"Credit" for hypothesis?

[iNow]

#

 

What's wrong with this definition of 'race', iNOW?:

 

" A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

 

I asked Edmond what his definition of race was. I did this for a reason. He did not answer. If the definition you provided is what he meant, then he still needs to supply evidence for his claims and how they tie into the aforementioned definition of race.

 

Now, to more directly address your question, people who say "race" tend to imply skin color, and ignore the fact that there is tremendous genetic overlap, tremendous variance in backgrounds of people, and ignore how we are more often closer genetically with people of different skin colors than people with the same skin color as ourselves.

 

It's a meaningless term... at least in the context of biology, which is the underlying theme of each of the OPs claims. I hope that has clarified.

 

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/ramon2.html

Vast new data in human biology have completely revamped the traditional notions of race. Race is a biological term that describes the DNA structure of an individual as a fixed attribute that cannot be changed. This idea is used in biology to discuss how different peoples adapt to environments and hence, making the term "race" have no scientific basis. Today most scientists reject the concept of race as a valid way of defining human beings. Researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in genes that people inherit from their ancestors. Genes vary, but not in the popular notion of black, white, yellow, red and brown races. Many biologist and anthropologists have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances.

 

In the past, races were identified by the imposition of discrete boundaries upon continuous and often discordant biological variation. The concept of race is therefore a historical construct and not one that provides either valid classification or an explanatory process.

 

 

 

EDIT: I found this rebuttal to be a useful elaboration of my point, as well:

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JRScT..29..301L

We propose continued use of the concept [of race] for

some

infrahuman species, while abandoning its application to Homo sapiens. For those biologists and anthropologists who continue to use the concept, scientific accuracy can be achieved by the presentation in lecture and text of the following ideas: first, consensus among scientists on the race concept's utility and accuracy does not exist; second, there is more variation within than between so-called races; third, discordant gradations due to natural selection, drift, and interbreeding make consistent racial boundary lines impossible to identify; fourth, past use of the race concept has had harmful consequences; fifth, the most precise study of human hereditary variation maps one trait at a time; and sixth, racial labels are misleading, especially as most populations have a cultural designation.

Edited September 30, 2009 by iNow

[mooeypoo]

Thread moved to Pseudoscience/Speculations, as the discussion shifted to discuss a hypothesis that is in need of evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Phrenology wasn't based on observed physical differences which correlate with behavioral differences, and this is.

... that's precisely what phrenology is.

Phrenology

(from

Greek

: φρήν,

phrēn

, "mind"; and λόγος,

logos

, "knowledge") is a theory stating that the personality traits of a person can be derived from the shape of the skull.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

 

The main difference seems to be that you refer to the "front of the face" - brow/nose - and phrenology is about the back of the skull. That would make the "observed" vs. not-observed distinction. The back of the skull is hidden behind hair; obviously, it's not as "observed" as nose and brow.

 

Which is probably why the correlation was phrased as "trumped up" phrenology. Not the exact thing, but quite the same idea.

 

Since the general idea that facial and cranial features affect behavior was discarded, you will need to show evidence why this might have any sort of credence before anyone would support research on the matter (give you a grant).

 

If you don't mind about anyone's support, then go ahead and design a proper double-blind test for this, see if you can corroborate your hypothesis.

 

~moo

Edited September 30, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[tar]

JillSwift,

 

If no evidence for a causative link is found, the answer may well be that the correlation is happenstance. If the correlation continues with 1 to 1 certainty and no causative link is evidenced, then new hypotheses are needed, based on evidence gathered. Perhaps the link will not be found, but it will never be because the scientific method failed us, rather because we lack the skill, knowledge, or technology to find it.

 

I agree. I mentioned mysticism as an incorrect, "I give up, must be magic", false fallback, that has been used in the past. Not as an acceptable answer.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond Zedo,

 

"Natural talent"?

 

If you have a bank of various ways of determining personality, and all together they prove accurate in determining personality types. How do you check this? If you use Myer-Briggs as a check, and you have a 98% historical accuracy rate, that would mean that Myer-Briggs does a good job at determining the same things you have determined, through your "natural talent" and bank of determining tests. At which point, I would suggest just using Myer-Briggs to determine what you want to determine.

 

On the other hand, if you have a way to determine personality types, based on the physical size, shape and position of the brow and nose, then you have to "not use" your wide bank of additional tools, in your determination. Thus you can not use your "natural talent", because this includes other methods, subconscious and conscious, that you are applying. If you can isolate each of the pertinent methods, required in addition to the (brow, nose) method, and codify each, then these additional methods can be applied by anybody, and the determination can be repeated, by anybody. No "natural Zedo talent" required. If you don't realize, (because of the subconscious nature of,) what large amount of subtle differences, the "Zedo" method is using, then you should look at each of the things "you" notice, that you think others don't, separately. I think you will find, that each of these other aspects HAVE been investigated, and are either in use, or have been debunked, depending on the factual basis for use. If there is anything left, that you do, that nobody else does, then if it is real, you can teach it to us, if you can't teach it to us, then you are making it up.

 

Regards, TAR

[StringJunky]

 

Now, to more directly address your question, people who say "race" tend to imply skin color, and ignore the fact that there is tremendous genetic overlap, tremendous variance in backgrounds of people, and ignore how we are more often closer genetically with people of different skin colors than people with the same skin color as ourselves.

