How do we know what we think we know?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BO XIAN

Apples and oranges much? Either way, A- for effort, F+ for results. Because you are arguing the reliability of science on a computer using electricity generated in a powerplant run by more computers designed by more scientists. But yeah, keep playing devils advocate.

Say what? This is the most off-topic post on this thread. I'm thinking several people have no understanding of the issue here. It's not about "reliable" computers, bud. F+ for your post.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BO XIAN

Apples and oranges much? Either way, A- for effort, F+ for results. Because you are arguing the reliability of science on a computer using electricity generated in a powerplant run by more computers designed by more scientists. But yeah, keep playing devils advocate.

Say what? This is the most off-topic post on this thread. I'm thinking several people have no understanding of the issue here. It's not about "reliable" computers, bud. F+ for your post.

this thread is bait anyway. its a rehash of the john oliver thread and 'why science should stop being so good at what it does so we can look cool for once'. if people are tired of looking dumb, they can fix it by not trying to pick dumb arguments they cant win.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: intrptr

I think the part that I'm still trying to articulate better is

that

you SEEM to be oblivious to the . . . uhhhh . . . FACT . . .

that an obsession with tangible "scientific" "proof" sorts of evidence can obliterate awareness of

often

a VERY CRUCIAL PIECE of a highly important puzzle.

Being too scientific can get in the way of doing science. ...ok then.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I suspect I know a good deal more about RAD in my sleep than you do currently.

I stand by my assertions.

I had a brief disagreement with a senior colleague at the college . . . I asked him what percentage of the general population he thought had significant RAD.

He gave the conventional response in most of the literature.

I checked our definitions.

And asserted that I felt it was more than 80%.

I asserted that I felt that significant amounts of RAD were evident when an individual had lasting, recurring, chronic problems in relationships with a spouse, family, boss, co-workers.

He agreed. And he agreed with my 80+% then.

I realize you are not a fan of my posts nor of my person.

However, you might try harder to at least be more factual.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Evidently you are too unfamiliar with the Religion of Scientism to have come across that phenomena.

A number of folks have documented such incidents on ATS over the years.

I realize it's difficult for some to wrap their minds around the concept.

I think it's all programming. Sure we have our DNA, our Genetics, our upbringing and our life experiences. But the rest is what we program our brain with. The churches, our social groups, what media we consume.

We see it in the political debates. Liberals think they are always correct over conservatives and conservatives always think they are correct when debating a liberal. They believe so much so that they get angry and argumentative and insulting, when usually, they're both half right and half wrong.

Are we born liberal or conservative? No...that's shaped, partly from our upbringing but mainly from the brainwashing and indoctrination we get from the media we consume.

a reply to: schuyler

Plenty true.

However, in my experience many of the priesthood of the Religion of Scientism act VERY HOSTILE AND THREATENED merely at the calling into question

their rigidly narrow application of the Greek method of KNOWING, discovering TRUTH.

Actually, some hyperventilate and froth at the mouth or fingers at the very idea that there

even IS a thing called

TRUTH.

Sometimes I try to be compassionate and understanding.

Probably too often, I try to hold up a mirror and respond in their language.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TzarChasm

I suspect I know a good deal more about RAD in my sleep than you do currently.

I stand by my assertions.

I had a brief disagreement with a senior colleague at the college . . . I asked him what percentage of the general population he thought had significant RAD.

He gave the conventional response in most of the literature.

I checked our definitions.

And asserted that I felt it was more than 80%.

I asserted that I felt that significant amounts of RAD were evident when an individual had lasting, recurring, chronic problems in relationships with a spouse, family, boss, co-workers.

He agreed. And he agreed with my 80+% then.

I realize you are not a fan of my posts nor of my person.

However, you might try harder to at least be more factual.

Says the guy who didnt bother to cite his post. Bit of a slip there, professor. What you do in your sleep is irrelevant to this thread. And given that i just shared the definition we can safely conclude that RAD is also unrelated to your tirade. No matter how much you 'assert' that it does.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TzarChasm

Evidently you are too unfamiliar with the Religion of Scientism to have come across that phenomena.

A number of folks have documented such incidents on ATS over the years.

I realize it's difficult for some to wrap their minds around the concept.

Still feels like you are trying to break sciences leg so you can offer it a crutch in the shape of a cross. Fortunately, science doesnt need your crutch.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your definition said nothing about the research on the implications of the early life RAD.

