2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on March 05, 2017, 11:44:35 AM
-
https://youtu.be/qN5L2q6hfWo
-
Nye is as big a fake and hack as algore. He apparently never had a job as an engineer.
Anyone that has gone to an engineering school knows the mech engineering majors (ME) are generally the dumbest.
Figures he would try a scam like this, algore likely is advising him how to play it.
-
https://youtu.be/qN5L2q6hfWo
"settled science" or "proven fact"?
-
"settled science" or "proven fact"?
It's obvious Bill Nye is "a scientist at heart."
-
Nye is as big a fake and hack as algore. He apparently never had a job as an engineer.
Anyone that has gone to an engineering school knows the mech engineering majors (ME) are generally the dumbest.
Figures he would try a scam like this, algore likely is advising him how to play it.
I'm taking it you're not a mechanical engineer. . . ;D
I at the engineering school that I went to, I would say that "less intelligence inclined" were the traditional civil engineers (CE) and the civil/environmental engineers (CEE). That said, after the 200 level, I didn't interact that much with the MEs or EEs (electrical). I would have many CE and CEE in my classes and they typically helped round out the low end of the bell curve. ;)
In practice, I would say that CE typically requires less higher technical knowledgege, in General. crap roles down hill. >:(
-
Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video. Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false. He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict. Basically akin to someone in the 1900s demanding the exact size of earth just to prove it is round. Technology back then had no way to prove the exact dimensions of earth. But we all know it now and that it is indeed round. I feel Bill is a net positive for the move toward science he is helping young people get into science.
-
Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video. Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false. He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict. Basically akin to someone in the 1900s demanding the exact size of earth just to prove it is round. Technology back then had no way to prove the exact dimensions of earth. But we all know it now and that it is indeed round. I feel Bill is a net positive for the move toward science he is helping young people get into science.
i'm not surprised you think nye won...
-
Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video. Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false. He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict. Basically akin to someone in the 1900s demanding the exact size of earth just to prove it is round. Technology back then had no way to prove the exact dimensions of earth. But we all know it now and that it is indeed round. I feel Bill is a net positive for the move toward science he is helping young people get into science.
If you only argue conclusions and can't cite the supporting facts, then you win nothing.
It's a basic question based on a basic premise Nye was stating. If MAN is causing climate change, we MUST be able to prove that. To do so, we must know to what degree that's happening.
Nye is relying on his own "common sense" to tell him the conclusion without having any concrete data to back it up. That's the whole Climate Change debate in a nutshell.
When you push a belief, that's not science. That's religion.
-
Anyone that has gone to an engineering school knows the mech engineering majors (ME) are generally the dumbest.
Not sure I went to an "engineering school" but presuming I did, the figure is currently at Anyone - 2 people. :)
-
If you only argue conclusions and can't cite the supporting facts, then you win nothing.
It's a basic question based on a basic premise Nye was stating. If MAN is causing climate change, we MUST be able to prove that. To do so, we must know to what degree that's happening.
Nye is relying on his own "common sense" to tell him the conclusion without having any concrete data to back it up. That's the whole Climate Change debate in a nutshell.
When you push a belief, that's not science. That's religion.
If you scream for facts that a person doesn't have and use that as an excuse that you won clearly you haven't won. Religion is 100% belief with no proof or "science". Climate change and bill are probably around 80% proven. But harping on the missing 20% to deny everything is dumb.
-
If you scream for facts that a person doesn't have and use that as an excuse that you won clearly you haven't won. Religion is 100% belief with no proof or "science". Climate change and bill are probably around 80% proven. But harping on the missing 20% to deny everything is dumb.
wait 80%?
i thought it was a "proven fact"?
or as your TV friend says "settled science"?
-
Not sure I went to an "engineering school" but presuming I did, the figure is currently at Anyone - 2 people. :)
All right "Most other engineering majors"
There were several ME types in my basic AC/DC circuits class taking it for the 2nd and 3rd times. School required cross-discipline classes and they just could not pass this one. The rest of us had no problem with static and dynamic, stregth of materials, etc.
-
wait 80%?
i thought it was a "proven fact"?
or as your TV friend says "settled science"?
"are probably around 80% proven"
Talk about pulling crap out of your butt. Just as easy to write "are probably around 80%" psuedo-religious BS.
-
I'm taking it you're not a mechanical engineer. . . ;D
EE
Never ran into any CE types that I was aware of.
-
If you scream for facts that a person doesn't have and use that as an excuse that you won clearly you haven't won. Religion is 100% belief with no proof or "science". Climate change and bill are probably around 80% proven. But harping on the missing 20% to deny everything is dumb.
See what happens when you have no facts? You use words like "probably" and "around".
That's why Climate Change is a THEORY, and NOT a fact-based, provable LAW. Laws, like gravity -- which you like to bring up -- are indisputable, proven and predictable. Climate change is not any of these. The margin of error so far on all these climate related disasters is 100%. Why is the latest one any better?
Sorry, dude. Your religion might be based on some percentage of actual truth, but so are other religions. I've studied it. Stories in the Bible actually did happen. There are plenty of other, independent writings which corroborate the basic facts of Jesus actually living and visiting the places in the Bible. The census that took Mary & Joseph to Bethlehem was documented. The parting of the Red Sea was also recorded -- not as a religious story of God parting the waters, but of the Reed Sea, where it was mostly muddy swampland. The chariots of Egypt would have gotten bogged down there, and the winds blowing would have dried the land enough for the freed slaves to "assist" God in smiting the soldiers, now that the slaves were greater in number and without chariots to fight against. All recorded as history.
So, you keep believing, but don't act like your beliefs are better than any others' until you can prove them.
-
Just watched the video. It wasn't a debate, at all. Just dancing around the questions that couldn't be answered by "science".
The discussion was regarding documentation (I'll avoid using the word prove here) about the ASSERTION that evidence of climate change is the rate at which the climate is changing. Nye went on to quote documentation of events that appear to document climate change. I don't think anyone would really deny that the global climate is changing. The key question in this discussion is what is the cause. If one points to the rate in which climate change is progressing as evidence that humans are the cause, but yet cannot answer the questions let alone document facts to support that ASSERTION, it's just a belief.