 

It's a meaningless term... at least in the context of biology, which is the underlying theme of each of the OPs claims. I hope that has clarified.

 

 

. [/indent]

 

Thanks iNOW for explaining yourself.

 

As our species moves forward in time the genetic differences between human subgroups becomes more blurred due to population mobility and interbreeding making it harder to distinguish these groups along genetic lines....these different groups were created by geographic isolation and interbreeding over very long periods of time.

 

I understand why people, particulary in some sciences, want to distance themselves from using this type of word because of its negative social undertones and potentially misinferred implications ie apparent superiority of one subgroup over another, which can be used to abuse another or for political purposes.

 

In short, I have no stomach for a debate into this subject and am happy if sectors of the scientific community wish to render this term or concept redundant!

[Edmond Zedo]

Thread moved to Pseudoscience/Speculations, as the discussion shifted to discuss a hypothesis that is in need of evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

LOL, Brilliant* logic, since every hypothesis is in need of evidence.

 

*Not brilliant

 

... that's precisely what phrenology is.

Phrenology

(from

Greek

: φρήν,

phrēn

, "mind"; and λόγος,

logos

, "knowledge") is a theory stating that the personality traits of a person can be derived from the shape of the skull.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

 

The main difference seems to be that you refer to the "front of the face" - brow/nose - and phrenology is about the back of the skull. That would make the "observed" vs. not-observed distinction. The back of the skull is hidden behind hair; obviously, it's not as "observed" as nose and brow.

 

Which is probably why the correlation was phrased as "trumped up" phrenology. Not the exact thing, but quite the same idea.

 

Since the general idea that facial and cranial features affect behavior was discarded, you will need to show evidence why this might have any sort of credence before anyone would support research on the matter (give you a grant).

 

If you don't mind about anyone's support, then go ahead and design a proper double-blind test for this, see if you can corroborate your hypothesis.

 

~moo

No, it's nothing like phrenology at all. It's based on observation of individuals who have tested as, classified themselves as, or been classified by others as preferring S or N. Physical trends became obvious. I can assure you that the developers of Phrenology did not notice that 90% of people with a slight bump behind their right temple were honest, and 90% of people with a slight indentation there were liars (Or some such BS) before deciding there might be something to it, and wrote it down.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond Zedo,

 

"Natural talent"?

 

If you have a bank of various ways of determining personality, and all together they prove accurate in determining personality types. How do you check this? If you use Myer-Briggs as a check, and you have a 98% historical accuracy rate, that would mean that Myer-Briggs does a good job at determining the same things you have determined, through your "natural talent" and bank of determining tests. At which point, I would suggest just using Myer-Briggs to determine what you want to determine.

 

On the other hand, if you have a way to determine personality types, based on the physical size, shape and position of the brow and nose, then you have to "not use" your wide bank of additional tools, in your determination. Thus you can not use your "natural talent", because this includes other methods, subconscious and conscious, that you are applying. If you can isolate each of the pertinent methods, required in addition to the (brow, nose) method, and codify each, then these additional methods can be applied by anybody, and the determination can be repeated, by anybody. No "natural Zedo talent" required. If you don't realize, (because of the subconscious nature of,) what large amount of subtle differences, the "Zedo" method is using, then you should look at each of the things "you" notice, that you think others don't, separately. I think you will find, that each of these other aspects HAVE been investigated, and are either in use, or have been debunked, depending on the factual basis for use. If there is anything left, that you do, that nobody else does, then if it is real, you can teach it to us, if you can't teach it to us, then you are making it up.

 

Regards, TAR

More than anything else it's an idea of what people of X type act like. The MBTI test is accurate "more oft than not," so one can get an idea of the commonalities within a type, and discover when someone has tested incorrectly. Yes, what they tend to look like can also be a factor in typing, if possible. You could call the ability to draw on past observation and apply it to untyped people natural talent, indeed, because not everyone who's into 16-type is any good at it.

 

About this whole race discussion: There's no need to complicate it. People can tell the difference between races because they have differing facial structures. That's why a (single) study on this should ideally involve people of only one "obvious" race.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Edmond Zedo
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

LOL, Brilliant* logic, since every hypothesis is in need of evidence.

 

*Not brilliant

Not ones that already have evidence on their side, or topics that discuss actual valid science. Those are dealt with in the science subforum. Yours is a hypothesis that you need to substantiate.

 

Maybe you should read the "Speculation" guidelines, it might shed some light on what is missing. Besides, it never hurts to read the rules.

 

 

No, it's nothing like phrenology at all. It's based on observation of individuals who have tested as, classified themselves as, or been classified by others as preferring S or N. Physical trends became obvious. I can assure you that the developers of Phrenology did not notice that 90% of people with a slight bump behind their right temple were honest, and 90% of people with a slight indentation there were liars (Or some such BS) before deciding there might be something to it, and wrote it down.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Phrenology is the belief that the structure of the skull affects behavior and characteristic traits.

 

You seem to claim that the structure of the skull correlates with character traits.*

 

* Nose and brow and mouth is the front side of the skull. They are still the skull.

