Posts by Jesse Adams

Can't believe we're already halfway through the year and these titles are hitting this hard. Resident Evil Requiem is definitely the standout for me so far. Anyone else actually enjoying the early access sequels, or are they feeling a bit rushed?

Gregory Howard said:This is getting ridiculous. We are on an internet forum, for crying out loud. Just grab a textbook and read. Good grief...

What article?

Gregory Howard said:It seems we are talking past each other. I am not discussing how various mathematically formalized approaches—distinct formalisms—are merged into a single unified one (honestly, even Dirac didn't fully unify them, and Von Neumann’s formulation has its own flaws; if I recall correctly, true unification only arrived following the discoveries of Frigyes Riesz decades later). I am talking about presenting the equivalence of these approaches in a way that is satisfying and widely accepted. That means demonstrating that A can be transformed into B and vice versa, rather than claiming A and B are merely components of one unifying formalism. This is basic stuff, and there isn't much else to say:

http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstye...M/history.html

In short, just twenty-five years after Planck caught the first glimpse of a new physics, there wasn't just one version of it, but two competing ones! These versions appeared completely distinct, sparking bitter debates over which held the truth. In a footnote to a 1926 paper, Schrödinger admitted he felt "discouraged, if not repelled" by matrix mechanics. Meanwhile, Heisenberg wrote to Pauli on June 8, 1926, stating:

The more I contemplate the physical aspects of Schrödinger's theory, the more detestable I find it. His commentary on visualization makes almost no sense; essentially, I think it's garbage. The primary achievement of his theory is simply the calculation of matrix elements.
Fortunately, the conflict was quickly resolved: in 1926, Schrödinger and, independently, Carl Eckert (then just 24) at Caltech proved that these two new mechanics, despite their superficial differences, were functionally equivalent. [Much like how adding numbers using Arabic numerals differs from using Roman numerals, yet the final sum remains the same.] (Pauli also reached this conclusion, though he never published it.)

That covers everything worth mentioning here:
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm

Hold on—how exactly would you prove those two equations are equivalent without leaning on Dirac's formalism?
I don't know. Maybe Schrödinger eventually pulled it off, but I doubt he did it without using Dirac's framework.

Gregory Howard said:? What are you talking about? I am stating that Schrödinger demonstrated the equivalence of his approach—via differential equations—to the matrix mechanics developed by that aforementioned trio linked to Heisenberg and Pauli. Dirac's formalism and everything else belongs to much later developments.

It's baffling that such a trivial concept didn't stick during your lectures. If you need it, here is the high school version from Wikipedia, so we don't have to bother with actual academic sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger#Middle_years
.....
In 1922, he attended the University of Zürich. In January 1926, Schrödinger published in the Annalen der Physik the paper "Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem" [tr. Quantisation as an Eigenvalue Problem] on wave mechanics and what is now known as the Schrödinger equation. In this paper he gave a "derivation" of the wave equation for time independent systems, and showed that it gave the correct energy eigenvalues for the hydrogen-like atom. This paper has been universally celebrated as one of the most important achievements of the twentieth century, and created a revolution in quantum mechanics, and indeed of all physics and chemistry. A second paper was submitted just four weeks later that solved the quantum harmonic oscillator, the rigid rotor and the diatomic molecule, and gives a new derivation of the Schrödinger equation. A third paper in May showed the equivalence of his approach to that of Heisenberg and gave the treatment of the Stark effect. A fourth paper in this most remarkable series showed how to treat problems in which the system changes with time, as in scattering problems. These papers were the central achievement of his career and were at once recognized as having great significance by the physics community.

What am I supposed to "get" from the lectures? We're studying physics, not the history of physics.
Bottom line: you're wrong—and so is your Wikipedia source. I can go even deeper if necessary:

"Dirac's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, published in 1930, is a landmark in the history of science. It quickly became one of the standard textbooks on the subject and is still used today. In that book, Dirac incorporated the previous work of Werner Heisenberg on matrix mechanics and of Erwin Schrödinger on wave mechanics into a single mathematical formalism that associates measurable quantities to operators acting on the Hilbert space of vectors that describe the state of a physical system."

I don't know exactly what that Wikipedia snippet is getting at—maybe it's implying both Schrödinger’s approach and matrix mechanics yield the same results for the Stark effect.
The point is, proving the equivalence between this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/8...d1fd437706.png
and this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/3...c3dd05f2fe.png
is impossible without using Dirac’s formalism. If you think you can do it, prove it. Until then, I’m sticking to my guns.

