Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #365819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:32 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:58 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:59 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:55 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 18:14 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 01:41 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 22:17 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 03:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 15:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:32 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:27 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:21 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:06 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 00:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 01:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 19:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:30 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:39 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 14:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 15:57 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 19:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 03:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-20 19:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 04:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:53 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 14:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 19:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 21:22 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 18:35 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 22:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 14:31 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:42 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:11 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 17:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 18:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:12 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 11:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 18:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:30 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:37 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:09 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 17:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 01:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-23 05:04 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 12:47 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:16 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:01 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:18 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-25 06:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:36 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 08:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 11:50 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 09:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:24 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:48 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:16 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:29 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:39 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 01:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:11 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:46 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:25 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 11:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:36 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 16:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:53 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 15:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 10:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:23 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:10 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:30 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:27 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:58 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:06 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 00:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 07:12 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 06:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 07:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 07:18 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-19 07:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:55 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices |
| Message-ID | <D3DA1EFA.797A2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
<http://goo.gl/QxYb80>
-----
In theory, having choices is a good thing. But in practice, it can
be paralyzing.
...
More Doesn¹t Always Mean Better
Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently
conducted an online experiment in which 111 subjects were asked to
choose one of sixteen options for a prescription drug plan.
Participants were given three strategies choosing from the
sixteen options simultaneously, choosing using 'sequential
elimination', with four options at a time, and 'sequential
tournament', in which subjects would choose from four options that
were put into finalist groups. Participants were also asked to
specify which strategy they preferred.
While the sequential tournament was the least preferred strategy,
participants made the best decisions using the approach. Choosing
one option from all 16 at once was the most preferred, but
produced the worst decisions, confirming that the more choices
that are made available lead to poorer choices. With smaller
choice sets come better results.
An earlier study conducted by Sheena Iyengar, a professor at
Columbia University, sought to prove the same point using jam.
Iyengar set up a booth at a California grocery store with samples
of various jams. Every few hours the selection was switched from
24 different jams to six jams options.
In the end, sixty percent of the grocery store customers were
drawn to the larger assortment and forty percent to the six jams.
However, thirty percent of those drawn to the smaller assortment
purchased a jar. A mere three percent purchased a jar of jam from
the larger assortment. Whether or not someone chooses to purchase
jelly can be inconsequential, but larger decisions like choosing
the right insurance or retirement plans can have long lasting
effects.
...
Give yourself restrictions when faced with too many choices.
Research conducted at New York University found that creativity is
actually enhanced when you place restrictions on your options.
Lastly, if the decision is a big one, seek out advice from someone
with experience. According to psychologist Daniel Gilbert,
consulting a friend or colleague on important decisions can beat
your best guess by a factor of two. With these strategies, your
decision making skills improve, and the likelihood of making an
optimal choice increases. It's like the saying goes - less is
more.
-----
How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at
all?
