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!   

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    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!   

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. . .    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. . .    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

Wonder if everyone will catch on to that "code".   

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.

Wonder if everyone will catch on to that "code".   

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.  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.