Gregory Howard said:Let's get something straight. De Broglie didn't contribute much to actual quantum mechanics, just wave mechanics. His approach via Hamilton-Jacobi classical mechanics was simply easier for most people to swallow than the radical nature of matrix mechanics. Even if Schrödinger proved both approaches were technically identical, it doesn't change the fact that Jordan, alongside Heisenberg and Born, was the true pioneer in redefining physical reality.

And let's not forget his significant discovery of Fermi-Dirac statistics, which happened well before either of those two.

De Broglie didn't help with quantum? Sorry, but that's not what I was taught in my physics courses. Sure, he moved on to wave mechanics later, but that doesn't erase his original breakthroughs.
So you're basically saying De Broglie and Schrödinger developed dual theory, but they aren't the pioneers? Fine.
Matrix mechanics is radical and flawed—it’s incomplete. The complete version is Hilbert space formalism. You're confusing matrix mechanics with Heisenberg's operator picture, which is identical to Schrödinger's picture—and by the way, Dirac proved that, not Schrödinger. Matrix mechanics falls apart the moment you factor in spin.
I don't know where you're getting your info, because some of this is just flat-out wrong (like that bit about Schrödinger).

Gregory Howard said:Jordan's contribution isn't any less significant than several other founding physicists. If we are judging strictly by "weight," his work holds its own against someone like de Broglie. If we start nitpicking formalisms, then according to that logic, neither Bohr nor half the others should have received anything at all.

Jordan didn't miss out solely because of his Nazi affiliations. Subsequent lobbying—led most aggressively by Eugene Wigner—failed to move the needle. As for "merit" (which shouldn't be tied to politics), look at the history of Physics Nobels. A huge number of winners from before the 1930s are questionable, and many later ones are just as dubious. We're talking about discoveries or experiments that are subject to wildly different interpretations.

With such diverse disciplines, measuring the "statistical weight" of a single discovery is nearly impossible. However, the facts speak for themselves. Men like Hubble, Gamow, von Karman, Tesla, Racah, and Bohm never got it. Chandrasekhar barely scraped by. Meanwhile, Bardeen and Curie managed to snag two. This suggests that, in my opinion, at least 50% of the Physics Nobels are problematic. Not to mention things like the Michelson experiment—brilliant design, certainly—or the discovery of the tau lepton and W bosons, which were essentially just confirming the Standard Model.

So what's the conclusion? The Standard Model functioned perfectly fine without confirmation of the Z and W bosons, just as it works without the Higgs. Ultimately, scientific awards—not even touching medicine or chemistry—can be heavily criticized. It isn't just about politicization, though that exists. It is more about shortsightedness and institutional inertia.

He’s a much smaller figure than de Broglie. But let's be real—he was the one who first spotted that the eikonal equation in optics is basically an analogue to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. That realization essentially kicked off quantum mechanics and paved the way for Schrödinger to actually write his equation. Without that link? Nothing.
Jordan didn't just assist Heisenberg—he basically handed him the blueprint for matrix mechanics on a silver platter.

It’s tough—given how much physics spans different disciplines—to put a "statistical weight" on any single discovery. But let's be real: when you look at the list of people who *didn't* get a Nobel—Hubble, Gamow, von Karman, Tesla, Racah, Bohm—and then see guys like Bardeen or Curie walking away with two? It tells me that, IMO, at least 50% of the Physics Nobels are questionable. Not to mention the stuff where the criteria are totally subjective—like the Michelson experiment, which was brilliant design—or the hunt for the tau lepton and W bosons, where researchers were basically just checking boxes to confirm the Standard Model. Is it actually groundbreaking science, or just confirming what we already suspected?

Look, you're already changing the subject. The real question here—the only one that matters—is whether the Nobel Prize has become nothing more than a political tool.

@Gregory Howard: I’ll say it again regarding Jordan. His contribution to physics isn't negligible—by today's standards, it's actually massive—but by the standards of his era? It's minor. In my view, he doesn't deserve a Nobel, though obviously, that’s up for debate. That whole "matrix mechanics" thing and Jordan’s algebra were quickly sidelined by Hilbert’s formalism (developed by Dirac) and von Neumann’s algebra (thanks to von Neumann)—which is what modern quantum physics actually runs on. Meanwhile, the work from Bohr and Heisenberg is still very much in use.
I’m still not convinced Jordan was passed over for the Nobel solely due to politics. But even if that were true, he’s an outlier. You can't take the whole Nobel Prize committee and call the entire thing "political maneuvering," regardless of what the OP is trying to imply.