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365819 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> > ----- Psychobabble snipped. > > How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at > all? > I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DA27B7.797AF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365820 |
On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> >> ----- > > Psychobabble snipped. > >> >> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at >> all? >> > > I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices. > Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science. Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 21:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjcvmdks093.kgu@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365821 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> >>> ----- >> >> Psychobabble snipped. >> >>> >>> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at >>> all? >>> >> >> I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices. >> > Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science. > > Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science. > Pyschology is not "science," you tard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DA3AC2.797C5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365825 |
On 8/17/16, 2:49 PM, in article fhjcvmdks093.kgu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> >>>> ----- >>> >>> Psychobabble snipped. >>> >>>> >>>> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at >>>> all? >>>> >>> >>> I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices. >>> >> Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science. >> >> Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science. >> > > Pyschology is not "science," you tard. > And you show you know even LESS about science. Wow. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhgvnmbkd83a.gki@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365835 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/17/16, 2:49 PM, in article fhjcvmdks093.kgu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> >>>>> ----- >>>> >>>> Psychobabble snipped. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at >>>>> all? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices. >>>> >>> Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science. >>> >>> Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science. >>> >> >> Pyschology is not "science," you tard. >> > And you show you know even LESS about science. Wow. > That "study" is not scientific at all. The items were for *sale*. You cannot extrapolate conclusions to choices of free things. What if it was stacks of money of varying sizes and denominations? You could choose any stack. Would "too many choices" be a problem? Psychology is not a science. Never has been. Never will be. http://skepticaleducator.org/why-psychology-is-not-a-science/ <quote> This medley of contradictory – even pseudo-scientific – ideas in and of itself should prove that psychology is not a science. </quote> http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6884 <quote> Why Psychology Ain’t Science </quote> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 <quote> The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration.... That's right. Psychology isn't science. </quote> and on and on...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DA4527.797D1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365839 |
On 8/17/16, 4:35 PM, in article fhgvnmbkd83a.gki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/16, 2:49 PM, in article fhjcvmdks093.kgu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian >>>> W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> >>>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Psychobabble snipped. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this >>>>>> at >>>>>> all? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices. >>>>> >>>> Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science. >>>> >>>> Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science. >>>> >>> >>> Pyschology is not "science," you tard. >>> >> And you show you know even LESS about science. Wow. > > That "study" is not scientific at all. In other words it does not fit your preconceived notions. > The items were for *sale*. Not in contention. > You cannot extrapolate conclusions to choices of free things. I think it is fair to look at other variables... so why not show such a study? We do have a real-world example: the many Linux distros. And they get poor usage... but that does not control for how well these distros compete (and they do so poorly). If they competed better we would have a better scenario. > What if it was stacks of money of varying sizes and denominations? > You could choose any stack. Would "too many choices" be a problem? It would likely slow people down. I do not know if it would stop people from selecting a stack. Good thing to test! > Psychology is not a science. Never has been. Never will be. This shows you do not know what psychology is. Of course it is a science. > http://skepticaleducator.org/why-psychology-is-not-a-science/ > <quote> > This medley of contradictory even pseudo-scientific ideas in > and of itself should prove that psychology is not a science. > </quote> > > http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6884 > <quote> > Why Psychology Ain¹t Science > </quote> > > > http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science > -20120713 > <quote> > The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted > in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration.... > > That's right. Psychology isn't science. > </quote> > > and on and on... Blogs do not change the fact it is a science. Heck, even if you get some physics group to deny it that would not change what it is. It is a science. Not even debatable. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hgbmckfi783.aju@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365840 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/17/16, 4:35 PM, in article fhgvnmbkd83a.gki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > ... >> That's right. Psychology isn't science. >> </quote> >> >> and on and on... > > Blogs do not change the fact it is a science. Heck, even if you get some > physics group to deny it that would not change what it is. It is a science. LOL. No it is not. > Not even debatable. I know, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DA4882.797D7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365843 |