 

You can make it look pretty all you want, your theory is not new. It's a new angle, maybe, but it's not new.

 

I'm not saying that by itself this discards it, not at all. Your theory might still be true, however since phrenology is *so close* to your theory, and it was debunked quite conclusively, your theory needs this much more substantiation.

 

About this whole race discussion: There's no need to complicate it. People can tell the difference between races because they have differing facial structures. That's why a (single) study on this should ideally involve people of only one "obvious" race.

Then why put 'race' into this at all? Why not just say thre are differences between people with different types of facial structures? What does race have to do with any of this at all, if you mean to look at this specific difference?

 

It's a complication you don't need. Test to see if a type of brow correlates with a type of character trait; why does it matter what "race" a person is?

 

~moo

[Edmond Zedo]

Not ones that already have evidence on their side, or topics that discuss actual valid science. Those are dealt with in the science subforum. Yours is a hypothesis that you need to substantiate.

 

Maybe you should read the "Speculation" guidelines, it might shed some light on what is missing. Besides, it never hurts to read the rules.

That's what they told Galileo.

 

Phrenology is the belief that the structure of the skull affects behavior and characteristic traits.

 

You seem to claim that the structure of the skull correlates with character traits.*

 

* Nose and brow and mouth is the front side of the skull. They are still the skull.

 

You can make it look pretty all you want, your theory is not new. It's a new angle, maybe, but it's not new.

 

I'm not saying that by itself this discards it, not at all. Your theory might still be true, however since phrenology is *so close* to your theory, and it was debunked quite conclusively, your theory needs this much more substantiation.

That's a straw man argument. I'm making a specific claim based on countless observations which back it up. You aren't aware of the observations, because you haven't done the research, and you don't even want to hear about the research. Have you analyzed the faces of many individuals who have tested and self-identify as certain personality types? No. Do you intend to? No.

 

Phrenology was debunked because it didn't follow reality. It was conjecture which was not remotely based on previous observation. Thus, it made no sense. This is completely opposed to that methodology.

 

 

Then why put 'race' into this at all? Why not just say thre are differences between people with different types of facial structures? What does race have to do with any of this at all, if you mean to look at this specific difference?

 

It's a complication you don't need. Test to see if a type of brow correlates with a type of character trait; why does it matter what "race" a person is?

 

~moo

I didn't bring up race! Someone else did, take a look, and my response was only "Race does affect the face." On consideration of the matter, it seems only logical that if the sample is small, racial differences could meddle with the results. Furthermore, the applicable measurements may vary by race. Does that not make sense to you either?

[mooeypoo]

That's what they told Galileo.

Oh my. Maybe you should go over this post and the other "Stickie" posts in the Speculation forum. Really, it might help us move on from these martyrdom-claims we all know and are utterly irrelevant to any discussion.

 

Unlike you (so far), Galileo provided actual evidence to his hypothesis.

 

We didn't discard your hypothesis off hand, Edmond, we're saying there's not enough evidence (there's none so far) to support it so far.

 

Playing the "martyr" card won't really give your theory any more credence. Only science will.

 

Also, seriously, drop the attitude. This isn't personal. It's our responsibility to criticize your claims; if your theory passes criticism, it's all that much more substantiated. If it fails criticism, you get to see where it needs strenghtening or change.

 

That's the process here. We're not going to stop asking questions just because you don't like it.

 

This isn't personal; we're not judging a person, we're judging a claim. There's no need to make this personal.

 

evidence?

 

That's a straw man argument. I'm making a specific claim based on countless observations which back it up.

Show them.

 

Also, I'm not sure 'straw man' is what you meant here, seeing as merely requesting evidence isn't misrepresenting anything you say. It's simply a request for you to provide evidence.

 

If anything, you might claim it's moving the goal post, but I don't see where that's happening either.

 

Further, so far you gave us anecdotes, not really observations. Observations are objective; they will be the product of the experiment you're planning (and I can't wait to see its results, and no, I'm not saying that cynically, I really do want to see what the results would be like). So far, however, what you have are your personal experiences with different types of people which you give as examples.

 

That's not quite observations, because they're subjective. There's no control group, no measure to test different types of influences, etc. Again, this isn't personal, it's just insufficient.

 

Your theory might be right, but you didn't provide enough evidence to show that.

 

 

You aren't aware of the observations, because you haven't done the research, and you don't even want to hear about the research. Have you analyzed the faces of many individuals who have tested and self-identify as certain personality types? No. Do you intend to? No.

First off, don't put words in my mouth, and don't guess what I intend and don't intend to do. I am a scientist, and I accept evidence, not anecdotal information.

 

If you have evidence, please share it, but you can't possibly expect me - or anyone else for that matter - to just accept your anecdotal analysis without questioning your analysis and/or method of experimentation.

 

That's how science WORKS.

 

Phrenology was debunked because it didn't follow reality. It was conjecture which was not remotely based on previous observation. Thus, it made no sense. This is completely opposed to that methodology.

It doesn't sound so, though. It is based on the same premise - that the shape of the skull affects behavioral traits. You need to bring evidence for that, and then you need to also formulate a hypothesis on *WHY* that might happen.

 

Does it affect the brain? breathing? does breathing affect the behavior? blood pressure maybe?