Ok, devil's advocate. Carlson's question about what would the climate be like if there are no humans to me isn't a "fair" one. Sort of like the Back to the Future deal where events of the past change the future. I don't think anyone can say with the level of certainty that would be required to prove something to assert that if humans never started burning coal that the sea levels wouldn't be rising at the rate they are today. That Nye points out the "fact" that wine producers are having to grow their crops further north than every before is perhaps an interesting tid-bit of information, but hardly proves that the global climate would be where it was in 1750 (or whatever the year he said).
If one is to cite data to prove something, one has to take into overall context of that data. Nye starts by saying that the last ice age was 10,000 years ago and then goes on to say something about effects are apparent over millions of years. Rate of change is measureable change over time. Nye couldn't answer either, at least to me. It wasn't a debate. It was someone spewing their stubbornly held beliefs and stating phenomenon that they believe as linked to that phenomenon. When the "debate" strays to appealing to Carlson's emotions about caring for his children is when I tend to roll my eyes.
To me, it all goes back to what is the main issue. In my mind, the main issue here is the money that is being allocated to solving the "climate change problem" and that money is coming from all of us. If I am going to pay for something, you better be able to convince me that it's worth it. Not just a "trust me, I'm a scientist and know better than anyone" view point. Yes, I may ultimately pay for the "climate change problem", which to me, at least right now seems to be a solution searching for a problem in that it has yet to be proven what causes climate change.
Ok. People would get sick. Say a local juju-man noticed that after a sick person sneezed in the presence of another and that the other would then get sick, the juju-man blamed it on the "rush of bad juju coming from the sick person and bad spirits causing transfer of bad juju". Well, what was really happening is the sick person was spreading microscopic germs (bacteria, virus, etc) that caused the illness. However, at that time, there wasn't any technology to prove that was happening, so the local juju-man's explanation was accepted as truth, which was really for the lack of better understanding. Hell, it's common sense right. Sick man sneezes, another gets sick, sneeze caused sickness. Well, yeah, the sneeze is that contributed to the transfer of the germs, but as it turns out, wasn't the root cause. In this case, maybe man's actions are the root cause, but it is up to those who assert that that is the case to prove their point, not for the skeptics to prove otherwise.
-
EE
Never ran into any CE types that I was aware of.
:thumbsup:
More just friendly teasing. Interestingly, MEs used to have one of the highest salaries in the industry. Or at least they used to. However, they carry the highest rate of lawsuits for negligence. The data showed that for many years, but it's been a while since I saw that data. I used to tease the MEs on our design team about that. Yeah, there's other things going on behind the rate of lawsuits and mostly part of being a sort of low hanging fruit. That said, it didn't stop us non-MEs from ribbing the MEs. ;D
-
Looks like bill nye won the debate in the video.
Not even close.
Basically tucker was screaming that since he didn't have the exact percentage everything he said is false.
What Tucker said is true. If this science is "settled", then anyone who believes can say with 100% certainty and with evidence to back it up exactly how much humans affect the climate. And since he couldn't, and you can't either, the science is obviously not "settled" and is completely open to debate. You have no proof and as I posted in an earlier thread, the numbers don't lie. You can deny the truth all you want but you can't answer the one big question that is so completely relevant to this discussion. Without the knowledge of how much humans affect the climate then the discussion of so called climate change is moot.
He is asking for evidence that humans at this point in technology cant predict.
To use your own words against you... If humans don't know at this point how much they affect the climate then no one can say at all with any definity that humans DO affect the climate in any shape form or manner.
As I stated my position before, I believe that humans do pollute enough that we can affect the climate in some way. The problem is the numbers don't lie. The affect, if any is so small that it is not even worth talking about. After the numbers proving that humans cannot affect the climate enough to make a difference, and the fact that your own words show that the science is far from settled and no where near exact, for you to say that the science is 100% correct without being able to give a definitive answer as to how much it affects the climate just proves the science is not exact, not settled and cannot predict how much, if any humans are affecting the climate.
-
That position seems extreme, I question whether or not you stated or recognize your own position correctly. You believe it is proven that humans cannot affect the climate enough to make a difference?
-
Say a local juju-man noticed that after a sick person sneezed in the presence of another and that the other would then get sick, the juju-man blamed it on the "rush of bad juju coming from the sick person and bad spirits causing transfer of bad juju". Well, what was really happening is the sick person was spreading microscopic germs (bacteria, virus, etc) that caused the illness. However, at that time, there wasn't any technology to prove that was happening, so the local juju-man's explanation was accepted as truth, which was really for the lack of better understanding.
Haha! However I would suggest not to underestimate the juju-man, his explanation is not really that much worse, mostly just different terminology and a shallower understanding. Remember, "modern" medicine used to perform lobotomies and suck blood out with leeches not long ago. "Current" medicine in my opinion is just as bad with our acceptance of the ridiculous idea of "mental illness". Or the way we "treat" Alzheimer's thinking its due to chemical imbalances in brain fluids (I suspect it's a much more fundamental problem such as the loss/death of brain cells with age, or perhaps a limitation with animal intelligence itself i.e. running out of hard drive space).
Another disturbing analogy -- the current "judicial" system versus the middle ages "church" system. If you replace the terminology, priests with judges, banishment/stoning with imprisonment/injection, religious law with fuzzy corrupt politician law....is it really so different?
-
wait 80%?
i thought it was a "proven fact"?
or as your TV friend says "settled science"?
Its settled we know we are at fault, we know the climate is changing but we don't know exactly how. That doesn't mean its a false fact....We don't exactly know the entire reason/how the big bang happened but we are 95% sure it did. Does this mean with your definitions its false?
See what happens when you have no facts? You use words like "probably" and "around".
That's why Climate Change is a THEORY, and NOT a fact-based, provable LAW. Laws, like gravity -- which you like to bring up -- are indisputable, proven and predictable. Climate change is not any of these. The margin of error so far on all these climate related disasters is 100%. Why is the latest one any better?
Sorry, dude. Your religion might be based on some percentage of actual truth, but so are other religions. I've studied it. Stories in the Bible actually did happen. There are plenty of other, independent writings which corroborate the basic facts of Jesus actually living and visiting the places in the Bible. The census that took Mary & Joseph to Bethlehem was documented. The parting of the Red Sea was also recorded -- not as a religious story of God parting the waters, but of the Reed Sea, where it was mostly muddy swampland. The chariots of Egypt would have gotten bogged down there, and the winds blowing would have dried the land enough for the freed slaves to "assist" God in smiting the soldiers, now that the slaves were greater in number and without chariots to fight against. All recorded as history.
So, you keep believing, but don't act like your beliefs are better than any others' until you can prove them.
