I typed this for Building 7 thread, but it got locked... so let me post it, pls remember more posts, more reads, more ads.

===============Psychological observation===============

I've accused people of outsourcing their thinking, and I've noticed some people evaluate the information they received based on who is transmitting it... lets call them Type Z personalities.

An extreme example:

Transmitter A: is a crazy street bum and says 2 + 2 = 4
Transmitter B: is Juliar and says 2 + 2 = 3, cos there are two 2's so the 2nd two only counts as 1.

Some people will ignore the transmitter and evaluate the message.
While Type Z personalities will will evaluate the transmitter, before the message.

Where am I going with this?
Well basically, people who aren't in a Type Z persons trusted circle, have 0 chance of introducing a contra-message, because the message won't be objectively evaluated.

But at the same time people who just evaluate the message are limited by their intellectual ability... that's why we get some suckers who believe every conspiracy and Canada lottery win.

edjakaton is whey overatted.

GalahOnTheBay said...

lotofwind said...

edjakaton is whey overatted.

Get it right, it's edjamacation. Sheesh...

Thanx,
I stand corekted

Okay, I'm lost. Which one is the crazy street bum, and which ones are the suckers.

Transmitters! I knew it, that's why the al-foil hat is staying right where it belongs!


If I can be serious for a second, I noted that I clearly disagreed with some people on one topic, yet agree with them on yet another. How can that be?

Yeah, you guessed it, they were only wrong once Either that or both parties were just interpreting things differently based on their own experiences.

Wait.. Who's on 1st and What's on 2nd?

Depends on which 'Juliar' is doing the transmitting - Roberts, or Gillard...one is smokin' hot with flaming red hair, full lips & a toit figure..the other is an average actress.

Good thing I wasn't drinking just now Saily.. a gush out the shnoz moment right there!

FlySurfer said...


I've accused people of outsourcing their thinking, and I've noticed some people evaluate the information they received based on who is transmitting it... lets call them Type Z personalities.

This bit is legible..

While you did accuse me of 'outsourcing my thinking', this is not such a bad thing, as there are people a lot smarter and better educated than myself, with better recourses and available time to devote to understanding their field. The trick, as you say, is selecting credible sources for our information.

No longer do we live in a world where any one person can be an expert in every field. As an example, we 'outsource our thinking' onto aeronautical engineers when we board a 747. We trust the engineers to design and build a safe aircraft. But these engineers do not design the plane from scratch, they also 'outsource their thinking' to chemists and physicist who can, for example, provide the engineers with data on the integrity of potential materials...

The Chemists, are a reliable source for information, it would be unwise for the engineers to ask the Pope about the strength of X material.. He does not know anything...

Home built planes where people use their own thinking were a disaster, search 'early flight' on youtube and it is obvious that backyard aeronautics is woeful..

This is why 'outsourcing your thinking' is necessary, but the source must be reliable.. Youtube hacks are a dime a dosen, and 'documentaries' such as Loose Change and Zeitgeist are farking absurd...

The silence from the structural engineers on the topics discussed in the previous thread is enough reassurance for me, after all, I trust these engineers every time I walk into a building..


---------------------------------------------------------------


Now I think I should quickly explain why I dug up this quote, it proves that you are not properly identifying credible sources for the 'outsourcing of your thinking'.. Evolution is a Litmus test for rational thought, to deny the truth of evolution, one must be either Ignorant, Stupid, Wicked or Brainwashed..

For this particular question you must turn to Biologists, who in turn derive a lot of information from Chemistry and Physics.. Biologists know their sh!t, Biology works, and it only works because of the truth of evolution..

Why not listen to a Biology professor lecturing on the truth of evolution, (I did you the honor of watching a few 9/11 conspiracy videos)... This is Jerry Coyne, a credible expert in the truth of evolution...

FlySurfer said...

1.- I understand the logic of using a trusted transmitter as a information filter. But it also keeps you in a status quo, there have been numerous examples of past thinking that have later turn out to be quite insane... Flat Earth, heavier objects fall faster, Earth center of universe... It's not like weren't alternative ideas.