 

You need to explain this and demonstrate it. Claiming they're different doesn't MAKE THEM different.

 

I didn't bring up race! Someone else did, take a look, and my response was only "Race does affect the face." On consideration of the matter, it seems only logical that if the sample is small, racial differences could meddle with the results. Furthermore, the applicable measurements may vary by race. Does that not make sense to you either?

Alright, apologies, I saw the claims for race and really didn't understand where they fit in. If it wasn't your claim then we can move on. I'm not going to get into the "Race affect the face" claim (and its OWN need for corroboration, you'd be surprised how much that might not be so, when you ACTUALLY do the science) but it's irrelevant.

 

Let's stick to the actual claims. Seeing as you claim the theory is absolutely different than phrenology, can you reiterate your hypothesis again in 1 sentence?

 

I think we could continue much better from there, knowing exactly where the differences are. It sounds like the two thoughts originate from the same premise (skull shape affects behavior) and if that's not what your hypothesis is about, then please explain it again. If it is, then you need to explain how yours is better and not discarded along with phrenology.

 

~moo

[Edmond Zedo]

I've asked no one to accept it, or "not discard" it, as you put it. I presented it as a hypothesis, which is exactly what it is. It's based on informal observation, on my part, which tangentally relates to the observations others have made on people of certain personality types. The goal is to make it eventually a formal study, with said observations included.

 

You have personally equated it with phrenology, which is indeed a straw man. That's why I'm forced to argue with you. You are claiming that my hypothesis is rightfully subject to ridicule because both it and phrenology involve the correlating the physical with the mental. It's an erroneous and anti-scientific association, and exactly like claiming the entire field of psychology is ridiculous because Freud made wild, unsubstantiated claims. It's assumed guilt by weak association.

[iNow]

You have personally equated it with phrenology, which is indeed a straw man.

Actually, it's a comparison, and it was me who made it, not Moo.

 

 

You are claiming that my hypothesis is rightfully subject to ridicule

Now THAT's a strawman.

[Edmond Zedo]

Actually, it's a comparison, and it was me who made it, not Moo.

You both made it.

 

Now THAT's a strawman.

Is it? She moved the thread from psychology to "pseudoscience/speculation," and if that's not indicative of an opinion, then I don't know what is. Do we need signed affadavits to make inference?

[mooeypoo]

Edmond, Pseudoscience and Speculation is not a punishment; your thread is talking about a hypothesis you have - by your own admission, a new hypothesis that is in need of an experiment.

 

It's still a speculation; it's not mainstream science. Speculation is the proper forum for it.

 

Now, if we can move on to discuss the science of this instead of bickering about our forum regulations, we might actually be able to understand how this hypothesis has any merit, and perhaps find a way to push it back into mainstream science.

 

I will reiterate my request that you go over our rules and the Speculation forum policy. It's not meant to come as a personal attack on you, Edmond. Speculation forum has a lot of very INTERESTING, valid scientific debate. It's just not mainstream science. Not yet, at least.

 

Are you going to try and put forth some actual evidence, or are we going to go around in circles arguing our own set of rules?

 

~moo

[Edmond Zedo]

Are you going to try and put forth some actual evidence, or are we going to go around in circles arguing our own set of rules?

Tbph, I don't ever read rules, because I figure if the powers that be can't stand me how I must naturally be, then there's no point in submission. It's nothing personal, as you say. That said, I haven't been arguing with people who say only "It needs data behind it," because I completely agree. I have been arguing with people who say "That's just like phrenology" or "It makes no sense." Because 1., It's not like phrenology at all, and 2., We have to find out just how much sense it makes, don't we.

 

Now, about this evidence. As to the facial simliarity of those of X type, I know not of any database of images of those people who have tested as X types, but as I've mentioned, I do have a small database of those I've personally typed. This database helped me construct the specific hypothesis in question. It's here, if you would like to take a look at it: http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=72

[mooeypoo]

I've asked no one to accept it, or "not discard" it, as you put it. I presented it as a hypothesis, which is exactly what it is.

Good, then there's no argument about it being in the Speculation forum. We can move on.

 

It's based on informal observation, on my part, which tangentally relates to the observations others have made on people of certain personality types. The goal is to make it eventually a formal study, with said observations included.

That's great, but ti's not science. It might be what merits further research on your part, but it's FAR from convincing anyone your hypothesis has any scientific validity.

 

You came to this forum, and the burden of proof is on you. Of course, you don't have to prove anything; but if you can't even get *us* - a small community of amateur and professional scientists - to understand the merit of your hypothesis, you will have quite a bit of difficulty showing the rest of the scientific community about it.

 

I don't quite understand your reluctance to explain yourself. You put up a claim and we criticize it. Tough. That's what we do. Instead of trying to see how our criticism makes your theory better (either by you changing the theory to fit the evidence better or by you explaining the criticism under a new, scientific light) you resort to blaming us for criticizing it at all.

 

Welcome to the lovely world of science, and the process of peer review.

 

You have personally equated it with phrenology, which is indeed a straw man.

That's not a definition of a straw man, Edmond, you're making no sense. If you think my equation is fallacious, explain why. "Straw man" is misrepresenting someone else's words, which I didn't do. If I did, then I requested you CLARIFY what your theory is - which, for some reason, you seem to avoid.