Yeah no all religions are basically fake. Sure some of the coincidence stores might be sorta rooted in truth but that ain't no sign of a god. Its simple coincidence. Random events that people interpret it as something greater. Then they embellish said stories as some sort of proof of their god. Jesus was probably a real person so what? Anyone can start a cult/religion and make themselves one of the main people in it. Look at cult leaders saying they are the reborn jesus. Sure Mary cheated on Joseph had a kid, said the kid was "gods" son and poor Joseph believed it. Hell this story happens all the time nowdays. But you don't people saying god made this baby anymore cause its crazy. The red sea, wow it got muddy/dried up....must be proof of god. When there are random storms that kill enemy troops. Must be god, no other reason could be plausible right?
-
That position seems extreme, I question whether or not you stated or recognize your own position correctly. You believe it is proven that humans cannot affect the climate enough to make a difference?
No, what I am saying is no scientist is willing to take an stance on how much humans affect the climate. That is because they really don't know. So much for an exact science. So since no one knows how much humans actually affect the climate it can be any where from let's say 0.1% up to let's take a stab at 50%. I get these numbers from various different papers I have read. It is all very vague. The one thing that I have read is a lot scientists agree on is that natural occurring pollution is much worse that man made pollution. Which is why I have not seen a number speculating higher than 50%. I mostly have seen between 2.5% and 10%. But even those numbers are only speculation.
Since there is no scientific data to support any premise that man is affecting the climate to any significant amount, and since the scientific community is not willing to take a stance and put a number on it, no one really knows. My premise is then since there is no scientific evidence to support a number, no one who believes in climate change can honestly argue that humans affect the climate in any significant way. Hell, the scientists couldn't even agree that the earth was cooling 30-40 years ago. They called it global cooling. Then they said the climate is warming. And called it global warming. Then when they saw a slight cooling trend again they called it climate change.
Maybe someday we will know more with more studying over the next few hundred years.
I hope I made my position clearer.
-
"interpenetrate'
...
-
Yeah that's a totally reasonable position to take. Probably the correct, unbiased position.
-
That position seems extreme, I question whether or not you stated or recognize your own position correctly. You believe it is proven that humans cannot affect the climate enough to make a difference?
Were you addressing a particular comment/person?
-
Haha! However I would suggest not to underestimate the juju-man, his explanation is not really that much worse, mostly just different terminology and a shallower understanding. Remember, "modern" medicine used to perform lobotomies and suck blood out with leeches not long ago. "Current" medicine in my opinion is just as bad with our acceptance of the ridiculous idea of "mental illness". Or the way we "treat" Alzheimer's thinking its due to chemical imbalances in brain fluids (I suspect it's a much more fundamental problem such as the loss/death of brain cells with age, or perhaps a limitation with animal intelligence itself i.e. running out of hard drive space).
Another disturbing analogy -- the current "judicial" system versus the middle ages "church" system. If you replace the terminology, priests with judges, banishment/stoning with imprisonment/injection, religious law with fuzzy corrupt politician law....is it really so different?
How many religions have a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and limits on the church's / leader's powers? Your comparison could just as easily be applied to any student government body that follows Roberts Rules of Order and democratically votes on decisions. I fail to see the analogy when it comes to medicine and science. It's nice to know symptoms and things that might cure them, but without the knowledge of why diseases and infections happen, the cure may be more dangerous than the disease.
-
Its settled we know we are at fault, we know the climate is changing but we don't know exactly how. That doesn't mean its a false fact...
But, it could mean you are a borderline hysteric.
Just how old are you?
-
But, it could mean you are a borderline hysteric.
Just how old are you?
Borderline? Have you not been following the Climate Change threads? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Its settled we know we are at fault, we know the climate is changing but we don't know exactly how. That doesn't mean its a false fact....We don't exactly know the entire reason/how the big bang happened but we are 95% sure it did. Does this mean with your definitions its false?
Yeah no all religions are basically fake. Sure some of the coincidence stores might be sorta rooted in truth but that ain't no sign of a god. Its simple coincidence. Random events that people interpret it as something greater. Then they embellish said stories as some sort of proof of their god. Jesus was probably a real person so what? Anyone can start a cult/religion and make themselves one of the main people in it. Look at cult leaders saying they are the reborn jesus. Sure Mary cheated on Joseph had a kid, said the kid was "gods" son and poor Joseph believed it. Hell this story happens all the time nowdays. But you don't people saying god made this baby anymore cause its crazy. The red sea, wow it got muddy/dried up....must be proof of god. When there are random storms that kill enemy troops. Must be god, no other reason could be plausible right?
Why are you so against the teachings of religions? I'm not arguing for the belief aspect. I'm making a parallel argument that goes along with your assertion. You said a certain percentage of Climate Change is based on facts. I'm saying Christianity is also base in some part on facts. Both require some degree of faith to fill in the unknown parts, true?
You don't have to believe in the things the Bible teaches, but you DO have to acknowledge it's not based 100% on fiction and imagination. It has basis in fact. To think science has some sort of corner on the market when it comes to facts is ridiculous.
-
Borderline? Have you not been following the Climate Change threads? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
and his threads where he starts to "prove" religion isn't real?
and his threads where he wants to sterilize/euthanize people who he sees as inferior?
-
But, it could mean you are a borderline hysteric.
Just how old are you?
No idea how hysteric fits
Hysteric - hysteria, wildness, feverishness, irrationality, frenzy, loss of control, delirium, derangement, mania
How old do you think i am?
-
Why are you so against the teachings of religions? I'm not arguing for the belief aspect. I'm making a parallel argument that goes along with your assertion. You said a certain percentage of Climate Change is based on facts. I'm saying Christianity is also base in some part on facts. Both require some degree of faith to fill in the unknown parts, true?
You don't have to believe in the things the Bible teaches, but you DO have to acknowledge it's not based 100% on fiction and imagination. It has basis in fact. To think science has some sort of corner on the market when it comes to facts is ridiculous.
I'm against you saying religion is logical when its not, then 5 seconds later calling me out on climate change which has alot more proof behind it. I told you what its based on. Some of the basic events probably happened. The people lived. They gave birth, some natural disasters happened etc. But that doesn't prove anything that god exists. After the some realish events a dude made a cult for people to follow on. Doesn't even prove that god exists a little bit. No one can prove god till he comes and shows himself or you meet him after death. There is no real other method. Hence I will either meet him or not after I die. Honestly I hope he does exist, I try to live life as if he does (morally).
