RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Necessary Education needed to debate, Are there basic thingsyou need?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,11:56   

On one of AFDaves many, many AiG related threads, I asked a series of questions that Seemed like necessary understanding to have to post the kinds of questions he posts.  My questions were:
 
Quote
I have read this thread patiently, waiting for you to utter an informed sentence Mr. Dave, but, not to my total surprise, you haven't. You are so totally lacking in the fundemental understanding of the entire subject you are taking on that there is no point arguing these finer details.

If you can tell me things like:

1-What is the geology of the area you live? When did it start to look like it does now?

2-What fossils have been discovered that fit into that time scale?

3-Why do specific flora and fauna (plants and animals-sorry) live in particular places? Why do they move around geographically as climate changes?

4-What does a top level predator provide to an ecosystem?

5-Why is there a system of ridges and trenches under the oceans? What do they signify?

6-Why do scientists think that dinosaurs existed? Why do they think it was so long ago? How do they arive at that belief?

7-Why do you think that echinoderms as varied as a sea slug and a starfish share certain characteristics but other similar creatures like molluscs (I'm thinking particularly about squid or octopus) don't share those same characteristics?

8-What does the magnetic orientation of rocks on the sea floor tell us?

And other questions like these I would be surprised. My bet is that at least half of those questions you can't answer off the top of your head. My other bet is that most of the sciency types here can answer all of those questions off the top of their head and that at least some can point out the problem with one of those questions.

Until you can gain that basic knowledge, you really can't discuss finer and more nuanced details that relate to those questions. Chimps and humans question really encompasses all of them to some degree.


It got me thinking. Most of the people I know can answer these questions to some degree even if they have NO college level science or very little. And they are very basic science concepts.

My hypothesis is that only those on the extraordinary self-dilusional side of the spectrum on the fundy spectrum CAN answer more than two of these.

So my question is: Is the debate possible, lets say in genetics, if the AiG type doesn't understand these concepts?

Ignorance fueled by the desire to remain ignorant is a foreign concept to me so I am not really sure of the answer. But I think you will just go round and round between the disciplines if the other guy isn't aware. It's a matter of the core. How all the sciences are inter-related.

Anyone?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,12:17   

I would also ask :

How did the solar system appear?

Where were your atoms formed?

What is a protein and how is it synthesised?

What is a species?

...

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,12:40   

Well, AiG nutjobs aside, I think noone needs any kind of education to participate in a scientific discussion.
Seriously.
On the contrary, I think that uneducated people should be encouraged to participate in such debates. They should be able to state their views; the worst (and most likely) they can turn out to be is, well, wrong.
The important thing, however, is that they have to be prepared to accept the fact that they might be wrong, if (when) it is demonstrated to them. It's the only way they'll eventually learn something.
And we all know on which side AiG denizens usually are...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,12:53   

Quote
The important thing, however, is that they have to be prepared to accept the fact that they might be wrong
Agreed. For someone to be a professional evolution debater you need knowledge in a lot of fields. Im a biologist, and I have absolutely no clue about the geology of my area. But if I am having a discussion about geology, Im not going to just paste sections form talk origins, I will actually ask one of my friends who is a geologist to explain the concepts to me, same with physics etc. That being said the way AFDave's going with this he will need a pretty good background in biology chemistry geology and physics.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,13:05   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 13 2006,17:53)
 
Quote
The important thing, however, is that they have to be prepared to accept the fact that they might be wrong
Agreed. For someone to be a professional evolution debater you need knowledge in a lot of fields. Im a biologist, and I have absolutely no clue about the geology of my area. But if I am having a discussion about geology, Im not going to just paste sections form talk origins, I will actually ask one of my friends who is a geologist to explain the concepts to me, same with physics etc. That being said the way AFDave's going with this he will need a pretty good background in biology chemistry geology and physics.

I assume that you are a scientist and circulate in a scientific community.

Most of us do not have those resources. Personaly I have to rely on popular science books to learn anything "scientific" (oh, and the patience of some posters here).

If I try and read technical articles the language is (or may as well be) foreign.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,13:49   

I second what Stephen Elliot has said.  If I hadnt gone to University myself and now have a job in a science related area, I would know maybe one person with whom I could talk about scientific stuff.  

