Airdrop program
Get from 15 SOL free and 10 SOL per referral
Get free SOL
Sola
beta
7 months
Photo #1 from Hannover, Germany by Prof. Dr. Lewy made on 2018-07-25 23:59 for Sola

OK, Uncle Lewy will tell you about a psychological experiment conducted by scientists. Here on Sola, you should also learn something.

In this experiment, psychologists presented several stories to a larger group of people. Each story represented a complex of ideas. Each of these stories was well thought out and they all seemed meaningful and clever at first glance. In some of them, however, the psychologists had implemented small logical mistakes, which only became apparent on closer inspection. Through these logical errors these stories, in which the errors were incorporated, objectively became more or less dumb.

The degrees of complexity of the stories were partly different, the mistake that created the nonsense was tricky in different ways.

Now the psychologists wanted the participants to give an honest assessment of the stories. They also asked further questions to find out whether the participant actually understood the stories or not.

The evaluation brought very interesting results. Here, I want to explain only the part that is interesting for us.

All cases in which a story was described by one participant as stupid and dumb were collected and clustered. The psychologists gained the following insights:

A certain large group of participants had described stories as dumb because they contained the logical mistake and were therefore indeed dumb. They had understood all the stories and even discovered the logical errors in the faulty stories.

Another large group of participants had described stories as dumb, although these stories did not contain any logical mistake. They had understood most stories wrongly and had also "identified" error-free stories as dumb. In other words, they called the stories dumb, not because the stories were indeed dumb, but because the stories were so complex that they did not understand them. These parzicipants have been the dumb ones.

Be that as it may. What does this have to do with the screenshot? Oh, that doesn't matter. "Jackpot!"