On 8/17/16, 4:58 PM, in article hgbmckfi783.aju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/16, 4:35 PM, in article fhgvnmbkd83a.gki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> > ... > >>> That's right. Psychology isn't science. >>> </quote> >>> >>> and on and on... >> >> Blogs do not change the fact it is a science. Heck, even if you get some >> physics group to deny it that would not change what it is. It is a science. > > LOL. No it is not. > >> Not even debatable. > > I know, right? > <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/psychology > <https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=psychology> <http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/psychology> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychology> <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/psychology?a=british> <https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=psychology&rdfrom=Psychology> <http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=psychology> <http://dictionary.infoplease.com/psychology> <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/psychology> Not sure why you would say one of the social SCIENCES is not a science. I mean, really, not even defensible. The sciences are, by definition, sciences. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghnjfud72.af9@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365844 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/17/16, 4:58 PM, in article hgbmckfi783.aju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/17/16, 4:35 PM, in article fhgvnmbkd83a.gki@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >> ... >> >>>> That's right. Psychology isn't science. >>>> </quote> >>>> >>>> and on and on... >>> >>> Blogs do not change the fact it is a science. Heck, even if you get some >>> physics group to deny it that would not change what it is. It is a science. >> >> LOL. No it is not. >> >>> Not even debatable. >> >> I know, right? >> > > <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/psychology >> > <https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=psychology> > <http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/psychology> > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychology> > <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/psychology?a=british> > <https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=psychology&rdfrom=Psychology> > <http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=psychology> > <http://dictionary.infoplease.com/psychology> > <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/psychology> > > Not sure why you would say one of the social SCIENCES is not a science. I > mean, really, not even defensible. The sciences are, by definition, > sciences. > None of the "social sciences" are sciences. Self-labeling a field of study as a "science" does not make it one. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psychiatry/275371/ <quote> A psychotherapist contends that the DSM, psychiatry's "bible" that defines all mental illness, is not scientific but a product of unscrupulous politics and bureaucracy. ... So would you say that these terms -- disorder, disease, illness -- are just different names for the same concept? I would. Psychiatrists wouldn't. Well, psychiatrists would say it sometimes but wouldn't say it other times. They will say it when it comes to claiming that they belong squarely in the field of medicine. But if you press them and ask if these disorders exist in the same way that cancer and diabetes exist, they'll say no. It's not that there are no biological correlates to any mental suffering -- of course there are. But the specificity and sensitivity that we require to distinguish pneumonia from lung cancer, even that kind of distinction, it just doesn't exist. </quote>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DA52FC.797E8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365847 |
On 8/17/16, 5:16 PM, in article ghnjfud72.af9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/16, 4:58 PM, in article hgbmckfi783.aju@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/17/16, 4:35 PM, in article fhgvnmbkd83a.gki@perch.invalid, "Octavian >>>> W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> That's right. Psychology isn't science. >>>>> </quote> >>>>> >>>>> and on and on... >>>> >>>> Blogs do not change the fact it is a science. Heck, even if you get some >>>> physics group to deny it that would not change what it is. It is a science. >>> >>> LOL. No it is not. >>> >>>> Not even debatable. >>> >>> I know, right? >>> >> >> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/psychology >>> >> <https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=psychology> >> <http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/psychology> >> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychology> >> <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/psychology?a=british> >> <https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=psychology&rdfrom=Psychology> >> <http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=psychology> >> <http://dictionary.infoplease.com/psychology> >> <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/psychology> >> >> Not sure why you would say one of the social SCIENCES is not a science. I >> mean, really, not even defensible. The sciences are, by definition, >> sciences. >> > > None of the "social sciences" are sciences. Really... this is stupid. You are denying one of the main branches of science is, well, a branch of science. I am sure there are other breakdowns which show things a bit differently, but this ones seems decent: <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/The_Scientific_Universe .png> OR <https://goo.gl/jv9dxE> Have you made a personal choice to reject any of the other branches of science or just the social sciences? > Self-labeling a field > of study as a "science" does not make it one. Straw man. > http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psych > iatry/275371/ > <quote> > A psychotherapist contends that the DSM, psychiatry's "bible" that defines > all mental illness, is not scientific but a product of unscrupulous > politics and bureaucracy. > > ... > > > So would you say that these terms -- disorder, disease, illness -- > are just different names for the same concept? > > I would. Psychiatrists wouldn't. Well, psychiatrists would say it > sometimes but wouldn't say it other times. They will say it when it comes > to claiming that they belong squarely in the field of medicine. But if > you press them and ask if these disorders exist in the same way that > cancer and diabetes exist, they'll say no. It's not that there are no > biological correlates to any mental suffering -- of course there are. But > the specificity and sensitivity that we require to distinguish pneumonia > from lung cancer, even that kind of distinction, it just doesn't exist. > </quote> Not even slightly relevant to the conversation. Why change the topic? