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

Test your druginfested brain HERE

well i am a drug user and here is what i think.

i dont care

drugs have put me too far in the moment to try and throw my intellectual dick around in some hypothetical argument that will in no way directly impact me.(assuming i dont die in a train crash surrounded by a comparatively low number of people) For some reason i think a heavier rate of usage would have kept you from coming to 6 separate glorious conclusions.

I think this qualifies as the most pretentious thing i have ever said:\
 
bleedingheartcommie said:
well i am a drug user and here is what i think.

i dont care

drugs have put me too far in the moment to try and throw my intellectual dick around
Click to expand...

THAT IS F-ING HALLERIOUS! for some reason I have never heard such a combination of steriotypes and atributes before.........

I see no point in the stopping the use of marijuanna, espessially in my personal case, it has been my liberal sociaty restructuring, to my exstreemist sociaty, deconstruction. On one simple atribute above pharmicuticle lobbying - honesty.
 
protovack said:


-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?
Click to expand...

No, they used the problem as a proof that clairvoyance - or that people at least had a feeling of impending doom - was a fact.
 
PapaverPrisoner -- I get my statistics training from psychology, which is why I've seen so many studies on how bad people are at intuitively understanding statistics (even a study on medical students). That's just the way they are. I also realize that small statistical fluctuations can be caused by *anything*. There doesn't need to be an intuitive reason why trains with fewer people crash slightly more in order to make the assertion: a correlation (between fewer people and more crashes) does not imply causality -- there's no way to know that "more crashes" causes "fewer people."

But here's an idea -- conductors who have a record of fewer accidents get put on the trains with the heaviest use, and continue to have fewer accidents.

Here's another thought -- Could you be putting too much stock in the conventional wisdom that clairvoyance is impossible? I'm sure you realize that it's hard to empirically prove that "no people are clairvoyant" or "all people have zero clairvoyance." On the other hand, there is evidence out there for psi phenomena that is better than the train example (i.e. double-blind studies).
 
my guess is that heavily used transportation systems like those in metropolitan areas, typically nations with more flourishing economies, are kept in better shape. whereas rural areas and developing nations with less active/lucrative public transportation industries tend to have less funding from less profits and aren't maintained as well.
 
jeenius said:
...But here's an idea -- conductors who have a record of fewer accidents get put on the trains with the heaviest use, and continue to have fewer accidents.

Here's another thought -- Could you be putting too much stock in the conventional wisdom that clairvoyance is impossible? I'm sure you realize that it's hard to empirically prove that "no people are clairvoyant" or "all people have zero clairvoyance." On the other hand, there is evidence out there for psi phenomena that is better than the train example (i.e. double-blind studies).
Click to expand...

Even if that was the case - that conductors usually involved in fewer accidents were put on trains in heavier use, I don't see why the number of passengers should be less on the trains involved in accidents. As I said before the trains were compared with many other trains on the same lines, on the same days, on the same times etc.

I do not deny that clairvoyance is possible - I just deny that this train passenger issue have anything to do with it. There are several reasons why those trains involved in accidents should have fewer passengers on them. Only I have only seen one or two here, but there are plenty.

As for thursdays views - no that is not a possibility as you compare the same lines.
 
What exactly is the "statistically significant difference"?

What is the average number of passengers on trains that crashed vs trains that didn't?

What makes you so sure the # of passengers had anything to do with why the trains crashed? There's a stat for anything, and it doesn't automatically imply causation.

How many blue eyed females aged 18-26 were on trains that crashed vs trains that didn't?

How many of the engineers shaved within 24 hours of departure on trains that crashed vs trains that didn't?

After finding these stats, one could question: " why do trains carrying less than x% of passengers that are blue eyed females aged 18-26 are far (more or less) likely to crash than trains carrying more than x% of passengers that are blue eyed females aged 18-26?", or " why do trains with engineers who shave within 24 hours of departure are far (more or less) likely to crash than trains with engineers who do not shave within 24 hours of departure?"

Stats are pliable and and easily skewed.
 
Last edited:
^"Statistically significant" just means that there's a correlation that is unlikely to occur by chance. In social sciences, this is generally set at 5% probability for the correlation to show up in the data completely by chance. I agree, in a large enough sample it's easy to find statistically significant differences that may mean nothing at all, especially small statistically significant differences.

PapaverPrisoner - I meant heavier use as in, trains that have an average of more passengers per train.
 
PapaverPrisoner said:
As for thursdays views - no that is not a possibility as you compare the same lines.
Click to expand...

you should have mentioned that vital piece of info in your first post.

so you are saying that on days that trainwrecks happen on a specific line the ticket sales drop for the train that gets involved in the wreck? in that case i think those statistics are questionable.
 
Mechanical Failure? - How long is a piece of string? Any Number of reasons?

Driver Error? Maybe the drivers more aware of a train full of people than the driver who unconscously observes the platforms with few travellers boarding ...

How much are cheese and onion crisps where you live ... there about 42P here ...
 
I am saying that I don't think that there were any other statistics available than the train schedules, and the actual departures/arrivals AND the figures of passengers being on the trains.

Many trains for many years in many lines were compared, and the trains who were involved in accidents had fewer passenegers than one would have expected. Not every train of course, but taken together they had.

Even if there WERE more accidents on certain lines - or on certain weekdays or certain times of day - that is no explanation as they were compared with the accidentfree trains on those same lines and/or same weekdays or times of day.

The CunnilungusKid's explanation isn't one of the strongest but it IS a real one.

Yes thursday that is what I am saying - and those statistics aren't questionable, that's my whole point.
 
PapaverPrisoner said:
I am saying that I don't think that there were any other statistics available than the train schedules, and the actual departures/arrivals AND the figures of passengers being on the trains.

Many trains for many years in many lines were compared, and the trains who were involved in accidents had fewer passenegers than one would have expected. Not every train of course, but taken together they had.

Even if there WERE more accidents on certain lines - or on certain weekdays or certain times of day - that is no explanation as they were compared with the accidentfree trains on those same lines and/or same weekdays or times of day.

The CunnilungusKid's explanation isn't one of the strongest but it IS a real one.

Yes thursday that is what I am saying - and those statistics aren't questionable, that's my whole point.
Click to expand...

can we please see the statistics that the study was based on? and what is your explaination for all this?
 
"train accidents where people were killed" -- I suppose you could *argue* that people are more likely to actually die rather than be injured in an empty car than in a full one (because they go flying?) but it's such hindsight-logic.

I hope your magic answers are quite clever, and that we get to hear them.
 
There was more qi on the trains with more people... less qi on the trains with less people.

There was less qi holding the social fabric together versus the probable mechanical difficulties.

Therefore, the mechanical difficulties have a higher probabilty of occuring on trains with fewer people.

~~~

YAY! For philosophy! :D
 
You've already said they compared crashes with non-crashes on the same lines / day of week / time, but did they compare time of year?
 
The trains that crashed all had one passenger with really bad BO, causing the majority of the other passengers to get off early. The smell was so bad it distracted the driver and caused him to crash.

Honestly, this puzzle is so stupid - it's like a poorly written Edward De Bono puzzle. For a really good one (which, by the way, has no solution) read "Practical Thinking" and the black cylinder experiment. It provides an interesting perspective on common mistakes in thinking in a nice, poppy way.
 
the autor may have been payed by train companies not to tell the truth in order they don't loose money with scared people....drug induced paranoia ?
yes, maybe ;)
 
are we ever going to hear your brilliant answer papaver? the suspense is killing me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top