Gregory Howard said:1. Jordan is one of the three canonical authors who structured quantum mechanics (Born, Jordan, Heisenberg) in the seminal paper he largely authored. After the war, Born admitted he owed Jordan to some extent because Jordan entrusted him with work for publication—work where Jordan laid out the principles of what would become Fermi-Dirac statistics (he wrote it before both of them). But Born was in a bind, focused on survival, and simply glossed over the contribution. It remains a mystery why Jordan himself didn't publish his own work to ensure the statistics were called Jordan statistics rather than Fermi-Dirac, given he certainly had the original manuscript. These arguments about functionality are laughable. Bohr's description of the hydrogen atom was rejected long ago, despite his involvement. Newton's calculus of fluxions is inferior to the Leibniz-Bernoulli notation, yet that doesn't diminish Newton's contribution.

2. Tesla didn't "refuse" an award, because awards aren't "offered." They are granted. A recipient can decline them, much like Jean-Paul Sartre did, but that has zero impact on whether the committee decides to select a specific individual. In short: Tesla didn't reject anything.

3. Born was a German physicist. You're clearly confusing him with Niels Bohr.

1. Three "canonical authors"? What about Schrödinger? Planck? Dirac? Von Neumann? And which "major work" are we talking about here? As far as I know, Heisenberg is the one who developed the core concept with matrix mechanics. Give me some actual references on this Jordan guy! How could he have developed Fermi-Dirac statistics before spin was even discovered?

2. Apparently so.

3. Yeah.

driftingviper29 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

Total war criminal from WWI. This guy was a Jewish scientist who pushed hard for using chemical weapons on the battlefield. Once the war wrapped up, he just vanished into Switzerland—kind of like how some modern fugitives flee to safe havens today—and once the dust finally settled... these absolute monsters were actually being hailed as legends and handed Nobel Prizes.

He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his actual chemical research—believe it or not. Not for being an inhuman advocate for poison gas. If he hadn't won it for that, it would actually be proof that the Nobel Prize is just pure politics. It’s funny how you specifically went out of your way to single out a Jewish Nobel laureate who developed nerve agents, while completely ignoring the French Nobel winner who did similar work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Grignard
But I'm sure that was just a coincidence and definitely not an attempt to spread hate.

Those "scumbags" behind the Nobel Prize basically built the modern world—unless you think we don't need medicine or computers because of them.

copperjackal15 said:Hold on just a second!!😉😁 Max Born wasn't Jewish; he was Danish.🙏👍

He started out as a Danish Jew—later became an American one.

Pascual Jordan developed Jordan algebra. Honestly? It’s a minor achievement compared to other laureates—you can check that yourself. Maybe he could have shared a Nobel with Born, but that’s debatable since Born’s track record is far more substantial. Not long after, von Neumann algebra came along, which is what everyone actually uses today. Funny how he collaborated so closely with Max Born—who was Jewish—right before turning Nazi.
More info on Jordan:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0303241

Tesla famously turned down his Nobel.

So, some people claim there's a bias toward Jewish scientists in the Nobel selections?
Counterpoint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Ne'eman

Nobel controversies don't stem from international politics—it's about protecting one's own industry and university prestige.

granitepilot2 said:This physicist is right on the money. Except when it comes to Woodrow Wilson and Pennies. That theorist should've walked away with it instead of those two nobodies (who were just working at Bell Labs). Everything else regarding the Nobel Prizes? Totally fine enough.

Hmm... After looking into this more closely, even I have to agree from a theorist's perspective. 😁
Here’s how they actually pick the winners:
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/process.html
In this specific instance, there probably just happened to be more experimentalists than theorists in the running. Doesn't seem like the kind of "politics" the OP was hinting at.

The Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than pure politics—and I’m pretty sure the Nobel Prize in Literature is just as much of a political tool. As for the others? They aren't, that's for sure.
Who actually knows anything for certain? Look, when it comes to the Nobel Prize in Physics, I can personally vouch that every single winner actually earned it—just ask any physicist.

envoy=diplomat.
Better way to put it: "The Russian diplomat at NATO..."

