• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Test your druginfested brain HERE

P

PapaverPrisoner

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 13, 2001
Messages
201
Location
Scandinavia
You cannot read about this in any problemsolving book. Thats the trouble with all hard-to-solve-problems, they have been exposed and people have heard about the solutions. But this I found out myself. I got mad when I recently read that in some statistic from somewhere in Europe - that actually was made to confirm something similar in US - the author said that the train accidents where people were killed actually had fewer travellers than you might expect - that is that when you compared them with the other trains that did not crash, those had more passengers. Not always but taken together it was a small but clearly statistically significant difference. And the only explanation for this - as he said - was that some people actually could see in the future, or had vague feelings of discomfort that made them not take those trains that would have accidents.

Bullshit! In 2 minutes I had thought out at least 6 different reasons to why the difference was perfectly natural. And when I sat for a while I thought out more. But now comes the amazing part! Almost nobody else could come up with any reason - everyone I have asked have looked into my face and said "I can only agree with the author, what possible reasons could there be other than clairvoyance". A professor - my former philosophy teacher - finally came up with one - but several others including 2 doctors, other teachers, and even a bunch of journalists couldn't name one! And those people are listened to... (Just to spite I also asked a woman heavily into drug-hate campaigns and she didn't even understand the question. Small wonder; that kind of humans are always incredibly stupid...)

My brother at last came up with 2 and a friend with 1, another friend with another 1 but that was all!!!!I have asked many but I have not told anyone the solutions. Now - prove to me that drugusers are more intelligent than the fools I asked...
 
I do drugs.

The train crashed because of a difference in weight.
The train crashed because the driver fell asleep (less people travel at night).

*shrugs*
 
i think it was god
in collaboration with the great jesus h. christ
they got together
and crashed these, here, trains
with their uhm, wills
and hands and stuff, too
yea

you're going to hell, drug abuser!!!!!!!!!

(just trying to infuse christianity into all these threads!) ;)

but, seriously...
yea...people are very stupid...

uhm...well...
i can say...
maybe these trains ran along less-populated areas, on railroads that weren't very well upkept or maintained...
the railroads that are often-used are probably in better shape
so...yea...
 
Maybe I explained it badly - english is not my first language - trains running at night were compared with other trains running at night, and the less traveled lines were compared with trains on these same lines. The weight solution was actually not so bad - only it's questionable that slightly lighter trains chrash more easily.

Thousands of trains were compared with each other round the clock year after yeaar, on the same lines - only those trains that crashed had usually fewer passenger than the ones that didn't. I know it's not easy - since only about 2% of all I have asked have been able to come up with something...
 
Perhaps the noise of the passengers kept the driver awake? So with fewer passengers there is less noise?
I know that the conductors talk to the drivers in carriage with engine trains. Perhaps the driver fell asleep because of this lack of communication.
But it depends on the train, did the trains that crashed have locomotive’s or where they the carriage with engine type?
Or was it because there where less carriages?

Was it raining? i know people don't like to catch trains when it rains, the rain made the tracks slippery so then it crashed

Or were the trains running late, so passengers have left the station so less people are on the train, and then the train crashes as its try'n to make up time?

There are so many possibilities, need more info to narrow it down.
 
I can't tell you about what type of trains there were - I can only tell you what I have said above. But even with that kind of meagre information it is possible to draw conclusions. Many solutions are "related" to each other, but apparently without thinking much you have searched the possibilities in the right direction.

And you have surpassed the philosophy professor already. You can - without knowing anything further about the trains or schedules - find out more, you obviously have the right kind of brain for it.
 
maybe enough people got lucky and missed their train which they would think as bad luck untill they found out the train crashed which would turn into good luck.

or if this was terrorist caused then maybe the terrorists were looking for which train to crash to prove a point without killing the most people possible.

or maybe not as many people were going to the place the train was destined like other trains.

or maybe the time of day just didnt have that many people going somewhere.

who cares...
 
1. It's because those trains with less people go to less popular destinations (obviously) which have trailtracks that are taken care of less (less revisions, less security measures, maybe they're even older, etc)

2. It's because on busy trains they have more stewardesses and they tend to keep the driver up by bringing him a cup of coffee every once in a while.

OK, the first one's a lot better than the second :) Could you PM me the solution please? Thanks.
 
- The trains that crashed couldn't HOLD as many people, because there were far less cars than usual trains. The train engine reached a higher speed than normal because it had less cars weighing it down. Higher speed = better chance of derail or accident.

- In cases where the conductor passed out, trains with a low staff or low number of passengers were not aware of the problem until it was too late, whereas trains with many staff members and passengers would likely become aware of such a situation sooner.

- Terrorists would likely choose to hijack a train with as few passengers as possible, so that they could take control of the train with as little resistance as possible.

- Fewer people will ride a train during times of bad weather (blizzards, hurricanes, tornado warnings) which can often cause accidents to occur.

