Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Allison Z. Shaw, University at Buffalo -- The State University of New York, Michael R. Kotowski, University of Tennessee, and Franklin J. Boster and Timothy R. Levine, Michigan State University, predicted that a neuroendocrine factor, prenatal testosterone, would lead to more verbal aggression. In order to investigate this, Shaw and colleagues used the 2D:4D measure, which is the ratio of the length of the second digit (index finger) to the length of the fourth digit (ring finger), to measure prenatal testosterone exposure.

Science Daily

Indicating that the 2D:4D measure is an accepted means of determining prenatal testosterone exposure.

Unfortunately, the peer reviewed scholarly articles require a payment to view.

...but here's an excerpt from Wiki article. Wiki - Digit Ratio

The digit ratio is the ratio of the lengths of different digits or fingers typically measured from the midpoint of bottom crease where the finger joins the hand to the tip of the finger.[1] It has been suggested by some scientists[who?] that the ratio of two digits in particular, the 2nd (index finger) and 4th (ring finger), is affected by exposure to androgens e.g. testosterone while in the uterus and that this 2D:4D ratio can be considered a crude measure for prenatal androgen exposure, with lower 2D:4D ratios pointing to higher androgen exposure. The 2D:4D ratio is calculated by dividing the length of the index finger of the right hand by the length of the ring finger. A longer index finger will result in a ratio higher than 1, while a longer ring finger will result in a ratio of less than 1.

reply to post by B1rd1nFL1ghT

What was this thread about again, lol.

Denial.

Stepford is certainly filled with that.

Thanks for the reminder though...

ETA: Its just that when I saw your avatar, I couldn't help myself..

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican

Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

ODD is indeed a very good acronym because when you get right down to it, debunkers more often than not spread more bunk than they remove. Such dedication to a negative can only result in the same.

This is NOT to say that there isn't a certain degree of skepticism that is entirely healthy... especially when dealing with the topics most often found here. But to deny for the sake of denial and to spend one's efforts in an attempt to prove that someone else is wrong for its own sake is... well, probably a fairly accurate reflection of the personality behind it all.

That, in a nutshell, constitutes a very worthy definition of the word, 'odd'.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee


Nothing religious about the Scientific Method, my friend. It takes faith out of the equation completely. Unlike what you are claiming. So much of what you claim needs a faith component to even begin to be understood. If you are going to impart information that doesn't matter because what happened can never happen again.. why is it important knowledge? Is it because it happened?

1. I never said the scientific method is religious. I thought I stated fairly clearly that there are many who cling religiously to it in matters to which it does not apply. If I was lacking in clarity, that should now be rectified. I draw a distinction between scientists who actually practice the method, and armchair scientists who take the conclusions of others as gospel, though many people belong to both categories.

2. I have a mutable world-view based on my experience, exploration of all available concepts, and what I feel to be rigorous logic. That is, my experience must be interpreted in a self-consistent way. When facts don't fit my world-view, I comfortably adjust my world-view, because I don't need to be right. I don't need to be right because I know that it is impossible to know the real nature of the universe while I live in this fleshy vessel. So, I don't have the faith you say is necessary, yet I understand (in a murky way, the best way available to me that does not negate my experience) the things you say I claim.

3. I make no claims. I state my experience with my interpretation of its implications. I do feel that I am more accurate in vetting my own experience than someone thousands of miles away who has only his infantile need for being right coupled with "science" to support his view of my ephemeral, often-not-scientific experience.

4. You say that the information I share (impart is too one-sided a word, as everything I share is already known by 'others') doesn't matter because it is derived from happenings that can't happen again. I disagree. The happenings in my life (or rather, the happening OF my life) are relevant because they have implications for the universe-at-large. My life, as such, is not any more important than anyone else's life. I don't know where I said that what I have to say is pre-eminently important, as you seem to imply. It's relevant to the people for whom it is relevant. This forum has a higher concentration of people like that than most, so I post here. Problem?

reply to post by muzzleflash


No way would I ever dream of using such week ammo against a fellow ATS member.