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 00:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdf.mbkd883@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365853 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/17/16, 5:16 PM, in article ghnjfud72.af9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > > > Not even slightly relevant to the conversation. Why change the topic? > > A true science would not bow to social pressure to remove parts of its body of learning, such as happened with the removal of homosexuality as a diagnosis in the DSM. Imagine if the PTB in the field of Physics caved to pressure from the NAACP to redact discussion of the color force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DA5A09.797FB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365855 |
On 8/17/16, 5:55 PM, in article ghjdf.mbkd883@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/16, 5:16 PM, in article ghnjfud72.af9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> Not even slightly relevant to the conversation. Why change the topic? > > A true science would not bow to social pressure to remove parts of > its body of learning, such as happened with the removal of homosexuality > as a diagnosis in the DSM. Imagine if the PTB in the field of Physics > caved to pressure from the NAACP to redact discussion of the color force. What science does not have a part of its past where religion and bigotry influenced it (and still might). There was a time when saying the Earth was not the center of the universe was considered blasphemy... people insisted the Earth must be, that being homosexual was a disease, etc. In the long term things have gotten better in the sciences... which does not imply they are perfect now. But this is completely off the topic. The fact that people, even scientists and even major scientific societies, have thought thing we now see as being absurd does not make them not sciences. In fact, the fact they have changed and grown and (for the most part) backs they idea they are sciences. As I noted: in your effort to reject science to back Linux you showed you do not understand science well. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 01:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjadu309ba.bji@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365857 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/17/16, 5:55 PM, in article ghjdf.mbkd883@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/17/16, 5:16 PM, in article ghnjfud72.af9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Not even slightly relevant to the conversation. Why change the topic? >> >> A true science would not bow to social pressure to remove parts of >> its body of learning, such as happened with the removal of homosexuality >> as a diagnosis in the DSM. Imagine if the PTB in the field of Physics >> caved to pressure from the NAACP to redact discussion of the color force. > > What science does not have a part of its past where religion and bigotry > influenced it (and still might). There was a time when saying the Earth was > not the center of the universe was considered blasphemy... The cries of blasphemy came from those outside the field. > people insisted > the Earth must be, that being homosexual was a disease, etc. This was people *within* the science who determined homosexuality to be a disorder. > In the long > term things have gotten better in the sciences... which does not imply they > are perfect now. > > But this is completely off the topic. The fact that people, even scientists > and even major scientific societies, have thought thing we now see as being > absurd does not make them not sciences. It was not a scientific enlightenment in the field of psychology that led them to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It was political and societal pressure. This is not science. > In fact, the fact they have changed > and grown and (for the most part) backs they idea they are sciences. > > As I noted: in your effort to reject science to back Linux you showed you do > not understand science well. > In the modern world, what other science besides the "science" of psychology would cave societal pressure to alter its knowledge base for sake of PC conformity? (Climatology, I suppose, but that's a field not much more deserving of the label "science").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DA67E7.79809%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365861 |
On 8/17/16, 6:41 PM, in article fhjadu309ba.bji@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/16, 5:55 PM, in article ghjdf.mbkd883@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/17/16, 5:16 PM, in article ghnjfud72.af9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Not even slightly relevant to the conversation. Why change the topic? >>> >>> A true science would not bow to social pressure to remove parts of >>> its body of learning, such as happened with the removal of homosexuality >>> as a diagnosis in the DSM. Imagine if the PTB in the field of Physics >>> caved to pressure from the NAACP to redact discussion of the color force. >> >> What science does not have a part of its past where religion and bigotry >> influenced it (and still might). There was a time when saying the Earth was >> not the center of the universe was considered blasphemy... > > The cries of blasphemy came from those outside the field. Are you suggesting there were no scientists who fought against that growth or any other? Even fought hard and cruelly? But even if so, so what? This has gotten FAR off the topic of if a science is a science. Keep in mind that by