- People generally prefer short distance train rides over long distance rides. (Planes are preferred for long distance) If you have LESS people travelling on the LONG trips, statistically, since more time and ground is covered by trains carrying fewer passengers, there is a greater chance that an accident would occur with fewer passengers.

- High priority trains that must carry a lot of passengers and that are used often will get more maintenance since they're more important and bringing in more money. Low priority trains don't bring in as much money, get less maintenance, and therefore will run into more problems.

- Trains that are built to carry cargo (with little to no passengers aboard) have a lot more weight (and generally more cars) than passenger trains, therefore, the heavy weight could contribute to derailment on declining, ascending, or curving sections of a track.

- Trains which caught fire or went out of control caused panic among the passengers, so many of them jumped overboard resulting in a substantially lower body count at the scene of the accident. (LOL)

- In some cases where the engine was malfunctioning, the conductor may have had to unhook the engine from the rest of the cars, in order to save human lives. (only conductor died in accident, bringing people/ accident ratio way down statistically)

- If there was a problem occuring early on during a train ride with a large number of passengers, more passengers could call for help, and more people would be trying to help (since more lives were at risk) which means trains with more passengers are more likely to receive attention and help during a crisis.

etc...
 
Things that we think are clarivoyance often are not, there is a sence threshold of the conscious and of the unconscious, to se people of suspect and decide not to ride, to have the same bomb sniffing capabilities as a dog, happens in people without them knowing it.

I always climb in to bed with the lights off and without inspecting anything. Years ago I started to do that one night and I felt I needed to check the bed, there was a huge bug in the bed, it was a very clean house too, never checked again before or since, I believe we have many sinces that we do not even know how to describe let alone label.
 
Lol. "Shrug" "Who cares" etc.... I know - we only say and write important things to each other all the time, right? I have never heard or seen so many shrugs and who cares as when I put this problem to people face to face. Usually after a couple of minutes when they couldn't come up with anything. It means "I could answer if I thought it out but it's too unimportant". A defense reaction because you get angry when you feel other people can think things out and you cannot - that's quite natural. But actually this issue is NOT unimportant.

Of course it's easier for really clever people to find the solutions - but it's more than that. We have become so accustomed to swallow any wievs presented to us as facts, that we have nearly stopped thinking things out for ourselves. And that is especially true when it comes to statistics. I find it quite alarming that an author without thinking just states that clairvoyance is a fact, just because he do not take the trouble to think - and what is worse is of course that 95% of those who read it or hear about it seem to agree with him...

That non-thinking acceptance is advertised everyday in the news, and frankly it's the core of the drug-war too. As for giving out more details - I do not have any. I can only repeat that it's no good harping on small lines. If an accident happened with the 08.15 big train btwn Berlin and Paris sunday 4/5 1973 or with a small train btwn two tiny villages 09.56 monday 8/11 1959 they will be compared with thousands of other trains leaving the same days, the same hour, for the same destinations, along the same lines...

The only fact the researchers seemed to have were the train schedules, the dates and the number of passengers on every train, crashing or not. Not any weather conditions or anything like that. I am sure that they would have remarked upon it, if they had found that more train accidents happened at weekends etc. But thats not the point. The point is that compared to OTHER WEEKEND TRAINS that did NOT crash, the one that crashed had - usually, not always of course - fewer passenger than one might have expected...

Gugglebum no 1 is lousy - read above...No 2 is not that bad - but only if it was a question of quickly calling in extra stewardesses because of a sudden influx of passengers. Because otherwise the busy trains were compared to other busy trains with as many stewardesses...Apes Ma some of your solutions are not valid, but some others - although wildly imaginative - aren't that bad and taken together they might possibly make a difference. Anyway you seem to have a brain for researching journalism. Actually one of yours is REALLY good.
 
I think that the poster has a vast superiority complex and hence uses such phrases to covertly describe himself as "really clever people" "have the right kind of brain for it" "I know it's not easy " and "In 2 minutes I had thought out at least 6 different reasons"....

Now, to me this sounds like a typical wanker in the most pure form..maybe I'm wrong but somehow with my SUPER HUGE FUCKING KICK ASS BRAIN!!!! I don't think so.

You said that "In 2 minutes I had thought out at least 6 different reasons to why the difference was perfectly natural. And when I sat for a while I thought out more"....soooo Mister "I can think of more than 6 reasons and nobody else can think of those reasons" Why don't you go ahead and let us in on those "More than 6 reasons"?

All I see you doing is molly-coddling those who do answer you like they are in 3rd grade and you are their 60 year old grandmother type teacher telling them.."Good boy Billy! You're almost there..keep trying and you'll maybe one day get to see what is really going on behind the curtain...Just like I know....and YOU DONT!!! HA HA HAAAA me so smart!"

I mean, even the title of this post "Test your druginfested mind here" is derogatory to those who choose to answer your silly little challenge, because who are we testing our "druginfested" minds against??? YOU!! and YOU'RE ANSWERS...that YOU HAVE MADE UP!!!! so you put yourself on this pedestal of superiority right from the get-go.

