Posts by Robert Harris5

Sam Murphy said:I mostly agree with you, but I have to say—you’re telling me Tranmere hasn't found the back of the net in their last four matches, yet now we’re supposed to bet on them scoring at 1.15 odds? Honestly, I think there might be a better pick out there somewhere.🙄

Personally, when I see a team hitting a rough patch—say they’ve dropped five games in a row, or they’re stuck in a string of five straight draws, or even looking at Tranmere failing to find the back of the net for four matches straight—it just feels more logical to assume that streak is bound to snap. You know, by the law of averages. It stands to reason they won't just limp into a sixth loss, or settle for another draw, or have Tranmere go a fifth game without scoring. Yet, looking around here, it seems like quite a few of you think differently. There’s this mindset that if they’ve lost five times in a row, then a sixth one is practically guaranteed.
Look, streaks eventually have to break. From what I’ve managed to observe, it’s incredibly rare in any major league to see a team grind out six or seven draws in a row, or conversely, drop six or seven straight games—unless the club is in a state of total, absolute meltdown. But even then, it's unlikely. So, my little rule of thumb is this: if I spot a team sitting somewhere in the middle of the table or even slightly above, yet they're staring down a five-game losing streak, I’ll almost always place a bet that they won't lose their sixth. At that point, my only real dilemma is deciding whether to lean toward a draw or go for the outright win. Depending on how things look, I usually opt for the victory, and more often than not, it pays off. To give you a quick example, just a couple of rounds ago in France, Bordeaux had been stuck in a cycle of five consecutive draws. They were playing at home, and the sixth one didn't end up being a tie. Then last week, Galatasaray was playing away after a stretch without a win, and naturally, the streak snapped right then and there.
It all really boils down to the context of the matchup and who you're facing. Take the Premier League right now, for example—it looks like Newcastle is sitting on a six-game losing streak, but they’ve got a home game against Cardiff, who are currently dead last. If we weren't staring down the end of the season, I wouldn't give it a second thought; I'd bet on a clean win for Newcastle in a heartbeat. But since Cardiff still has a slim mathematical chance of avoiding relegation, it feels a little risky to me. That said, if I had to choose, I’d much rather bank on Newcastle avoiding a loss than betting against them. Then you look at the situation with Wisla in Poland; they’ve dropped five or six games in a row, and now they’re facing Pogon, who sits just two points above them. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of spot where Wisla needs to finally snap that losing streak.
At the end of the day, there aren't really any hard and fast rules to follow here, but if you're asking me, I find myself leaning much more toward that particular tactic.

Dallas Cowboys - FC Barcelona 1 (1.65) (0-0)

FC Barcelona is an incredible squad, no doubt about it, but the Dallas Cowboys just seem to have the edge here. Even though the Super Bowl isn't actually being played in Dallas, I’d still be hesitant to bet against them—I honestly can't tell if winning this trophy carries enough weight for the Cowboys to really go all out. But, since we are looking at a matchup centered in their own backyard, I suspect the motivation will be through the roof.

Chelsea vs. Atletico Madrid: Draw (2.05) (1-1)

I don't have any deep, tactical breakdown prepared for this one, truth be told. It looks like it's going to be a real grind—a tough, physical battle out there. My gut feeling? I expect things to finally start opening up during the second half.

Looking ahead to tomorrow:

Galatasaray 2 (1.85) (0-1) - They have been absolutely terrible on the road this season. They’re slipping down the standings, and honestly, they just need to start picking up some wins away from home if they want to stay relevant.

Man. City 2 (1.45) (0-2) - Crystal Palace seems to be on quite the run with five straight wins, but I don't see them pulling off a sixth against a side like City. With the title race heating up, City simply cannot afford any slip-ups here. Even though the odds on a City win feel a bit thin, I’m feeling pretty confident they’ll pull it off.

Barcelona 2 (1.45) (2-3) - Similar to my take on City, the payout looks a little low, but since Barcelona is already out of the Champions League and lost the cup, they have absolutely nothing left to lose. They’ll be playing with plenty of motivation.

