Nice Guys Finish First (2/5) - Richard Dawkins

[jdogi69]

an obvious change to the experiment would be seperate rooms, use of a computer, and just no personal interaction between participants.

[PrincessTS01]

Greed vs. Trust

[TheYesDave]

Just before the game, Anil found out that Adrian is screwing his girlfriend

[Flabekk]

The flaw is the sound of the marker pen. The first that write an answer looses. One sounding line is a C and two sounding lines is a D.... They should have pushed buttons instead. Without sound :)

[marketharry]

@Flabekk

You're absolutely right. However, my guess is this setup was just for demonstration purposes. They could have just as easily put the participants in separate rooms (or used other means of conveying ones choice)...

[dopeasfuckk]

8:00 - Bieber swag

[Jblod240]

Would it be racist to take notice that all the nonwhites in this example immediately go for the self serving "D"? The only white girl to choose D said she only did so out of suspicion that the other would invariably choose D, which was correct. But no white chose D because they just desired the 4 points.

I dont consider myself racist but that conclusion made me feel awkward.

[peter17dude]

@Jblod240 well thats the kind of observation that breeds stereotypes. this was a teeny sample and thus proves nothing:)

[neoneoneofu]

7:30. Who the f*k cheats his friends like that? :))

[Breezer1391]

does the black guy have a learning difficulty? the 4 stands out ... derp

[yoshobbit]

@Breezer1391 He's not black, he's Indian.

[fdalkjfdsalkj]

yep, you can hear the two strokes of the marker making a letter D. the result is flawed.

[insanecaine]

Hearing the markings of the other person could have affected their choice. I could actually hear the two marks of the D of the brown haired girl, and I think the other girl knew that.

[feanando]

@lurk192 Yes, I am. And I think that recognizing this puts me in a better condition to learn than yours, for you think you are not, dude.

[gwcstudio]

If you were playing Prisoner's Dilemma against jesus, you'd kick his ass, because you'd know he was always going to cooperate, right?

[MeepullStewray]

When you watch Richard a lot, when you finally start talking again you talk to smart xD

[feanando]

Please!

Know how shallow Dawkins is by knowing the criticism to his VERY, VERY FRAGIL book and arguments... Watch on Youtube:

Dr. William Lane Craig Responds to Dawkins Book

or

William Lane Craig Leaves a Chair Open for Richard Dawkins

or

Richard Dawkins Made The Worst Argument Against God In The History of Western Thought

No wonder why he is running from Craig as the devil from the Cross: this true philosopher could easily show what an unprepared liar he is!

Thanks!

[Bzdi138]

@feanando no one is going to listen to you; not even the average Christian. You represent a fringe group. Leave the internet at once as you surly don't appreciate the science that made this venue possible.

[feanando]

@Bzdi138 Who said that I don't appreciate science? Are you nuts? Maybe I do appreciate science even in a deeper way than you, for real scientists search for the truth, as I do. As for you, I am not that imprudent to make a comment about you, for I don't know you. You should learn to do the same before opening your mouth.

[wowamonn]

@feanando The religous fear science especially scientists who are not afraid to challenge the crap that is spewed by god worshippers.

[wowamonn]

@feanando Dawkins gets under your skin doesnt he? Ahh.. the good old days when someone like Dawkins would have been burnt at the stake for even challenging religous dogma but alas the religous cannot do that anymore.

[feanando]

@wowamonn Sure he does... I really don't appreciate ignorant and arrogant people, all-in-one! Really, man... study more. Dawkins is quite an ignorant man in philosophy. All who worship him only reveal how ignorant they are.

[wowamonn]

@feanando I see, because he exposes the fraud that is religon and he does not appeal to your sugar daddy that makes him " ignorant and arrogant " then you use another religous projection in your assine comment by saying that critical thinkers ' worship ' him rolol. What I would like you to do is to give a specific point that Dawkins makes that has been proven wrong and can be verified by independant data. Are you Catholic?

[feanando]

@wowamonn Man... I am really not entering in a word-fight with you, really... Just for you to know, only 2 chapters of Dawkins' most known book have some content that might be worth debating... All the rest is stupidity. Yes, I am Catholic, English is my second language and I do know history (and history of religion) much better than Dawkins...

[wowamonn]

@feanando Since the Roman Church supports the theory of Evolution I will assume you do to. Every major scientific discovery made in the 500 years has shattered the position of the church because it taught a diffrent view and the church obviously back peddled its position later adopting the scientific fatcs over its own Dogma. Now it finds itself on the ropes on the ultimate question on whether there are gods. When this belief is totaly destroyed what will be the Churchs position?

[feanando]

@wowamonn You said it right: the Roman Church supports the theory of Evolution as a theory. Concerning religion, you are quite wrong. The dogmas are the same. I assume you have read them, otherwise, you are just acting with bias. An example of dogma: "the Virgin Mary is the mother of God". There never existed a dogma stating that the earth is flat. What really happened was that the (arrogant) people of the Enlightenment lied to everybody about it, and you just swallowed that.

[wowamonn]

@feanando There many not have been a religous dogma of scientific ' belifs ' that were held by many members of the Roman Churchs clergy but any inquiry into fields of science that contradicted long held biblical explainations of life on Earth, and the functions of the Universe, were discouraged for a very long time. Because the Roman Church feared truth. Now the over the centuries they have backpeddled on many biblical ' stories ' that have been explained by Natural Forces.

[feanando]

@wowamonn So what? Fanatical scientists (not real scientists, who are not in conflict with religion) who only believe in themselves also do not have a minimal clue of the origin of the Universe and yet they act as if they were illuminated and everybody else were morons... Is it possible that you are judging the mentality of ancient people by today's standards? Why don't you do the same with scientists? Do you know the prescriptions of ancient Egyptian physicians? Knowledge evolves.

