Clive George
BBC1 Traffic Cops 40What gets me is this. If you take a gun and you go point it at someone or you use it to get away, the police have the right to shoot you dead. Thats...
Well, isn't that simply a pavlovian kind of pay-off? Driver thinks the car is more capable, drives faster (but could still be well within the limits of the car) and finds the outcome of faster journey time, etc. One day he'll push too far due to not finding out about the actual benefit of safety-system X and he'll have egg on his face. Occams razor and all that.
It's pretty obvious that it doesn't. However, slack habits and lazyness and corner cutting do exists. As do sloppy findings and shoe-horning concepts to fit outcomes whilst not investigating important but simple points.
I'd like to think you wont, it's not very scientific to base a theory of a something measurable (i.e. car accidents) on something that's not even universally accepted and certainly not scientific (i.e. a personality theory including the 'subconscious').
Ah ah ah, don't be too hasty to dismiss me as closed minded, I'll give it a read, but if it is as full of holes as you have made it out to be, yeah, maybe I will rubbish it. But I'll certainly track it down and give it read. However, you are right that I do require hard scientific evidence about things that perport to be scientific. If anyone starts banging on about 'subconscious' whilst showing they haven't explored as many variable as they can, then yeah, it'll probably attract howls of derision from me. But I will read it at some point.
I'd like you, in return, (well, you know, if you want to, no pressure or anything!) to read up on some books to do with personality theories and some on scientific process so you can compare and contrast the two.
Clive, it's been a pleasure having a usenet debate that hasn't degenerated into a personal slanging match, thanks! ;-)
Cheers Clive,
Roger.