-
I'm against you saying religion is logical when its not, then 5 seconds later calling me out on climate change which has alot more proof behind it. I told you what its based on. Some realish events that a dude made a cult for people to follow on. Doesn't even prove that god exists a little bit.
It's all a matter of degree, and which of these you put your faith in.
I don't put my faith in a government pushing a "sky is falling" Climate Change "theory" while having a not-so-great track record, failed predictions, and a "do as I say, not a I do" attitude toward a "crisis."
For that, you call me a "denier" and too stupid to believe in "science."
Christianity as an institution has benefits that include moral teachings, faith in a higher power beyond themselves (called humility), and provides comfort in times of grief and stress. Those are all positive things.
For that, you call those who believe in God ignorant.
You're not really good at this salesmanship thing, are you?
-
It's all a matter of degree, and which of these you put your faith in.
I don't put my faith in a government pushing a "sky is falling" Climate Change "theory" while having a not-so-great track record, failed predictions, and a "do as I say, not a I do" attitude toward a "crisis."
For that, you call me a "denier" and too stupid to believe in "science."
Christianity as an institution has benefits that include moral teachings, faith in a higher power beyond themselves (called humility), and provides comfort in times of grief and stress. Those are all positive things.
For that, you call those who believe in God ignorant.
You're not really good at this salesmanship thing, are you?
I elaborating a bit in my edit. The teaching of morality is the main reason why religion exists to this day. It does indeed serve a purpose in that sense I'm not denying that. But we don't need it anymore in the age of science we can be taught to be better humans for the sake of humanity. Hopefully we have evolved to that point. Also fyi I am by no means signalling out Christianity. Honestly its one of the better religions out there.
There is a reason why religion and science cant really be argued at once. They are polar opposites. One is rooted in blind belief. One is rooted in fact. Climate change has a real root in real science, while not 100% proven I would dare to say its around 80% there. Much like many things in this universe that we don't fully understand it 100%. But to deny something with a lot of evidence because it isn't perfect is foolish. You would be denying how the universe works.
-
Nye is as big a fake and hack as algore. He apparently never had a job as an engineer.
Anyone that has gone to an engineering school knows the mech engineering majors (ME) are generally the dumbest.
Figures he would try a scam like this, algore likely is advising him how to play it.
He apparently did have a job as an engineer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
The exchange was interesting. Tucker was trying to at least pretend to be objective but he seemed to be pushing a point rather than challenging Nye. I don't know why Nye has become a face for man influenced climate change, maybe it is because he is more charismatic than most scientists (not generally known to be so), but either way he has. At one point Tucker did get out a specific question about what weather would be like had man not been an influence and Nye answered it giving a year as a time frame. Tucker was either too busy interrupting to hear the answer or just didn't catch it because he kept pushing the same line of questions. When Nye answered the second time then well the argument sort of lost steam. Neither side had a very impressive performance.
-
while not 100% proven I would dare to say its around 80% there.
"proven fact"?
-
signalling out
???
-
I elaborating a bit in my edit. The teaching of morality is the main reason why religion exists to this day. It does indeed serve a purpose in that sense I'm not denying that. But we don't need it anymore in the age of science we can be taught to be better humans for the sake of humanity. Hopefully we have evolved to that point. Also fyi I am by no means signalling out Christianity. Honestly its one of the better religions out there.
There is a reason why religion and science cant really be argued at once. They are polar opposites. One is rooted in blind belief. One is rooted in fact. Climate change has a real root in real science, while not 100% proven I would dare to say its around 80% there. Much like many things in this universe that we don't fully understand it 100%. But to deny something with a lot of evidence because it isn't perfect is foolish. You would be denying how the universe works.
I guess you've never studied the SCIENCE of Human Behavior.
So many variables, but to name a few:
1. No matter how one is raised, there is no way to predict how that individual will behave toward society. The worst cases are labeled sociopaths. They aren't always serial killers. Sometimes they become First Lady, US Senator, Secretary of State, and runner-up for President!
2. Self-interest can not be untaught. People will choose what's in their own self interest if there is an attitude of "everyone else would do the same thing."
3. Not all environments or parents are created equal. Therefore, you can't apply science to raising kids unless you intend to hand over all newborns for government indoctrination and education.
4. Punishment only stops repeated bad behavior (if it works). Instilling a set of personal values works much better. Rather than a set of does and don'ts, it's better to have a broad set of guidelines to base decisions on. Love thy neighbor, "What would Jesus Do?" and the 10 Commandments are all meant to offer guidance, not legal rules that must be obeyed.
5. "Integrity" is doing what's right even when you think no one is watching. Having a belief that everything you do affects your soul is a way of instilling a desire to always do good. Doing bad when you know you can get away with it is not the objective of creating good members of society.
As far as Science and Religion being polar opposites, that really shows your immaturity and inexperience. Scientist rarely create basic truths. They discover them. That means gravity, life, properties of water, and so on all existed before scientists started categorizing, analyzing, dissecting, and recording everything. Why is it a polar opposite" viewpoint if a scientist (or just one at heart) also believes these miracles of nature were part of a preordained plan, which we haven't discovered yet?
We've created so many technological "miracles" in the last century, it's difficult for anyone born after 1980 to imagine a world were these things didn't exist. Just because man took the steps to discover and apply his knowledge to manufacture these things in no way precludes one from having a belief that there is a reason for them to exist as they do in the first place.
-
Honestly I hope he does exist, I try to live life as if he does (morally).
wow
just wow
-
wow
just wow
Shhhhh. Don't tell the other agnostics!
I think we're converting him! :)
-
In my opinion the study of human behavior as it is performed in today's academic world is 98% religion and 2% science. It's pretend science in order to seem more authentic, trick the masses, and gather more followers. Real science, as you said, only studies concrete observables such as gravity, the properties of water, etc.
If followed properly as it is written, the Constitution would go a long way to prevent the judiciary from acting like the Church of old. But the Bill of Rights is poorly followed when it comes to 2A, 1A, 4A, etc. Instead we have a judiciary that is corrupt and influenced by politics, resulting in fuzzy law which could be said to be no different from the values-imposing system of the Church in the middle ages.
-
In my opinion the study of human behavior as it is performed in today's academic world is 98% religion and 2% science. It's pretend science in order to seem more authentic, trick the masses, and gather more followers. Real science, as you said, only studies concrete observables such as gravity, the properties of water, etc.
