sarahs mum said:

poikilotherm said:

This maybe likely interesting to some

https://hbr.org/2018/07/if-you-say-something-is-likely-how-likely-do-people-think-it-is

I like the graph.

Worth keeping a copy of, and worth making into a new thread.

Missing: may, can, could, won’t, will, can’t, may never, might never, may not, etc.

eg. “Hobbit humans may finally have a place in the family tree”.
“One in six consumers is struggling under a mountain of credit card debt that might never be repaid”.
“E10 petrol may not be driving your car, or your dollar, further”.
“Old tyres could be reborn as building products”.

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

poikilotherm said:

This maybe likely interesting to some

https://hbr.org/2018/07/if-you-say-something-is-likely-how-likely-do-people-think-it-is

I like the graph.

Worth keeping a copy of, and worth making into a new thread.

Missing: may, can, could, won’t, will, can’t, may never, might never, may not, etc.

eg. “Hobbit humans may finally have a place in the family tree”.
“One in six consumers is struggling under a mountain of credit card debt that might never be repaid”.
“E10 petrol may not be driving your car, or your dollar, further”.
“Old tyres could be reborn as building products”.

Decimate as in completely destroy

Decimate as in completely destroy

That is more a change in use.

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

I agree. But it seems that women want to try just a little harder to believe in stuff.

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

sarahs mum said:

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

I agree. But it seems that women want to try just a little harder to believe in stuff.

possibly a more global response to uncertainty

sarahs mum said:

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

I agree. But it seems that women want to try just a little harder to believe in stuff.

Like children are our future for example

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

Does it? I don’t think so.

Some other probabilistic words, for whether an event may or may not happen.

Eventually. Just around the corner. Soon. ASAP. Tomorrow. Shall.

Often, seldom, (high/low) likelihood etc.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb
A modal verb is a type of verb that is used to indicate modality – that is: likelihood, ability, permission and obligation, and advice.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

it might, maybe, possibly. Or it could be a learned protected response too, more a threshold response, a bias, resulting in biased data.

let’s say guys attend more to serious uncertainties, and tend to not respond to many until they’re banging on their door, effectively shielding the ladies. This might show up as greater sensitivity to uncertainty for ladies, as measured.

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

Does it? I don’t think so.

New research suggests women are more emotionally responsive than men.

A large multinational study provides some surprises
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-more-emotionally-expressive-than-men/

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

it might, maybe, possibly. Or it could be a learned protected response too, more a threshold response, a bias, resulting in biased data.

let’s say guys attend more to serious uncertainties, and tend to not respond to many until they’re banging on their door, effectively shielding the ladies. This might show up as greater sensitivity to uncertainty for ladies, as measured.

Is it the same for negative responses, most likely won’t happen, won’t happen, probably won’t happen and so on

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

Does it? I don’t think so.

New research suggests women are more emotionally responsive than men.

A large multinational study provides some surprises
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-more-emotionally-expressive-than-men/

Those graphs appear to be backing up that research

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

It doesn’t show anything of the sort.

It shows there is a small difference in the mean result from a small sample of men and women.

The variation within the two groups would be hugely greater than the difference between the groups.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

It doesn’t show anything of the sort.

It shows there is a small difference in the mean result from a small sample of men and women.

The variation within the two groups would be hugely greater than the difference between the groups.

Quite likely and might show different responses between optimists and pessimists regardless of gender

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

don’t know that that one’s real useful, it’s a narrow range and gives no indications of what type of thing the terms are associated with.

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

It doesn’t show anything of the sort.

It shows there is a small difference in the mean result from a small sample of men and women.

The variation within the two groups would be hugely greater than the difference between the groups.

it’s about weightings (I guess) regards word-concepts, but there is no contexts provided.

you know you can’t tell if it’s to do with potentially serious adverse risk, or there’s likely to be no tomatoes on the supermarket shelf

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

It shows that women are more likely to be emotionally responsive than men.

It doesn’t show anything of the sort.

It shows there is a small difference in the mean result from a small sample of men and women.

The variation within the two groups would be hugely greater than the difference between the groups.

Quite likely and might show different responses between optimists and pessimists regardless of gender

Yes.

Also there are likely to be large differences between people who have had different education and work histories, and that would also show up as a gender difference.

