Thread: How observant are you really - Debate away

Originally Posted by wendylove

You own no knowledge from the simpsons only ignorance. http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp

THANKYOU.

This is way too much fun. Reciprocation turns me on so I should probably get back to work. Good times.

I win, I anwsered all you're questions and what's your reply. Run away back to work.
The simpsons can be wrong some times.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I win,

Really? I sure didn't get that from anything you said.

I anwsered all you're questions and what's your reply.

Not to my satisfaction. I just figured it's no use continuing to fight after I've already won.

Run away back to work

Run? No, more like a sultry saunter.

Oneironaught options;
1. Anwser my questions.
2. Say he has one even though he has not provided any counter points to my question.
3. Run away.

Oneironaught has selected 2.

-- I'm sorry... did somebody say something?

Oneironaught greets wendy with maniacal laughter THEN runs away.

I've actually countered your every fallacy with skill, grace, and masterful precision.

Now, back to the topic (unless you really want to dig yourself even deeper).

Oneironaught greets wendy with maniacal laughter THEN runs away.

I've actually countered your every fallacy with skill, grace, and masterful precision.

Now, back to the topic (unless you really want to dig yourself even deeper).

Well, Socrates looked silly when he was arguing with people, but aleast if you anwsered his question you would see their is hole in your argument.

Now since you didn't actually anwsered the last set off my question, how could I possibly show you your wrong? if you not going to anwser my questions then how can this continue.

Quote:
Way to be consistent within the same post

I was being scarcastic, I won't try and be scarcastic again as it just confuses you, however if you would have went beyound the surface you might have worked it out. Well, unless you assume I am inconsistant.

Quote:
Again, recognized states. We recognise you as being "wendylove" because that's your user name: not because we have deeply-held beliefs that you are indeed full of love.

Maybe I am using tough love.

Quote:
When you followed that logic to reach the natural conclusion that there are in fact ZERO states, was it confusing that that was not one of the three answers from which to choose?

Their was a famous observation test where you counted the times a person passed a ball. Now that wasen't the test the test was that a monkey walked passed the screen and no one saw it. So I thought it was being all clever, or that the people who did the test where idiots.

Quote:
Nice try but, observation is a passive activity. Probing and questioning is an active procedure.

I disagree, if you don't probe then you have crappy observational skills and proberly memory. See for memory a good tip to build it is to build observational skills, like sherlock holmes(fictional character, but will do). Now memory is heavily passive, it does not mean it is fully passive as observation itself it not fully passive. Meditation is a good example also.

Can you know give the counter points to my argument above or admit you're wrong. The only argument you have left is that observation is passive, which is true, however you can improve observation by being more observent and skeptical. Is that all you got. We reduce one problem down to ethics, which is subjective i.e. state question and we have one other question about the nature observation, which is passive yet can be improved. Which in a football match I would be winning.

I believe the original argument was over the number of states, which you stumbled over, then eventually mumbled something incoherant and pushed the subject into a closed drawer somewhere.

If that's not a touchdown on Oneironaught's part, it's at least a safety, and I'm awarding him two points.

I believe the original argument was over the number of states, which you stumbled over, then eventually mumbled something incoherant and pushed the subject into a closed drawer somewhere.

If that's not a touchdown on Oneironaught's part, it's at least a safety, and I'm awarding him two points.

So your argument is that because I am so observant and took apart the state argument into a argument of ownership and then ethics of ownership I lose. But what is the point of having good observational skills and then only looking at the surface.

It like doing the counting test and not noticing that a monkey walked passed a screen and then saying to the person who noticed the monkey that they have poor observation skills because they noticed the monkey. When they asked the state question then what was so wrong with thinking that their something beyound the surface, then it being a stupid general knowledge test, I would rather see the monkey walk pass then end up with the right number of passes made.

Originally Posted by wendylove

But what is the point of having good observational skills and then only looking at the surface.

This was exactly the point of the test.

This was exactly the point of the test.

So the traffic light question, that had depth. Wait what about the toilet question the correct anwser on the test was wrong, see the person who made the test did not do his homework, three minautes on the internet would gave him the correct anwser, but no looking at a problem in more detail is harder. I guess his observational skills were not working when he wrote that question.

ENOUGH ALREADY!! Can we PUH-LEAZE end this back and forth now?!