 

So far, you seem to claim there is correlation between the shape of the face to behavioral traits. -- is that your hypothesis? If not, please clarify.

 

 

If it is your hypothesis, then it's very similar to phernology. You can claim no for eternity, with no avail. Phernology claims the same basic premise, with a slightly different turn. YOu need to show why this BASIC premise - while discarded in phernology - is true in your case.

 

Otherwise the basic claim of your hypothesis was discounted.

 

That's why I'm forced to argue with you. You are claiming that my hypothesis is rightfully subject to ridicule because both it and phrenology involve the correlating the physical with the mental. It's an erroneous and anti-scientific association, and exactly like claiming the entire field of psychology is ridiculous because Freud made wild, unsubstantiated claims. It's assumed guilt by weak association.

You're not forced to do anything. You came to our forum, not the other way around. You chose to make a claim. Now you choose to run away when we criticize it.

 

Please clarify your claim, so we can move forward.

 

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Tbph, I don't ever read rules, because I figure if the powers that be can't stand me how I must naturally be, then there's no point in submission. It's nothing personal, as you say.

When you signed up to this forum you clicked a nice little 'v' button saying you agreed to our rules. We are very patient, and we don't want to "shut up" anyone, but you can't really expect to spend time in this forum while disrespecting the rules.

 

That said, I haven't been arguing with people who say only "It needs data behind it," because I completely agree. I have been arguing with people who say "That's just like phrenology" or "It makes no sense." Because 1., It's not like phrenology at all, and 2., We have to find out just how much sense it makes, don't we.

I was very clear with my equation to phernology, Edmond. Instead of getting angry, how about you tell me *WHY* the argument is false?

 

"It's not like phrenology" is equivalent to "It's just not!" which is not an explanation.

 

I will reiterate:

 

• You claim the shape of the face is correlated to behavior.
  
• Phernology claims the shape of the skull correlates with behavior.
  
• Both theories have the same basic premise.
  

 

If that's a wrong conclusion, please explain why. Getting angry does not make anyone understand you any better.

 

Now, about this evidence. As to the facial simliarity of those of X type, I know not of any database of images of those people who have tested as X types, but as I've mentioned, I do have a small database of those I've personally typed. This database helped me construct the specific hypothesis in question. It's here, if you would like to take a look at it: http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=72

I'd like to see how you classified each of those individuals, though. The problem that I can see is that the classification itself might be subjective; how do you form a control group? how do you decide if a brow is shape type A or shape type B? what happens if the brow is in-between? similar to both? what mechanism stands behind the shape of the brow/nose to behavior?

 

Those need to be explained before you can design an experiment, so you know how to design the experiment in such a way where it will give you actual valid results.

 

~moo

Edited September 30, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

In any case, does your hypothesis include anything not included here?

[mooeypoo]

That's a very interesting aspect, but it's talking about how a person's physical traits affects how *OTHERS* perceive his behavior. It isn't necessarily a testament to what the person's behavior actually is, just what OTHERS think it is on first impression.

 

That's a bit different. Is that what was meant?

[Edmond Zedo]

Good, then there's no argument about it being in the Speculation forum. We can move on.

Well, being that all hypotheses are speculation, and a scientific hypothesis is by nature not pseudoscience, I take issue with the classification. Especially since it's about psychology.

 

That's great, but ti's not science. It might be what merits further research on your part, but it's FAR from convincing anyone your hypothesis has any scientific validity.

 

You came to this forum, and the burden of proof is on you. Of course, you don't have to prove anything; but if you can't even get *us* - a small community of amateur and professional scientists - to understand the merit of your hypothesis, you will have quite a bit of difficulty showing the rest of the scientific community about it.

I wasn't trying to convince any of you it was accurate! If I could convince you that it was accurate with mere words, I would severely doubt your sense! But you do think that's what I'm trying to do, which is a problem.

 

I've only presented something "for the record," and discounted notions which are untrue. I say again, I don't think the hypotheses should be adored, only that they should be called what they are (Which isn't phrenology).

I don't quite understand your reluctance to explain yourself. You put up a claim and we criticize it. Tough. That's what we do. Instead of trying to see how our criticism makes your theory better (either by you changing the theory to fit the evidence better or by you explaining the criticism under a new, scientific light) you resort to blaming us for criticizing it at all.

On the contrary, if you care to review the thread, you'll find that I've said "Thanks," and "Very interesting" to people who have provided meaningful views which did not equate with "That's stupid."

 

Welcome to the lovely world of science, and the process of peer review.

This isn't science, you know. It's a bunch of people on the net talking about what they like and what they don't, and what X sounds like to them, subjectively.

 

That's not a definition of a straw man, Edmond, you're making no sense. If you think my equation is fallacious, explain why. "Straw man" is misrepresenting someone else's words, which I didn't do. If I did, then I requested you CLARIFY what your theory is - which, for some reason, you seem to avoid.

It's still a straw man! A straw man is actually replacing my argument with another argument, that is, in this case: I presented a specific argument about a potential positive correlation between two variables. 1., Brow/Nose depth, relative to the eyes, and 2., Preference for Intuition over Sensing, in the various 16-type systems. It's based on observation, not some random wish I came up with.