480votes
0SOL earned
Vote
Share
Vote
Share
70
102
480
Germany, Hannover
70 comments
Joey
Hmm. I wonder what real psychologists would say about the self-congratulatory pseudo-psychobabel.
3
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
I wonder what a real professor would say
4
Hanover Fiste
๐Ÿคฃ link to the card, so everyone can see how many times you called other people's arguments dumb! ๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿคฃ It doesn't get any better than this! From the guy who doesn't understand economics and calls it dumb ๐Ÿ‘
4
Snowglimmer
๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ’š
Snowglimmer
Prof. Dr. Lewy, me too ๐Ÿ˜Š
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, if only youโ€™d understand
6
Hyde
Wow this is a gross mischaracterization. *that means you lied*. Hang out let me lay it out for you. You said "psychologist presented several stories" WRONG. I commented on 1 card that consisted of 1 meme. You said it "was well thought out"....again let me state it was a meme. You them stated " you asked further questions to find out where the participants actually understood the stories or not"....it is still a meme.
Hyde
And I'll stand by that comment, as it is still the dumbest thing I saw today.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Dear Hyde, your last comment ("And I'll stand by that comment, as it is still the dumbest thing I saw today.") suggests, that you have not understood the story on this card. I'll explain it to you again, Hyde. The experiment story on this card does not deny that a person can find a story "dumb". Rather, it says that this sensation can be traced back to two different possible causes. For one thing, the person can find the story stupid because the story is actually stupid. No question about it. This corresponded to your interpretation. On the other hand, the person may find the story stupid, because the person does not understand the story at all. Do you understand? One should not only have doubts about the outer world, but also about the inner world. Just sayin'.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I guess going through these mental gymnastics is still easier than actually defending communism. Lol.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Your thoughts are so boring, flat and dull, Joey. Even your constant "Lol" doesn't change that.
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I do understand. You are unable to defend socialism so you attempted to change the entire story line. This is known as redirection *a common strategy i use with my clients*. I am also in the mental health field *behavior analysis*. I understand through you explanations what you are attempting to communicate, but question your authenticity due to your attempted redirection instead of defending your position. I am almost certain this would have been unacceptable for your dissertation. Are you capable of defending your position, or will you dismiss me as "boring, flat, and dull" a well?
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
I fear that not even examples of psychological experiments will be able to revise my assessment. :-) Good night, you clowns.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, and, as is your habit, nothing you say directly addresses the comments - any comments here. It's all ad hominems and deflection. You must not have the chops to intelligently discuss something because you never actually discuss anything and hide behind some wannabe intellectual BS presumably so your ego can be protected from the beating you would take in an open discussion. Defend your position; don't hide behind personal attacks. Everyone can see you for who you are. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you.
5
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Like I said, good night, you clown.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, like I said, you got nothing.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Joey-Honk, here's a funny thing. You haven't said anything like that before, so your sentence "Prof. Dr. Lewy, like I said, you got nothing." makes no sense. Once again. :-)
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, you must have missed my previous comment or else you've proven how weak your reading comprehension is. ๐Ÿ˜‚
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Just to improve my skills: Where did you say that I got nothing?
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, Prof. "Dr. Lewy, and, as is your habit, Here ->nothing you say directly addresses the comments - any comments here. It's all ad hominems and deflection. Here ->You must not have the chops to intelligently discuss something Here -> because you never actually discuss anything and hide behind some wannabe intellectual BS presumably so your ego can be protected from the beating you would take in an open discussion. Defend your position; don't hide behind personal attacks. Everyone can see you for who you are. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you."
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Joey-Honk, I read your comment. All these statements (regardless of whether I declare them wrong) do not reflect the thought that I got nothing. I'm just afraid you don't have the ability to think, Joey. I am very sorry.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, wow... just wow. Seriously, do I need to explain this to you? Is this a language barrier thing? Maybe you are missing out on an American idiom. Your command of English seems such that you should be able to grasp my meaning here.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Your English must be better than my English. But still, this is not a problem of the language barrier. It's that you don't apply Aristotelian logic. I'm still on my way. I'll explain later.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, ๐Ÿคฆโ™‚๏ธ that's where you are going with this? It sounds like you are trying to make an argument based on a (hopefully) deliberate misunderstanding of the expression before you. Sophistry won't help you so feel free to stop if you want to save face.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
********** Our entire discussion is sophisticated, Hyde. You just don't have the flaw to think logically. You claim that I can't do A ("nothing you say directly addresses the comments - any comments here. ") and don't do B ("You must not have the chops to intelligently discuss something") and C is completely foreign to me ("because you never actually discuss anything"), then this is a finite list of three defects. (By the way: The truth of your assertions does not exceed 0, of course, just because you pronounce them.) When you later say the sentence, "Prof. Dr. Lewy, like I said, you got nothing", then the statement contained in it is simply wrong. The fact that you deprived me of three important abilities (namely A, B and C) does not mean that you deprived me of all my abilities. A, B and C are not all the skills a person can acquire. Therefore their negation is by no means "nothing". So your statement, that you have said it, that I got nothing, is simply wrong. I will only reply to your next comment if there is logic in it and you actually respond to the argument.