Are Women More Emotionally Expressive Than Men?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-more-emotionally-expressive-than-men/

Those graphs appear to be backing up that research.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

Does it? I don’t think so.

New research suggests women are more emotionally responsive than men.

A large multinational study provides some surprises
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-more-emotionally-expressive-than-men/

Those graphs appear to be backing up that research

They are?

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

New research suggests women are more emotionally responsive than men.

A large multinational study provides some surprises
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-more-emotionally-expressive-than-men/

Those graphs appear to be backing up that research

They are?

yes to me they are.

Do I need to turn them around or something ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are Women More Emotionally Expressive Than Men?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-more-emotionally-expressive-than-men/

Those graphs appear to be backing up that research.

This research on the other hand, suggests the opposite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUH34iqK7cI

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Those graphs appear to be backing up that research

They are?

yes to me they are.

Do I need to turn them around or something ?

No, you need to think about what the graphs actually show, and consider whether you are succumbing to confirmation bias.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

They are?

yes to me they are.

Do I need to turn them around or something ?

No, you need to think about what the graphs actually show, and consider whether you are succumbing to confirmation bias.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

They are?

yes to me they are.

Do I need to turn them around or something ?

No, you need to think about what the graphs actually show, and consider whether you are succumbing to confirmation bias.

I see validation.

How is that confirmation bias ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

yes to me they are.

Do I need to turn them around or something ?

No, you need to think about what the graphs actually show, and consider whether you are succumbing to confirmation bias.

I see validation.

How is that confirmation bias ?

Confirmation bias is seeing validation where none exists.

That’s how it is confirmation bias.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, you need to think about what the graphs actually show, and consider whether you are succumbing to confirmation bias.

I see validation.

How is that confirmation bias ?

Confirmation bias is seeing validation where none exists.

That’s how it is confirmation bias.

I see a connection, and there still is a connection.

It does exist.

Apologies for disrupting the thread I should have started another one

Sorry about the train wreak with observation and bias.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I see validation.

How is that confirmation bias ?

Confirmation bias is seeing validation where none exists.

That’s how it is confirmation bias.

I see a connection, and there still is a connection.

It does exist.

There is also a correlation between average height or weight and the data in the graphs.
Or field of occupation.
Or level of education in specific areas.
Or length of hair.
Or time spent attending to personal appearance.

Why do you dismiss these correlations?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Apologies for disrupting the thread I should have started another one

Sorry about the train wreak with observation and bias.

No need for apology (at least not to me).

Always happy to discuss these things :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Confirmation bias is seeing validation where none exists.

That’s how it is confirmation bias.

I see a connection, and there still is a connection.

It does exist.

There is also a correlation between average height or weight and the data in the graphs.
Or field of occupation.
Or level of education in specific areas.
Or length of hair.
Or time spent attending to personal appearance.

Why do you dismiss these correlations?

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I see a connection, and there still is a connection.

It does exist.

There is also a correlation between average height or weight and the data in the graphs.
Or field of occupation.
Or level of education in specific areas.
Or length of hair.
Or time spent attending to personal appearance.

Why do you dismiss these correlations?

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

Or society tells men (maybe less today) not to show emotions as it’s weak

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There is also a correlation between average height or weight and the data in the graphs.
Or field of occupation.
Or level of education in specific areas.
Or length of hair.
Or time spent attending to personal appearance.

Why do you dismiss these correlations?

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

Or society tells men (maybe less today) not to show emotions as it’s weak

If men cannot control their emotions and they get violent is that also a weakness? vs staying in control.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

Or society tells men (maybe less today) not to show emotions as it’s weak

If men cannot control their emotions and they get violent is that also a weakness? vs staying in control.

How people use words when they get emotional is also interesting..

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

Or society tells men (maybe less today) not to show emotions as it’s weak

If men cannot control their emotions and they get violent is that also a weakness? vs staying in control.

Somewhat I think

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

Or society tells men (maybe less today) not to show emotions as it’s weak

If men cannot control their emotions and they get violent is that also a weakness? vs staying in control.

It would be a weakness in anybody wouldn’t it?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I see a connection, and there still is a connection.

It does exist.

There is also a correlation between average height or weight and the data in the graphs.
Or field of occupation.
Or level of education in specific areas.
Or length of hair.
Or time spent attending to personal appearance.

Why do you dismiss these correlations?