 

You (and others) extended my argument, rhetorically, with "Phrenology and things of that nature." This is changing my argument out for something else, and arguing against something else, at least in part: Straw man.

 

So far, you seem to claim there is correlation between the shape of the face to behavioral traits. -- is that your hypothesis? If not, please clarify.

That is not specifically my hypothesis, as noted above. In a vague sense though, yes.

If it is your hypothesis, then it's very similar to phernology. You can claim no for eternity, with no avail. Phernology claims the same basic premise, with a slightly different turn. YOu need to show why this BASIC premise - while discarded in phernology - is true in your case.

As I've already said more than once, phrenology was not based on observation. That is the principle difference, and it is major.

You're not forced to do anything. You came to our forum, not the other way around. You chose to make a claim. Now you choose to run away when we criticize it.

I haven't run away!

 

"It's not like phrenology" is equivalent to "It's just not!" which is not an explanation.

 

I will reiterate:

 

• You claim the shape of the face is correlated to behavior.
  
• Phernology claims the shape of the skull correlates with behavior.
  
• Both theories have the same basic premise.
  

 

If that's a wrong conclusion, please explain why. Getting angry does not make anyone understand you any better.

I'm not angry in the least. Perhaps insensitive. Now, about these claims...

 

The difference, as stated, revolves around the basis for the claims. I accidentally noticed similarities and differences in types, and presented them. Phrenology was created out of absolute thin air, most likely as some sort of money-making scam, which probably worked very well.

 

I'd like to see how you classified each of those individuals, though. The problem that I can see is that the classification itself might be subjective; how do you form a control group? how do you decide if a brow is shape type A or shape type B? what happens if the brow is in-between? similar to both? what mechanism stands behind the shape of the brow/nose to behavior?

 

Those need to be explained before you can design an experiment, so you know how to design the experiment in such a way where it will give you actual valid results.

 

~moo

I can easily create an experimental design, that's no problem. I don't have a lab available at the moment, however. Honestly, I only wanted to put this out there in case someone else researched it between now and the time I'm able to do the experiments myself.

 

However implausible you may find the notion, if I'm right about the orbitofrontal cortex, and was able to discover the connection completely independent of anyone, any professional tools, or professional organizations, it's impressive. Moon shot, sister.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Edmond Zedo

[mooeypoo]

Well, being that all hypotheses are speculation, and a scientific hypothesis is by nature not pseudoscience, I take issue with the classification. Especially since it's about psychology.

You really shouldn't take issue with it, Edmond, the purpose isn't to bring you (or your idea) down. The simple fact is that this isn't mainstream science, and whatever isn't mainstream science is debated in the Speculation forum.

 

Since many times (not always, but many) speculations are pseudoscience (or the distinction is barely existing) the forum is mixing the two up. But your hypothesis isn't categorized as pseudoscience, it's just not mainstream science and not yet validated enough to stay in the other subforums that deal with mainstream science.

 

When I said this wasn't personal and wasn't meant as punishment, I wasn't trying to be cynical. I meant it.

 

I wasn't trying to convince any of you it was accurate! If I could convince you that it was accurate with mere words, I would severely doubt your sense! But you do think that's what I'm trying to do, which is a problem.

No no, let's go back a bit. I don't expect you to convince me that this is accurate in this stage. It's a hypothesis, not a full fledged theory that requires evidence.

 

I know that, and I don't expect you to start listing the evidence when you have none yet.

 

However, your hypothesis ran into a slight problem. Either that, or we ran into a problem understanding the specifics of your hypothesis. We need some clarification, mainly on the matter of how close it is to phrenology.

 

We don't expect you to give us evidence to prove your hypothesis, but you should be able to consider - and *explain* properly - what the differences are between your hypothesis and the *failed* hypothesis of phrenology.

 

So far, though, your explanation was consisted of "it's not the same!" which isn't really an explanation, and it wasn't enough to show us why your *basic premise* has any merit.

 

 

I've only presented something "for the record," and discounted notions which are untrue. I say again, I don't think the hypotheses should be adored, only that they should be called what they are (Which isn't phrenology).

Okay, look, we're not a databank of ideas where you post a thought and it is kept forever in a safe. We are people who are interested in science, are doing science, and are curious and methodological by nature. You raised a hypothesis, we ask questions. If you don't want to deal with questions, don't post on a debate forum.

 

On the contrary, if you care to review the thread, you'll find that I've said "Thanks," and "Very interesting" to people who have provided meaningful views which did not equate with "That's stupid."

I didn't say it's stupid. I moved the thread ot Speculation, and oyu seemed to have taken it personally. IT really isn't personal. You admit this is a speculation, so there's not much need to explain why it's here.

 

And yet, it seems that every time I ask you the question about phrenology, you get testy. Why? I am asking a valid question here, Edmond. If I got things wrong, stop telling me "it just ain't so" and explain why. I would love to help design an experiment, make sure there are proper controls and - quite frankly - I'd be very interested in the results you'll be getting. This sounds like an interesting psychological experiment.

 

But the hyopthesis has some basic issues that I want answer on. Not everything you will get in the forum is positive criticism. Sometimes people disagree with you.

 

Can you please explain *why* you think this is different than Phrenology?

