SUCKERS!

Actually, if you are deliberately paying attention to something, it is no longer "casual observation". Pretty much by definition.

If IFFY watches to see how people are paying for groceries or I watch to see how people are paying at Starbucks, it is not casual observation.

And apparently, my statements about what I see at Starbucks are correct according to your own link. Or is it still anecdotal? Originally Posted by ExNYer

As long as it's performed by you, it will be casual observation. You've set no parameters to govern your 'research'. You have no idea what time of day it is, what location starbucks or how either one of those affects the outcome, etc. You can keep arguing, but it won't make you less incorrect. It is rather fun, though, watching you paw at the string...

Dumb shit, if the house was abandoned and no one was going into it, and then suddenly lots of people are going into it, there is no cognitive bias that needs to be accounted for.

The bias referred to regarding anecdotes, once again, pertains to a small number of instances or even single instances.

If an eyewitness says he saw a black teen running from a store at night, you might make the case that the bias of the eyewitness might make him think that the person running was black.

If the same eyewitness said that a black couple eats lunch at his diner nearly everyday, how would that be cognitive bias? Are they not really black? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Wrong, it refers to a pattern. A pattern that later creates a subjective view of reality that colors everything you see. You can't win for losing.

"A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.[1] Individuals create their own "subjective social reality" from their perception of the input.[2] An individual's construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world.[3] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality"

But not enough of a waste of time for you to respond 3 times. My bet is you've got nothing. You've rarely put forth anything resembling a valid argument. I'm betting this time is no different. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Nah. Your posts are stupid, your meltdowns are boring, and you won't listen to reason. Facts are irrelevant to you. It's a waste of time to do anything other than call you an idiot, which you are. Why bother to rebut what you say? You won't listen, and your response will be stupid and boring. That's because you're stupid and boring.

Nah. Your posts are stupid, your meltdowns are boring, and you won't listen to reason. Facts are irrelevant to you. It's a waste of time to do anything other than call you an idiot, which you are. Why bother to rebut what you say? You won't listen, and your response will be stupid and boring. That's because you're stupid and boring. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm still betting you don't don't have anything. Facts aren't irrelevant. I simply don't waste time in fantasy land, like you.

Why do I need to be a prosecutor to read a scientific study on eyewitness testimony and understand that the conclusion it reaches is that eyewitness testimony is flawed and subject to psychological factors among other things?

By asking which testimony is the most reliable, you're illustrating your own lack of knowledge on the subject. Ironic, being that you accused me of the same thing. Testimony is only one form of evidence. A better question would have been, 'which form of evidence is the most credible'. Eyewitness testimony is simply not reliable. We don't even actually see the world around us as our brain tells us we do. The light our eye gathers is translated into data the brain can understand. From that data, our brain begins the process of rebuilding the image. In doing this, it can play tricks on us.

Try this out.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20391...every-day.html Originally Posted by WombRaider

And a cum guzzler like you with dried, crusty cum around his eyes from all of those "facial" treatments SURE can't be trusted as an EYE witness. All those years working in those dark glory holes have got to have ruined what piss poor vision an inbred like you had !

Wrong, it refers to a pattern. A pattern that later creates a subjective view of reality that colors everything you see. You can't win for losing.

"A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.[1] Individuals create their own "subjective social reality" from their perception of the input.[2] An individual's construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world.[3] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality" Originally Posted by WombRaider

So is cognitive bias the new liberal " disease" du jure that everyone now has to recognize as a reason for perv behavior ? And does that get the pervs like you a lighter sentence when they have to face a judge on legal charges ? Tell us, ya wanna-be Doctor Phil. Maybe you can seel that BS of cognitive bias to your new butt buddy, Mr. Agenda, WE1911 !!! He's all for that liberal PC BS woomby. I told him to CUM see you for some sympathy the other day. Wanna make sure you and shammy have some "business" at the 'hole(s) right before your wedding and "honeymoon" !

I'm still betting you don't don't have anything. Facts aren't irrelevant. I simply don't waste time in fantasy land, like you. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Think what you want. You're stupid, you're boring, and you don't care.

Think what you want. You're stupid, you're boring, and you don't care. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

he trundles off in mephistophelian glee, thinking he's shone, when truly he holds with a death grip of intransigence against thinking beyond the sham of his ideology