Back to baseball, the Rangers are tearing it up. Baseball is a marathon, not a sprint unfortunately, so heres to hoping they can keep it up.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?[/quote]
About the same as a night with your mother?[/quote]
I see high school level math isn’t your forte[/quote]
What fucking high school did you go to? This is like kindergarten level math. You don’t know the answer, do you? That’s why you’re asking us, right?
It’s a five dollar ball, you moron.[/quote]
Well, i posted it in PWI initially but I thought I’d post it here too since I would be curious how you’d answer.
Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion or a disbeliever:
Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?
A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.
Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.
Psychologists William Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, predicted that people who were more analytic in thinking would tend not to believe in religion, whereas people who approach problems more intuitively would tend to be believers. Their study confirmed the hypothesis and the findings illuminate the mysterious cognitive process by which we reach decisions about our beliefs.
Cognitive theory of decision making supports the hypothesis that there are two independent processes involved in decision making. The first process is based on gut instinct, and this process is shared by other animals. The second cognitive process is an evolutionarily recent development, exclusive to humans, which utilizes logical reasoning to make decisions. Their study of 179 Canadian undergraduate students showed that people who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers. This was demonstrated by giving the students a series of questions like the one above and then scoring them on the basis of whether they used intuition or analytic logic to reach the answers. Afterward, the researchers surveyed the students on whether or not they held religious beliefs. The results showed that the intuitive thinkers were much more likely to believe in religion.
To test whether there is a causative basis for this correlation, the researchers then used various subtle manipulations to promote analytic reasoning in test subjects. Prior research in psychology has shown that priming stimuli that subconsciously suggest analytical thinking will tend to increase analytic reasoning measured on a subsequent test. For example, if subjects are shown a picture of Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker" (seated head-in-hand pondering) they score higher in measures of analytic thinking in tests given immediately afterward. Their studies confirmed this effect but also showed that those subjects who showed increased analytic thinking also were significantly more likely to be disbelievers in religion when surveyed immediately after the test.
Three other interventions to boost analytic thinking had the same effect on increasing religious disbelief. This included asking subjects to arrange a collection of words into a meaningful sequence. If the words used for the subconscious prime related to analytic thinking, such as "think, reason, analyze, ponder, rational," rather than control words "hammer, shoes, jump, retrace, brown," subjects scored higher on tests of analytic thinking given immediately afterward, and they were also much more likely to be disbelievers in religion. This demonstrates that increasing critical thinking also increases religious disbelief.
Norenzayan emphasizes that "Analytical thinking is one of several factors that contribute to disbelief. Belief and disbelief are complex phenomena that have multiple causes. We have identified just one factor in these studies."
Professor and Chairman Terrence Reynolds of the Department of Theology at Georgetown University finds it plausible that analytic thinking could make religious belief more difficult. "If one assumes that all rationality is tied to what we know directly through the five senses, that limits our understanding of meaning questions. Religion tends to focus on questions of meaning and value, which may not be available through analytic verification processesâ?¦ by definition God is a being that transcends the senses."
Reynolds and Norenzayan agree that analytic reasoning is not superior to intuitive reasoning. "They both have their costs and benefits," Norenzayan says. One of the consequences of the costs and benefits is one's tendency to believe in religion. So whether you answered $5 or $10 provides insight into what you believe and how your beliefs are formed.
Although they focused on religion in this study, I posted it here because I think it sorta applies. How you answered probably explains how you form beliefs about what you see on the field. It’s also probably why you and BONEZ had a such tough time understanding RBI is such a useless stat. [/quote]
Well, although I’m not a devout person and don’t belong to any particular religious organization, I DO firmly believe in a Higher Power and I DO firmly believe in the power and legitimacy of religion. So I suppose that pretty much makes your lame fucking attempt to psychoanalyze someone you’ve never met and know virtually nothing about an absolute failure.
This is just some convoluted way for this piece of “research” to insinuate that people of faith are stupid. It’s ugly and has absolutely no merit. It has no use in any field of legitimate research and was conducted extremely poorly. It doesn’t surprise me that this is what passes for a peer-reviewed study in Canada.
First of all, 179 Canadian college students is quite possibly the poorest and most irrelevant control group I’ve ever heard of. That should be your first clue that this study is meaningless and without merit.
Your second clue should be the following statement: “The results showed that the intuitive thinkers were much more likely to believe in religion.”
What the fuck does that mean? Much more likely? That could mean anything! When a study says that, or an article about the study says that, and then doesn’t follow it up with factual data it tells me that they’re trying to hide something. Like maybe up in Canada “much more likely” means a difference of about 5%.