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

The problem is that if the results were round the other way, that would also be a correlation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Or society tells men (maybe less today) not to show emotions as it’s weak

If men cannot control their emotions and they get violent is that also a weakness? vs staying in control.

It would be a weakness in anybody wouldn’t it?

Yes,

but a lower number in women

and a higher number in men.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There is also a correlation between average height or weight and the data in the graphs.
Or field of occupation.
Or level of education in specific areas.
Or length of hair.
Or time spent attending to personal appearance.

Why do you dismiss these correlations?

If women are more sensitive to emotions then it would be seen in how they express themselves.

That is the correlation I see.

The problem is that if the results were round the other way, that would also be a correlation.

To a finer degree everything in the universe is connected.

Some things are closer than other things and some other things are more distant than other things.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If men cannot control their emotions and they get violent is that also a weakness? vs staying in control.

It would be a weakness in anybody wouldn’t it?

Yes,

but a lower number in women

and a higher number in men.

So?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would be a weakness in anybody wouldn’t it?

Yes,

but a lower number in women

and a higher number in men.

So?

Isn’t that because we are physically stronger, possible emotionally weaker (less control) and as the dominant sex for so long think might is right.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would be a weakness in anybody wouldn’t it?

Yes,

but a lower number in women

and a higher number in men.

So?

?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes,

but a lower number in women

and a higher number in men.

So?

?

??

? + ?? = ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

? + ?? = ?

Only if ? = 0

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, you need to think about what the graphs actually show, and consider whether you are succumbing to confirmation bias.

I see validation.

How is that confirmation bias ?

Confirmation bias is seeing validation where none exists.

That’s how it is confirmation bias.

the idea can probably be used in torture too.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I see validation.

How is that confirmation bias ?

Confirmation bias is seeing validation where none exists.

That’s how it is confirmation bias.

the idea can probably be used in torture too.

The reason it’s self defeating most of the time

Cymek said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Confirmation bias is seeing validation where none exists.

That’s how it is confirmation bias.

the idea can probably be used in torture too.

The reason it’s self defeating most of the time

no, what I meant was I could take the fondness of eliminating confirmation bias, take it to the extreme and use it to torture you.

transition said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

the idea can probably be used in torture too.

The reason it’s self defeating most of the time

no, what I meant was I could take the fondness of eliminating confirmation bias, take it to the extreme and use it to torture you.

OK, what I thought you meant was a fair point.

It seems that what you actually meant was just weird :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Cymek said:

The reason it’s self defeating most of the time

no, what I meant was I could take the fondness of eliminating confirmation bias, take it to the extreme and use it to torture you.

OK, what I thought you meant was a fair point.

It seems that what you actually meant was just weird :)

yeah, plenty weirdness around, especially when anticonfirmation bias becomes a secret weapon.

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

transition said:

yeah, plenty weirdness around, especially when anticonfirmation bias becomes a secret weapon.

So, if it’s not a personal question:

In what way is anti-confirmation bias a secret weapon?

Why would drawing attention to invalid conclusions be a bad thing?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

Non religious people, can be just as wacky and just as divorced from reality, you don’t come across as full bottle at times.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah, plenty weirdness around, especially when anticonfirmation bias becomes a secret weapon.

So, if it’s not a personal question:

In what way is anti-confirmation bias a secret weapon?

Why would drawing attention to invalid conclusions be a bad thing?

Upset those that believe it ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

The third statement is definitely wrong.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

The third statement is definitely wrong.

Even baring mental illness

AwesomeO said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

Non religious people, can be just as wacky and just as divorced from reality, you don’t come across as full bottle at times.

Most normal people who are non religious then,

I would place wacky people in that group as a minority

apologies for any bias

:)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

everything should yield to convergent social forces of heathen reduction, right back to the big bang, the singularity, and before.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah, plenty weirdness around, especially when anticonfirmation bias becomes a secret weapon.

So, if it’s not a personal question:

In what way is anti-confirmation bias a secret weapon?

Why would drawing attention to invalid conclusions be a bad thing?

nothing wrong with that, call it when you see it.

undetermined beliefs (operating from) though are part of how minds work. Essential part of the toolbox.

I just asked Mrs V how much cabbage she would like in tonight’s soup. “Oh, not too much; a reasonable amount”.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

everything should yield to convergent social forces of heathen reduction, right back to the big bang, the singularity, and before.