 

 

This isn't science, you know. It's a bunch of people on the net talking about what they like and what they don't, and what X sounds like to them, subjectively.

Of course it's science. It's not empirical experimentation just yet, but the mere discussion and flushing out of fallacies and quirks and problems from the hypothesis, and the design of the experiment, is absolutely science.

 

No one is being subjective when they give you the definition of Phrenology and your OWN definition of your own hypothesis and compare them together. That's not subjective, it's a question of purpose. If you can't answer it, the odds this actually transforms into a proper scientific project drop considerably.

 

 

 

If we just manage to cooperate on it, of course. Otherwise, it stays in the realm of arguing. Too bad. It's too interesting for that, don't you agree?

 

It's still a straw man! A straw man is actually replacing my argument with another argument, that is, in this case: I presented a specific argument about a potential positive correlation between two variables. 1., Brow/Nose depth, relative to the eyes, and 2., Preference for Intuition over Sensing, in the various 16-type systems. It's based on observation, not some random wish I came up with.

Alright, so you say that Brow/Nose dept (which are physical construct of the skull) are correlated with various types of behavior/character traits.

 

Is that accurate?

 

Please just answer yes or no, your insistence that I misrepresent you doesn't help if you don't tell me how I'm doing that. We will be able to continue debating from there, after we're both on "the same page".

 

You (and others) extended my argument, rhetorically, with "Phrenology and things of that nature." This is changing my argument out for something else, and arguing against something else, at least in part: Straw man.

No, we pointed out that it's VERY SIMILAR to phrenology. You claiming that it isn't is moot unless you explain HOW it's different. We showed you EXACTLY where the two are the same - they both originate from the same premise. All you did to refute this was claim "it's not the same!" which is equivalent to answering "because!" which, I hope you agree, is moot.

 

Can you please take a moment and *explain* what the differences are between your basic premise and Phrenology basic premise?

 

 

That is not specifically my hypothesis, as noted above. In a vague sense though, yes.

Now you're misrepresenting what I said.

 

We didn't say phrenology was your hypothesis, we said your hypothesis is SIMILAR to phrenology, and since phrenology was proven false, we were wondering why your hypothesis is better.

 

As I've already said more than once, phrenology was not based on observation. That is the principle difference, and it is major.

What was it based on, then?

 

And even if that's true, why is that so major? The premise is still the same premise, and it was the premise that was proven wrong, not the method of differentiating the subjects from one another.

 

I haven't run away!

 

 

I'm not angry in the least. Perhaps insensitive. Now, about these claims...

 

The difference, as stated, revolves around the basis for the claims. I accidentally noticed similarities and differences in types, and presented them. Phrenology was created out of absolute thin air, most likely as some sort of money-making scam, which probably worked very well.

No, no phrenology wasn't created out of thin air at all, my friend, you should read about its history. It was also created out of a hypothesis based on subjective observation. Today, we would call it Racist, but that doesn't negate the fact that it was totally based on noticing similarities between cranial structure of certain races and linking those races (and hence, facial and cranial structures) to character traits.

 

It's not at all "out of thin air"; it sounded COMPLETELY PLAUSIBLE back then, according to the time's beliefs and customs. Today it sounds racist. Today, we know it's proven wrong.

 

That, however, doesn't mean that your hypothesis is wrong, by itself. Absolutely not, but it DOES raise the question about how similar they are. Your observation is very general, dependant on subjective classification, no control groups, small group of subjects and little variety.

 

That's not quite observation; that's guesswork. Sorry to be blunt, but it is. It might be enough to divise a new - BETTER - experiment to gather more data that you can later analyze further, but in itself it's FAR from being actual observation.

 

I'll give you an example: I observe the moon for 5 hours. I formulate the hypothesis that the moon has the shape of a banana with mountains on it.

This was based on observation. But it was crappy observation. I didn't have enough information - for that matter, if I'd have observed the moon for a full month instead of just 5 hours, I'd have seen it's NOT shaped like a banana, etc.

 

Hypotheses by themselves need some corroboration -- some BASIS to them to warrant further research. Your idea sounds interesting, but your data is too small. If you want, you should start getting a MUCH larger dataset, with much narrower categories (brow shape, nose depth, etc) with a controls and some way of objectively measuring your results. Then you could attempt to formulate an *ACTUAL* hypothesis based on ACTUAL data, and move even further to thinking what makes this phenomenon happen.

 

I'm not saying your hypothesis is wrong, I'm saying your hypothesis has a few problems that need to be dealt with before the next step of divising an actual experiment.

 

I can easily create an experimental design, that's no problem. I don't have a lab available at the moment, however. Honestly, I only wanted to put this out there in case someone else researched it between now and the time I'm able to do the experiments myself.

Don't underestimate the complexity of designing experiments, by the way. If you want this to be accepted as scientific, there are quite a lot of aspects you need to think about - from large variability of subjects to statistical errors, to control groups, etc etc. It's not that simple.

 

However implausible you may find the notion, if I'm right about the orbitofrontal cortex, and was able to discover the connection completely independent of anyone, any professional tools, or professional organizations, it's impressive. Moon shot, sister.

I didn't say it's implausible just because I didn't like it, I said your hypothesis is problematic *BECAUSE* it seems to be relying on the same premise of phrenology and this premise was shown to be false.

