Deleted member 4612
mentally crippled by lonely teen years
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
- Posts
- 21,718
- Reputation
- 43,409
The cuckold "Where is your source?" v.s. the chad "I use intuition because it's a tool that was perfected in millions of years of evolution!"
Those "rationals" always deny their intuition although it is probably the most important tool a human has, if they saw a bird-like animal that looked like a duck and acted like a duck, they would still not believe you that without seeing a genetic test that showed them what everyone with common sense already knew beforehand - that the animal in question was indeed a duck.
They always want studies, studies and studies, studies which they don't even understand, but unlike you can show them a study that was peer-reviewed by Albert Einstein himself they wouldn't believe you. As soon as you claim something they want hard facts (as if they even fucking knew what they meant), but when they say something "I know a guy who is X" is enough of a source/prove for their claims. And then they accuse you of misrepresenting/misunderstanding something as if they even knew the basics of statistics or could really understand the methodology - how many of these people could define a p-value, a null hypothesis or any other basic term without having to resort to google? (And these are high school terms)
Furthermore, every truth is subjective because humans themselves are. For example: If we had the same empirical data that says "Women talk more than men!" everyone could do a different interpretation, if I was a radical feminist I could say that women only talk more because their words aren't seen as important as the words of men in a patriarchal society and they try to compensate for that by talking more, if I was a MRA I could say that this proves that women dominate males in conversations and try to subjugate them at every given time which is socially only acceptable because we live in a gynocracy. If we had the completely opposite data (e.g. "Women talk less than men!") every person could still come to a conclusion that ultimately supports his world view by adopting the arguments of the other person in the prior example. Perspective is EVERYTHING, there is no objective truth. This would imply that the numbers told you the absolute truth, which they never do, because you can get completely different numbers depending on how you generate the data.
Everyone nowadays talks about statistics/rationality, but the truth is: There is no objective rationality, only subjective rationality depending on the position/perspective of the individual. There is no fucking monopoly on rationality/truth. It's so tiring to see how people pathologize completely normal aspects of the human psyche when their opponent displays them and how they then pretend to be above everything as a bastion of rationality.
Those "rationals" always deny their intuition although it is probably the most important tool a human has, if they saw a bird-like animal that looked like a duck and acted like a duck, they would still not believe you that without seeing a genetic test that showed them what everyone with common sense already knew beforehand - that the animal in question was indeed a duck.
They always want studies, studies and studies, studies which they don't even understand, but unlike you can show them a study that was peer-reviewed by Albert Einstein himself they wouldn't believe you. As soon as you claim something they want hard facts (as if they even fucking knew what they meant), but when they say something "I know a guy who is X" is enough of a source/prove for their claims. And then they accuse you of misrepresenting/misunderstanding something as if they even knew the basics of statistics or could really understand the methodology - how many of these people could define a p-value, a null hypothesis or any other basic term without having to resort to google? (And these are high school terms)
Furthermore, every truth is subjective because humans themselves are. For example: If we had the same empirical data that says "Women talk more than men!" everyone could do a different interpretation, if I was a radical feminist I could say that women only talk more because their words aren't seen as important as the words of men in a patriarchal society and they try to compensate for that by talking more, if I was a MRA I could say that this proves that women dominate males in conversations and try to subjugate them at every given time which is socially only acceptable because we live in a gynocracy. If we had the completely opposite data (e.g. "Women talk less than men!") every person could still come to a conclusion that ultimately supports his world view by adopting the arguments of the other person in the prior example. Perspective is EVERYTHING, there is no objective truth. This would imply that the numbers told you the absolute truth, which they never do, because you can get completely different numbers depending on how you generate the data.
Everyone nowadays talks about statistics/rationality, but the truth is: There is no objective rationality, only subjective rationality depending on the position/perspective of the individual. There is no fucking monopoly on rationality/truth. It's so tiring to see how people pathologize completely normal aspects of the human psyche when their opponent displays them and how they then pretend to be above everything as a bastion of rationality.