Perhaps after 6 months or so, you might have read a decent percentage sampling of the research on THAT and you can get back to us.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your definition said nothing about the research on the implications of the early life RAD.

Perhaps after 6 months or so, you might have read a decent percentage sampling of the research on THAT and you can get back to us.

Maybe you can be kind enough to share it here. i will be back in a lil while to see if you have anything to show for your words.

a reply to: amazing

CERTAINLY our upbringing and experiences alter our neural pathways and favored connections in our brains defining our reality.

Actually, a growing body of research indicates that The Book is right again . . . what we THINK repeatedly, lots and speak repeatedly, lots can change even our DNA.

However, SOME values orientations . . . SOME construct systems

webgrid.uvic.ca...

have a greater track record of validity and reliability than others.

IIRC . . . the ranking goes roughly like this:

1. The indiscriminately anti-religious are the MOST biased, with the MOST distorted perceptions and the MOST unwarrantedly hostile, exclusionistic responses to others and groups in their society.

2. Maybe half to a standard deviation LESS so are those labeled

--indiscriminately pro-religious
--EXTRINSICALLY religious--those who put their religion on like a coat--for business, status, conscience, a game, or whatever. They may SOUND hyper-religious--internally, they are the opposite.

3. There's a middle group that's not well defined in the literature the last I checked--though that was 40 years ago. There's a lot of variability within the group and the membership of the group seems to be difficult to be very specific about.

4. THE ABSOLUTELY LEAST biased, MOST reality based, MOST generous hearted, MOST compassionate, MOST given to acts of charity etc. are the

--INTRINSICALLY RELIGIOUS--those who live their beliefs from the heart out--authentically, genuinely.

IIRC, the INTRINSICALLY RELIGIOUS take life as it comes and relate to it authentically with a great congruence between their internal construct system representing reality (see the grid link above ) and the "objective" reality (as though there were such a thing!) most of those around them observe and experience.

The 2 other groups (1 & 2 above) mentioned more or less tend to try and shove reality into their per-conceived notions and to treat it and people in very stereotypical ways as though their construction on reality were a very narrow, rigid, absolutist set of "real" boundaries for "true reality." When, actually, their construct systems are typically too narrow and too brittle, rigid, to take in the full breadth and depth of reality

with an OPTIMUM of resilience, flexibility, stability, productive problem-solving etc.

Essentially--they tend to be utterly convinced that they (and too often they alone) understand and define reality accurately. Obviously, that's not near as true as they imagine it to be. But facts rarely influence them.

= = = =

In my experience, group 1 above tend to be hyper-intense addicts of the GREEK method of KNOWING and learning TRUTH. They almost sound like there IS NO OTHER "reality."

Group 2 above CAN SOUND LIKE they have a similar narrowness and rigidity out of the HEBREW method of knowing but I'm not convinced that's really accurate. I think at their heart and mind levels, they TEND to be ALMOST AS RIGIDLY GREEK METHOD addicted as group 1. i.e. they trust THEIR OBSERVATIONS and hypothesis testing (conscious or not) as the MOST reliable source of KNOWing AND TRUTH. And, it doesn't matter how many in their family and social circles suggest that they are NOT near as "always right" as they imagine--they don't let facts get in the way of their illusions and delusions.

They tend to distrust emotions UNLESS the emotions are THEIRS. LOL.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Naw. It's not my style.

Besides, I tend to provide links, as rarely as I do, for folks who are more likely to make fair-minded use of them.

For the willfully blind, hostile, contrarian and stubborn, they can ferret things out on their own.

I certainly don't owe them anything.

I have arrived at my conclusions about life after massive amounts of data collection, analysis, interpretation over close to 70 years. There's a ton that I still do not know and find very mysterious and some things even confusing.

However, there's a ton of stuff that I do know with a high degree of reliability, validity and predictive usefulness. I'm typically happy to share fairly freely. However, I'm increasingly less inclined to pour pearls in a pig's pan.

However, for the fair-minded readers . . . here's links to my 2 ATTACHMENT threads from years ago:

SECURE ATTACHMENT BASED PARENTING [Successful Quality Parenting a few Bk Chaper excerpts]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

= = = =

ATTACHMENT DISORDER: SUCCESSES AT OVERCOMING; Ideas Sharing; Things That Have Worked & Not Worked

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: schuyler

Perhaps if we think of the brain as a biological computer . . .

it might well be

about 'reliable' computers.

