for the statistics is what gives them the validity and not the statistics themselves?

[Ryan]

To me, I don't know. Are you suggesting that the basis for the statistics is what gives them the validity and not the statistics themselves?

Lol, I don't know. I will sleep on it. I'm not sure if the example I provided is actually relevant.