Go back to church farmer joe

you are on a science forum

The religious heathen nonsense is 2000 years old.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

everything should yield to convergent social forces of heathen reduction, right back to the big bang, the singularity, and before.

Go back to church farmer joe

you are on a science forum

The religious heathen nonsense is 2000 years old.

Still true though, being a heathen is still a crime in some places

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

everything should yield to convergent social forces of heathen reduction, right back to the big bang, the singularity, and before.

Go back to church farmer joe

you are on a science forum

The religious heathen nonsense is 2000 years old.

I think it’s hobby with you isn’t it, religion bashing.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

everything should yield to convergent social forces of heathen reduction, right back to the big bang, the singularity, and before.

Go back to church farmer joe

you are on a science forum

The religious heathen nonsense is 2000 years old.

I think it’s hobby with you isn’t it, religion bashing.

Heathen reduction comes across as a genocide type term though, people would kill heathens in some gods name

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah, plenty weirdness around, especially when anticonfirmation bias becomes a secret weapon.

So, if it’s not a personal question:

In what way is anti-confirmation bias a secret weapon?

Why would drawing attention to invalid conclusions be a bad thing?

nothing wrong with that, call it when you see it.

undetermined beliefs (operating from) though are part of how minds work. Essential part of the toolbox.

underdetermined, that should say

Cymek said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Go back to church farmer joe

you are on a science forum

The religious heathen nonsense is 2000 years old.

I think it’s hobby with you isn’t it, religion bashing.

Heathen reduction comes across as a genocide type term though, people would kill heathens in some gods name

reduction = reductionism

heathen = physicalism

transition said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

I think it’s hobby with you isn’t it, religion bashing.

Heathen reduction comes across as a genocide type term though, people would kill heathens in some gods name

reduction = reductionism

heathen = physicalism

Do you not think religious belief comes across as mental illness, its just made up stories but people will do anything to defend or spread the word, all logic and common sense goes out the window, you give up you power. I heard today in a song (not sure where the quote is from) about how you are told to love someone you fear, a form of Sadomasochism

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some religious people can be wacky as their religious ideology takes them further away from the truth,

The more extreme the further away from the truth they are.

Normal people who are non religious do not have this problem .

everything should yield to convergent social forces of heathen reduction, right back to the big bang, the singularity, and before.

Go back to church farmer joe

you are on a science forum

The religious heathen nonsense is 2000 years old.

You definitely have a problem with science Transition, evolution, gender, cosmology, life, consciousness artificial intelligence subjects all bother you in some way.

And this is a science forum where you will see those subjects.

Your use your religious ideology as a background to try understand it, then insult people when you find subjects that you disagree with or don’t like.

I see a difference between understanding evolution from a pure science perspective versus trying to understand evolution from a religious perspective then trying to understand science on top of that religious perspective.

Do you see the problem?

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah, plenty weirdness around, especially when anticonfirmation bias becomes a secret weapon.

So, if it’s not a personal question:

In what way is anti-confirmation bias a secret weapon?

Why would drawing attention to invalid conclusions be a bad thing?

nothing wrong with that, call it when you see it.

undetermined beliefs (operating from) though are part of how minds work. Essential part of the toolbox.

OK, I think I see what you are getting at (with Cymek’s help).

I’m not sure I’d call it torture though.

Michael V said:

I just asked Mrs V how much cabbage she would like in tonight’s soup. “Oh, not too much; a reasonable amount”.

Seems reasonable.

>Do you not think religious belief comes across as mental illness, its just made up stories but people will do anything to defend or spread the word.

most religious people i’d expect are perfectly normal and healthy.

what do you think?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

I just asked Mrs V how much cabbage she would like in tonight’s soup. “Oh, not too much; a reasonable amount”.

Seems reasonable.

So you put a bit in at time, more, more, more, more, too much

Why does “always doesn’t always mean always”?

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

transition said:

>Do you not think religious belief comes across as mental illness, its just made up stories but people will do anything to defend or spread the word.

most religious people i’d expect are perfectly normal and healthy.

what do you think?

Generally yes but that illogical belief doesn’t make sense, I know why they believe in it, but to me its weird, you give up your power of morality and decision making to some third person. A god would have to leave proof behind or be available or what’s the point

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

everything should yield to convergent social forces of heathen reduction, right back to the big bang, the singularity, and before.