If followed properly as it is written, the Constitution would go a long way to prevent the judiciary from acting like the Church of old. But the Bill of Rights is poorly followed when it comes to 2A, 1A, 4A, etc. Instead we have a judiciary that is corrupt and influenced by politics, resulting in fuzzy law which could be said to be no different from the values-imposing system of the Church in the middle ages.
You ever watch shows like "Lie to Me" and "Bull", the new one with Michael Weatherly? While every case has variables, the basic truths tend to hold for human behavior, making analysis and prediction possible. It's no different than the FBI's profiling experts.
Hard sciences are like chemistry and physics, where the formulas will most times give consistent and predictable results.
Soft sciences require expertise in the basics and experience so the case can be properly analyzed.
"Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity.
Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft"."
Science requires a a methodology, repeatable results and applications in the real world. I realize you're stating pure opinion with the "98% religion" comment, but there's no set ratio like that. Each case will be slightly different given the variances in factors impacting the behavior.
Let's face it. If human behavior wasn't predictable and easily manipulated, Las Vegas would have gone bust long ago! >:D
-
Haha! However I would suggest not to underestimate the juju-man, his explanation is not really that much worse, mostly just different terminology and a shallower understanding. Remember, "modern" medicine used to perform lobotomies and suck blood out with leeches not long ago. "Current" medicine in my opinion is just as bad with our acceptance of the ridiculous idea of "mental illness". Or the way we "treat" Alzheimer's thinking its due to chemical imbalances in brain fluids (I suspect it's a much more fundamental problem such as the loss/death of brain cells with age, or perhaps a limitation with animal intelligence itself i.e. running out of hard drive space).
Another disturbing analogy -- the current "judicial" system versus the middle ages "church" system. If you replace the terminology, priests with judges, banishment/stoning with imprisonment/injection, religious law with fuzzy corrupt politician law....is it really so different?
I wasn't discounting or underestimating the juju-man. Haha ;D Like in the movie Outbreak. The juju-man was basically right. In that case, the reason why people were getting sick wasn't important to the difference between the juju-man and Dustin Hoffman. But it wasn't the juju-man who prevented catastrophe with his spells.
Was just making light that the juju-man was lucky as opposed to being good/right. Well, maybe it is better to be lucky than good. But that's the point, at least in my mind. Are we spending the money on a policy that is lucky or good? Seems like many are satisfied being forced to pay for what essentially at this point is faith and hopes that their beliefs are right. Or essentially hoping that they are lucky.
Well, I would say that your example of modern science (lobotomies) should be viewed as bad science. Just another quack with a theory or belief that ends up hurting people as opposed to helping. Ever thought that that is the case for climate change?
-
You ever watch shows like "Lie to Me" and "Bull", the new one with Michael Weatherly? While every case has variables, the basic truths tend to hold for human behavior, making analysis and prediction possible. It's no different than the FBI's profiling experts.
Hard sciences are like chemistry and physics, where the formulas will most times give consistent and predictable results.
Soft sciences require expertise in the basics and experience so the case can be properly analyzed.
"Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity.
Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft"."
Science requires a a methodology, repeatable results and applications in the real world. I realize you're stating pure opinion with the "98% religion" comment, but there's no set ratio like that. Each case will be slightly different given the variances in factors impacting the behavior.
Let's face it. If human behavior wasn't predictable and easily manipulated, Las Vegas would have gone bust long ago! >:D
I am in a profession that is ruled by physics. It's that hard science aspect that I enjoy. I can prove to you that I am right by the LAWS of physics. Yeah, there are architects who still believe in antigravity or that a beam that is designed to span 20 feet can somehow be manipulated to span 40 feet based on beliefs. Well, if you believe so, set up the beam and stand under it when you load it. That will prove to you that it doesn't work. . . ;D Sometimes lessons are best learned the hard way.
I've also learned through courses in leadership and management that the brain takes in and processes information differently. Meyers-Briggs and others really show that dynamic. When I was in a leadership development program, there were two other engineers in my group with two marine biologists. They marine biologists were very nice people, but it just seemed like they somehow just weren't getting what I was talking about with the engineers and vice-versa, even where at times it seems like we were in complete agreement on an issue. When we were in a course where we had to take the Meyers-Briggs test, it wasn't really a surprises that the marine biologists were on the opposite ends of the spectrum on all except for the intro/extravert. There are examples of how each "side" would go about solving a problem of approaching an issue and each group had to list things on a board. When the groups revealed to each other the other's points, it was like we were talking to aliens. It really hit home on how differently people can view various topics.
One example of how differently people thing, especially in extremes was in the part of thinking vs feeling. A female marine biologist was extreme to the feeling side (I know, shocking right). Anyways, the discussion was about how the main point of the exercise is to realize how the thinkers and feelers approach things differently. That the important thing is to realize that one is not better than the other, just different and that is important to respect the other view points. She seemed to nod her head in agreement, but sort of had this look like something was stewing in there. When asked later, she was still super frustrated why people didn't seem to understand her view and how she felt the feeling view point was better. Total facepalm from the group, even those who leaned toward feeling.
In school, I did well in biology, but it just didn't click like things did with physics and chemistry. Hence I didn't pursue a career in the fields of biology and other soft science. Anyways, just thinking that we have people here who like to argue extremes. While I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and try to see their view points, but when they are so set that they can't see the forest beyond the trees. . . maybe one day they will hit one of the trees.
-
I am in a profession that is ruled by physics. It's that hard science aspect that I enjoy. I can prove to you that I am right by the LAWS of physics. Yeah, there are architects who still believe in antigravity or that a beam that is designed to span 20 feet can somehow be manipulated to span 40 feet based on beliefs. Well, if you believe so, set up the beam and stand under it when you load it. That will prove to you that it doesn't work. . . ;D Sometimes lessons are best learned the hard way.
I've also learned through courses in leadership and management that the brain takes in and processes information differently. Meyers-Briggs and others really show that dynamic. When I was in a leadership development program, there were two other engineers in my group with two marine biologists. They marine biologists were very nice people, but it just seemed like they somehow just weren't getting what I was talking about with the engineers and vice-versa, even where at times it seems like we were in complete agreement on an issue. When we were in a course where we had to take the Meyers-Briggs test, it wasn't really a surprises that the marine biologists were on the opposite ends of the spectrum on all except for the intro/extravert. There are examples of how each "side" would go about solving a problem of approaching an issue and each group had to list things on a board. When the groups revealed to each other the other's points, it was like we were talking to aliens. It really hit home on how differently people can view various topics.