Chris Chase5 said:Take a look back at your very first response. If you actually started engaging with people properly, you'd naturally develop a higher level of tolerance... or maybe not, but hey, at least you'll get an Olympic gold medal for it...😉

It’s kind of funny—who would even bother stalking you? Are you feeling a bit paranoid or something? Using primal outbursts in a civilized society—or just in a well-raised household—isn't really how things work... so I don't see much point in stooping to your level by retaliating... it feels beneath me, and frankly, it’s just childish...😂

You clearly can't handle any criticism, sarcasm, or irony directed at you. It sounds like you live in a state of constant tension, which must be exhausting...

I've handled statistics before, I was part of the demo group, and I'm currently teaching myself econometrics, time series analysis, multivariate analysis, stochastic processes, and so on. So, you really don't need to lecture me on how to apply mathematical tools... When I mentioned "condescension," I was referring to that high-and-mighty attitude you have toward people who haven't mastered your specific field... Capiche?...☕

Your tone is ridiculous, your self-importance is hilarious, and your actual arguments only make up about a quarter of what you write. The other three-quarters are just animalistic shouting and insults aimed at the person you're talking to...

If you truly respected diversity and actually possessed such a wide range of knowledge, you'd be aware of the limits of what you know. You wouldn't categorically reject the existence of something just because you can't prove it right this second based solely on your own narrow view...
Good luck... this is my last email regarding this topic of yours...

Why should I bother tolerating people when they don't even make up my entire life?

You’re being ridiculous—who would even bother stalking you? Are you having a paranoid breakdown or something?

No. I’ve got my "spy" badge right here:
I can't believe people are still falling for this. Honestly—how many times do we have to go over the same arguments before it sticks? It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes. The logic being used here is completely broken—it’s flawed from the jump. You can't just ignore the actual data and expect anyone to take you seriously. If you want to make a point, at least try to make one that holds up under scrutiny. Is it really that hard to look at the facts? And don't even get me started on the "experts" being cited. Most of them couldn't find their way out of a paper bag without a map. It’s all just noise at this point.

Using animalistic outbursts in polite society—or even just in a decent, well-bred household—is something most people just don't do. Personally? I'm not even going to bother reciprocating. It’s beneath me. Besides, looking back at how that was handled during my childhood... it’s honestly just pathetic.😂

Funny?

You can't handle a little criticism, sarcasm, or irony—it’s like you're constantly wound tight. Honestly, sounds like a pretty exhausting way to live.

Who cares what you "think"?

Look, I’ve got the stats background—I was a math major—and I'm still drilling into econometrics, time series analysis, multivariate analysis, stochastic processes, and all that. So, you can skip the lecture on how to actually use mathematical tools. I get it.

Props to you—you clearly know your stuff. 👍 Way to go!

When I talked about being condescending, I was actually talking about that high and mighty attitude you have toward anyone who hasn't spent years mastering your specific field. Capisce?☕

If this discussion is happening in my neck of the woods—so why shouldn't I have an opinion?

You're honestly a joke—your ego is hilarious. Your actual arguments make up maybe a quarter of what you write? The other three-quarters is just mindless screaming and insults thrown at everyone else.

My average is better than yours on that front—at least within this thread. I haven't bothered looking at your other posts because, frankly, I don't care about you.

If you actually respected diversity and truly possessed such a vast range of knowledge, you’d be aware of your own limitations. You wouldn't just flat-out deny something exists based solely on the argument that it doesn't...

Give me an example.

Good luck....this is my last email regarding this topic of yours....

An email? Santa Claus!
Bye now! I’ll certainly miss your "constructive" contributions to the debate (and then you have the nerve to claim I can't handle sarcasm). 😉

John Roberts4 said:Exactly.

Think about the admissions process at a major US university's philosophy department. It’s one of those rare cases where they base everything on an IQ test and barely give a damn about your high school GPA. You have about 4,000 people applying every single year. Half of them are gunning for psychology as one of their top three choices—which, by the way, has been one of the most popular majors at schools like NYU or UCLA for years now. But there are only about 50 to 70 spots available. So, in our system, the selection process itself basically guarantees that the only people getting into psychology are the ones with the highest IQ scores...

The IQ test is just one of three components of the exam, and since they capped it at 130 (SD 15) and haven't updated the norms in years, it's hardly a gold standard.

Besides, like I’ve already pointed out, anything measuring intelligence functions effectively like an IQ test when you're dealing with large populations—thanks to Gauss's distribution.
So, you aren't the only ones using "IQ tests"—you're just the only ones calling it that.
Furthermore, why on earth would you think your specific test guarantees that the people entering psychology are the highest IQ individuals in the entire pre-college population? Maybe they're the smartest among those *applying* for psychology (much like how the SAT or GRE works here in the States), but even that's debatable—see below.