It was a simple test.. can't we have people take a SIMPLE FREAKIN' TEST without going into some DEEP OVER ANALYZING blather?!?!

If this continues wendylove.. and I called you out as you started this whole debate (surprise surprise), I will add this topic to Extended Discussion where you can debate ad nauseam with anyone who cares to go there.
.

DEEP OVER ANALYZING blather?!?!

If only I was less observant

I think the test of observation getting a simple anwser incorrect i.e. the flush one, proves that this is not a good test of observation. It more of a test of ignorance and easy anwsered, if it wasen't then I wouldn't be able to do this http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp . Sorry Skysaw the person who wrote this test got a question wrong, now this pretty much proves this is a crappy test and is shallow and not observent. Seriously, three minautes in google would have gave the person who wrote this the correct anwsered, but no. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...s+toilet&meta=
I guess it is too hard to write coriolis and toilet into google.

You guys DO realize that if wendylove got a 100% (or near that) on this test this conversation wouldn't be going on at all. She would more likely be hailing the ingenuity of the test.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Sorry Skysaw the person who wrote this test got a question wrong, now this pretty much proves this is a crappy test and is shallow and not observent. Seriously, three minautes in google would have gave the person who wrote this the correct anwsered, but no.

I already mentioned the problem with the toilet question, just before the argument broke out; actually, most people here have acknowledged it. I also never said it was a good or accurate test.

Ok.. as promised.. you may continue your debate here!

Any further debate in the old topic will be removed and directed here.
.

18 outta 25 , that was fun:p

18, but the test was a bit rubbish. Takes the usual American stance of 'the world population resides in America'; like, with the question,

'How many states are there?
(Some people don't know this!!)'

Yeah, could you tell me how many counties there are in Britain then, you stupid arse? -_-

I answered pretty much all of the things correct for objects that I've actually seen before though. ._o

To Wendylove :

Oh no wonder you didn't know how many matches there were in a standards matchbox, the position of the green light, or what numbers don't have letters on a telephone, the slash of the no smoking sign, the side buttons are on women's blouses, the # of sides on a stop sign, where the even numbered side pages are on, # of lugnuts on a car, # of sides on a pencil, the missing 7 Dwarf, # of hotdogs in a standard package, do I really have to go on? Seriously if you couldn't get a single one of those right you going to have to re-evaluate you definition of stupid, and if you live in America it's even worse, and you're going to have to check your observational skills, sure you have your own ethics, but that has nothing to do with observation...

And you do realizes at the beginning of th test it says "This is based on US info" so everything won't be the same for all countries or people. So if the majority of people's toilets go clockwise then, the answer will be clockwise. You don't have to dig deep into the questions, if you did you're trying too hard, even then will you find the answers are correct (with some differences for some people), but if you took the majority in the US then you find them to be correct.

Game set and match.

Nobody got 0.

The probability of getting 0 even if you know nothing and just hit random buttons is 0.0000396.

Don't know how true it is but:

Originally Posted by wendylove

This further proves the test was crap. You suspect the people would look it up for two minautes. I don't know since getting zero anwser correct...

Xei, you're being too technical and scientific here. As I think Mark Twain put it (something like this) "It's not what you don't know that gets you, but what you think you know but just aint so" or something like that. You can't apply probability to something like this, because she wasn't choosing randomly. She *thought* she knew the answers, but picked the wrong ones.

Get it?

Maybe I would have taken dear wendylove's responses more seriously had her spelling been correct. She has misspelled more words in this thread than I have in four years combined. Arguments can't just be thrown out there covered with a thin layer of dog shit; they have to be presentable. Correct spelling is a must, among other things. Based on her treatment of people on the internet, I can only assume that in person she is the most introverted little girl around, and she is simply using the anonymity of the internet to vent all of life's frustrations. And I have no desire to be rude. This is merely an observation. wendylove, if you are serious about participating in debates, you are seriously going about it the wrong way.

I have never lit a match in my life, so that wasnt fair ;_;. I dont eat canned soup, buy canned soup, rarely shop for foods and I dont really watch tv enough to see commercials - oddly I got that one right anyways just deciding the other colors wouldnt be attractive for the eyes.

and I swear ive picked up an 87 before! D=

my score was 15