One example of how differently people thing, especially in extremes was in the part of thinking vs feeling. A female marine biologist was extreme to the feeling side (I know, shocking right). Anyways, the discussion was about how the main point of the exercise is to realize how the thinkers and feelers approach things differently. That the important thing is to realize that one is not better than the other, just different and that is important to respect the other view points. She seemed to nod her head in agreement, but sort of had this look like something was stewing in there. When asked later, she was still super frustrated why people didn't seem to understand her view and how she felt the feeling view point was better. Total facepalm from the group, even those who leaned toward feeling.
In school, I did well in biology, but it just didn't click like things did with physics and chemistry. Hence I didn't pursue a career in the fields of biology and other soft science. Anyways, just thinking that we have people here who like to argue extremes. While I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and try to see their view points, but when they are so set that they can't see the forest beyond the trees. . . maybe one day they will hit one of the trees.
my meyers-briggs test result is ESPN
-
my meyers-briggs test result is ESPN
:rofl:
Wonder if everyone will catch on to that "code". ;D
-
Honestly I hope he does exist, I try to live life as if he does (morally).
That's exactly how I "feel"... about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
-
wow
just wow
Shhhhh. Don't tell the other agnostics!
I think we're converting him! :)
If you bothered to look up agnostic you can see that I neither believe or disbelieve in god. Haven't changed my opinion in the slightest. I'm not an atheist. I just try to live a good life if he exists good, if he doesn't that's fine too. I will find the truth out when I die.
That's exactly how I "feel"... about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Lol those don't exist. I have an atheist viewpoint on that.
-
That's exactly how I "feel"... about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
what about the tooth fairy?
-
I believe in Santa the same way I believe in God. They are spirits that live on in the hearts and minds of people. As long as people believe in doing the things these spirits represent -- selflessness, giving, loving your neighbors, bringing joy to others for no other reason than the joy it brings you -- then they exist.
I try to be Santa every year, even now that the kids are grown. I try to surprise at least one in the family with something they would love to have, but had no idea they could get it. -- or even that I knew that's what they wanted or needed.
If you want to be happy, spend your time trying to make someone else happy.
-
:rofl:
Wonder if everyone will catch on to that "code". ;D
i shudder to think what the description is if your meyers-briggs result is OMNI
-
Never seen Lie to Me, Bull, or Outbreak, but maybe someday I'll increase my juju. As long as the differences between "hard science" and "soft science" are acknowledged then I'd say we are in pretty good agreement. It's just a difference in terminology, as I am uncomfortable letting the soft/social fields call themselves sciences at all.
When I was in college I occasionally tried to guess peoples' majors. It was easy to be right for girls by always guessing they were biology majors. Some girls might be chemistry majors, but few were in any "harder" field than that. My college didn't have any humanities majors.
I've not really gotten into my views on climate change yet, but I would say they are close to those of some here. I'm skeptical and I think the science is far from proven one way or the other. Good to see a skeptical LEED guy here, though I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'm possibly a bit more open to forcing conservation upon nonbelievers, if only because our government forces a ton of crap on us anyway. Though I hate it personally -- paying for bottles, cans, and plastic bags at grocery stores is BS. Sometimes I am tempted to pollute on purpose to rebel against such forced conservation measures.
-
Never seen Lie to Me, Bull, or Outbreak, but maybe someday I'll increase my juju. As long as the differences between "hard science" and "soft science" are acknowledged then I'd say we are in pretty good agreement. It's just a difference in terminology, as I am uncomfortable letting the soft/social fields call themselves sciences at all.
When I was in college I occasionally tried to guess peoples' majors. It was easy to be right for girls by always guessing they were biology majors. Some girls might be chemistry majors, but few were in any "harder" field than that. My college didn't have any humanities majors.
I've not really gotten into my views on climate change yet, but I would say they are close to those of some here. I'm skeptical and I think the science is far from proven one way or the other. Good to see a skeptical LEED guy here, though I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'm possibly a bit more open to forcing conservation upon nonbelievers, if only because our government forces a ton of crap on us anyway. Though I hate it personally -- paying for bottles, cans, and plastic bags at grocery stores is BS. Sometimes I am tempted to pollute on purpose to rebel against such forced conservation measures.
I'm a computer scientist, so the engineering training and mentality I have is not much different than an ME, EE, etc.
However, when it comes to problem solving and troubleshooting, I sometimes rely on similar techniques as psychologists. I call it, "Computer Behavior Analysis." It's based on experience more than a specific process. Troubleshooting processes are limited and take too long when a system needs to be running NOW!!
So, based on "symptoms," 9 times out of 10 I can isolate the area of the problem. If I didn't have the basic skills and education, and years of experience coupled with insight into HOW a computer system functions, I wouldn't be able to narrow down the approximate cause as quickly.
I used to do Error Analysis and Recovery problem resolution on the AWACS -- one of the most sophisticated and complicated aircraft in the nation at the time. When you have to track down causes of errors in listings of hexadecimal dumps, and be able to conclude if the issue was coding, data or possibly hardware, you get good at "computer behavior!"
-
i shudder to think what the description is if your meyers-briggs result is OMNI
mfw i did the test and got ISTJ
-
Never seen Lie to Me, Bull, or Outbreak, but maybe someday I'll increase my juju. As long as the differences between "hard science" and "soft science" are acknowledged then I'd say we are in pretty good agreement. It's just a difference in terminology, as I am uncomfortable letting the soft/social fields call themselves sciences at all.
When I was in college I occasionally tried to guess peoples' majors. It was easy to be right for girls by always guessing they were biology majors. Some girls might be chemistry majors, but few were in any "harder" field than that. My college didn't have any humanities majors.
I've not really gotten into my views on climate change yet, but I would say they are close to those of some here. I'm skeptical and I think the science is far from proven one way or the other. Good to see a skeptical LEED guy here, though I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'm possibly a bit more open to forcing conservation upon nonbelievers, if only because our government forces a ton of crap on us anyway. Though I hate it personally -- paying for bottles, cans, and plastic bags at grocery stores is BS. Sometimes I am tempted to pollute on purpose to rebel against such forced conservation measures.
Based on that response, it appears that you are or lean "hard science" as opposed to "soft science". That said, what are your views on climate change? I thought I recall you commenting about climate change in another thread, but maybe not (or I can't recall and too lazy to go back).