I don't see how this thesis doesn't apply to America. There's zero reason to assume otherwise since the curricula are practically identical in both countries.

Minimal importance of grades? Grades account for 1/4 of the total points, and the IQ test makes up 1/3 of the exam—meaning they carry the exact same weight.

Peter Stewart18 said:So, just for my own curiosity, what’s the average IQ of, say, painters, writers, dancers, singers, and all those other wannabe creative types trying to make it big? 😂

How the hell should I know?
The data is based on the GRE, which is part of the entrance requirements for PhD programs at universities across the USA.
Some people are whining because other professions weren't listed, but the original post specifically focused on PhD candidates.

Chris Chase5 said:You don't need a therapist. You just need to tell yourself, "Look, man, I'm not God," and realize there's a whole world out there beyond your own expertise and how much you've learned about it...

I think you might be in the wrong subforum here...😉

Actually, maybe that was the point—you wanted the psychologists to start building your case file... clever move... 🙂

Just chill out a bit, life is beautiful... other people have value too, some even more so, even if they don't possess as much specialized knowledge in your field... just take a deep breath...☕

You're the one who crossed the line into being insulting. Maybe "chill out" is better advice for you?

From now on, if anyone has a personal problem with me, just send a DM.

Chris Chase5 said:I have to say, I’m not entirely sure if your whole "calling out" approach is actually hitting the mark. It feels like there might be some language barriers at play here—something you often see in university programs that host a large number of international students. Because of those hurdles, the group GPA tends to look lower than it really is. Since you’ve chosen such an aggressive tone with your critique, I suppose I can afford to be just as blunt in return...

So, you presented that study—that scientific paper—just to achieve some kind of widespread recognition, right? Something that would carry weight among the entire population of physicists, mathematicians, and psychologists here in the States...
Honestly, someone who’s spent their whole life working in the field can't possibly grasp the nuances here. I have a few friends working as teaching assistants, and let me tell you, some of them have zero respect for the curriculum, the organization, or even basic professionalism when it comes to the professors at our College of Science... But if that's just a way to mask some massive superiority complex, then I guess that's exactly what it is... 🙂

I proved it to myself back when I was applying for both programs; I could see my competitors' actual scores for class ranking right there on the screen... you might want to take a closer look at that...😉

The math on an economics entrance exam doesn't necessarily have to be harder than what you'd see on the math and physics entrance exams at the College of Science (though I can't quite recall when the physics exams were held lately)...😉

I'll just say that when I was applying to the College of Science, I was actually exempt from the entrance exam. Still, I decided to take it just for the fun of it since I had taken both physics and math in high school—so, being all high and mighty, I think you would have kicked ass back then...

I'm talking about selection density. You have to cover a specific range of subjects, and there are fewer people competing for those spots compared to the numbers we see in the sciences...

Okay, sure, the math on the entrance exam might be pushed to an extreme, but my question is this: even with such an idealized exam and an ideal education system, why does such a huge percentage of students drop out?

Not for coexisting with other people? 🤣 Or is there nothing in the modern world besides technology? Or could you please—since I appreciate precision—quantify your cost/benefit analysis for me? And you can include only your own contribution, like your contribution to the advancement of science, to me as a user...

I hate condescension, prejudice, and any other kind of judgmental labeling, but considering this is a psychology subforum, what kind of impression do you think someone makes with those statements—someone who has clearly never been in a relationship? Someone for whom technology isn't a tool, but the end goal itself? Do you honestly think our education system directed you toward making a significant contribution to technological development?
No, but the College of Science turned you into a psychological case study. You seem to think you're God, but sooner or later, you're going to realize you aren't... 🙂

I don't mean to brag, but I feel like I could wipe the floor with you and people like you when it comes to understanding and quantifying the phenomena around us. There are groups of people who started with a clear goal and direction, driven by a genuine curiosity that keeps them moving forward...
If you actually had a scientific mind, you would always analyze results with skepticism and adjust your own conclusions based on the level of knowledge you acquire...

Honestly, all the best to you on your little island, and I suppose the standard error of population estimation among physicists is what?...🙂

Thanks for the heads-up that this post was going to be a personal attack.
If you want to look strictly at the math behind the GRE—assuming the verbal section discriminates against international students and that those students are concentrated in lower-ranked majors (which, frankly, makes no sense)—fine, we can do that. But the ranking wouldn't change much regardless.