 

Does that mean your hypothesis is necessarily false? NO. You do need to explain this matter, though, before anyone would consider your hypothesis or any sort of scientific merit it may or may not have.

 

~moo

Edited September 30, 2009 by mooeypoo

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe you mods should start using the trashcan more often. I doubt most people even know it exists, so they assume that the P&S forum is the trashcan.

[Edmond Zedo]

So far, though, your explanation was consisted of "it's not the same!" which isn't really an explanation, and it wasn't enough to show us why your *basic premise* has any merit.

You keep saying that, but it's not getting any more relevant with each repitition.

Okay, look, we're not a databank of ideas where you post a thought and it is kept forever in a safe. We are people who are interested in science, are doing science, and are curious and methodological by nature. You raised a hypothesis, we ask questions. If you don't want to deal with questions, don't post on a debate forum.

I have been dealing with questions, and statements. I don't even "not want to," as you put it.

 

I didn't say it's stupid. I moved the thread ot Speculation, and oyu seemed to have taken it personally. IT really isn't personal. You admit this is a speculation, so there's not much need to explain why it's here.

Perhaps if you had done so (moved it) without the flavor text, I would believe you. But if everyone has a superpower, mine is "determining motivation," and I don't!

And yet, it seems that every time I ask you the question about phrenology, you get testy. Why? I am asking a valid question here, Edmond. If I got things wrong, stop telling me "it just ain't so" and explain why. I would love to help design an experiment, make sure there are proper controls and - quite frankly - I'd be very interested in the results you'll be getting. This sounds like an interesting psychological experiment.

 

Can you please explain *why* you think this is different than Phrenology?

I have...How can I explain this any better...Okay, here's a scientific difference: This hasn't been scientifically tested, and shown to be inaccurate.

Of course it's science. It's not empirical experimentation just yet, but the mere discussion and flushing out of fallacies and quirks and problems from the hypothesis, and the design of the experiment, is absolutely science.

Hardly any of the discussion points from others have had anything to do with the methodology of experimentation, as you should be aware. It's been primarily equivalent to "Yeah right, whatever."

 

No one is being subjective when they give you the definition of Phrenology and your OWN definition of your own hypothesis and compare them together. That's not subjective, it's a question of purpose. If you can't answer it, the odds this actually transforms into a proper scientific project drop considerably.

ESFJ (Seriously, look it up). We're destined to absolutely never find common ground, because of type difference. (INTP is quite contrary with ESFJ.)

 

...............Does that mean your hypothesis is necessarily false? NO. You do need to explain this matter, though, before anyone would consider your hypothesis or any sort of scientific merit it may or may not have.

 

~moo

You don't understand, and I won't expect you to. You can't debunk something with an opinion, and that's what you and others are trying to do. I intend to demonstrate the accuracy with experimentation, not with words.

[mooeypoo]

Perhaps if you had done so (moved it) without the flavor text, I would believe you. But if everyone has a superpower, mine is "determining motivation," and I don't!

The "flavor of text" was an official notice, albeit a tired one done after returning from class. I didn't think it was negative.

 

It will be the third time I am telling you that I didn't mean it to "take down" your hypothesis. Quite frankly, Edmond, I don't care if you believe me. Third time's the charm, you either don't quite have such superpower as to recognize motivation, or you don't recognize an apology, or you hide behind your anger to avoid criticizing your hypothesis. Your statement that you do not care to read our rules didn't help your case, I must say.

 

Whichever it is, please stop. It's no longer relevant. I did not mean anything bad, and I am sorry if it seemed so.

 

Believe it or not, just please move on from this, so we can actually deal with the science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You don't understand, and I won't expect you to. You can't debunk something with an opinion, and that's what you and others are trying to do. I intend to demonstrate the accuracy with experimentation, not with words.

Good luck.

[Edmond Zedo]

Good luck.

Now there's a neutral statement I don't have to take as ill-informed, opinionated derogation. Thanks.

[mooeypoo]

Now there's a neutral statement I don't have to take as ill-informed, opinionated derogation. Thanks.

Seriously, I can't win with you I really do mean good luck.

 

And as I said before - and meant it - I'd love to see the results. It sounds like a very interesting experiment to conduct. The fact I'm skeptical about your hypothesis doesn't mean I can't be curious enough to want to see and analyze the results.

[JillSwift]

Wow.

 

Edmond Zedo, may you have learned to be much more calm about criticism and disagreement before you offer your first paper for peer review.

Edited September 30, 2009 by JillSwift

[Edmond Zedo]

Seriously, I can't win with you I really do mean good luck.

 

And as I said before - and meant it - I'd love to see the results. It sounds like a very interesting experiment to conduct. The fact I'm skeptical about your hypothesis doesn't mean I can't be curious enough to want to see and analyze the results.

Cool.

 

Wow.

 

Edmond Zedo, may your have learned to be much more calm about criticism and disagreement before you offer your first paper for peer review.

Any papers I offer officially will have data to back them up. I'm quite used to being controversial. For the past 3/4 year, I've been arguing that Jung and Myers were absolutely wrong about the functions or "mental processes" we all use, while offering a better system. People are starting to pick it up. Smart people.