Maybe a difference in terminology, but I think at least in this discussion and other similar threads, it seems to revolve on what constitutes proof, calls for proving that something doesn't exist (that in itself could spark a whole separate thread), and lines between beliefs and facts.
Yup. The government does force a lot of crap on us to pay for. Was never really bothered by container fee or plastic bag stuff though. In general, I believe conservation efforts and ideals are great, just in many current forms, they are manipulated and many times even more harmful for the environment and people don't seem to want to concede that since they are convinced that their electric cars, PV on their roof, etc are accepted by society as status symbols of being environmentally considerate/good.
Skeptical LEED guy? If you were referring to me, I would "self identify" as "begrudgingly resigned to being a LEED guy" since I was sort of forced into that role in a previous job. ;D I'm mostly kidding, as I did find the program interesting. Just that the more I dug into it myself, the more cons than pros I found in the background.
-
I'm a computer scientist, so the engineering training and mentality I have is not much different than an ME, EE, etc.
However, when it comes to problem solving and troubleshooting, I sometimes rely on similar techniques as psychologists. I call it, "Computer Behavior Analysis." It's based on experience more than a specific process. Troubleshooting processes are limited and take too long when a system needs to be running NOW!!
So, based on "symptoms," 9 times out of 10 I can isolate the area of the problem. If I didn't have the basic skills and education, and years of experience coupled with insight into HOW a computer system functions, I wouldn't be able to narrow down the approximate cause as quickly.
I used to do Error Analysis and Recovery problem resolution on the AWACS -- one of the most sophisticated and complicated aircraft in the nation at the time. When you have to track down causes of errors in listings of hexadecimal dumps, and be able to conclude if the issue was coding, data or possibly hardware, you get good at "computer behavior!"
Can't believe we are in the same trade. But yeah I do agree for computers I also tend to use experience and if that fails go through a specific process approach. AKA manuals/google
-
mfw i did the test and got ISTJ
Do you recall what ranges you were on the T and J? As in further toward the extremes?
It's been a while since I took it, but I think the results are typically reported in percentage one way or the other, or moderate to strong preference in either direction. I'm surprised that you ended up with J. I would've thought you would lean toward P.
I think I have ranged from ENFJ to ENTJ, with the percentages between F and T flip flopping if I responded based on a professional/work view point or a personal viewpoint. Think that's the same for N and S as well. I seem to be pretty close to the middle on those to categories.
-
Do you recall what ranges you were on the T and J? As in further toward the extremes?
It's been a while since I took it, but I think the results are typically reported in percentage one way or the other, or moderate to strong preference in either direction. I'm surprised that you ended up with J. I would've thought you would lean toward P.
I think I have ranged from ENFJ to ENTJ, with the percentages between F and T flip flopping if I responded based on a professional/work view point or a personal viewpoint. Think that's the same for N and S as well. I seem to be pretty close to the middle on those to categories.
Just took another test and got INTJ T_T Though if i remember correctly its mostly INTJ results. In the previous test I believe it was 5% difference between S and N.
This one had J at 8% difference
Wait lemmi retake this any sites that you recommend they are all different.
-
Just took another test and got INTJ T_T Though if i remember correctly its mostly INTJ results. In the previous test I believe it was 5% difference between S and N.
This one had J at 72%
Sounds like you're like me as being close to the middle for N and S. Interesting that you're pretty strong J.
Judging (J)
I use my decision-making (Judging) preference (whether it is Thinking or Feeling) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a planned or orderly way of life, like to have things settled and organized, feel more comfortable when decisions are made, and like to bring life under control as much as possible.
Since this pair only describes what I prefer in the outer world, I may, inside, feel flexible and open to new information (which I am).
Do not confuse Judging with judgmental, in its negative sense about people and events. They are not related.
The following statements generally apply to me:
• I like to have things decided.
•I appear to be task oriented.
• I like to make lists of things to do.
• I like to get my work done before playing.
• I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline.
•Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information.
Perceiving (P)
I use my perceiving function (whether it is Sensing or Intuition) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a flexible and spontaneous way of life, and I like to understand and adapt to the world rather than organize it. Others see me staying open to new experiences and information.
Since this pair only describes what I prefer in the outer world, inside I may feel very planful or decisive (which I am).
Remember, in type language perceiving means "preferring to take in information." It does not mean being "perceptive" in the sense of having quick and accurate perceptions about people and events.
The following statements generally apply to me:
• I like to stay open to respond to whatever happens.
•I appear to be loose and casual. I like to keep plans to a minimum.
•I like to approach work as play or mix work and play.
•I work in bursts of energy.
• I am stimulated by an approaching deadline.
• Sometimes I stay open to new information so long I miss making decisions when they are needed.
Seems like many times you argued based on intuition.
-
Just took another test and got INTJ T_T Though if i remember correctly its mostly INTJ results. In the previous test I believe it was 5% difference between S and N.
This one had J at 8% difference
Wait lemmi retake this any sites that you recommend they are all different.
I think they generally come out about the same. I know for me, the "scores" changed if I approached them from a work perspective as opposed to personal perspective. But just a little and probably because I was close to the middle on the S/N and F/T.
-
Sounds like you're like me as being close to the middle for N and S. Interesting that you're pretty strong J.
Seems like many times you argued based on intuition.
I had the percentages wrong it was 8% i believe. If you got a decent site not random google stuff let me know. Curious lol
-
I had the percentages wrong it was 8% i believe. If you got a decent site not random google stuff let me know. Curious lol
I can't find the version that I took in the training/class that I took recently (maybe 2-3 years ago), but this one was one that was forwarded to me by a "professional".
Not sure if that's a "good" one though.
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)
-
mfw i did the test and got ISTJ
http://www.acronymfinder.com/MFW.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mfw
https://www.16personalities.com/istj-personality
hmmm, jason bourne
-
http://www.acronymfinder.com/MFW.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mfw
https://www.16personalities.com/istj-personality
hmmm, jason bourne
lol thats right i'm probably one of the younger people here.
-
I can't find the version that I took in the training/class that I took recently (maybe 2-3 years ago), but this one was one that was forwarded to me by a "professional".
Not sure if that's a "good" one though.
