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 DoomsdayRex
I thought the moderators had decided no more us versus them, skeptics are evil threads...
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
this is less a "us verses them" thread & more a "who are us and what do them know" sorta thread, i think.
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
and if anyone is looking for an arguement, please be informed:
i may be smarter than you are in my sleep. (while i dream)
so don't wake me up without giving me at least one star.
Originally posted by spookfish
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
I'm sorry but all I get from your post and stupid thread is that you appear to be nowhere near as clever as you think you are. There's a certain type of person that indulges in things of this nature and the ridiculous length of your Avatar only goes to back that fact up. Massive vanity, massive ego, inflated sense of worth and importance, being patronisng and condesending....umm Narcissistic personality disorder anyone.
But hey don't take it to heart, we're all stupid and I'd hate to see what state you ended up in if anyone shattered your own individual little paradigm.
and another for good measure
etc.
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
...senses...senses...senses...sensory input...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses...senses. ..senses...senses...senses...
? Be skeptical of debunkers. Debunk Skeptics. Believe in someone. ?
Participants were asked to watch 8 seconds of grainy security camera footage showing a man walking into a store. The footage was slowed down so that participants could get as much information as possible. The quality of the video, however, was not that good.
After watching the video, participants were told that the man is a murderer. Just after the footage cuts away, the man shot and killed the store's security guard. This information is not misleading - the CCTV footage is real - as is the subsequent murder of the security guard.
Participants were then told that their job is to identify the killer from a five-person photospread. This photospread was identical to the one used in the real case except - and here's the twist - the real gunman has been removed. Having been told, though, that the gunman is in the photospread, all the participants identify one of the men.
This is where the experimenters got clever. They then introduced three different experimental manipulations:
* One group of participants were given no feedback on their choice of suspect.
* The second were told they had made the wrong choice from the photospread and that the answer was one of the other men.
* The third group, though, were congratulated: "Good, you identified the actual suspect." Although, of course, they hadn't - no one had.
After this participants were asked about many aspects of their identification including how certain they were, how good their view of the gunman was and their ability to make out the details of his face.
The results showed that simply congratulating participants on choosing the right suspect had a huge effect on their reports when compared to those told nothing and those told they were wrong. Those given positive feedback were suddenly much more sure they were right, thought the identification was easier, had a better view, thought their judgement was more trustworthy and would be more willing to testify.
Those given positive feedback even placed more confidence in their own ability to identify the gunman.
Remember that everyone is providing these reports based on exactly the same piece of store camera footage. Also, remember that everyone is wrong because the real gunman has been removed from the photospread!
The surprising thing about this experiment is what a massive effect a simple statement had on such a wide variety of factors. Giving positive (although incorrect) feedback to participants catapulted their confidence in their identifications much higher than they would have been otherwise.
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
there is a place and time for debunkers.
there is a place and time for skeptics.
there is a place and time for believers.
there is a place and ATS for someones.
there is a time for debunkers to believe skeptically about someones who are believers in ATS, at some place and time, et thinks.
and if anyone is looking for an arguement, please be informed:
i may be smarter than you are in my sleep.
Originally posted by tomdham
Sorry,
I meant TEN (10) Flags!
Disgusting begging for star recognition.
Tom
Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Originally posted by tomdham
Sorry,
I meant TEN (10) Flags!
Disgusting begging for star recognition.
Tom
Can we assign negative stars and flags?
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
someone senses that skeptics are skeptical of someones' senses because skeptics are skeptical of relying on someones' senses more than the senses of someones because the debunker's senses told them not to trust someones' senses.
THIS is why skepticism is a good thing. Tell someone what a good job he did seeing whatever he thought he saw, and the person will be more certain that he is correct. And he'll subconsciously alter his recollection to fit whomever or whatever is identified as what he witnessed with his "senses."