[Ryokan]

The point of those links is to show that our personality types and cognitive functions are tied to the structure of our brains.

You need a study for that?

 

[Davesrose]

People should always


Juluis Caesar was another who changed personality after a blow to the head, it made him almost superhuman, he once briefly stood alone against an army before his soldiers saw him and rallied. Also Henry VIII, but he became grumpy and irritable.

It's always hard to get an accurate account with ancient history. Example: more recent interpretations of Richard III after his remains were discovered (and his image was tarnished after the Tudor succession). It's interesting that I'm reading a history of Columbus now. Recently there's been more controversy about what kind of governor he was, but it's also interesting to read different historical accounts. He was arrested in 1500, and accusations of his cruelty was instigated by his successor Francisco de Bobadilla. While Columbus was making his case to the king and queen, there are accounts that the queen was taken aback that it was Bobadilla that started enslaving Native Americans. Reportedly, there was an increase in mining, but the monarchy was still against enslavement due to moral grounds. In other words, there's different accounts as to who was the most immoral and cruel towards Native Americans (and I'm sure the accounts differ due to political influence).

 

[Davesrose]

logical is not a personality type! It is what some personality types are more than others. The point of those links is to show (to bigshot) that our personality types and cognitive functions are tied to the structure of our brains.

Then I'm not sure why you listed personality traits with "'logical' people".

 

[Ryokan]

It's always hard to get an accurate account with ancient history. Example: more recent interpretations of Richard III after his remains were discovered (and his image was tarnished after the Tudor succession). It's interesting that I'm reading a history of Columbus now. Recently there's been more controversy about what kind of governor he was, but it's also interesting to read different historical accounts. He was arrested in 1500, and accusations of his cruelty was instigated by his successor Francisco de Bobadilla. While Columbus was making his case to the king and queen, there are accounts that the queen was taken aback that it was Bobadilla that started enslaving Native Americans. Reportedly, there was an increase in mining, but the monarchy was still against enslavement due to moral grounds. In other words, there's different accounts as to who was the most immoral and cruel towards Native Americans (and I'm sure the accounts differ due to political influence).

Maybe for Henry VIII but Julius Caesar became fearless after being taken captive and escaping going on to conquer large areas. Richard III is a bit different as people have written different accounts about his actions and persona so today there is a lot of mystery about him.
South America was stripped bare of gold which was squandered fighting wars across Europe and send an armada against England. At one point the Spanish and Portuguese were so powerful they divided up the New world between them.

 

[Davesrose]

Maybe for Henry VIII but Julius Caesar became fearless after being taken captive and escaping going on to conquer large areas. Richard III is a bit different as people have written different accounts about his actions and persona so today there is a lot of mystery about him.
South America was stripped bare of gold which was squandered fighting wars across Europe and send an armada against England. At one point the Spanish and Portuguese were so powerful they divided up the New world between them.

All of the New World was a mixed bag of European countries competing for land. New York city still has landmarks named from Dutch colonization. I was trying to say that there were less accounts in ancient history, and what accounts that do survive, often were written for political means. Like in the case of Richard III: who the Tudors painted in a negative light to further bolster their power with their succession.

 

[bigshot]

Logic isn't something you're born with. It's a skill that is learned. Logic, the scientific method and fair debate are the processes by which we determine the truth (as best as we can).

 

[castleofargh]

Logic at large, IDK. The scientific method sure isn’t a natural disposition. It goes against several natural instincts. Of course that’s on purpose because it was discovered that research driven entirely by ego and gut feelings was not that reliable.

About people being different(you don’t say?), almost everything has some impact. Genetic, epigenetics, food, toxins, experience/environment, physical trauma, up to a point even frequent infections and some diseases turn out to possibly mess with our brain and nervous system.. And of course the age at which you face some of those situations, as developpement and brain plasticity slow down with age(more in some areas of the brain than others).

I don’t think @Ghoostknight is having such an hypertypical response because he’s mentally hill or wired differently. He doesn’t know why he should doubt himself(a simple case of not knowing what we don’t know), and he has no desire to look into it because that goes against his nature. Cognitive dissonance is such a bitch for a reason. The guy who really doesn’t want to be right when he thinks he knows the answer, that’s the one I would tell to go see a psychologist.
Again, it just turns out that under certain, no, under many circumstances, the truth requires to put our human nature aside for a sec. And that doesn’t come easy.
Doing some science sure helps a bunch. if only because after you notice that testing(which is born from someone’s idea) reaches a dead end most of the time, it becomes way more natural to apply skepticism to our own idea. Or at least not to go tell everybody how smart you are before testing the idea. Repeated failure is a great humility tool. Of course you don’t need to be a researcher to ”enjoy” failure and being proved wrong. It’s just that science give the tool for being proved wrong beyond doubt, which is... nice?

 

[Sam Spade]

It’s just that science give the tool for being proved wrong beyond doubt, which is... nice?

It's not beyond doubt. look up type 1 and type 2 errors.

 

[castleofargh]

It's not beyond doubt. look up type 1 and type 2 errors.

Well, I didn’t mean it answers everything absolutely. Clearly we don’t live in such a world. Just that if something ends up proved beyond doubt, it probably has to do with an objective approach.