LOLOLOLOL.

I'd love for you to take a look at the grid link. If it's too complicated etc. I'd be happy to help. I find it easier to make a spreadsheet form, fill that out and then enter the data on the website. Sometimes the website does funny glitchy things with the initial data collection.

webgrid.uvic.ca...

The resulting map and/or cluster chart provide a multidimensional snapshot of one's CONSTRUCT SYSTEM at the time of completing the form. And that has tons of implications that can be quite interesting.

My Dissertation Chairman compared it with ALL the other better known paper and pencil tests available--including the MMPI--and found that it was far more valid and reliable than any of the rest--and a better predictor.

If you want to sort things for the fun of it, I can offer a more tailor-made set of people to sort e.g.

1. SELF AT BEST
2. SPOUSE ON AVERAGE

3. BOSS ON AVG
4. 1ST CHILD ON AVG

5. IDEAL SELF
6. 2ND CHILD ON AVG

7. BOSS at worst
8. Co-worker on avg

9. BEST FRIEND ON AVG
10. SPOUSE AT WORST

11. MOST DISLIKED PERSON ON AVG
12. MOST BELOVED FAMOUS PERSON, HISTORICAL FIGURE, FICTIONAL CHARACTER ON AVG (I tend to use JESUS)

13. SPOUSE AT BEST
14. 1ST CHILD AT WORST

15. 2ND CHILD AT WORST
16. 1ST CHILD AT BEST

17. 2ND CHILD AT BEST
18. SPOUSE AT WORST

19. HILLARY ON AVG
20. TRUMP ON AVG

21. HILLARY AT WORST
22. TRUMP AT WORST

23. MENTOR ON AVG
24. MENTOR AT WORST

That's usually plenty to sort with. The order of their listing doesn't matter.

Constructs to sort with can be your own . . . e.g.

--more kind
--more OCD
--less diligent

--more responsible
--more spontaneous
--more creative

--less honest
--more silly
--more humorous

--more shallow
--less thoughtful
--more angry

--more addicted
--more sexy
--less troublesome

etc.

= = = = =

In many respects Kelly's grid/construct theory is SMACK IN THE MIDDLE of this thread topic.

He asserted that we are ALL scientists forming hypotheses about the world we perceive and making choices based on our values that are involved with those hypotheses . . . and observing the results.

Those with the best construct systems succeed best in life; predict events and consequences best etc.

His construct grid involves very nitty gritty GREEK knowing sorts of things as well as more HEBRAIC sorts of KNOWING items. So it bridges across the two methodologies. I think that's one reason it is such a powerful tool and system.

You then rate each person/element on the construct/trait from 1-5 with 5 = MOST of that construct.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BO XIAN

Apples and oranges much? Either way, A- for effort, F+ for results. Because you are arguing the reliability of science on a computer using electricity generated in a powerplant run by more computers designed by more scientists. But yeah, keep playing devils advocate.

Say what? This is the most off-topic post on this thread. I'm thinking several people have no understanding of the issue here. It's not about "reliable" computers, bud. F+ for your post.

this thread is bait anyway. its a rehash of the john oliver thread and 'why science should stop being so good at what it does so we can look cool for once'. if people are tired of looking dumb, they can fix it by not trying to pick dumb arguments they cant win.

I'm sorry, but you have missed the point of the thread entirely. You are not even in the same ballpark.

originally posted by: schuyler
I'm sorry, but you have missed the point of the thread entirely. You are not even in the same ballpark.

INDEED.

Sad, that.

However, I'm quite comforted that a lot of folks who disagree with me do at least "get it" in terms of the issues being discussed.

Of course, some never will 'get it' because their biases/blinders are tooooo intense and tooooo cemented into place.

But the, I do not tend to write for those folks, anyway.

I was never very good at teaching pigs to sing. And my Chairman advised me against it after watching my frustrations at the futile efforts over some months.

LOL.

a reply to: schuyler

You misunderstood our discussion about forensics vs. accepted belief.

I mostly agree with you and the OP. People preconceived notions are blind to actual forensics, thats part of the topic. I used two famous trials to show that. Today thats true of just about every subject you care to name.