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, scroll back up and reply to my comment about your gross mischaracterization which at this point I believe is just negligence. Your unwillingness to engage in and avoidance of an intellectual conversation is troubling. Wait I'll put that comment๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿ‘‡to save you the trouble of looking for it....... Wow this is a gross mischaracterization. *that means you lied*. Hang out let me lay it out for you. You said "psychologist presented several stories" WRONG. I commented on 1 card that consisted of 1 meme. You said it "was well thought out"....again let me state it was a meme. You them stated " you asked further questions to find out where the participants actually understood the stories or not"....it is still a meme.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I called it, you're relying on sophistry. Try reading Euthydemus to see how flawed your rationalization is. Your style of argument has been satirized for literally thousands of years. A person must be both overeducated and intellectually middling to think this is clever. Let's have a go anyway. Try and keep up. I said "you got nothing" as in "you have no response to the substance of any argument placed before you", not literally zero of anything. By falling back on the most literal and expansive interpretation of the expression I used, you've fallen to sophistry word play to get around a simple expression describing how you fail at discussion. That you think this is an intelligent argument makes me genuinely sad. Aristotelian logic? Please, his teacher mocked your style of "logic". You cannot back up your support the substance of communism or whatever failed economic system you espouse. Likewise, you cannot intelligently discuss capitalism and whether there's a better system. Instead, you fail back on personal attacks and transparent word play. By saying you have nothing, I stated that you have nothing to say that substantively responds to any of the comments directed at you. I don't know if there's anything to discuss here because if you're as simple as I am worried you are, you'll persist in this.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
--> I will only reply to your next comment if there is logic in it and you actually respond to the argument. <-- :-)
Hyde
Mr. Lewy, you haven't replied to my first one. Don't be afraid no harm can come from an intellectual challenge, just exposure. Or is that what you are afraid of??
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Hyde, please calm down. And read the experiment story again slowly and you will find that it completely destroys your commentary from the card before, which criticizes and makes visible an ideological aspect of capitalism. Everything else you and Joey said was "fasafisu", as Turks say. This means: "without value". The same applies to you: let's end here, because like Joey, you won't produce a logical thought out of anger any more.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I called it! The logic is plainly laid out. There's no need for syllogisms. ๐Ÿ˜‚
Joey
Hyde, lewy is in Germany. He may be the product of an education system that educates everyone for free all the way through University. Only someone who grew up privileged, was average at best, and was given the chance to get a lot of education for nothing could think like this. It takes a special type of idiot to play these mastabatory games while getting demolished in a discussion. Lewy literally cannot address your points because he doesn't have a response. Take this as a cautionary tale about free University degrees.
Hyde
Mr. Lewy, look back at my comment. I did not mention capitalism at all. You can't address any of the issues I raised in my comment. Up to this point "fasaffisu" has been an accurate description of everything you have said. At this point you are willfully refusing to engage in a discussion. That speaks volumes about your intellect or lack there of.
Hyde
Joey, it is sad they way he avoids an actual conversation.
heisenberg
Just want to mention that studying at a university in Germany is not for free!
Hyde
heisenberg, ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Hyde, you're laughing, but heisenberg wasn't kidding. Joey knows so little that he talks so much nonsense that you simply have no desire to contradict any obvious stupidity from his mouth. Heisenberg has only devoted himself to one of Joey's obvious stupidity and contradicted it. But be that as it may. :-)
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, engage with me in a dialogue where you actually address my points. There is no need for this continued Act you are capable of engaging with me in an actual dialogue and exchanging ideas but you have chosen not to.
Joey
heisenberg, a nominal charge for enrollment is basically free.
Joey
Hyde, he can't address your points because he doesn't have the answers. I called out his flawed logic and he refuses to address it. I even directed him to the Socratic dialogue that satirizes his 'logic'. This guy is a fool.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Joey, "education system that educates everyone for free" --> You can't even admit it when you're proven to have obvious falsehoods. :-)
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Hello, Hyde, I hope you've seen my invitation below.
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, there's no tuition only a registration fee. That fee can include other amenities like travel. It's not strictly the cost of schooling. Do you have a something that prevents you from detecting nuance and only allows you to be exactingly literal?
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Joey, you're ridiculous. :-)
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, good effort, buddy!
JADED JOEY (๐Ÿ™Š5)
Joey, of course it's free, and we're proud of it. They charged students for a while but that's over. (as far as I know).
10
Joey
JADED JOEY (๐Ÿ™Š5), am I taking crazy pills here or what? Thank you.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
You don't have to thank JJ. JJ's confusing. In the past they paid about 350 Euro per semester (Studiengebรผhren), now they pay about 350 Euro per semester (Semesterbeitrag). Officially they are not the same, but they changed the name and simply explained why it should be paid (e.g. administration costs). If you don't pay for it, you won't be allowed to go to semester school. Every student has to pay this.
JADED JOEY (๐Ÿ™Š5)
Prof. Dr. Lewy, that's close to nothing and it's a fee for all the subsidized offers like cheap housing, cheap food, and so on. But that's not the topic of the card anyway. ๐Ÿ˜Š
10
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
JJ, of course, 350 Euros are not "nothing". And they are the same 350 Euros that you paid earlier as a student. I know that because I used to have to pay for them myself every semester and now I have to pay for my sister every semester. You're not supposed to try to save Joey's balls. They have to be eaten by the devil in hell. :-)
2
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
That's really interesting. Look at the result of Aristotelian syllogism. Me and Joey disagree. Joey agrees with JJ. JJ agrees with me. Since I contradict Joey, Joey contradicts himself. :-)
Joey
