Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
All 10 of my brain regions are busy thinking about p00p and how awesome and cute you are

I’ve posted about this in multiple threads but, Nardi’s work is highly questionable on a scientific level. His methodology is flawed. He’s not really a scientist. He has a low pool of participants too, and charges them a lot of money. Source: https://amp.reddit.com/r/mbti/commen...t_introverted/(scroll down), http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive...o-nardi-5.html , and Nardi’s own website where he lists the price of participating in his scammy research that’s full of holes lol. Even if he has studied science, this work discredits him as a professional.

Just because something gives the appearance of scientific knowledge doesn’t mean it is scientific knowledge.

It doesn’t help either that he looks just like that POS Bertrand (well, if he cut his Rapunzel hair).
Indeed. And not everything that is written in books appealing to sources or a research its true or correct. Sources should be investigated and researches need to be done in a scientific way to be valuable. But there are a lot of things that are believed to be true today using as excuse researches (often unscientific and with manipulated results) as support to propagate lies. For example the studies of Kinsey. The thing is, ppl look to support what they'd like to be true, instead of looking for real proof (long process) or set postulates of what's more likely true or not. For such, I prefer to show the real effects or manifestations of the thesis instead of to face my anthesis with the thesis, so others could end up concluding for themselves the antithesis with a plus of experience. I also get some fun in the process.