The Mafia?

[Dean Lofthouse]

 

As you are apparently qualified to do so, perhaps you could explain whether it is reasonable to claim that sometimes people see patterns where there are none.

 

The key word there is sometimes.

 

You seem to have taken it that it has been suggested that everyone is corrupt and have left into defence mode . I would suggest that a good majority, given the opportunity, would do a favour for a friend at the very least

 

I,m not talking about the AA here btw or inferring the AA are corrupt as in the OP.

 

Why we are having this argument I have no idea, corruption is / was pandemic in central government with expenses as an example. Are local government somehow immune from this.

 

The only reason I can think you are getting so upset about it is that you work for the LA in the decision making process

Edited April 20, 2012 by Dean Lofthouse

[Fungus]

1. the identified phenomena of confirmation bias, illusory correlation, cognitive dissonance and self-deception ... they are not psychologists themselves but do a sufficiently robust review of the literature in preparing arguements ... superficial comments to be made on a tree work discussion forum.

2. perhaps you could explain that sometimes people see patterns where there are none.

 

1. Using some terms from cognitive and social psychology and citing non-scientific sources doesn't add to the value or validity of your arguements in the discussion on this forum.

2. Because the physiology of their brain and the restrictions of human eye sight play tricks with them, one of the many identified phenomena your superficial sources don't take into account.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Fungus

[Amelanchier]

The key word there is sometimes.

 

You seem to have taken it that it has been suggested that everyone is corrupt and have left into defence mode . I would suggest that a good majority, given the opportunity, would do a favour for a friend at the very least

 

I,m not talking about the AA here btw or inferring the AA are corrupt as in the OP.

 

Why we are having this argument I have no idea, corruption is / was pandemic in central government with expenses as an example. Are local government somehow immune from this.

 

The only reason I can think you are getting so upset about it is that you work for the LA in the decision making process

 

Dean, it was mainly the OP I was addressing. Although I used to work for an LPA I no longer do. Like I said to Tim (see above) we don't really disagree on the existance of corruption, it's just that your experience has led you to consider it more prevalent than mine does for me.

 

So, no real arguement here.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I think it more prevalent than we dare to imagine Tony.

 

The expenses scandal highlighted this and probably only scratched the surface

[Amelanchier]

1. Using some terms from cognitive and social psychology and citing non-scientific sources doesn't add to the value or validity of your arguements in the discussion on this forum.

2. Because the physiology of their brain and the restrictions of human eye sight play tricks with them, one of the many identified phenomena your superficial sources don't take into account.

 

Ah the bullet numbers game. Sigh.

 

1. Value and validity are added if the use of the terms is correct. Are you saying that they are not?

 

2. Please define your term 'non-scientific' and explain how texts published by academic publishing houses with peer review processes do not meet this criteria.

 

3. Have you noticed how easy it is to make a comment on Arbtalk that you haven't referenced immediately to susbtantiate? See number 4 below.

 

4. Please give me a list of the sources by which you intend to substantiate your second point.

 

5. Why do you assume that the anatomy of the eye is related to the way people ascribe motive and meaning to causation? Can blind people not do this? Have you misinterpreted the my usage of the verb 'see'?

 

6. Please confirm to me that you have read the full works of the authors that I listed above so as to be able to substantiate your categorisation of their publications as superficial.

 

7. Please list the remaining identified phenomena that I have failed to explain.

 

8. This is going to get really boring but I'm not going anywhere - so take your time and don't miss a point or reference please.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Amelanchier
Smiley for humour.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Ah the bullet numbers game. Sigh.

 

1. Value and validity are added if the use of the terms is correct. Are you saying that they are not?

 

2. Please define your term 'non-scientific' and explain how texts published by academic publishing houses with peer review processes do not meet this criteria.

 

3. Have you noticed how easy it is to make a comment on Arbtalk that you haven't referenced immediately to susbtantiate? See number 4 below.

 

4. Please give me a list of the sources by which you intend to substantiate your second point.

 

5. Why do you assume that the anatomy of the eye is related to the way people ascribe motive and meaning to causation? Can blind people not do this? Have you misinterpreted the my usage of the verb 'see'?

 

6. Please confirm to me that you have read the full works of the authors that I listed above so as to be able to substantiate your categorisation of their publications as superficial.

 

7. Please list the remaining identified phenomena that I have failed to explain.

 

8. This is going to get really boring but I'm not going anywhere - so take your time and don't miss a point or reference please.

 

Tony....now your coming across as a smartarse with a chip on his shoulder

[Amelanchier]

Tony....now your coming across as a smartarse with a chip on his shoulder

 

You're probably right.

[scotspine1]

Tony....now your coming across as a smartarse with a chip on his shoulder

 

I disagree Dean

 

along with Will Self, Melvyn Bragg and David Starkey.....Tony Sorensen is the last of the truly great British intellectuals.

 

 

 

[Dean Lofthouse]

You're probably right.

 

I,m off before I get tempted to make a bullet list

[Le Sanglier]

I disagree Dean

 

along with Will Self, Melvyn Bragg and David Starkey.....Tony Sorensen is the last of the truly great British intellectuals.

 

 

 

 

Gotta admit, when you get into a row with Tony Sorensen, you had better be packing some heat.