I came in here thinking that there would be some stupid link to some stupid multiple choice questionaire, which stupidly spits out some stupid personality condensing, life defining paragraph which we could all stupidly compare with each other and stupidly believe that anyone fucking cared!!! FUCK!!!!!

now...please do share you're enlightened mind with us 'o most benifecent one.
 
Last edited:
Whoa, candy, whoa. Don't take it so personally. Maybe the phrasing is a little off, but what he's asking is what answers can YOU come up with? If he made suggestions all people would do is say "yeah" and base their ideas on his, rather than genuinely think for themselves.

Anyway, it's better than just some stupid personality condensing, life defining paragraph which we could all stupidly compare with each other and stupidly believe that anyone fucking cared...
 
John Candy said:
I think that the poster has a vast superiority complex and hence uses such phrases to covertly describe himself as "really clever people" "have the right kind of brain for it" "I know it's not easy " and "In 2 minutes I had thought out at least 6 different reasons"....
Click to expand...

You know when I read my posts again I must admit you have a point there. About test your druginfested brain HERE - it was just a thought that a line like that would make ppl curious. I mean if I had said train schedules and the possibility of accidents, I don't think anyone would have looked really. I assure you that I sat for a while and tried to think out a really weird line - so that pple would click on it. I mean that is why we are here. We try to get ppl to read our posts. Perhaps I also should have left out the line of "clever people" - it sounded a bit high-handed I know. But aside from its being true, I stressed the fact that the main reason was that we are so used to believe anything that is printed.

I am sure that it has to do with too much trust and not enough experience of thinking critically. As for the part of dealing with those who said "shrug" and "who cares" - it was only because I didn't see why just this should be shrugged at? We post an awful lot of crap, jokes, sarcasms etc etc here. So I got a bit hurt when ppl shrugged. But it happens all the time that others asks me things I cannot answer. Why should I be angry for that? I only say "No I cannot solve this, it's too difficult."

As to the final meaning it was more a way to tease ppl to try - I didn't adress any special person when I implied that drugusers were smarter, it was more that I expected a lot of answers, because i was certain that pro-drug people have more experience to think of alternativities than other people. I was absoutely sure that here I should get all the answers and some that neither me nor anybody I asked before had come up with. I got answers that I hadn't thought about myself, both from people i asked directly and in here. Even so it was not a suitable sentence, I agree.

It's true that I was surprised that I couldn't get a lot of answers from doctors, journalists and professors. I thought that the journalists - it was a fairly old one and some of his collegues - would brake it at once. But that somehow proves my point. You do not have to be a professor to solve things like this - but you can be critical. Well, on the whole you are right - it strikes me when I read my post again. I am sorry about that. I don't think that I am better than others when it come to thought puzzles, so I should have refrained from that language.
 
sorry i was quite drunk when I wrote that.....it was very harsh, sometimes things seem way out of proportion when drunk and it was more of a steam valve regarding friends of mine and their holier than thou attitude....
 
PapaverPrisoner:

-Maybe your apparently un-scientific survey of "professionals" is skewed. How do you know that "95%" of the people you asked were "unable" to come up with a plausible scenario. Mabye they didn't have enough time to think one up. All of us sitting around on Bluelight have time to think about it in a relaxing chair.

-Maybe the people you asked were bored and didn't feel like thinking about it, but if they had they might have come up with an answer

-Maybe the writers of the article are fully aware of the dubious causal claim they are making. What if they were just fulfilling an assignment to write an article that grabs people's attention and entertains them?

-Maybe the people you asked really did have doubts about the legitimacy of the claim, but weren't practiced enough in the creative thinking required to come up with alternative hypotheses. I seriously doubt that very many college educated people would fully agree with the "mystery" cause without some doubt. Maybe drug-use contributes to that creative thinking. But probably not. Maybe creative-thinkers and skeptics congregate on bluelight, as opposed to random samples of a few professionals. I really doubt that bluelighters are *both* more creative AND more skeptical though.

You are right to assume that if someone doesn't know about the problem of inductive generalizations, they are probably non-critical thinkers. But there are bums on the street who are better critical thinkers than some professionals. However, if you are a doctor or teacher who doesn't realize the problem with the "clairvoyance" hypothesis, you probably skated through school at the bottom of your class and I wouldn't want you to be my doctor or teacher anyway :)
 
^ agreed, online surveys are much more voluntary, thought out and discriminated into the group of people that want to answer, if for no other reason then because they can, more comfortably.
 
"if you are a doctor or teacher who doesn't realize the problem with the "clairvoyance" hypothesis, you probably skated through school at the bottom of your class and I wouldn't want you to be my doctor or teacher anyway "

getting good grades is usually more about a work ethic than critical thinking; the doctor thing would only matter if he must do something he isnt trained for during your operation or ..whatever hes doing to you, though with 12 years(? or so) of school i think hes trained for most things involved with treating patients


its interesting the critical thinking critisisms can be broken farther and farther and probly extended from this post as well and probly from many other statements made...consciousness seems so narrow to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top