Like say, " Boncho " !

No way would I ever suggest for a minute that " After Infinity " had some kind of debunking disorder
in the religious forums.

And to accuse a dignified member such as" Phage " of needing to be medicated because someone thought up a new acronym ? Just because the man has debunked and dismissed everything from hell to breakfast in short order ?

Why I'd have to include " Chadwickas " " Mr. XYZ " and " Muzzleflash " Oh, sorry about that chief !



SnF for the ammo !

I don't feel my username should even be in this thread. I don't have a debunking disorder, I have this little thing called realism that compels me to deny ignorance wherever I find it. The only people who have a problem with it are the ones I've probably corrected on a number of occasions.

You know who you are.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


So, in order to discredit those who need evidence for something, and those who don't simply "believe" what they are told, you would like to label us all as having some "disorder"?

I'm just trying to clarify... if one person believes that there are orange Japanese speaking kangaroos living on Jupiter, and another person refuses to believe that because it's illogical, there is no evidence for it, and all scientific information states that there could be no life like that on Jupiter, WE (the ones who refute the UNFOUNDED belief) are the ones who are mentally defective for not having an "open mind" and believing it without question?

Oh man, this is brilliant!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I don't feel my username should even be in this thread. I don't have a debunking disorder, I have this little thing called realism that compels me to deny ignorance wherever I find it. The only people who have a problem with it are the ones I've probably corrected on a number of occasions.

You know who you are.

edit on 20-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Ahahahaha. Yes, we know who we are. However, the fact that you think you know what's real (you call it 'realism') tells me that you're in denial about the puny nature of your own brain. To quote Terence McKenna (PBUH),

"For monkeys to speak of truth is hubris of the highest degree. Where is it writ large that talking-monkeys should be able to model the cosmos? If a sea urchin or a racoon were to propose to you that it had a viable truth about the universe, the absurdity of that assertion would be self-evident, but in our case we make an exception."

and the ever-popular

"The world is not only stranger than we imagine. It's stranger than we can imagine."

So, that you strive to dispel 'ignorance' equates (in practice) to your attempted rebuttal of opinions which differ significantly from yours as concerns the nature of the universe and existence. Interesting.

reply to post by seamus


That sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing, considering your case can be applied to yourself as well. Which would, by the way, leave us at an impasse since by your logic, we are each far too ignorant to correct the other.

By the way, if a raccoon offers to tell me the secrets of the universe, I would listen. Because whatever taught the raccoon to talk probably had a lot of secrets to share. Then again, logically speaking, if I were to tell the secrets of the universe to a rodent, I probably wouldn't give it the ability to spill its guts.

So you express skepticism regarding my confidence in realism? My methods come from practices honed in ways and places whose interaction with such methods operates completely independently of our will. There's a way of thinking which conjunctifies mathematics with consistent observations, resulting in an amalgamation of educated probability. That's as close as we'll ever come to certainty, I think. And if a raccoon could talk, I'm sure it would tell you that too.

reply to post by seamus

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I didn't mean to get anything started here. But I can take a lil credit for the two brilliant posts you've both just made.
Fascinating indeed.

reply to post by randyvs


You have nothing to do with this. No credit for you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


you're right AI. Credit is over rated anyway.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by seamus

 

That sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing, considering your case can be applied to yourself as well. Which would, by the way, leave us at an impasse since by your logic, we are each far too ignorant to correct the other.

Basically, you're right in that. I am convinced that the best way to learn more truth is to pay attention to one's experience. An impasse only exists when both parties want to enforce their will. I don't care to enforce my will, so you may pass! Just don't get uppity about proclaiming YOUR truth to be THE truth. My model of existence has room for many different components of truth; even components that on their own oppose each other. I have several examples to prove the presumption of universal truth false. The benefit of broadcasting 'odd' ideas is that sometimes you run across people who have similar experience, and they can help you fill in gaps in your understanding or better yet, help you to ask the right questions (whose answers you already possess).

