• Lodespawn@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Again, that’s not proof, it’s hypothesis based on anecdotal observation.

    Proof would be a well structured repeatable study verifying the hypothesis. Given the other comments, it doesn’t even seem repeatable across other anecdotal observations let alone within a study.

    I will note, I do form habits easily, and my work and past times require concentration, but I have never found that forms a habit of ignoring things, it forms a habit of having improved concentration when required. If anything I have found increased study leads to improved awareness of my surrounds and increased desire to learn more in general.

    You claim your observations are proof of your hypothesis, but my observations directly disprove your hypothesis, so whose observation is correct? You could claim my observations are clouded because if l’ve concentrated and then am unaware of my ignorance, but I could claim the same thing of you, or even that you haven’t concentrated enough and so are unaware of your surroundings and the true nature of things. This is a never ending cycle of anecdotal nonsense. Hence the need for a well structured repeatable study as proof.

    • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah that’s why I put it in quotes, because it’s a dumb term for what we’re looking for here.

      Try just answering those 2 questions.

      Or not, this is exhausting.

      • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I mean I literally did.

        But also I agree, this is exhausting, it’s like you’re being obtuse on purpose. Good luck with your poorly thought out opinion. I’m done.