what even we talking about? i thought this forum was gonna be like a place to joke around, but.... what?
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
May 18, 2020
0
#1503
Optimissed wrote:
Karl Jung, on which the ridiculous Myers-Briggs types are based, wasn't as talented as KJ imagined. Incidentally, his hangup was religion whereas Freud's was sex. But the idea of 16 personality types is stupid and psychologists who accept the ideas are not good psychologists.
Psychology is a science because you can quantify things and relate them. It is a soft science because it can be really difficult to define what the things are, and often impossible to be precise about the way in which they relate. But that first sentence makes it worthwhile.
The very substantial weakness of the neat and tidy 16 way classification is that it completely fails to take into account the strength of the different factors - how far they are from the middle line. Someone who is almost average in all of the dimensions will have an almost random personality type according to the definition. More importantly, for an individual, some characteristics will be strong, others less so, and this would clearly seem to matter. (According to the percentages, I could be described as NTJ, as those are the relatively strong characteristics. Indeed, I have been ENTJ before, if I recall).
May 18, 2020
0
#1504
toxic_ness_main wrote:
what even we talking about? i thought this forum was gonna be like a place to joke around, but.... what?
To be honest, I can't see any hint of that in the OP of this particular forum. There are plenty of others like that though.
Elroch wrote:
Can't disagree with that!
Must be highly accurate source, from Stanford NEWS. Stanford has got to be one of the greatest television broadcasters, eh?
elroch: "I once did a test to see if I was narcissistic as well, out of interest. Turns out I am not. But I would say I would have been more so when I was younger."
im not in the mood of being politely correct so i'll just be transparent about it..
your comments show great ignorance about psychology in general and narcissism in particular. to be bold.. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck?
thing is that its kinda bore me to make this thread to be all about you.. you already have 2 threads dedicated to that.. i'll try to take a second look at it when im sober.. lol
5 minuts may seem like infinity for youthful minds like the prawn cookie monster, or the average minute man.. i better sign off.. good night! 
Sillver1 wrote:
5 minuts may seem like infinity for youthful minds like the prawn cookie monster, or the average minute man.. i better sign off.. good night!
Keyword: may.
When I actually manage to immerse myself into something, I can excavate it for a considerable time like a filthy archaeologist with ragged jeans. The comparison's probably not all too good, but mint humbugs.
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2015/entries/anomalous-monism/
Looks like we'll have to consult our opinions on psychology with anomalous monism. Highly accurate source, it's from STANFORD.
your comments show great ignorance about psychology in general and narcissism in particular. to be bold.. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck?
bullseye !...hes a quack...lol !!
thing is that its kinda bore me to make this thread to be all about you..
probably the most diff person to treat is the narcissist. as their ability to be mindful, truthful, & accepting of disorder (the very nature) is basically in absentia from any session. top it all off w/ probable SA denial and there u have it. i mean its really that simple.
you already have 2 threads dedicated to that
its cuz they died a long time ago & were shelved in the area 51 warehouse. sci-fi aisle. and since he needs volumes of attn hes gonna try & hijack other popular threads as he speed-read rifles thru wikipaedia. lol !
May 19, 2020
0
#1512
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch: "I once did a test to see if I was narcissistic as well, out of interest. Turns out I am not. But I would say I would have been more so when I was younger."
im not in the mood of being politely correct so i'll just be transparent about it..
your comments show great ignorance about psychology in general and narcissism in particular.
to be bold.. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck?
To be more precise, that would merely indicate a high probability of being a duck. It could be a very well-designed robot, or a realistic animation of a duck.
But I am also aware about objectivity in psychology, which is where you seem lacking.
thing is that its kinda bore me to make this thread to be all about you.
It's not, so damn well stop doing it.
you already have 2 threads dedicated to that.. i'll try to take a second look at it when im sober.. lol
Hint, being inebriate causes errors like yours.
My contribution to this thread has been to explain how randomness is dealt with by those who work in relevant areas (physics, quantitative empirical science in general) point out that a definition of "true randomness" was needed to make the question meaningful, to derive a simple, natural definition based on physics, and to reason logically based on that definition, in particular relating it to key results based on Bell's experiments that show the violation of Bell's inequality. None of that is about me, any more than a typical university lecture is about the lecturer. Only minimal credit is due to me for what I have posted, since it mostly forms part of the body of scientific knowledge.
Likewise it is pathological to suggest that two other forums on branches of science where I typically contribute by drawing attention to research and news about the subjects are "about me".
I will observe that the ugliest thing in this forum is the snideness exhibited by some, for whatever reason.
dude !! are u 4real ?? u are one of the most snide, condescending, repulsive trolls that ive ever had the pleasure to read ! TG ur anonymous & way faraway. cuz ur s/o i would never-ever EVER wanna run into (omg pleez dont tell me hes on st croix ?).
May 19, 2020
0
#1515
DifferentialGalois wrote:
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2015/entries/anomalous-monism/
Looks like we'll have to consult our opinions on psychology with anomalous monism. Highly accurate source, it's from STANFORD.
I have great respect for Stanford and their excellent public domain resources. I am pleased you do too. Here they are reporting some esoteric stuff on the philosophy of science, which is not really my thing (concrete science suits me better, so I focus on that).
It seems pretty obvious that psychology can never be "a science like physics". It's because the subject matter is so very different. The idea of absolute laws in psychology would be a bit absurd: it is about the behaviour of extremely complex and varied high level behaviour, so all concepts are emergent, and are there are always likely to be competing ways to simplify them.
ohh !...and s/t else. since you WILL NOT ban me from that one dead thread ? im personally removing myself from it. 4ever. esp-ESP after narcissism compeled u to equate it to shakespeares works and lord of the rings and stuff like that. tho feel free to compare it to the comprehensive comic catalog of all the newspapers since 1900 !
May 19, 2020
0
#1517
I have never before heard of anyone complaining about not being banned. You are one of a kind, Ghostess!
I got the clear impression that you had previously understood that the post comparing the length of different famous publications and an Internet thread was for gentle amusement - your reply started "lol !!.". Of course, if you go out of your way to misunderstand, you can manage.
Note that online communication can lead to tensions and conflicts that would not occur face to face. Humans did not evolve to manage without seeing expressions and body language, and an occasional smiley does not seem to suffice.
May 19, 2020
0
#1519
I have to admit the word "monism" was not in my vocabulary, and I can't really be bothered to add it. There is a fundamental problem that any question that remains within philosophy (rather than being reallocated to a science or a rigorous discipline like mathematics) never reaches a satisfactory conclusion.
May 19, 2020
0
#1520
With probability, it's worth first remembering that the question applies to an application of probability theory, not the mathematical theory (which is an entirely rigorous branch of pure mathematics). With Bayesian probability, the question seems easy - belief states do exist, and the theory is the correct way to manipulate them. Frequentist probability, on the other hand, is an idealised abstraction that does not precisely apply to the real world, which lacks any infinite runs, never mind ways to observe them. Anyone concerned about that can avoid using it and stick to the Bayesian viewpoint (in practice it is often convenient to be a frequentist when the system is suited to it).
Was Monet blind?
Not thought that of him, but I have thought Van Gogh had some sort of vision disorder, and I have read that there may be some truth in this.
Turning a weakness into a strength in style?