The thing is, related to communication, the science over the past 100 years has gotten so complex and deep that it is rather hard for a layman to get to grips with it.  I have a chemsitry degree, and am generally interested in science.  Yet it has taken over a year of reading stuff on here, Pandas thumb and elsewhere, as well as the reading of a couple of popular science books, before I have a reasonable idea of evolutionary things.  I dont even know much biology.  In order to know much about anything I would have to go through first year university level courses on biology, evolution, information theory, etc etc.  Theres just so #### much to learn, that is is quicker and easier to leave it to other people.  We can win som ebattles with national efforts, but the war will have to be one one mind at a time.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,13:50   

The friends I am talking about are old schoolfriends, but I get your point, not everyone can ask a scientist. My point was that if somebody told me something about a subject I would not just read the first article that comes up on google, and then decide Im an expert, which is what a lot of creationists seem to do. Reading popular science books is I think the way to go, unless of course you are talking about The Genesis Flood, and Darwins Black Box.  :D

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,14:19   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 13 2006,18:50)
The friends I am talking about are old schoolfriends, but I get your point, not everyone can ask a scientist. My point was that if somebody told me something about a subject I would not just read the first article that comes up on google, and then decide Im an expert, which is what a lot of creationists seem to do. Reading popular science books is I think the way to go, unless of course you are talking about The Genesis Flood, and Darwins Black Box.  :D

LOL No. For me it is astro physics that really interests me. For that I have to rely on the explanations of Stephen Hawkins and Brian Green.

Biology is a mystery to me. For that I bought the book Biology by Campbell/Reece. Finding time to read it (let alone understand it) is prohibitive. Unfortunately I have to go to work and have other time demands.

Mostly it is easier to just ask a question here and hope somebody explains in simple English, or just accept an experts POV.

I mostly favour the latter. Possibly from being lazy, but I just don't have the time to learn the subject to the same degree.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:03   

I believe that certain skills are necessary for debate...but these are not debates...

A debate generally occurs when some common ground can be agreed upon....
An example might be a debate between abiotic and biotic oil.
They both agree that oil exists, they both agree that the others idea is at least logical.  

These conversations are more of a theological/philosophical clash.  There exists no common ground.
AFDave's most important evidence is the Bible
Our least important evidence is the Bible

I will leave you with a quote...actually two quotes...and I will let you all guess as to the authorship....


Quote
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Quote
For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1476
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:31   

All that's really necesary to make a useful contribution to the discussion is a desire to learn and an ego sized small enough to understand and admit that your current 'knowledge' may be wrong.

Unfortunately, finding those traits amongst the YECs I've met has proven just about impossible.  AFDave is merely the latest egotistical dimbulb in a long line.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,19:34   

Yeah, reading science books should get you there. It seems to me that the YEC types might have the hinderance of religion and in that respect they are right that scientists and those like myself who use science at work are really not interested in what they have to say about a topic they care a lot about.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 8884
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,03:14   

Quote

So my question is: Is the debate possible, lets say in genetics, if the AiG type doesn't understand these concepts?


I tutored high school kids in math and science for years while getting my physics degree. It was strenuous work under the best conditions. When I see an AFDave type or a Thordaddy type, I know exactly who they are. They're like what my tutoring clients would have been, if the client had not just been ignorant, but actively disputed every single thing I said. That's why you won't find me arguing with them. They don't have the modus operandi necessary to learn things.

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,04:59   

Thank you Steve. That is what I've been thinking that has been nagging at me. If I want to know something about genetics, I will go to someone who really knows. And here's the thing, I will place the information gleaned from that encounter in the file marked "newest, probably best information" in my head.

Having gone some of the way, I know why those who have chosen to specialize are indeed experts. I suppose that anyone who can think critically can do that. It's not an appeal to experts like a falacy. It's an appeal to experts to ask for info. That's kind of where the info comes from. Like what you said steve, they come to you asking about math and then tell you that you don't know. It can be frustrating.

Fundies are caught in what k.e. likes to call "cognative dissonance". They have an authority- a pastor or whatever- telling them one thing, and when they go to someone who actually looks at that stuff, they get an opposite answer.

You eventually realize that one of the two is lying. Well, who's it gonna be, the guy who married you to your wife or some scientist who has forgotten how to even speak english?