Wrong again dude. Common understanding was that the Earth was round, not flat. It is just commonly believed today most people thought it flat back then, because you know, people from the past are stupid.

The kettle is black.

GreenPat said...

We lock the conspiracy thread, and an evolution debate takes its place.

Lock the feccer!!

(.).)

You are correct FS.
What you are pointing to is the fallacy in rhetoric know as argumentum ad verecundiam, or arguing from authority.
The problem is that we judge by the person putting the argument rather than on the merits of the argument.
As in (I think) Life of Brian ''what would you know, big nose?''
Not that I'm saying you've got a big nose or anything.
Of course there's nothing wrong with that, if you do have a big nose. But it does detract from your argument. Just saying.

GreenPat said...

We lock the conspiracy thread, and an evolution debate takes its place.

There is no debate. Evolution is a fact in the same sense it is a fact that our computers are real. Thats why it's a perfect Litmus test, no logical person refuses to admit the existence of their computer..

No doubt there are users here, who believe we are locked in a Matrix world, and our computers are actually falling green code.. (But then the Matrix was created by computers which were in turn created by Evolved mammals, so Evolution is still true, it's the only possible way for complexity to arise from simplicity)

FlySurfer said...

Prove I'm wrong...

Here ya go! It's youchoob so it's undeniably true:

laceys lane said...



isn't evolution still theory. how can you say its a fact. i'm no rocket scientist, but as far as i can see there is plenty of debating going on

www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm
www.allaboutscience.org/dNA-double-helix.htm
www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

Those are not a credible sources! There are millions of Youtube idiots using the same discredited arguments that are found on that website.. Watch the video I posted earlier, Coyne explains what makes up a Scientific Theory..

There is no actual debate, just millions of people with little grasp of reality..

**edit!!!!!!!

www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Go read The Origin, this quote above is deliberately edited to mislead, this guy cut off the rest of the sentence!. You are being deliberately lied to.. And this is held up as your evidence??? Absolute fail..

Read the full text darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&keywords=in+freely+i+highest+the+absurd+degree+confess&pageseq=204

barn said...

laceys lane said...



isn't evolution still theory. how can you say its a fact. i'm no rocket scientist, but as far as i can see there is plenty of debating going on

www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm
www.allaboutscience.org/dNA-double-helix.htm
www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

Those are not a credible sources! There are millions of Youtube idiots using the same discredited arguments that are found on that website.. Watch the video I posted earlier, Coyne explains what makes up a Scientific Theory..

There is no actual debate, just millions of people with little grasp of reality..

**edit!!!!!!!

www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Go read The Origin, this quote above is deliberately edited to mislead, this guy cut off the rest of the sentence!. You are being deliberately lied to.. And this is held up as your evidence??? Absolute fail..

Read the full text darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&keywords=in+freely+i+highest+the+absurd+degree+confess&pageseq=204

i'm not saying those links are the dead set truth. randomly picked. but my point is evolution is still a theory- not a proven fact

Stop this thread now.
No need for any other discussion.
Barn has solved the eternal question.It must be true,,its on an interweb video

lotofwind said...

Stop this thread now.
No need for any other discussion.
Barn has solved the eternal question.It must be true,,its on an interweb video

Credible sources can also be captured in the interweb video medium.. Didn't you notice the lack of wild conjecture about Lizard people? while an increased presence of a highly educated expert discussing his chosen field of study?

poor relative said...

Didn't god have a role in all this too?

^^ nowhere in evolution are any required, but commence thread blocking anyway..

I doubt threads would be blocked if somebody started pointing out the equally factual existence of atoms... Another interesting psychological observation?..

barn said...
No doubt there are users here, who believe we are locked in a Matrix world, and our computers are actually falling green code.. (But then the Matrix was created by computers which were in turn created by Evolved mammals, so Evolution is still true, it's the only possible way for complexity to arise from simplicity)

So which came first the caviar or the sturgeon?

PS: Why y'all red thumbing me, it was just an observation.