Nicholas King said:Having issues actually hitting "send" on an email isn't—or at least doesn't necessarily have to be—the same thing as being unable to write one.

Well, it doesn't *have* to be, but let's be realistic—if someone is agonizing over sending an email, they’re almost certainly struggling with what’s inside it. To me, those two things are deeply intertwined. Usually, that hesitation to click send stems from a lack of confidence in the message. They end up rewriting, tweaking, deleting, and obsessing over phrasing... which, by definition, is part of the writing process. When I first brought up this example regarding perfectionism, I thought I was being quite clear about where the bottleneck actually lies.

Robert Harris5 said:How would the ancient Romans have phrased the sentiment: "It is a deformity to boast of oneself"? 🙂 That’s exactly what I was thinking. You’re still keeping your cards close to the chest, aren't you? Fine, be that way. I’ll just stick to my guns and maintain that perfectionists generally lack the necessary cognitive bandwidth, which is why they end up getting so hopelessly bogged down in the weeds. It’s a cycle. For instance, when someone sits down to draft an email—or even just a quick post on a forum like this... 🙂 You know, I’ve been thinking about those people who spend thirty minutes obsessively checking over a single email before they finally hit send—assuming they even find the courage to click "send" at all. Honestly? It feels like a bit of a paradox. You’d think someone truly sharp would spot an error instantly, or realize there isn't one to begin with, rather than just spinning their wheels and wasting precious time. It reminds me of that classic trap of perfectionism, where someone sets these impossibly high, unrealistic standards for themselves and ends up making life absolutely miserable in the process. It’s a heavy way to live. Of course, I shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush. There’s a big difference between that kind of self-sabotage and the people who aim high but actually set goals that are attainable. One is a recipe for burnout, while the other is just... well, being ambitious.

That’s a fair point, I suppose. But honestly, how can you really be certain about someone’s actual IQ? In my mind, you can't truly claim to know where someone stands unless you've actually sat down and looked at their official test results. Otherwise, isn't it all just guesswork?

Morgan Bishop4 said:Honestly, you're getting your wires crossed here.
So, you're basically suggesting perfectionism is just some deep-seated insecurity or a desperate, futile attempt to fix things that are fundamentally broken? Like, what, are we talking about guys popping pills to try and fix their size, or girls caking on twenty pounds of makeup every morning just to hide a bad face or something?! 🤷 I wouldn't even call those people perfectionists... they're just insecure, or they have zero taste, or—in the case of the pill-poppers—they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box...

I don't believe perfectionism is rooted in insecurity. It feels like you're consistently drawing the wrong conclusions from my points. Insecurity can actually be a byproduct of negative perfectionism, rather than being its sole cause. By your logic, the original poster isn't a perfectionist, she’s just insecure because she mentioned wanting to be the most beautiful woman in the room despite not having certain physical attributes... blah, blah, blah. I truly had no intention of insulting anyone; I was simply reflecting on my own observations, where I've concluded that perfectionism often has a correlation with intelligence—specifically, that it might stem from a lack thereof. Of course, I'm not claiming all unintelligent people are perfectionists, nor that all perfectionists lack intellect. Perhaps I did take that particular thought a step too far. I'll happily concede that I might be wrong.

Nicholas King said:The actual reason for this thread will come a bit later, but first, let’s look at some general patterns regarding how Americans swear.

I don't really feel like dissecting the semantics of every single common profanity—that would be an incredibly tedious task, much too long. However, there are a few potent examples that actually force one to pause and reflect for a second.

So, do people actually think about the swears they utter? Is there some psychological component (let’s not even get into the background 😬) when choosing a specific insult, or do we just blurt out the first thing that pops into our heads without any real consideration of what we are actually saying?

For starters, take the notorious "suck my dick" (or alternatively, "stick it up your ass") that you constantly hear coming from macho types and homophobes: do they honestly believe that "the one doing the sticking" is somehow less gay than "the one receiving" (and we're talking about guys who would rather lose a vital internal organ than be perceived as gay—or at least want to maintain that impression 😬), or do they simply fail to process the literal meaning of their own words?