Your third clue should have been these ominous references to increased disbelief in religion. How much of an increase? What sort of questions were asked to determine the religious beliefs of these students beforehand, and were the same ones asked or were different ones asked that might lead to a different answer, and thus a different interpretation of what those students’ religious beliefs are. In other words, did they ask “Do you believe in God?” beforehand and then ask “Do you believe that things always happen for reasons that can be explained analytically?” afterwards? Even if they had worded the questions “Do you believe in God?” and “Do you still believe in God?”, the results would be tainted. Without telling us what questions were asked to determine the level of religiousness on the part of these students, this is meaningless.
Furthermore, just how much do you think any of these “believers” actually believed in religion and God and all that if their faith lessened after a series of questions that presumably weren’t related to their religious beliefs? Sounds to me like they didn’t have a single true believer in the entire group of students whose religious disbelief increased after analytic thinking. People’s faith doesn’t waver that easily, so I suspect that these students had little faith to begin with.
My own anecdotal experiences (and all this study is is anecdotal at best) also seriously contradict this study’s findings. As your little experiment has established, I’m an analytical thinker. However, it was after a long, long period of intense analysis and introspection that my own beliefs in a Higher Power were strengthened, not weakened. Also, I had lunch today with my girlfriend and her mother. Her mother is a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute and a retired economics professor. A VERY analytical thinker, and yet, she is as devout a Catholic as I have ever met.
You yourself prove this study wrong as well. You clearly took an intuitive approach when you determined this study’s veracity. If you had taken an analytical approach when you read what you posted, assuming you even read it, you would also have realized that this study is dubious and irrelevant at best. But you didn’t, so clearly you are an intuitive thinker. But you aren’t religious, are you? So you yourself are a further condemnation of this study’s validity.
Try again, pal.
Alright this will be only response on this subject. I’m sure the people here aren’t interested in all this non-baseball talk
-
I consider myself an intuitive thinker, but my education post high school has forced me to think much more analytically. I immediately thought the answer was 10 until I thought about it and jotted down 110 = (x+100) + x .
-
I would bet your GF’s mom was probably born into Catholicism.
-
I think of the people who actually do end up questioning their beliefs are generally analytical thinkers. I don’t think it’s a perfect rule.
-
I’m not sure how intense your analysis and introspection was if you came to the conclusion a higher power exists. There’s no scientific evidence for one. Out of curiosity, do you believe this higher power is only responsible for the singularity that began the universe or does he also answer prayers and count how many times you masturbate? You went to AA correct? Through hearsay I’ve heard they make you submit to a higher power or some other nonsense. If so I’m guessing there’s a good chance that’s why you came to that conclusion.
-
No, I’m an agnostic atheist
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?[/quote]
About the same as a night with your mother?[/quote]
I see high school level math isn’t your forte[/quote]
What fucking high school did you go to? This is like kindergarten level math. You don’t know the answer, do you? That’s why you’re asking us, right?
It’s a five dollar ball, you moron.[/quote]
Well, i posted it in PWI initially but I thought I’d post it here too since I would be curious how you’d answer.
Your answer to the following riddle can predict whether you are a believer in religion or a disbeliever:
Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?
A: If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.
Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.
Psychologists William Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, predicted that people who were more analytic in thinking would tend not to believe in religion, whereas people who approach problems more intuitively would tend to be believers. Their study confirmed the hypothesis and the findings illuminate the mysterious cognitive process by which we reach decisions about our beliefs.
Cognitive theory of decision making supports the hypothesis that there are two independent processes involved in decision making. The first process is based on gut instinct, and this process is shared by other animals. The second cognitive process is an evolutionarily recent development, exclusive to humans, which utilizes logical reasoning to make decisions. Their study of 179 Canadian undergraduate students showed that people who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers. This was demonstrated by giving the students a series of questions like the one above and then scoring them on the basis of whether they used intuition or analytic logic to reach the answers. Afterward, the researchers surveyed the students on whether or not they held religious beliefs. The results showed that the intuitive thinkers were much more likely to believe in religion.
To test whether there is a causative basis for this correlation, the researchers then used various subtle manipulations to promote analytic reasoning in test subjects. Prior research in psychology has shown that priming stimuli that subconsciously suggest analytical thinking will tend to increase analytic reasoning measured on a subsequent test. For example, if subjects are shown a picture of Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker" (seated head-in-hand pondering) they score higher in measures of analytic thinking in tests given immediately afterward. Their studies confirmed this effect but also showed that those subjects who showed increased analytic thinking also were significantly more likely to be disbelievers in religion when surveyed immediately after the test.
