It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
WHAT CAN EITHER CAMP DO
to minimize false negative &/or false positive errors in their data collection, analysis and interpretation?
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...