To keep their heads from exploding, they start shouting as loud as they can:

La lalalalalalalaalallalallallalalalalalalalala, I can't heeeeeaaar you. lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala.

And that is what these discussions are. one side shouting that kind of thing but disguising it as a rational question and another side answering the rational question instaed of just shaking their heads and walking away.

I remember one time when a street preacher walked up to the place I was eating in the main square downtown and started preaching just stupid jesus stuff.  He got right next to the small group of people that were enjoying the sunshine and lunch and started shouting at us. Some of the people asked him to leave but he wouldn't. After maybe an excruciating minute, I got up, walked down to the circle he was standing on, and started telling the story of the 3 little pigs in biblical fashion, at his same volume, complete with hand motions and all. It worked, he refused to compete and left (AFDave, if that was you, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings). I sat back down and finished my lunch. It was the most honest conversattion I've ever had with a fundy.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 8884
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,05:06   

LOL street preaching the three little pigs. You know, that's actually much better than the street preachers we had at NCSU, who mostly discussed who was going to he11. If you're curious, it turns out the answers are "fags", "sodomites", "liberals". I forget the others.

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,04:53   

Fornicators. That's what my guy was saying.

So what do you say to a fundy like AFDave who just doesn't know enough to even ask intelligent questions?

It's not that you have to know all that stuff, it's just that if you are going to argue against evolution- then you have to know that stuff. Because you will inevitably not understand the main ideas of niches and geologic time.
??

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,20:29   

The necessary education appears to be critical thinking skills. You have to be able to recognize dead ends.
Davey-dog and T-diddy have been going far beyond tthe simple "ignorance is bliss" metaphor.

They are maybe this far.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,20:43   

Quote
k.e. likes to call "cognative (sp: cognitive) dissonance".


lol.

ke didn't even need to invent this.

it's standard psychology, and exactly what I've been pointing out is wrong with the creobots for years.

they all suffer from it.

external symptoms include mad spinning of psychological defense mechanisms to give the brain some room to breathe.

these include... wait for it...

projection and denial.

Yeah, there's a reason psychologists get PhDs.
There really is something to the science of psychology.

The kind of stuff exhibited by the likes of good ol Dave can be gleaned from a psych 101 text.

but that doesn't qualify me to treat him, or make a definitive diagnosis, even halfassed in an online forum.

You can google search on the term yourself and see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

It seems blatantly obvious to me, but hey, now I'm trying to play M.D. where i probably shouldn't.

Could do more harm than good.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,20:54   

:) Can't slip anything buy you guys can I?

But k.e. uses the term frequently. Also provides that particular link frequently. So to me, the phrase has become his. I usally use, um, different* words to describe behavior that exhibits what some call cognitive dissonance.

* More akin to Stupid, idiot, moron, dumber than a shovel handle etc.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,21:02   

Whatever the case (I think Pim actually was the first to use it on a PT board in a discussion we were having about a year ago on this very issue), I think if you spend an hour or two checking out the basic psychology involved, you'll start to see a repeated pattern, and it is pretty interesting.  Worth the time if you have an hour or two to spare.

I had to study psych as an behavioral ecologist, of course, but that's about as far as it went.

I do know some psych grads who might have better insight, if i can find them.

the problem is, say you manage to diagnose someone as schizophrenic.  How do you go about convincing them of that?

Do you think if we showed Dave how much the way he processes questions looks like cognitive dissonance, that he would say, "By Jove, I think you're right, I should see somebody about that!"

It's all very frustrating.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,21:18   

Well, Dave has the option of evangelizing on this bullitin board or not. If he chooses to, I will torment him, if he chooses not to, I won't.

His psychology is messed up for sure. But we all have our crosses to bear, right?;)

I would love to see rational thought come from the guy. No matter how wrong or misguided. But I have no sympathy for the guy who needs to go out into the world and spread stupidity like a layer of peanut butter.

Stay in your cave and wallow in stupidity, otherwise, serve as an example for my children-the same way a mouse serves as an example for a litter of kittens :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,05:09   

I have been recording the new(ish) Dr Who series on SciFi, and last night I got around to watching a couple.  As they approached the space station to watch the end of the world, a computer PA voice said "Remember - No weapons, no teleportation and no religion are allowed on the Space Station"  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2006,09:52   

Quote
His psychology is messed up for sure. But we all have our crosses to bear, right?


of course.