Three other interventions to boost analytic thinking had the same effect on increasing religious disbelief. This included asking subjects to arrange a collection of words into a meaningful sequence. If the words used for the subconscious prime related to analytic thinking, such as "think, reason, analyze, ponder, rational," rather than control words "hammer, shoes, jump, retrace, brown," subjects scored higher on tests of analytic thinking given immediately afterward, and they were also much more likely to be disbelievers in religion. This demonstrates that increasing critical thinking also increases religious disbelief.
Norenzayan emphasizes that "Analytical thinking is one of several factors that contribute to disbelief. Belief and disbelief are complex phenomena that have multiple causes. We have identified just one factor in these studies."
Professor and Chairman Terrence Reynolds of the Department of Theology at Georgetown University finds it plausible that analytic thinking could make religious belief more difficult. "If one assumes that all rationality is tied to what we know directly through the five senses, that limits our understanding of meaning questions. Religion tends to focus on questions of meaning and value, which may not be available through analytic verification processesâ?¦ by definition God is a being that transcends the senses."
Reynolds and Norenzayan agree that analytic reasoning is not superior to intuitive reasoning. "They both have their costs and benefits," Norenzayan says. One of the consequences of the costs and benefits is one's tendency to believe in religion. So whether you answered $5 or $10 provides insight into what you believe and how your beliefs are formed.
Although they focused on religion in this study, I posted it here because I think it sorta applies. How you answered probably explains how you form beliefs about what you see on the field. It’s also probably why you and BONEZ had a such tough time understanding RBI is such a useless stat. [/quote]
My gut tells me that people must pay too damn much for a baseball. Because my other gut is telling me that 100-10=/=100.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Alright this will be only response on this subject. I’m sure the people here aren’t interested in all this non-baseball talk
-
I consider myself an intuitive thinker, but my education post high school has forced me to think much more analytically. I immediately thought the answer was 10 until I thought about it and jotted down 110 = (x+100) + x .
-
I would bet your GF’s mom was probably born into Catholicism.
-
I think of the people who actually do end up questioning their beliefs are generally analytical thinkers. I don’t think it’s a perfect rule.
-
I’m not sure how intense your analysis and introspection was if you came to the conclusion a higher power exists. There’s no scientific evidence for one. Out of curiosity, do you believe this higher power is only responsible for the singularity that began the universe or does he also answer prayers and count how many times you masturbate? You went to AA correct? Through hearsay I’ve heard they make you submit to a higher power or some other nonsense. If so I’m guessing there’s a good chance that’s why you came to that conclusion.
-
No, I’m an agnostic atheist
[/quote]
Faith does not require proof. So demanding proof to believe in something is redundant. Do you believe the Blue Jays will ever win another Series? Of course you do, but that’s not provable. My analytical skills have told me that not everything that is a matter of faith requires proof. My analytical skills have also revealed to me just how powerless I am over certain things and that there are forces out there which are bigger and infinitely more powerful than I am. They express themselves in scientific terms in most cases, but this simply quantifies just how powerless I am in the face of absolutes.
Yeah, I belong to a 12-step program. I wasn’t “made” to do anything, but if you insists on knowing, it was during my infancy stages of sobriety that I began to analyze my religious/spiritual beliefs. I’ve always believed in a Higher Power, but I didn’t really question it until I got sober. And my faith is stronger for questioning it, just like muscles get stronger after you tear them down.
No, I don’t believe in some bizarre anthropomorphic God who counts when I jack off. I believe that the ability to differentiate between right and wrong was planted in me by this Higher Power upon birth and that it is up to me live that out, without moral relativism. I don’t think of a Higher Power in terms of myself, so I’ve never thought about some God out there watching me jack off. I don’t care what created the universe; it’s here to stay and how it go here is immaterial to me. It got here through forces way beyond my capacity to understand. As far as science goes, it only tells us so much. The fact is that a lot of the science a hundred years ago has since been proven false, as I’m sure that much of the science of today will be proven false a hundred years from now. There are simply certain things that don’t require an answer and I’m not concerned with trying to find them.
My analytical thinking skills have taught me that not everything should be approached analytically. Religion is one of those things. It’s a matter of faith and requires no proof. So analytical thinking has taught me when it is and is not appropriate to employ intuitive thinking. This is one of those times.
And, uh…you can’t be an agnostic and an atheist. Choose one or the other and run with it, but quit trying to straddle the fucking fence.
