[PhDwannabe]

A dictionary definition is not a scientific operationalization. That is not how this process works. Do you think a physicist can explain the collapse of the wave function by providing dictionary definitions for "collapse," "wave," and "function?" No. Well, psych is a science too. It makes just as little sense here. Try again.

Quote

As for research, it originates from my observations and so I have the research in my head of nearly 200 cases

Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth. Emphatically, desperately, with every fiber of my being, I scream aloud: this is not research. This is not research. This is the opposite of research. Science is systematic and public. To make claims based on personal, unsystematic observation is to pontificate baselessly. "My observations... research in my head" is worse than worthless, because it deludes and misleads. No. A thousand times no.

Quote

older tests yes, newer ones, no

Incorrect. Tell me which valid, professionally used psychometric instruments, and which versions.

[mooeypoo]

Scotchmana, on 1 November 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

I guess you got me there. In the back of my mind as I posted that comment, I knew that many newer tests were being made that I could not account for... older tests yes, newer ones, no. I have removed the comment from my post as well as another line to make my post more acceptable.

The reason he "got you" here is because you're making definitive statements without a shred of corroborating evidence. You seem to claim a lot about behavior of men vs women. You should be able to find the research that supports it.

Anecdotes, memory and interpretation of subjective events are not evidence, not even in psychology. (Jab intended)
Peer reviewed publications with the evidence you need to corroborate your statements is what you need. You can find quite a lot of research on google scholar and in the APA, I suggest you start there.

We *are* a science forum.

[PhDwannabe]

Quote

Anecdotes, memory and interpretation of subjective events are not evidence, not even in psychology. (Jab intended)

Cute. One or two standard deviations above the cute mean.

[Scotchmana]

PhDwannabe, on 1 November 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

A dictionary definition is not a scientific operationalization. That is not how this process works. Do you think a physicist can explain the collapse of the wave function by providing dictionary definitions for "collapse," "wave," and "function?" No. Well, psych is a science too. It makes just as little sense here. Try again.

Ok, that is just funny, this is a thread about "What do you think?". I was trying to avoid anything technical. Most people I come across want the simple version.

The formula is simple. A person has perceptions, these perceptions are not just the "five". They include perception of ones own thoughts. Thoughts have a value attached to each. The mind works by assigning a value based on 2 qualities. The first quality is the length of time the thought has occupied the person'a attention. The second is the size/density of the attention that is consumed by the thought. Examples of both are

1: A friend you have had for some time will be considered more important then a stranger. Even a old stump the person has known for years and used as a navigational point as a child will be important to the person in latter years.
2. Have you even seen a person that is consumed by an idea? they can't get it out of their head and so it is very important them. Have not seen this? How about a person with a strong chronic pain, again it consumes their attention and thus will be of great importance to them.

The person will, especially in youth, establish the importance of things based on these two factors. Take your car, if there is a loud squeal and a very small one you will tend to be more concerned about the loud one. Why? second rule applies.

Also anther equation to take into account is that a person will become accustomed to some perceptions and the intensity of the perception. The military uses this in their training. Take a loud explosion, it can be shocking. In a war, to keep troops performing, they do such things as yell loudly in your face, make you run till you are exhausted, anything else they can do to overwhelm you with perceptions so that when that bomb goes off, the soldier is not bothered by it. In training for many things, they subject you to the worst of things so that when it happens you will not be phased. This however has a side effect. The intensity and longevity of this intense training tends to "harden" a person. If you simply talk to these people about their experiences, they tend to use terms such as "intense", "hard" and even "solid". This is not in error, it is in fact perceived this way so it makes perfect sense that these would be described as such.

On the other hand, some things come across as "thin", "mild" or "weak". Take a simple question, thought itself and "feeling" tend to register as a low volume perception, "what do you think about what he/she thinks?" is asking a parson to compare two "soft" things.