After seeing the endless parade of IDiots wander through this forum and preach at us, I thought perhaps that rather than doing the usual; that being trying to actually show them evidence (which never seems to work), I'd try to investigate if there was perhaps a more productive way to approach them.

seeing that most of them appear to share a common psychology, it seems a natural point to press and see where it goes.

What if we actually do get somewhere in convincing a creobot that their thinking processes themselves are disfunctional?

for once, progress other than convincing lurkers these guys are idiots could be made.

I just don't know enough about psych to feel qualified to pull it off.

I decided yesterday i would try to track down some old friends and get their input.

one has a Masters in clinical psychology, and the other a PhD in cognitive psychology.

that should be a pretty balanced perspective, and either dispell my notions right quick-like, or else provide some positive input to act on.

Could take me a week or so to track them down tho.  I'ts been a few years...

  
Leonides



Posts: 3
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,02:27   

Hi there.

I'm a lurker of several months and have been fascinated by the ongoing 'argument'. I jump in at this point since my background is Psychology, (I have a degree from UCL my Masters in Applied Forensic Psychology temporarily on hold due to real life intruding).

>What if we actually do get somewhere in convincing a creobot that their thinking processes themselves are disfunctional?

The problem here is that the thought processes actually are dysfunctional. There is no real way to alter the thought processes through a medium like this. It would probably require intensive deprogramming like you would try on Cult members.

If someone is open to evidence and so on then they can be persuaded. A lot of these people aren't (and in some cases don't want to be). I often feel that looking at the creobot responses, it's like severe anterograde amnesia that is specifically tailored to remove any evidence that is contrary to their world view. They may read and process responses then ten minutes later it's gone, which is why you find the same idiots re-posting on T.O. about Haeckel charts, the gaps in the fossil record and the rest of the PRATTs, despite being given refutations, links to Journals or the fallacies in their logic being shown up. Continuing the anterograde amnesia theme, I think some sort of 'Memento' style tattooing system might be useful, so they can think ''Haeckel', oh, look, on my forearm, um Haeckel, ah can't use that one.'

In case anybody is interested, the guy that came up with the whole cognitive dissonance theory was called Festinger. There's quite a lot of interesting articles available on the net about him and the theory.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,09:09   

so, are you in effect saying that there is no productive way to communicate with folks who suffer such?

I'm not quite clear what your recommendation is here.

  
Leonides



Posts: 3
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:25   

>so, are you in effect saying that there is no productive way to communicate with folks who suffer such?

Yup, essentially. I mean how many of the hard-core creationists have ever actually seen the light of reason? From my (admittedly limited) experience, there are a relatively small number of these folk but they are completely immune to evidence no matter how often, simply and patiently it is explained to them. They need deprogramming which can't really be done over the net.

Part of the problem is that all their mental energies go to supporting their world-view in the face of overwhelming evidence. I would imagine that most of the time these people don't arise in a social vacuum and that all their social and familial support mechanisms will be tied to the churches and pastors that have propagated the world-view in the first place and to question what is believed is to risk isolation from those nearest and dearest. A lot of theirs identity is tied up in their belief mechanism. One of those things that I see repeatedly from them is the claim that atheists lives are meaningless or nihilistic. This is a big clue to their own behaviour: if there is no god, there is no meaning to their lives. Clinging to the belief in god is a clinging to identity. When all of their support networks say 'it was all poofed into existence 6000 years ago by a sky pixie', alogn with the however many years of familial indoctrination, what is an argument on the internet against that?

Some people are brave enough to make the leap from faith, others aren't.

>I'm not quite clear what your recommendation is here.

Keep doing what you're doing. You'll convince the waverers and those who are genuinely interested in learning and it's worth it to get through to them. It's entirely possible that a the majority of creationists are creationists simply because they've never had things explained to them properly and are dropping into a 'default' socially derived position. The ones for whom it must take a lot of effort to maintain are those who are relatively bright or educated, guys like Dembski and Behe who know how vacuous the garbage they?re peddling is but have so\much invested in it that they can't let go of it.

Some find that they are prepared to let go of the intellectual dishonesty.  The others... well there are none so blind as those who won't see.