Go ahead, name one. You send a team from a bible college to the same archeological dig site as a University team and you will get two different narratives about what they can prove in the dig.

a reply to: intrptr

I think Schuyler mostly agrees with us. He was writing to someone else about their missing the point of the thread.

I think a worthy part of the topic might be . . .

WHAT CAN EITHER CAMP DO

to minimize false negative &/or false positive errors in their data collection, analysis and interpretation?

BTW, in terms of Bible lands archeology . . . over the last 150 or so years . . . the NON-LITERALISTS from the ivy league universities have HAD to eat a LOT of crow when 100's of their glib assertions about this or that Biblical place name or fact "could not be true." Subsequent solid archeology--often by secular sorts--proved such glib claims starkly wrong over and over again.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BO XIAN

Apples and oranges much? Either way, A- for effort, F+ for results. Because you are arguing the reliability of science on a computer using electricity generated in a powerplant run by more computers designed by more scientists. But yeah, keep playing devils advocate.

Say what? This is the most off-topic post on this thread. I'm thinking several people have no understanding of the issue here. It's not about "reliable" computers, bud. F+ for your post.

this thread is bait anyway. its a rehash of the john oliver thread and 'why science should stop being so good at what it does so we can look cool for once'. if people are tired of looking dumb, they can fix it by not trying to pick dumb arguments they cant win.

I'm sorry, but you have missed the point of the thread entirely. You are not even in the same ballpark.

naw. here are ten reasons you cant trust science and ten reasons why you should iisten to us instead because science says these things, but not all science, just some blog stuff from a quick google search. then wrap that up in some 'what if what makes sense isnt really what makes sense' just to confuse the issue. add a sprinkle of throwaway medical terminology and you got a handy recipe for a bait thread. just wish people would put some effort into it. make a good show of it guys, cmon. are we not here to entertain? for the non participating audience i mean.

a reply to: BO XIAN

WHAT CAN EITHER CAMP DO

to minimize false negative &/or false positive errors in their data collection, analysis and interpretation?

Not much, imo. The data itself is carefully guarded.

For instance, when I was very young my family went to church every sunday. The narrative in the Bible was beginning to be questioned... all of a sudden they discover the lost sea scrolls and wallah they are found to reflect the New Testament word for word (we are told). Everyone goes back to sleep , the narrative is secure.

Then ne day I discovered that those lost sea scrolls are displayed in a museum in Israel, but they are only 'replicas' , the real ones are under lock and key in the basement.

How do I know those replicas and their interpretation aren't manipulated, or even false?

I don't any more than I know the Shroud of Turin is a fake or not, because they carefully guard it and only let a few select people look at it.

Same with other churches that claim to have blood of christ in a jar, fragments of his cross, the spear of destiny, . Hell theres 28 locations in the "Holy Land" that claim they are built on the authentic places he walked, talked, died and was buried.

meh...

I stopped caring a long time ago about the truth of things like this. What I see when I look at history is a carefully controlled narrative supporting whatever current paradigm is in power., They are all corrupt, they all use their lies to control the peoples they rule over and their mystery secret proof is always a bunch of crap...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TzarChasm

Naw. It's not my style.

Besides, I tend to provide links, as rarely as I do, for folks who are more likely to make fair-minded use of them.

For the willfully blind, hostile, contrarian and stubborn, they can ferret things out on their own.

I certainly don't owe them anything.

I have arrived at my conclusions about life after massive amounts of data collection, analysis, interpretation over close to 70 years. There's a ton that I still do not know and find very mysterious and some things even confusing.

However, there's a ton of stuff that I do know with a high degree of reliability, validity and predictive usefulness. I'm typically happy to share fairly freely. However, I'm increasingly less inclined to pour pearls in a pig's pan.

However, for the fair-minded readers . . . here's links to my 2 ATTACHMENT threads from years ago:

SECURE ATTACHMENT BASED PARENTING [Successful Quality Parenting a few Bk Chaper excerpts]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

= = = =

ATTACHMENT DISORDER: SUCCESSES AT OVERCOMING; Ideas Sharing; Things That Have Worked & Not Worked

www.abovetopsecret.com...

All you have is pearls huh? food for thought isnt really food for thought when its rocks rattling around in your skull. what are pearls good for anyway? give me a goat that comes back to life after you eat it like thors goats. gotta go catch some interdimensional portals on the beach, hopefully not get struck by lightning. you just never know.