In fact, you don’t even know what an agnostic is, or you wouldn’t be on here spouting off about intuitive vs. analytical thinking. The fact is that there is something very intuitive about being an agnostic. Intuition tells me that certain things will never be known by us, which is essentially what agnosticism is. Atheism simply denies that there is any Higher Power. Agnostics don’t know, atheists don’t believe. You can’t have it both ways. So which one are you really?
I can tell you I know my position VERY WELL on this subject but I’m choosing to stick to what I said. No more non-baseball talk.
I’m hoping Drabek vs Darvish ends up living to my expectations. Although Drabek has pitched decent in a couple of his starts, he also got away with 8 BB in one of his wins. I’m hoping he steps up and shuts Texas down. On the flipside I hope they pummel the fuck out of Darvish.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
Back to baseball, the Rangers are tearing it up. Baseball is a marathon, not a sprint unfortunately, so heres to hoping they can keep it up.[/quote]
The team is stacked. Even with health being a big issue for them (Hamilton already strained his back and is day to day, you know Beltre and Cruz will strain a hammy and be on the shelf for a month at some point) they are a deep enough team with a strong enough pitching staff to overcome them. Their division isn’t looking so great either with the way the Angels are playing.
Looking forward to seeing Darvish pitch against the Jays tonight. Going down rajraj. btw my answer was 10 and i’m not religious. One example doesn’t disprove the study obviously, just sayin.
If you want you we can discuss this elsewhere.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Looking forward to seeing Darvish pitch against the Jays tonight. Going down rajraj. btw my answer was 10 and i’m not religious. One example doesn’t disprove the study obviously, just sayin.
[/quote]
Sadly I may not even be able to watch it. Have a crap-load of work to get done and the OKC-DAL takes priority tonight. I can already tell that series will be a masterpiece when it’s all said and done.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
Back to baseball, the Rangers are tearing it up. Baseball is a marathon, not a sprint unfortunately, so heres to hoping they can keep it up.[/quote]
The team is stacked. Even with health being a big issue for them (Hamilton already strained his back and is day to day, you know Beltre and Cruz will strain a hammy and be on the shelf for a month at some point) they are a deep enough team with a strong enough pitching staff to overcome them. Their division isn’t looking so great either with the way the Angels are playing.
Looking forward to seeing Darvish pitch against the Jays tonight. Going down rajraj. btw my answer was 10 and i’m not religious. One example doesn’t disprove the study obviously, just sayin.
[/quote]
You see the ESPN breakdown of his pitches so far? Its ludicrous.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Looking forward to seeing Darvish pitch against the Jays tonight. Going down rajraj. btw my answer was 10 and i’m not religious. One example doesn’t disprove the study obviously, just sayin.
[/quote]
I will say this probably won’t be a good night for the Jays. Drabek isn’t that good yet and the Rangers offense is great. I wish it were Romero or Morrow going up against Darvish.
Hopefully the Rangers give one of their classic World Series-type performances tonight.
Late movement on Darvish’s stuff is incredible.
Drabek’s pitching performance has pleasantly surprised me tonight. 6IP 2 ER is fantastic.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Late movement on Darvish’s stuff is incredible.
Drabek’s pitching performance has pleasantly surprised me tonight. 6IP 2 ER is fantastic.[/quote]
Great game so far.
Go Rangers.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Late movement on Darvish’s stuff is incredible.
Drabek’s pitching performance has pleasantly surprised me tonight. 6IP 2 ER is fantastic.[/quote]
Great game so far.
Go Rangers.[/quote]
Darvish looked good again. He gets himself in trouble often but he can get the big strikeout to get out of the jam. He made Bautista look foolish, but that isn’t saying much the way he’s going.
Low blow on the World Series performance remark rajraj.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
You see the ESPN breakdown of his pitches so far? Its ludicrous. [/quote]
Yeah man, i’m sure Napoli is having fun with the communication there. I wouldn’t necessarily call a curve and a slower curve two different pitches though.
So are you guys watching tonight too?
Now THAT was an awesome game. Future star Brett Lawrie showing his potential.
Tomorrow won’t be any easier for you guys, Ricky Romero is really good. 12:37 first pitch
Also Yankees are being blown out by the O’s
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So are you guys watching tonight too?[/quote]
Wasnt on tv, was gettin updates on line. From what I could tell it was a great game lol, obviously not cool with the outcome, but it is what it is.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So are you guys watching tonight too?[/quote]
Wasnt on tv, was gettin updates on line. From what I could tell it was a great game lol, obviously not cool with the outcome, but it is what it is.[/quote]