And mean as it may be, taking the mick out of the people that really need it is funny.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,10:54   

hmm, as cynical as I usually am, I still am leaning towards trying to figure out if there is a better way of communicating with folks who are as dissonant as AFDave.

there might not be, but one does get weary of the banging-head-on-wall sensation that is sparked by continual diatriabe with such.

Quote
Some find that they are prepared to let go of the intellectual dishonesty.  The others... well there are none so blind as those who won't see.


In the parable depicted by Breughel in "bling leading the blind"

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html....le.html

Breughel actually includes every known cause of blindness at the time he painted it, except the most common one, willfull blindness.

He should have added a picture of a man, perhaps even the leader, whose hands actually cover his eyes.

did you see Fractatious' response to the same question on the other thread?

There's gotta be something simple to help point these folks towards self-recognition.

I haven't seen negative reinforcement having much effect, and while postive reinforcement works, it's hard to get them to do anything to begin with that's worth rewarding.

We try to get them to read links, which they then promptly process through their distorted worldview and spit back nonsense.

*sigh*

back to the drawing board.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8884
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,11:04   

Quote

there might not be, but one does get weary of the banging-head-on-wall sensation that is sparked by continual diatriabe with such.


They're not teachable. They lack the ability to learn anything contrary to their religion. What you have to decide is how much time you are going to spend trying.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,13:54   

Quote
They're not teachable.


What I'm saying is not a disagreement with that as far as ToE is concerned, but rather that perhaps there might be some way to get through to them just how badly their thought processes differ from what would be considered "rational".

What we've been doing up to now seems to me like trying to convince a smoker to quit by pointing out statistics on lung cancer.

doesn't work.

you have to convince them that there's a psychological addiction they are facing first, get them to recognize that, and go from there.

same with alcoholism, or most addictive behavior for that matter.

again, I'd consider it a major victory if we could just get ONE of these creobots to recognize that they might not be thinking rationally.  Maybe that would be enough to get them a bit more introspective, and hopefully enough that a few might seek to explore that.  Folks as bad as Dave is should seriously be considering seeking professional treatment, as there may be underlying causes to the dissonant behavior that could produce far more unwanted results than depicted here in these forums.

Alcoholism was, until relatively recently (say 60 years?), not considered to be a real problem for society at large.

I don't think very many think this way any more (laws against drunk driving, thousands of treatment programs, AA, etc.).

I'm beginning to suspect that the type of dissonant behavior shown by creobots is becoming a more recognized and pervasive problem now in the US.  Heck, it seems pretty obvious that our own president seems to suffer from it to a greater or lesser extent, based on his reactions to logical questions about his policies.  I'm certainly not the first to notice, either.

Adam, on the PT board yesterday, also made a point of detailing the difference between "religion" and the type of behavior exhibited by AFDave.

again, an alcoholic comes to mind.  Most of us can drink alcohol and not become adversly psychologically affected (addicted) to it, but some cannot.

we realize the best treatment isn't to eliminate the sale of alcohol to cure alcoholics, but rather to remove the individual from the source.  Even before that, however, you have to get the individual to recognize that they have a problem.

I've decided to explore how one would go about doing just that, if there even is a way to do so via an online forum.

It's gotta be more productive than head-banging and ridicule.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8884
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,14:07   

Good luck. I wouldn't even try. Listen to Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson. "The evidence is against me and I don't care. It must be wrong."* Good luck arguing with that. And most of them are too dumb to know the evidence is even against them in the first place (AFDave).


*(I wish I had a source for that. I think I did last year, but I forgot what it was)

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2006,14:09   

OK, so go through a thread and analyze the methodology Davey or t-diddy uses. That's what I'd do first. See what the pattern looks like linearly. You could potentially find pressure  points.

Do it for 3 or 4 threads and patterns of short circuits should emerge. My guess is that the same "type" of question generates most of the short circuits. Maybe the 80/20 rule.

Devise a way to bypass the short circuiting mechanism and test it. You've got a lab right here. It'd be interesting. I'll help by asking provocative questions to get them blabbering once you know what you're looking for.

I've refined the art of baiting some so I might be able to offer some criticisms.

Good Luck :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  55 replies since May 13 2006,11:56 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]