By the way, if a raccoon offers to tell me the secrets of the universe, I would listen. Because whatever taught the raccoon to talk probably had a lot of secrets to share.

Credo Mutwa holds a traditional Zulu view that people didn't always know how to talk. We used to be telepathic. But then some strange people with flying machines came and taught us how to talk, which had the effect of causing us to misunderstand each other at every turn. Now, that's some serious food for thought. I am not so sure that speech is indicative of benevolent influence.

Then again, logically speaking, if I were to tell the secrets of the universe to a rodent, I probably wouldn't give it the ability to spill its guts.

That which is a true mystery is and will always be a mystery. I doubt the wisdom of those who seek to pry open the lotus.

So you express skepticism regarding my confidence in realism?

Not precisely. I am skeptical regarding the applicability of the word "realism" to the view you are expressing.

My methods come from practices honed in ways and places whose interaction with such methods operates completely independently of our will.

That's not what the double-slit experiment says.

There's a way of thinking which conjunctifies mathematics with consistent observations, resulting in an amalgamation of educated probability.

But probability is all it remains. I don't happen to believe in the absolute applicability of probability, but that's a religious question that I won't press you on.

That's as close as we'll ever come to certainty, I think.

There is a difference between being 'pretty sure' and 'knowing'. I'm not saying I know, but I am saying that I know the difference, and i know of many examples of exceptions to probability in just my own meager experience.

And if a raccoon could talk, I'm sure it would tell you that too.

edit on 20-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I think the raccoon would say "..." even if it could talk (because a specially-enhanced raccoon would no doubt be told how insane we supermonkeys are). Why do you think it's taken this long for dolphins to start attacking humans? The answer is right in front of you.

reply to post by randyvs


will a star suffice?

i constantly get into arguments with people over things im educated and very familiar with, often relating to science, as im a scientist. I get stuck in these infinite stupidity loops where im trying to show somebody why the concensus among the experts in a particular field is what it is, but they apparently know more from youtube and google searches than people who have devoted a large portion of their life to trying to understand a certain phenomenon. You cant win. Ever tried to argue with somebody who is way less intelligent than you are, about something that you know a great deal about? Its like the old adage of playing chess against a pigeon, no matter how good you play, the pigeon will knock your peices over, # on the board and fly away claiming victory.

Where are my ODD pills? Either this last exemplary post, my ODD, or B1rd's avatar, or all three, are making me start to sweat.

Originally posted by seamus
reply to post by randyvs

 

will a star suffice?

Absolutely ! But I might feel the urge to debunk something.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by seamus
reply to post by randyvs

 

will a star suffice?

Absolutely ! But I might feel the urge to debunk something.

And that's fine. I have had some of the greatest epiphanies while embroiled in a debate on ATS. No kidding! So debunk away, I promise I won't whine. Iron sharpens iron, after all.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
~ Psychopaths can be identified by a ring finger being longer than the index finger.

A ring finger being longer than the index finger is actually a sign of higher testosterone. Whoever the hell that guy is who links it to psychopathy is a pseudo-scientific idiot.

Really? It's 2013 and we still believe in chiromancy?

There is no -direct- link discovered between mental illness or testosterone and the length of fingers. Please cite any peer reviewed study that claims that their is or cease using terms like 'pseudo-scientific idiot'.

In boys, “during fetal development there’s a surge in testosterone in the middle of the second trimester” that seems to influence future health and behavior, says Pete Hurd, a neuroscientist at the University of Alberta. One easy-to-spot result of this flood of testosterone: a ring finger that’s significantly longer than the index finger.

discovermagazine.com...

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


While they are busy revising Psychiatry's Bible, the DSM-5, lets get ODD recognised and included, with a specific variant, ATSODD.

All we need are the diagnostic criteria, signs and symptoms clearly listed for ease of identification of all those afflicted.

And of course, we need the cure, fix or whatever needs to be prescribed.
Gotta be fame and fortune in this for someone.
Any takers?