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)
INTJ
Introvert(22%) iNtuitive(6%) Thinking(34%) Judging(47%)
If I remember in my past I mostly got INTJ, though some of my recent tests today started to get ISTJ
From reading the descriptions on that site I guess INTJ does describe me the best
-
Can't believe we are in the same trade. But yeah I do agree for computers I also tend to use experience and if that fails go through a specific process approach. AKA manuals/google
Why can't you believe it? Because computers didn't exist before you were born? :P
I have evidence, and it proves above 80%, even 97%, that what I said is FACT!
Seems like your "beliefs" need some adjustments. :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
-
Why can't you believe it? Because computers didn't exist before you were born? :P
I have evidence, and it proves above 80%, even 97%, that what I said is FACT!
Seems like your "beliefs" need some adjustments. :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
Idk, just didn't picture you working with computers. I'm not THAT young either lol.
Take this test http://www.humanmetrics.com/
-
Idk, just didn't picture you working with computers. I'm not THAT young either lol.
Take this test http://www.humanmetrics.com/
No thanks. I went through a similar evaluation in my last job and I don't even know how many times on active duty.
I'm analytical, get along with people who are more logical and less emotional, and am firm in my opinions until someone shows a logical argument to prove me wrong.
Pretty close, but as Hannibal Lector said, "Do you think you can dissect ME with this blunt, little tool?"
-
INTJ
Introvert(22%) iNtuitive(6%) Thinking(34%) Judging(47%)
If I remember in my past I mostly got INTJ, though some of my recent tests today started to get ISTJ
From reading the descriptions on that site I guess INTJ does describe me the best
lol, we exactly the same, omni
“THE LOGISTICIAN” (ISTJ-A)
SENTINEL
CONFIDENT INDIVIDUALISM
41%59%
INTROVERTED
22%78%
OBSERVANT
85%15%
THINKING
54%46%
JUDGING
69%31%
ASSERTIVE
-
mfw i did the test and got ISTJ
Keirsey ISTJ
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/inspector.asp
ISTJs and NTs don't communicate well. I would surmise that FJ is an NT type.
NT overview
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/rational_overview.asp
-
If you're looking for a test, the David Keirsey one is pretty good.
http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx
-
Keirsey ISTJ
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/inspector.asp
ISTJs and NTs don't communicate well. I would surmise that FJ is an NT type.
NT overview
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/rational_overview.asp
Hey now, don't bring me into this!!! :geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
-
:rofl: :rofl:
-
If you're looking for a test, the David Keirsey one is pretty good.
http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx
Guardian ESTJ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Keirsey ISTJ
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/inspector.asp
ISTJs and NTs don't communicate well. I would surmise that FJ is an NT type.
NT overview
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/rational_overview.asp
I think that first test I did was wrong. Its coming up INJT now.
-
NTs and NFs communicate in abstract terms. They understand each other well and are good complements to each other.
SPs and SJs communicate in concrete terms. They understand each other well and are good complements to each other.
The former (NT and SP) are efficiency/task oriented while the latter (NF and SJ) are relationship/people oriented.
For abstract people:
NTs and SJs are polar opposites, as are NFs and SPs. They communicate differently and won't understand each other.
For concrete people:
So if NTs (Flapp, Inspector, Omni) and SJs (EEF?) try to discuss something, they will not understand each other and will just get frustrated.
Of course individuals vary in these traits to a degree, so the degree of compatibility or incompatibility is not necessarily binary.
It's a tangent but if anyone is interested, David Keirsey's "Please Understand Me 2" book is really really good.
-
I denounce the study of human behavior as a "science" therefore I am type ZZZZ.
-
I think that first test I did was wrong. Its coming up INJT now.
you just don't want to be the same as me...
i am
jason bourne
-
NTs and NFs communicate in abstract terms. They understand each other well and are good complements to each other.
SPs and SJs communicate in concrete terms. They understand each other well and are good complements to each other.
The former (NT and SP) are efficiency/task oriented while the latter (NF and SJ) are relationship/people oriented.
For abstract people:
NTs and SJs are polar opposites, as are NFs and SPs. They communicate differently and won't understand each other.
For concrete people:
So if NTs (Flapp, Inspector, Omni) and SJs (EEF?) try to discuss something, they will not understand each other and will just get frustrated.
Of course individuals vary in these traits to a degree, so the degree of compatibility or incompatibility is not necessarily binary.
It's a tangent but if anyone is interested, David Keirsey's "Please Understand Me 2" book is really really good.
Hey now, don't bring me into this!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
I think that first test I did was wrong. Its coming up INJT now.
Don't think there's a "wrong" way to do the test. There are many questions where I would respond somewhere in between, but just have to choose the one that fits best. There were many that were close to 50/50 for me, so if I am borderline on some aspects, I can see it changing and for me it has changed over the years as well as responding from a work perspective as opposed to personal perspective. For some that is the same thing, but for me, it has been different.
-
Don't think there's a "wrong" way to do the test. There are many questions where I would respond somewhere in between, but just have to choose the one that fits best. There were many that were close to 50/50 for me, so if I am borderline on some aspects, I can see it changing and for me it has changed over the years as well as responding from a work perspective as opposed to personal perspective. For some that is the same thing, but for me, it has been different.
i like this test because it lets you put degrees of agree/disagree and even neutral
plus it has really complete result reports
AND you don't have to register to use it
https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
-
I tried the test but the result shows me as an ISTJ (Logistician). This is inaccurate as my Meyers-Brigg test often tag me as an NT type.
-
Took two different versions of the test for shits and giggles, both came up ISTP, one an ISTP-A.
Now of course, do I really care what it means?
-
I tried the test but the result shows me as an ISTJ (Logistician). This is inaccurate as my Meyers-Brigg test often tag me as an NT type.
Had the exact same problem
-
I tried the test but the result shows me as an ISTJ (Logistician). This is inaccurate as my Meyers-Brigg test often tag me as an NT type.
you don't want to be the same type as me either
:'(
-
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
-
i like this test because it lets you put degrees of agree/disagree and even neutral
plus it has really complete result reports
AND you don't have to register to use it
https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
ESFJ-T
"The Consul"
Sentinel
The T-F percentages were quite close.
-
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Climate Change
Hard Science, Soft Science, Questionable Science, Science of Belief. . .
Sorry. Carry on. . .
-
http://www.acronymfinder.com/MFW.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mfw
https://www.16personalities.com/istj-personality
hmmm, jason bourne
Completely right. Found the same translation here as well: http://www.webacronym.com/slang-definition/mfw/ (http://www.webacronym.com/slang-definition/mfw/)