 

[Ryokan]

All of the New World was a mixed bag of European countries competing for land. New York city still has landmarks named from Dutch colonization. I was trying to say that there were less accounts in ancient history, and what accounts that do survive, often were written for political means. Like in the case of Richard III: who the Tudors painted in a negative light to further bolster their power with their succession.

Yes history is written by the victors. People today are cherry picking events to suit political ends. If one power didn't subdue a nation another would. It was literally conquer or serve, and to a degree still is.

 

[71 dB]

Logic isn't something you're born with. It's a skill that is learned. Logic, the scientific method and fair debate are the processes by which we determine the truth (as best as we can).

People are born with talents to learn some things easier. Haven't you notice how some things are harder for you than other and how some people are better or worse in things than you? Laziness doesn't explain such differencies. For example it is almost impossible for me to learn to play musical instruments, because of my personality traits (asperger). My brain isn't good for that. It keeps "thinking logically" the next finger movement/position when there is no time to do that. Musically talented people don't "think". They just do! They just know what to do next immediately.

 

[gregorio]

i still share my opinion, specially for those who just read one opinion in this sub forum and actually taking them as "facts"

This is the Sound Science sub forum, not the personal opinion forum. You seem to think science is an opinion and therefore no more valid than any other opinion, yours for example. This (again!) is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth/facts, it demonstrates a complete lack of the most basic knowledge; of history, why science was invented in the first place and even of what science is.

Have you never heard of the Dark (or Medieval) Ages, don’t you know it’s defined by the almost complete dominance of opinion/myth/superstition or what it was that led to the end of the Dark Age and the Age of Enlightenment/Reason?

This being the Sound Science forum, what we expect of those reading our factual assertions is the application of critical/logical thinking. EG. If they are not self-evident, then fact checking them with reliable sources, an encyclopaedia for example and/or the scientific references. And that’s where you come so unstuck, not only don’t you know what science and logical thought are, but the incorrect definitions you’ve given are pretty much the exact opposite of what they actually are. So effectively, you’re stuck in the Dark Ages, without logical thinking and nothing but opinions!

the discussions it creates are kinda pointless most of the times so i usually just stop replying,

They’re “kinda pointless” to you because you don’t know what science is, you don’t know what reliable evidence is and you don’t know what logical thought is. The only thing you have is an unshakable belief in what you think you’re hearing and opinions/ideas which justify and explain that belief. So anything that “shakes”/questions that belief is pointless to you, regardless of the fact it’s true, scientifically evidenced, proven or demonstrated!

there is nothing to gain from them but i guess you "won", right?

There’s virtually always something “to gain from them”. The obvious exception would be someone who is ignorant, wishes to remain ignorant, does not want to gain anything and therefore obviously won’t gain anything.

I don’t think @Ghoostknight is having such an hypertypical response because he’s mentally hill or wired differently.

Hmmm, I’m not so sure. It’s possible but unlikely that he missed huge chucks of basic schooling/education, never learnt what science or logical thought is and fell through the cracks of the education system, without a mental illness being responsible. Maybe he had a serious chronic illness, missed a great deal of school and/or was home schooled and falsely indoctrinated (although indoctrination could be defined as a mental disorder) or somehow was simply not schooled/educated. But even if this were the case, why would you then specifically seek out a science discussion forum, especially when all the other forums actively discourage the discussion/mention of science and even after it’s (science) been explicitly explained on numerous occasions? I can’t be sure he is mentally ill of course but it certainly appears to be a real possibility.

It's not beyond doubt. look up type 1 and type 2 errors.

Most of it is beyond doubt. The science of sound/audio is based on Ohm’s Law, Maxwell’s Equations/Laws, other laws and theorems by Fourier, Nyquist, Shannon and others, which are not only proven but the modern world wouldn’t exist if they were wrong. This is well beyond any reasonable doubt and Type 1 and 2 errors are not applicable. The area where Type 1 and 2 errors are applicable is psychoacoustics, which strictly speaking isn’t the science of sound/audio but the science of how human beings hear and perceive sound/audio. However, even in this field we have many discoveries which are beyond any reasonable doubt because Type 1 and 2 errors can be mitigated. For example, peer review, sample sizes, cumulative number of independent studies, “repeatability” and of course the lack of ANY reliable evidence to the contrary, despite decades of trying and significant financial incentive to do so.

G

 

[Ryokan]

Have you never heard of the Dark (or Medieval) Ages, don’t you know it’s defined by the almost complete dominance of opinion/myth/superstition or what it was that led to the end of the Dark Age and the Age of Enlightenment/Reason?

While Europe was going through the period referred to as the dark ages, central Asia was entering a golden age where philosophy and mathematics were 500 years in advance.

 

[Corti]

Have you never heard of the Dark (or Medieval) Ages, don’t you know it’s defined by the almost complete dominance of opinion/myth/superstition or what it was that led to the end of the Dark Age and the Age of Enlightenment/Reason?

I’m not so sure if the Middle Ages are even over yet.. Looking at the world globally it appears to me as if humanity refuses to evolve, preferring to hold on to irrationality and delusion.

 

[Ryokan]

It suits those who want to hold onto power and control.