definition it is... so there is no real question here, just you working to change the topic to defend the "choice" mantra of the "advocates." The reality is there are pros and cons to the level of choice we see. >> people insisted >> the Earth must be, that being homosexual was a disease, etc. > > This was people *within* the science who determined homosexuality to be > a disorder. Again, so? There were people in the scientific community who thought (and think) many things we now do not see as being even remotely likely to be true. Not sure why you are even bringing this up. >> In the long term things have gotten better in the sciences... which does not >> imply they are perfect now. >> >> But this is completely off the topic. The fact that people, even scientists >> and even major scientific societies, have thought thing we now see as being >> absurd does not make them not sciences. >> > It was not a scientific enlightenment in the field of psychology that led them > to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It was political and > societal pressure. This is not science. It was seen as a disease based on bigotry. Now that has been reduced. Good. Bigotry, perhaps, should be added as a mental disorder -- it shows biased, self-serving, irrational thinking. >> In fact, the fact they have changed and grown and (for the most part) backs >> they idea they are sciences. >> >> As I noted: in your effort to reject science to back Linux you showed you do >> not understand science well. > > In the modern world, what other science besides the "science" of psychology > would cave societal pressure to alter its knowledge base for sake of PC > conformity? Not relevant and, as noted, physics did so with where Earth and humans are in the natural world. Our egocentricity has lead us to make many silly claims... or at least claims that in retrospect were silly. > (Climatology, I suppose, but that's a field not much more > deserving of the label "science"). It, too, is a science... and when do you think it has done as you say? There are very few climate scientist who agree with the whacky right-wing deniers of the evidence. To the extent there are a small number who do disagree with the majority consensus that is a GOOD thing. Science is not about having 100 consensus, esp. on newer areas of study. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 22:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <np3ctj$msn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #365861 |
On 08/17/16 19:41, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/16, 5:55 PM, in article ghjdf.mbkd883@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange"<olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/17/16, 5:16 PM, in article ghnjfud72.af9@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange"<olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Not even slightly relevant to the conversation. Why change the topic? >>> >>> A true science would not bow to social pressure to remove parts of >>> its body of learning, such as happened with the removal of homosexuality >>> as a diagnosis in the DSM. Imagine if the PTB in the field of Physics >>> caved to pressure from the NAACP to redact discussion of the color force. >> >> What science does not have a part of its past where religion and bigotry >> influenced it (and still might). There was a time when saying the Earth was >> not the center of the universe was considered blasphemy... > > The cries of blasphemy came from those outside the field. > >> people insisted >> the Earth must be, that being homosexual was a disease, etc. > > This was people *within* the science who determined homosexuality to be > a disorder. > >> In the long >> term things have gotten better in the sciences... which does not imply they >> are perfect now. >> >> But this is completely off the topic. The fact that people, even scientists >> and even major scientific societies, have thought thing we now see as being >> absurd does not make them not sciences. > > It was not a scientific enlightenment in the field of psychology that > led them to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It was political and > societal pressure. This is not science. > >> In fact, the fact they have changed >> and grown and (for the most part) backs they idea they are sciences. >> >> As I noted: in your effort to reject science to back Linux you showed you do >> not understand science well. >> > > In the modern world, what other science besides the "science" of > psychology would cave societal pressure to alter its knowledge base for > sake of PC conformity? (Climatology, I suppose, but that's a field not > much more deserving of the label "science"). > LOL!!! Now, now... let's not taunt the kiddies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3a95bc3-ee5c-4468-8136-1b689c8c92d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365839 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 7:35:40 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 8/17/16, 2:49 PM, in article fhjcvmdks093.kgu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
> >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> Psychobabble snipped.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at
> >>>>> all?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices.
> >>>>
> >>> Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science.
> >>>
> >>> Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Pyschology is not "science," you tard.
> >>
> > And you show you know even LESS about science. Wow.
> >
>
> That "study" is not scientific at all. The items were for *sale*.
Sorry, but from the HSR training I've received and from the HSR
protocols that I've professionally reviewed, that's not actually a disqualifier.
> You cannot extrapolate conclusions to choices of free things.
Actually you not only can, it this sort of scientific research it is _expected_
that one's hypothesis be generalizable.
See 45 CFR 46:
"§46.102(d) Research means a systematic investigation, including research
development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
<http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/>
> What if it was stacks of money of varying sizes and denominations?
> You could choose any stack. Would "too many choices" be a problem?
Interesting hypothesis, but just what does the current literature say?
You'll need to show this in your protocol proposal.