And here we go, slowly approaching the reason for the topic: yesterday, I had the pleasure of reading on a forum that I am, Quote, "annoying as hell". Let's ignore the context for a moment—it's truly irrelevant and uninteresting (one might say, terribly annoying 😁)—but the phrasing itself is quite intriguing: why, exactly, would a penis be considered "annoying" (implying it requires great effort; that it is exhausting—according to Merriam-Webster)? 😕

I once heard an explanation for the common phrase "stupid as hell"—the explanation was, admittedly, kindergarten-level (the idea being that a dick is stupid because it cries when it's having its best time 🤦), but it was an explanation nonetheless. What kind of explanation could exist for the "annoyance" of male genitalia—specifically such massive annoyance, given that the compound phrase is used as a much stronger figure of speech than "you're very annoying", "you're indescribably annoying", "you are soooooooo annnoyyyyying" or any other way to describe someone's immense exasperation? Nothing comes to mind for me, absolutely nothing.

I haven't been able to Google anything particularly meaningful on the subject, so I'm left wondering: if you were to encounter an association linking a dick to "annoyance," would you view it as a completely accidental and unconscious choice devoid of meaning, or do you believe that when people are swearing (and it's safe to assume we swear when our self-control is diminished), they occasionally stumble into a Freudian slip?

Wait, did I read that correctly? Are you seriously asking for a biological explanation for why the male anatomy is so... persistent?! Good grief, why on earth would anyone take a phrase like that literally? Insults like "you're as bright as a broken bulb" are just idioms—they're figurative expressions, and you really shouldn't take them at face value. It’s the exact same logic as walking past someone and saying, "Hey, where'd you come from?" You aren't actually questioning their physical location; you're just saying hello. Honestly, I have a nagging feeling you already know all this. This feels more like a topic for the linguists out there.

gentlesailor25 said:The thing about Stephen King is that he tries way too hard to apply logic to things that just aren't logical, and honestly, people like that usually don't even have a clue how psychology actually works.
As for OCD, I mean, maybe you should dig through some of the threads on that disorder first, then really sit back and think about whether those folks are actually aware they’re struggling or if they’re totally oblivious to it.🙄

Maybe I should just try explaining this through a more irrational lens?

Morgan Bishop4 said:So, what if someone is just being incredibly precise and thorough with their work because they can't stand leaving things half-baked or sloppy and messy... 🤷
how on earth can you label that as a sign of low intelligence?
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone dealing with any kind of struggle in life is unintelligent just because they can't wrap their head around it or fix it?
Does that mean only the geniuses out there are happy and satisfied with their lives, simply because they have the mental bandwidth to identify problems, solve them, and make perfect decisions every single time?! wtf😕

Now, let me be clear—I never suggested that being a perfectionist automatically makes someone unintelligent. Not at all. In my view, we really have to distinguish between two different sides of the coin here. On one hand, you have what I’d call positive perfectionism. This is actually quite a productive trait; it involves being thorough, staying precise with your work, and setting high standards that are actually grounded in reality. It's about striving for excellence without losing your footing. On the other hand, there’s this negative side of perfectionism that seems much more prevalent these days, and frankly, it’s quite debilitating. It prevents people from functioning effectively in their daily lives. This version is characterized by setting these impossibly high, unrealistic goals that simply don't align with a person's actual capacity or circumstances. It's a cycle that just doesn't serve anyone.
I don't necessarily believe that anyone struggling to solve their own problems is lacking intelligence, nor do I think happiness is reserved solely for the brilliant. It really all comes down to the nature of the struggle itself. Of course, if someone is genuinely distressed because they feel they lack physical beauty—perhaps obsessing over a perceived flaw in their appearance—you might question their judgment. Or perhaps you wouldn't? One could argue that such an obsession is simply a manifestation of perfectionism.