If the person is conditioned to "strong" or "solid" things as being all that matter, he/she will have trouble thinking with something as vague as "feelings" because they are far below the intensity the person is accustomed to. So a person can get so accustomed to intense perceptions that weak ones are assigned the value of nothing. So the question "How do you feel about another person's feeling?" is like asking such a person "How do you (nothing) about someone's else's (nothing)?" Of course the person will get the answer (nothing)! But don't take my word for it, find a "hardened" guy and ask him "What do you think about how he/she feels?" And watch the answer you get! You asked him about nothings so he does not think anything, he does not even think you asked him a valid question! Hold up the color "light pink" and ask him what the color is. He will not want to answer the question. Why? because light pink is too soft a color and does not register at the intensity he is looking for before he considers he has something that has a value that he can think with. Hold up "dark red" and he will be happy to tell you.

THis gets into another topic that becomes clear as you examine this. Because the person is looking for things at a range of intensity that he is accustomed to, he will tend to ignore anything outside of this. Take a sign that does not stand out, ask people what it said. They will not be able to answer, many will not know what sign you are talking about. Why? They saw something that was below the intensity they were looking for and gave it a value of "no value". You can test this all you like, take microbes, ask people how they feel about microbes on Catalina island? Most people have never seen microbs and have never been to Catalina island. So you ask "How do you feel about (nothing) on (nothing)".

This also works in reverse, people accustomed to a low intensity will see the color "light pink" with vivid clarity. Ask "how do you feel about how someone else feels?" and they will gladly tell you all about it. Yell as loud as you can in their face and it will be very unwanted to the point that all they hear is "blah blah blah blah" because it is too intense. You need to tone it down before they will be able to think with it. Small children are cared for so much that they often can't handle a yelling mad parent until they get accustomed to it.

Now we get to an offshoot of research into this area. People that get accustomed to a level of intensity will get so accustomed to it they can have trouble with anything outside of that range. Ask these people to use their imagination to conceive of an object with 1 lbs, 10 lbs, 1000 lbs and so on and you will find people have trouble with objects outside of their range. Even more, they will tend to be uninterested in anything outside of their range.

Here we get into the subject of engineering. "Imagine how to hold back 300 millions lbs of water" can in fact be hard for some people to conceive of. To think with 300 million lbs, you need to know how things react at 1 lb, 1000 lbs, 1,000,000 lbs and so on. So if they are unfamiliar with the intensities of things at 300 million lbs, they may find it hard or entirely unable to think with.

Males have for some time been for some time exposed to the harder work of the day and so find it easier to think with "hard" concepts. While females have been given lighter work and so the tendency to be interested in "lighter" subjects.

PhDwannabe, on 1 November 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

... this is not research. This is not research. This is the opposite of research. Science is systematic and public. To make claims based on personal, unsystematic observation is to pontificate baselessly. "My observations... research in my head" is worse than worthless, because it deludes and misleads. No. A thousand times no.

You have a specialized idea of the word "research". It is simply the collection of information with the purpose of deriving an educated conclusion. The formality of the collection process is not what you state it to be. Yet I did a very extensive research into this and feel it is worthy of a post on this forum.

PhDwannabe, on 1 November 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Incorrect. Tell me which valid, professionally used psychometric instruments, and which versions.

Oxford University IQ test of 1918. Harvard University IQ test of 1932. Prinston University IQ test of 1948. Yes, all of them are university IQ tests....

[PhDwannabe]

Quote

You have a specialized idea of the word "research". It is simply the collection of information with the purpose of deriving an educated conclusion. The formality of the collection process is not what you state it to be. Yet I did a very extensive research into this and feel it is worthy of a post on this forum.

What you're describing is not science. It's junk introspection. Period. It doesn't get us worthwhile therapies, or cancer drugs, or to the moon, or valid sociological observations. It doesn't get us anywhere. How should a layperson who might be reading this easily detect this fact? I'll show you:

Quote

The mind works by assigning a value based on 2 qualities. The first quality is the length of time the thought has occupied the person'a attention. The second is the size/density of the attention that is consumed by the thought.