> Psychology is not a science. Never has been. Never will be.
Google definitions:
psy·chol·o·gy
sīˈkäləjē/
noun
"the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those
^^^^^^^^^^
affecting behavior in a given context."
And similarly from Wiki:
"Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of
conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic
discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases"
> http://skepticaleducator.org/why-psychology-is-not-a-science/
WHO?
Oh, here we go: "Hello, my name is Sadri Hassani. I am a retired physics professor.."
<http://skepticaleducator.org/science/>
So then, just what are his actual credentials to assess professional disciplines
outside of his own?
> http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6884
> <quote>
> Why Psychology Ain’t Science
> </quote>
Please address the comments from Ron Murphy. Or at least try ;-)
>
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713
> <quote>
> The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted
> in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration....
>
> That's right. Psychology isn't science.
> </quote>
>
> and on and on...
Where that author got his 'definition of science' is without citation. And what this really
all comes back to is that the field is so damn complex that it is still struggling through
what's the equivalent of alchemy for chemists.
...but that doesn't mean that gunpowder was never discovered. Or bronze. Or steel.
Nor did these all get reproduced through random chance, rather than the scientific
method figuring out repeatable methods, even if all of the in-depth chemistry and
metallurgy and physics wasn't yet fully understood: the behaviors and correlations
thereof still exist even if our explanation as to why still lack full fidelity such as
exists in other, literally easier scientific disciplines. Such as undergraduate physics.
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 00:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghdjcv83g.kl9@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365850 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 7:35:40 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> > On 8/17/16, 2:49 PM, in article fhjcvmdks093.kgu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>>> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> >> >>>>> ----- >> >>>> >> >>>> Psychobabble snipped. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at >> >>>>> all? >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices. >> >>>> >> >>> Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science. >> >>> >> >>> Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Pyschology is not "science," you tard. >> >> >> > And you show you know even LESS about science. Wow. >> > >> >> That "study" is not scientific at all. The items were for *sale*. > > Sorry, but from the HSR training I've received and from the HSR > protocols that I've professionally reviewed, that's not actually a disqualifier. > > >> You cannot extrapolate conclusions to choices of free things. > > Actually you not only can, it this sort of scientific research it is _expected_ > that one's hypothesis be generalizable. > > See 45 CFR 46: > > "§46.102(d) Research means a systematic investigation, including research > development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to > generalizable knowledge. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/> > > >> What if it was stacks of money of varying sizes and denominations? >> You could choose any stack. Would "too many choices" be a problem? > > Interesting hypothesis, but just what does the current literature say? > You'll need to show this in your protocol proposal. > >> Psychology is not a science. Never has been. Never will be. > > Google definitions: > > psy·chol·o·gy > sīˈkäləjē/ > noun > "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those > ^^^^^^^^^^ > affecting behavior in a given context." > > > And similarly from Wiki: > > "Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of > conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic > discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases" > > >> http://skepticaleducator.org/why-psychology-is-not-a-science/ > > WHO? > > Oh, here we go: "Hello, my name is Sadri Hassani. I am a retired physics professor.." > > <http://skepticaleducator.org/science/> > > So then, just what are his actual credentials to assess professional disciplines > outside of his own? > > >> http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6884 >> <quote> >> Why Psychology Ain’t Science >> </quote> > > Please address the comments from Ron Murphy. Or at least try ;-) > > >> >> >> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 >> <quote> >> The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted >> in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration.... >> >> That's right. Psychology isn't science. >> </quote> >> >> and on and on... > > Where that author got his 'definition of science' is without citation. And what this really > all comes back to is that the field is so damn complex that it is still struggling through > what's the equivalent of alchemy for chemists. > > ...but that doesn't mean that gunpowder was never discovered. Or bronze. Or steel. > Nor did these all get reproduced through random chance, rather than the scientific > method figuring out repeatable methods, even if all of the in-depth chemistry and > metallurgy and physics wasn't yet fully understood: the behaviors and correlations > thereof still exist even if our explanation as to why still lack full