Go back to church farmer joe

you are on a science forum

The religious heathen nonsense is 2000 years old.

You definitely have a problem with science Transition, evolution, gender, cosmology, life, consciousness artificial intelligence subjects all bother you in some way.

And this is a science forum where you will see those subjects.

Your use your religious ideology as a background to try understand it, then insult people when you find subjects that you disagree with or don’t like.

I see a difference between understanding evolution from a pure science perspective versus trying to understand evolution from a religious perspective then trying to understand science on top of that religious perspective.

Do you see the problem?

nice spin on your religion bashing, still vomit.

i’m not religious by the way.

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

I’d only say it if they started preaching otherwise I’d leave them alone.

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

The similarity is story telling with intent to pass on a message / s

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

By myth I include most aspects of creation stories, animism etc, I think so, depending on the myth, explains the universe, mans place in it and may require rituals or observances. You may explain some religions are more sophisticated than others, but a belief that there is an aspect of God or spirituality in a rock is not much different to living in the sky.

transition said:

>Do you not think religious belief comes across as mental illness, its just made up stories but people will do anything to defend or spread the word.

most religious people i’d expect are perfectly normal and healthy.

what do you think?

Most people are what doctors would call normal. Mainly because they really don’t have any other sample.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Why does “always doesn’t always mean always”?

it isn’t about what it means. It is about incorrect usage of words.

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

The rainbow serpent is a mover and shaker. No creation myths involved but then, try Biume.

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

a bit much as in potentially very insulting, and damaging.

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

The latter is correct.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

The rainbow serpent is a mover and shaker. No creation myths involved but then, try Biume.

You miss the point, all peoples and all cultures have had story’s that explain the world. If it’s a belief that’s not scientific some people are saying its a mental illness.

AwesomeO said:

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

By myth I include most aspects of creation stories, animism etc, I think so, depending on the myth, explains the universe, mans place in it and may require rituals or observances. You may explain some religions are more sophisticated than others, but a belief that there is an aspect of God or spirituality in a rock is not much different to living in the sky.

I think spiritual beliefs are very cultural and are determined on what the parents think and how they educate and ritualise it in their children’s infant years. It takes a great deal to shake such indoctrination as you mature as there are always influential pieces that will remain in the psyche.

AwesomeO said:

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

By myth I include most aspects of creation stories, animism etc, I think so, depending on the myth, explains the universe, mans place in it and may require rituals or observances. You may explain some religions are more sophisticated than others, but a belief that there is an aspect of God or spirituality in a rock is not much different to living in the sky.

I used to confuse creationists and Jesus freaks by saying, “don’t walk on the grass!” when asked why.. “because Jesus entered all of life on earth”.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

If religious belief is a mental illness then it is a pervasive one. And by religion do you include creation myths, I suspect a lot of anti-ranters would have no problems telling a Christian they were mental but not an aboriginal talking about a rainbow serpent.

The rainbow serpent is a mover and shaker. No creation myths involved but then, try Biume.

You miss the point, all peoples and all cultures have had story’s that explain the world. If it’s a belief that’s not scientific some people are saying its a mental illness.

The stories are like any teaching tale. The beliefs may be tainted by misleading mental states and hearsay.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

poikilotherm said:

It’s a bit much calling it a mental illness I reckon.

Are myths and religion the same thing?

By myth I include most aspects of creation stories, animism etc, I think so, depending on the myth, explains the universe, mans place in it and may require rituals or observances. You may explain some religions are more sophisticated than others, but a belief that there is an aspect of God or spirituality in a rock is not much different to living in the sky.

I think spiritual beliefs are very cultural and are determined on what the parents think and how they educate and ritualise it in their children’s infant years. It takes a great deal to shake such indoctrination as you mature as there are always influential pieces that will remain in the psyche.

yeah.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

I just asked Mrs V how much cabbage she would like in tonight’s soup. “Oh, not too much; a reasonable amount”.

Seems reasonable.

But imprecise.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

I just asked Mrs V how much cabbage she would like in tonight’s soup. “Oh, not too much; a reasonable amount”.

Seems reasonable.

But imprecise.