Dear anyone who might be reading this: whenever anyone makes a pronouncement that begins with "The mind works by..." and then actually finishes the thought confidently with some short rubric or law... stop listening. Run in the other direction. You cannot, cannot, cannot express how the mind works in any such terms. You don't know how the mind works well enough to usefully sum it up in that manner. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. If anyone tries to, they're making it up. The end.

Quote

Oxford University IQ test of 1918. Harvard University IQ test of 1932. Prinston University IQ test of 1948. Yes, all of them are university IQ tests....

These are made up. These are not real psychometric instruments. That is not how psychometric instruments are named. Congratulations. You have made them up.

[mooeypoo]

Scotchmana, on 2 November 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:

You have a specialized idea of the word "research". It is simply the collection of information with the purpose of deriving an educated conclusion. The formality of the collection process is not what you state it to be. Yet I did a very extensive research into this and feel it is worthy of a post on this forum.

Actually, you do.

We're going by scientific research. That excludes everything posted so far.

Beyond the fact that I insist you stop going in circles and talking irrelevant data without corroboration, I urge you to please read our rules.
You're disobeying them.

[Scotchmana]

PhDwannabe, on 2 November 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

What you're describing is not science. It's junk introspection. Period. It doesn't get us worthwhile therapies, or cancer drugs, or to the moon, or valid sociological observations. It doesn't get us anywhere. How should a layperson who might be reading this easily detect this fact? I'll show you:


Dear anyone who might be reading this: whenever anyone makes a pronouncement that begins with "The mind works by..." and then actually finishes the thought confidently with some short rubric or law... stop listening. Run in the other direction. You cannot, cannot, cannot express how the mind works in any such terms. You don't know how the mind works well enough to usefully sum it up in that manner. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. If anyone tries to, they're making it up. The end.


These are made up. These are not real psychometric instruments. That is not how psychometric instruments are named. Congratulations. You have made them up.

Well, you and I don't get along. You say I make everything I know up, I say your just rude. The mind is not complex at all and your view of it shows your comprehension of it.

Simplicity is the base parts that make up something. Complexity is a collection of simplicities. The degree of complexity is determined by the lack of one's ability to see the simplicities something is made of. And you sir are a complex man.

This post has been edited by Scotchmana: 2 November 2011 - 02:33 AM

[PhDwannabe]

Quote

You say I make everything I know up, I say your just rude.

You named three alleged IQ tests. Show them to me. Produce them.

[mooeypoo]

Scotchmana, on 2 November 2011 - 02:32 AM, said:

Well, you and I don't get along. You say I make everything I know up, I say your just rude. The mind is not complex at all and your view of it shows your comprehension of it.

Simplicity is the base parts that make up something. Complexity is a collection of simplicities. The degree of complexity is determined by the lack of one's ability to see the simplicities something is made of. And you sir are a complex man.

There's a very easy way to solve this, Scotchmana. All you need to do is post references to your claims, and prove your statement. That's all. Anything less is simply wild accusation.

Since you're the one who so far made the claims, it was up to you to provide proof for them, because that's the way things work -- the one who makes the claim has the responsibility to prove the claim. We have no responsibility to "disprove you". In science, we assume your statement is untrue until there's corroboration for it.

You insist on posting wild claims and provide zero evidence. Then when someone actually confronts you on consistency, you put another bigger claim with zero validation.

All you need to do is give us references. No one can argue with a proper reference.
Of course, you need to make sure the reference is unbiased and scientific. Yeah, we're demanding here in scienceforums. Go figure.

~mooey

[Scotchmana]

mooeypoo, on 2 November 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

There's a very easy way to solve this, Scotchmana. All you need to do is post references to your claims, and prove your statement. That's all. Anything less is simply wild accusation.

Since you're the one who so far made the claims, it was up to you to provide proof for them, because that's the way things work -- the one who makes the claim has the responsibility to prove the claim. We have no responsibility to "disprove you". In science, we assume your statement is untrue until there's corroboration for it.

You insist on posting wild claims and provide zero evidence. Then when someone actually confronts you on consistency, you put another bigger claim with zero validation.