Michelle Evans said:This shows a real lack of understanding regarding how certain mental health struggles actually function.
You should check out the Psychiatric Couch forum under the OCD thread; I promise you that everyone posting there is fully aware of what they're dealing with. It isn't about "knowing"... it's about the emotions involved. As Martian7 already pointed out, someone who feels compelled to check if their front door is locked twenty-four times could easily be a Mensa member or a top-tier academic...

Martian7 actually mentioned that it’s a bit of a tough thing to explain. I certainly agree that someone dealing with those kinds of issues can still be a brilliant academic, though I just can't quite wrap my head around the idea that struggling to write a simple email wouldn't have something to do with their cognitive faculties.

Morgan Bishop4 said:Intelligence and common sense are two completely different animals!
obviously a perfectionist knows they're wasting time on trivial nonsense, but they're still gonna do it anyway...
it's just like how someone with OCD knows it makes zero sense to wash their hands twice every single time they touch something, but they can't just stop themselves...
saying perfectionists aren't smart is like saying people who get drunk and end up puking in a gutter are less intelligent—because if they were actually smart, they would have known they'd feel like crap and wouldn't have overdone it in the first place.

I wouldn't say those two things are quite the same, though I'll admit my analogy might be a bit off. Regarding the drinking example: someone might know, or at least strongly suspect, that they'll feel terrible later, but they choose to drink specifically to unwind, blow off steam, or just enjoy a night out. That choice doesn't suddenly drop their IQ. Also, I have to disagree with the idea that someone with OCD is consciously choosing to wash their hands twice. If they truly recognized the behavior as irrational and had full control over it, why would they do it? My point is that they do it because they don't truly perceive the dysfunction—or rather, they lack the cognitive tools to override the impulse. In fact, certain types of obsessive-compulsive disorders actually stem from perfectionism itself.

Matthew Castillo5 said:It’s hard to pin down, and honestly, even harder to deal with. Look, I consider myself pretty sharp—I know nobody's perfect and making mistakes is just part of being human—but I definitely lean toward perfectionism in certain areas. It isn't really a cognitive thing, though; it feels more like an emerging emotional struggle, and I suspect my upbringing probably played a huge role in shaping it.

How would the ancient Romans have phrased the sentiment: "It is a deformity to boast of oneself"? 🙂 That’s exactly what I was thinking. You’re still keeping your cards close to the chest, aren't you? Fine, be that way. I’ll just stick to my guns and maintain that perfectionists generally lack the necessary cognitive bandwidth, which is why they end up getting so hopelessly bogged down in the weeds. It’s a cycle. For instance, when someone sits down to draft an email—or even just a quick post on a forum like this... 🙂 You know, I’ve been thinking about those people who spend thirty minutes obsessively checking over a single email before they finally hit send—assuming they even find the courage to click "send" at all. Honestly? It feels like a bit of a paradox. You’d think someone truly sharp would spot an error instantly, or realize there isn't one to begin with, rather than just spinning their wheels and wasting precious time. It reminds me of that classic trap of perfectionism, where someone sets these impossibly high, unrealistic standards for themselves and ends up making life absolutely miserable in the process. It’s a heavy way to live. Of course, I shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush. There’s a big difference between that kind of self-sabotage and the people who aim high but actually set goals that are attainable. One is a recipe for burnout, while the other is just... well, being ambitious.

gentlesailor25 said:I don't think I've ever actually run into a perfectionist who wasn't also, well, kind of lacking in the brain department.🙄

That’s a fair point, I suppose. But honestly, how can you really be certain about someone’s actual IQ? In my mind, you can't truly claim to know where someone stands unless you've actually sat down and looked at their official test results. Otherwise, isn't it all just guesswork?

Matthew Castillo5 said:Well, I have to disagree. I think you're missing the mark entirely here. This isn't about a lack of talent or someone failing to grasp their own potential.

Then what is it? What's the real issue?

If you ask me, I think perfectionists actually lack the necessary intelligence to truly grasp their own potential and act on it effectively. Someone with real insight understands that making mistakes is just part of being human—after all, nobody is actually perfect.