You know her better than any of us. ;)

could be a weird sort of confirmation bias from which i’m extracting the impression that i’m conscious, or have a brain. The impression’s in the territory of belief, it’s never been scientifically proven. I’m going to have to see a doctor, get a referral for a head x-ray, or EEG.

if a specialist did conclude I had a brain, then I was referred to a brain surgeon to have everything resembling confirmation bias removed, that’d turn into a radical lobotomy i’d reckon.

what was the subject now?

ended up here, half interesting..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_management_theory

transition said:

ended up here, half interesting..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_management_theory

the word, probalistic had me thinking all that.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

ended up here, half interesting..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_management_theory

the word, probalistic had me thinking all that.

I expected that article to be one of four other things – either error management by taking root sum square error in the L2 norm. Or error management by using factors of safety or error management by setting a zero error target. Or error management using quality control.

That article isn’t about any of those. It’s about observational inaccuracies.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

ended up here, half interesting..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_management_theory

the word, probalistic had me thinking all that.

I expected that article to be one of four other things – either error management by taking root sum square error in the L2 norm. Or error management by using factors of safety or error management by setting a zero error target. Or error management using quality control.

That article isn’t about any of those. It’s about observational inaccuracies.

indeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
http://www.statisticshowto.com/measurement-error/

Tau.Neutrino said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
http://www.statisticshowto.com/measurement-error/

Now you tell us?

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
http://www.statisticshowto.com/measurement-error/

Now you tell us?

Apologising in advance is not one of my current abilities.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
http://www.statisticshowto.com/measurement-error/

Now you tell us?

Apologising in advance is not one of my current abilities.

and doing resarch before you post?

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Now you tell us?

Apologising in advance is not one of my current abilities.

and doing resarch before you post?

I’m hopeless at research.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Now you tell us?

Apologising in advance is not one of my current abilities.

and doing resarch before you post?

It is probably to be considered hard that I bring this up against you but the moment seems opportune.
It is also often brought up to make me think more than twice. In this I don’t freel hard in reflecting the issue of thinking to anyone in particular.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Apologising in advance is not one of my current abilities.

and doing resarch before you post?

I’m hopeless at research.

did you notic that I left out the e ?

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Apologising in advance is not one of my current abilities.

and doing resarch before you post?

It is probably to be considered hard that I bring this up against you but the moment seems opportune.
It is also often brought up to make me think more than twice. In this I don’t freel hard in reflecting the issue of thinking to anyone in particular.

You might be thinking about the same thing in an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of slightly different perspectives on the same observation.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

and doing resarch before you post?

I’m hopeless at research.

did you notic that I left out the e ?

yes,

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

and doing resarch before you post?

It is probably to be considered hard that I bring this up against you but the moment seems opportune.
It is also often brought up to make me think more than twice. In this I don’t freel hard in reflecting the issue of thinking to anyone in particular.

You might be thinking about the same thing in an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of slightly different perspectives on the same observation.

Indeed possibilties exist that may yet be described.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

It is probably to be considered hard that I bring this up against you but the moment seems opportune.
It is also often brought up to make me think more than twice. In this I don’t freel hard in reflecting the issue of thinking to anyone in particular.

You might be thinking about the same thing in an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of slightly different perspectives on the same observation.

Indeed possibilties exist that may yet be described.

I was thinking before about people having a different perspectives on God

Everybody has a different opinion.

Everybody also has different opinion about the universe. So consensus is difficult

Observation and interpretations can have wide variables

Accurate observation reduces variables

Tau.Neutrino said:

Keep in this mode.

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Do you not think religious belief comes across as mental illness, its just made up stories but people will do anything to defend or spread the word.

most religious people i’d expect are perfectly normal and healthy.

what do you think?

Generally yes but that illogical belief doesn’t make sense, I know why they believe in it, but to me its weird, you give up your power of morality and decision making to some third person. A god would have to leave proof behind or be available or what’s the point

imagine you were that hard on your powers of metaphor

transition said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Do you not think religious belief comes across as mental illness, its just made up stories but people will do anything to defend or spread the word.

most religious people i’d expect are perfectly normal and healthy.

what do you think?

Generally yes but that illogical belief doesn’t make sense, I know why they believe in it, but to me its weird, you give up your power of morality and decision making to some third person. A god would have to leave proof behind or be available or what’s the point

imagine you were that hard on your powers of metaphor

evolution didn’t leave you with an explanation for them, for example.