Prof. Dr. Lewy, jj disagreed with you and agreed with me. More faulty logic on your part. Kudos for switching to faulty premises instead of faulty interpretation of definitions. At least you mix it up. Tuition is defined as a sum of money charged for teaching or instruction by school, college, or University. German schools, colleges, and universities do not charge tuition. Therefore teaching and instruction in German schools, colleges, and universities is free. This is colloquially stated as University is free in Germany even though there may be other costs. Your rigid adherence to definitions is sophistry as I've stated multiple times above. I've explained how that is so and even provided you with a dialogue that explores the fallaciousness of your reasoning. That you can't comprehend this is awkward for me. I don't want to pick on someone who can't defend themselves properly. So, have a good day. ๐Ÿ‘‹
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
You're embarrassing. You think I read another line you wrote? It always stinks of ignorance.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Deleted by comment owner
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Dear Hyde, let's talk about the issues which are important for you. I want to answer all your questions. Please ask me anything.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Just one word: Sometimes I won't answer immediately because I'm on the road or have something to do. Then you must wait until I answer. Please tell me what's on your mind.
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I am working. I have asked multiple questions above none of which you have answered. You're now attempting to create a new dialogue pretending those questions aren't there. I'm not here to play your silly games. I will not ask anymore questions. you can look up and you can read the ones I have asked and you can answer those or you can move on.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
You put them in the confusion of speeches above. I don't want to pick out anything, I want to develop a meaningful conversation. I offer you here without any gimmick the possibility to answer your questions, which you would like to have discussed. So, what exactly do you want to know?
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, Wow this is a gross mischaracterization. *that means you lied*. Hang out let me lay it out for you. You said "psychologist presented several stories" WRONG. I commented on 1 card that consisted of 1 meme. You said it "was well thought out"....again let me state it was a meme. You them stated " you asked further questions to find out where the participants actually understood the stories or not"....it is still a meme.
Hyde
Copy and pasted from above
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Hyde, I see. Ich will answer you as soon as possible.
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, ๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ’ฉ๐Ÿ™ˆ๐Ÿ™‰๐Ÿ™Š๐Ÿ’คโœŒ
1
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Hyde, I came home one hour ago. Don't be impatient. Ich told you that you might wait.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
I'm afraid you have to be patient. It's the weekend, it's family days and my in-laws are there. I can't answer any time. So, your comment has a central accusation against me: you're saying that I lied. You bring three individual arguments as "proof" for this claim. These arguments are that you quote the experiment story on this card (twice correct and once incorrect) and add after each quote that the image on the other card was a meme-image. 1) You bring the following correct quote from my story: "psychologist presented several stories". Then you're saying that this was wrong, because you would have written 1 comment on a card consisting of a meme. "WRONG. I commented on 1 card that consisted of 1 meme." So you claim that in the experiment story I have implied that your comment on the meme-card was just a commentary on several stories presented by psychologists. But your claim itself is just WRONG: Nowhere on the card do I make the claim that your comment on the other card is related to the stories presented by the psychologists. 2) You bring the following correct quote from my story: "was well thought out". You put an "it" in front of it, without defining what it stand for in the experiment I am telling about. Here I use the term "Each story". Then you state that it was a meme. "again let me state it was a meme." So you're implying that in the experiment story I claimed that the meme in the card was well thought out. But your claim itself is just WRONG: Nowhere on the experiment card do I make the claim that the meme was well thought out. I don't even talk about the meme once in the experiment card. 3) You bring the following INCORRECT quote from my experiment story: "you asked further questions to find out where the participants actually understood the stories or not". Let me first correct the little mistake you made in the quote. The term "you" is just wrong. If you meant that I (Lewy) claimed to have asked anybody, then that's even bullshit. That's what the experiment story really says: It says that it was the psychologists who asked the questions to the participants. Here ist the correct quote: "Now the psychologists wanted the participants to give honest assessment of the stories. They also asked further questions to find out whether the participants actually understood the stories or not." After this confused you state that it is still a meme. "it is still a meme." So you're implying that in the experiment story I am speaking about the meme. But your claim itself is just WRONG: I don't even talk about the meme once in the experiment history. ##### None of your pieces of "evidence" contains a truth. As I have shown, they are wrong and confused in their entirety. You can disprove me, of course. But so far I haven't read anything meaningful from you.
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, to much๐Ÿ’ฉ๐Ÿ’ฉ๐Ÿ’ฉ. You again missed the entire context, and I don't believe on accident. Enjoy your in laws. This is futile.
5
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Hyde, I'm just reminding you of what you wrote above: "Mr. Lewy, you haven't replied to my first one. Don't be afraid no harm can come from an intellectual challenge, just exposure. Or is that what you are afraid of??" I hereby officially state that you are also a zero. :-)
Hyde
Prof. Dr. Lewy, so you are calling me a zero, officially? ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚. *I'm left wondering what outside of sesame street you could possibly be in charge of* https://sola.ai/hyde_24567/that-explains-a-lot-M2ZmM2E/?r=hyde_24567. *funzies* Well, I've been called worse by better. However, I must give you accolades for your ability to purposefully misconstrue, misinterpret, remove context, focus on unimportant or minor issues all in an effort to completely avoid an actual challenging conversation. I can not imagine what living inside such a shell must be like. I wish you a good evening, and maybe on other cards you won't be as defensive and we can have an actual conversation.โœŒ๐Ÿ™‹
10
Write something...
Send
Earn SOL - a cryptocurrency used in Sola (ERC20ย standard token). Sola is an iOS, Android and web application which is a mix of a media and community. Sola allows discovering new people and exciting content in a most simple, friendly and relaxed manner.