All you need to do is give us references. No one can argue with a proper reference.
Of course, you need to make sure the reference is unbiased and scientific. Yeah, we're demanding here in scienceforums. Go figure.

~mooey

Thank you for your notice. If we assume I am not stupid (no hostility or second meaning intended) then perhaps I did in fact provide you with a means of corroboration. You just didn't see it. I understood the request and formatted it so Phd would not see it, I just provided it in a form you are unfamiliar with. I stated that it was my own discovery so am lacking internet sources to quote from also considering that I am 12 years removed from this branch of research I lack access to the references even if they were what you seek.

I know what I said looks like wild claims. It is! I knew that all along as well as the rules these forums have with the intention not to violate them even if I flexed them abit. Please keep in mind the invite in the OP to post your thoughts. "What's the psychological reason for this?" Did you think I would reproduce a study, an authoritative document all backing up my personal thoughts? I gave my thoughts. Phdwannabe was so fixed on his frame of thinking he mist the most obvious thing in front of his face. So I had fun with that! Why not? More outlandish and bigger claims without sound reasoning all because the request for explanation was flawed in the face of the context (the part about the IQ tests was perfectly valid however and I removed it right away).

Anyway, point taken, I will tone down my pranks.

This post has been edited by Scotchmana: 2 November 2011 - 03:55 AM

[mooeypoo]

Scotchmana, on 2 November 2011 - 03:41 AM, said:

Thank you for your notice. If we assume I am not stupid (no hostility or second meaning intended) then perhaps I did in fact provide you with a means of corroboration. You just didn't see it.

Alright, seriously, really? I'm not supposed to dig through things and verify what you're saying -- it's your responsibility to produce readable facts and corroboration.


You signed up to this forum and by that you agreed to its rules. We'd really love to have an open discussion, but you really need to follow our rules.

Quote

I understood the request and formatted it so Phd would not see it, I just provided it in a form you are unfamiliar with. I stated that it was my own discovery so am lacking internet sources to quote from also considering that I am 12 years removed from this branch of research I lack access to the references even if they were what you seek.

Why would you do that? Are you here to discuss science or troll the forum? Check the definition of "Internet Troll", friend, because that trick above fits that definition, and that definition equals a ban.


As you summarized it yourself - "tone down" your tricks. Rather, don't use any. We're not here to throw dirt and mock one another, we're here to discuss the topics scientifically.


No one expects you to have a PhD in the subject matter -- however, you're making the claim, so you need to substantiate it, especially when someone (like PhDwannabe) counters you.


It is up to the person making the claim to support the claim. It's not up to us to disprove it.

Quote

I know what I said looks like wild claims. It is! I knew that all along as well as the rules these forums have with the intention not to violate them even if I flexed them abit. Please keep in mind the invite in the OP to post your thoughts. "What's the psychological reason for this?" Did you think I would reproduce a study, an authoritative document all backing up my personal thoughts? I gave my thoughts. Phdwannabe was so fixed on his frame of thinking he mist the most obvious thing in front of his face. So I had fun with that! Why not? More outlandish and bigger claims without sound reasoning all because the request for explanation was flawed in the face of the context (the part about the IQ tests was perfectly valid however and I removed it right away).

Anyway, point taken, I will tone down my pranks.

Please do.






If you give your thoughts, be ready to have them analyzed, criticized and countered. This isn't a casual mythos forums site, it's a science-oriented forum which means we follow the scientific methodology. First, if these are your opinions, *mark them as such*. Saying "in my opinion, X is true" will produce much less animosity than saying "X is true because I've seen it for myself" which is, essentially, what you said.


It's really simple - mark opinion as opinion (which I hope you agree is fair) and backup factual claims with facts (which I hope you agree is fair).


And read our rules, too, and I suggest you go over this post too, it's very helpful in seeing how to define thoughts versus actual scientific claims, and explain what people expect you to produce when you make claims.


~mooey

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Please review the forum rules.

In science it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to present the evidence, here, Scotchmana that is you.