You cited a study just to troll, right? To get a rise out of the whole population of physicists, mathematicians, and psychologists—which applies here too.

Did you study statistics in business school? Concepts like means, standard deviation, distributions? This isn't about trolling; it's about averages.

Someone working in the field could have absolutely no clue—I have a few friends among the TAs who can't even speak coherently about the curriculum, organization, or the professionalism of the professors at our blessed College of Science... But if you're suffering from a superiority complex, then sure... 🙂

And what are these imaginary TAs called, since we're relying on anecdotes now? And do you tell them they suffer from a "superiority complex" (whatever that means)?
The situation at the College of Science is far from perfect regarding the issues you mentioned, but how you concluded I felt differently based on my posts is a total mystery to me.

I proved it to myself during those years when I was enrolling and looking at the grades of my "competitors"... maybe you should take a look yourself...😉

Okay, I don't care about you personally. As I said at the start, this isn't a personal attack; it's about groups of people.

Admissions for business school don't necessarily require harder math than the entrance exams for the math and physics tracks at the College of Science.

Fine... 😕

I can't even remember—was there even an entrance exam for physics?😉

How long has physics actually existed?

Just so you know—when I was applying to the College of Science, I actually got a pass on the entrance exam. I did it just for the hell of it—purely for my own satisfaction. Since I took both physics and math during my high school finals—so, yeah, I’m feeling pretty high and mighty about this—I honestly think you would’ve kicked ass back then.

Alright, since you’ve decided to make this personal...
What have you been tackling just for the hell of it lately? Entrance exams? Which ones did you finally get out from under your belt?
So you took physics and math on your finals? Real impressive.
I have. [nešto] Look, I’m not going to tell you which Olympics I competed in or even what medal I took home—I have no interest in outing myself. Unlike most of you lot who just scraped through high school physics and math, there aren't exactly a ton of us Olympiad types running around. 😉 So, honestly? It’s unlikely anything would have kicked me out then—or even now.

I'm talking about selection—you have to cover the ground here. Right now, you're expected to handle three different subjects, even though there are barely enough people at the College of Science to fill the slots. What's the logic there?

Explain yourself.

Look, the math on these entrance exams has been pushed to a total absurdity—I get that. But I’m asking you this: if we actually had these "perfect" exams and an ideal education system, why the hell would such a huge percentage of people still be dropping out?

At the College of Science? For a dozen different reasons—it really just depends on the individual. For some, it’s simply because they can't manage to land on the right side of the bell curve.

So, what—it’s not about being able to live with other people? 🤣 Is there really nothing left in the modern world besides technology? Or—since I prefer precision—could you please quantify your cost-benefit ratio for me? And let’s be clear about the "benefit" part: you can only include your actual contribution, like your impact on scientific progress or what you specifically offer me as a user.

Got it. If you're that interested, just start a new thread about it—maybe I'll even show up.

I hate policing, prejudice, and any other kind of moralizing—but if you drop statements like that in a psychology subforum, what kind of impression do you think you're making on someone who’s actually been in a relationship before?

Those self-help books written by pop-psychologists about "reading body language"—the ones mentioned earlier—are pure pseudoscience. Any actual psychologist worth their salt will tell you the exact same thing.

When does technology stop being a tool and start becoming the end goal itself? Do you honestly think our education system actually prepared you to make any meaningful contribution to technological advancement?

You really think you're in any position to judge?
Do I even care?

No, but the College of Science turned you into a psychological case study because you think you're God—and sooner or later, you'll realize you aren't... 🙂

Stalking me now? Interesting.
If you haven't realized by now, that thread was just a joke meant to highlight the circular logic behind claiming God is infallible.

I hate to brag, but I could wipe out the understanding of people like you when it comes to quantifying the phenomena around us—people who actually had a goal and a direction, driven by actual curiosity...

Wow, a basic insult. You don't know anything about me. Dropping down to that level of vulgarity says way more about you than it does about me.

If you actually had a scientific mind, you'd be analyzing results skeptically and adjusting your own conclusions based on how much you actually know...

Thanks for the advice!

Honestly, good luck on your little island. And what’s the standard error for population estimates among physicists?🙂

SD=15.
SE=15/sqrt(n).

Since n is greater than 200, the SE is less than 1.

hollowtinker18 said:Sorry, but calling this ego-tripping mess a "thread"... yeah, that’s not funny, it’s just pathetic.🤷..😂

Oh, thanks so much... for the midnight soul-searching jokes. Thanks, Jesse.😂

🙂