fidelity such as > exists in other, literally easier scientific disciplines. Such as undergraduate physics. > > Pull your pants up. Your butthurt is showing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 03:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a17dcc9-4903-4dba-973b-46d20bf99b1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365852 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:35:40 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 7:35:40 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > On 8/17/16, 2:49 PM, in article fhjcvmdks093.kgu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > >> > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >>> On 8/17/16, 2:32 PM, in article fhjgsid9e83.gaw3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > >> >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> <http://goo.gl/QxYb80> > >> >>>>> ----- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Psychobabble snipped. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> How many of the COLA "advocates" will understand the science behind this at > >> >>>>> all? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I'm sure Sophie wishes she had more choices. > >> >>>> > >> >>> Not even relevant.... comes down to you do not understand the science. > >> >>> > >> >>> Seems to be one of the COLA "advocates" one MUST reject science. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Pyschology is not "science," you tard. > >> >> > >> > And you show you know even LESS about science. Wow. > >> > > >> > >> That "study" is not scientific at all. The items were for *sale*. > > > > Sorry, but from the HSR training I've received and from the HSR > > protocols that I've professionally reviewed, that's not actually a disqualifier. > > > > > >> You cannot extrapolate conclusions to choices of free things. > > > > Actually you not only can, it this sort of scientific research it is _expected_ > > that one's hypothesis be generalizable. > > > > See 45 CFR 46: > > > > "§46.102(d) Research means a systematic investigation, including research > > development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to > > generalizable knowledge. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/> > > > > > >> What if it was stacks of money of varying sizes and denominations? > >> You could choose any stack. Would "too many choices" be a problem? > > > > Interesting hypothesis, but just what does the current literature say? > > You'll need to show this in your protocol proposal. > > > >> Psychology is not a science. Never has been. Never will be. > > > > Google definitions: > > > > psy·chol·o·gy > > sīˈkäləjē/ > > noun > > "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > affecting behavior in a given context." > > > > > > And similarly from Wiki: > > > > "Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of > > conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic > > discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases" > > > > > >> http://skepticaleducator.org/why-psychology-is-not-a-science/ > > > > WHO? > > > > Oh, here we go: "Hello, my name is Sadri Hassani. I am a retired physics professor.." > > > > <http://skepticaleducator.org/science/> > > > > So then, just what are his actual credentials to assess professional disciplines > > outside of his own? > > > > > >> http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6884 > >> <quote> > >> Why Psychology Ain’t Science > >> </quote> > > > > Please address the comments from Ron Murphy. Or at least try ;-) > > > > > >> > >> > >> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 > >> <quote> > >> The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted > >> in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration.... > >> > >> That's right. Psychology isn't science. > >> </quote> > >> > >> and on and on... > > > > Where that author got his 'definition of science' is without citation. And what this really > > all comes back to is that the field is so damn complex that it is still struggling through > > what's the equivalent of alchemy for chemists. > > > > ...but that doesn't mean that gunpowder was never discovered. Or bronze. Or steel. > > Nor did these all get reproduced through random chance, rather than the scientific > > method figuring out repeatable methods, even if all of the in-depth chemistry and > > metallurgy and physics wasn't yet fully understood: the behaviors and correlations > > thereof still exist even if our explanation as to why still lack full fidelity such as > > exists in other, literally easier scientific disciplines. Such as undergraduate physics. > > > > > > Pull your pants up. Your butthurt is showing. Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never truthfully claim ignorance over how you were schooled (which deliberately included citations). -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhgjdao983.gjdi@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365885 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:35:40 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> Pull your pants up. Your butthurt is showing. > > Thank-you for your one-liner, for you can now never truthfully claim ignorance > over how you were schooled (which deliberately included citations). > I have a house with 700 rooms. In one of the rooms is bag full of diamonds. You get to keep the diamonds if you find them. You get to check every room. Hmm.. 700 rooms. That's a lot of rooms. Maybe too many? I offer you $1,000 to walk away and not look for the diamonds. What do you do?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web