[wowamonn]

@feanando " who only believe in themselves also do not have a minimal clue of the origin of the Universe and yet they act as if they were illuminated and everybody else were morons... "

I do not know of one scientist who believe in themselves. Are you implying that the clergy of the Roman Church who are positivly sure that a god exists because a ' holy ' book says he does exist are free from arrogance? Belief in a god requires the an extreme amount of arrogance.

[feanando]

@wowamonn Not really, man... if only you could understand the meaning of the manger, you would know how loved you are, and feel gratitude. I wish somehow I could help you to get there.

[wowamonn]

@feanando I was a christian for 28 years then I woke up.

[feanando]

@wowamonn I do believe you have been a Christian for so long, but very, very probably you were a Christian without deep knowledge of your own faith, as all of those who abandon their faith are. I bet you haven't read Thomas Aquinas,Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, Abelard, Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila, John Bosco... People drop their faith because they were not taught their faith! I do recognize it took the Church long time to realize that the education we provided was not comprehensive.

[wowamonn]

@feanando I know the scriptures very well and the apologetics. Religon was our frist attempt to explain the world around us and how humans came into existance but these explinations were told without qualification. We Humans have slugged our way through centuries of ignorance and now we know more of the natural world then ever before and a god had nothing to do with our creation. Only the toddlers of our species still think we cannot function without the guidence of a super daddy.

[feanando]

@wowamonn Well, if you really know the scriptures and apologetics (have you really read this authors? Few people have...) as you claimed, then you know that it is a huge contradiction the fact that you claim to be one of the "adults" of our species while people with faith are supposed to be toddlers, whereas St. Paul says that some people are still children in faith. I don't know you personally, but through your words, it seemed to me that you have just been a man without a reasonable faith.

[wowamonn]

@feanando Faith and reasonable Faith? Semantics. The bottom line is the christian god comes from where all gods come from, someones imgination.

[feanando]

@wowamonn Semantics... Say that to St. Tomas Aquinas. I knew you had not read his work...

[wowamonn]

@feanando

[wowamonn]

@feanando A Human trying to explain the nature of god to other human who are just as intelligent as you? Its always been a mystery to me why a god would reveal is nature and purpose to a select few and not openly or publicly to the masses and then you confer upon these fellow primates religous honour.

[feanando]

@wowamonn Well... maybe He just doesn't think like you! LOL... We want spectacle... He comes in a manger in the middle of nothing... or on a donkey instead of on a white horse... and counts on us to help each other. His humility always amazes me.

[wowamonn]

@feanando You actually believe a god was born as a human and that he was born of a vrigin and he died for the ' sins ' of humans?

[feanando]

@wowamonn Yes. And in case you might be with a sad laugh in your face... look at the world. Look at the sea. Look at the animals. Look at the plants and at the sky. You actually believe the world?

If once you tried to be a humble man, you would fully find Him.

[wowamonn]

@feanando Humans came from nature. Humans for hundreds of thousands of years lived and existed in the same enivormetn non-human animals live in today. The only diffrence is that now, because of our intelligence and technology, we arrested the effects that the natural world have on our everyday lives to a certain extant. Now we dont have to run for our lives from the big cats on the savannahs of Africa and scrap meal every day.

[wowamonn]

@feanando Human crave privilage because we think because we are more intelligant than the other non-human animals on our planet the effects of the natural world should not affect us like those other MERE animals. But we cannot escape the fact that we also are products of Evolution by Natural Selection and not immune to the viciousness of nature.

[feanando]

@wowamonn

Of course we are made of the same material of the world. Nevertheless, it doesn't imply that we "came from nature", nor I argued that we were immune to the viciousness of nature. Quite the opposite, this limitation it is what really allows us to be exercise our freedom: the world has laws and, to some extent, predictable consequences that allows us to make choices. In your deterministic view of the world, you necessarily shut yourself to a very limited range of possibilities.

[wowamonn]

@feanando " In your deterministic view of the world, you necessarily shut yourself to a very limited range of possibilities. "

The existance of gods has never been proven, that is a fact. You put yourself down by thinking that you cannot have a happy constructive life without believing in your god. By the way have you ever noticed that the view of this god changes when the society that worships this god has a drastic change in thier dogma?

[feanando]

@wowamonn Well, a "proof of God" depends on your perspective. Many men in history have recognized Christ as God, including St. Thomas apostle (My Lord and My God)... Therefore I wouldn't say that that's a fact. As for being happy without God, I really don't believe in this possibility, for life would really be meaningless if we had just a few years to live and... that's the end. To me, all those who say they are "mature" because they can be happy without God and with death, I think they lie.

[wowamonn]

@feanando So a book written by a anonymous writer says men believed that Jesus of Nazaerth claimed to be a Christ and then later to be a god is the only proof you can offer for the claims of christains?

[feanando]

@wowamonn No, not at all!!! I offer you as a proof millions of humans who strove to make their lives an oblation, as Christ himself did! Lives inspired by Jesus' words who died to their bad impulses, changed their behavior and served anonymously billions of people. I also offer you (since I have done my homework after also having dropped faith...), at least 4 books authenticated by those who followed Him closely, books written in different times by different authors that tell the same story!

[wowamonn]

@feanando What about the billion muslims and the billion Hindus in the world? Is that also proof that thier religon and gods are real also or that only applies to the religon you so happen to be born into? Have you ever read the resurection stories in the gospels? I recommend that you do right after reading this comment. Then after you read them tell me why in the gospel accounts that in Mark, Mary was the only one who saw the ressurected Jesus and not in the others?

[feanando]

@wowamonn I recognize an echo of Dawkins words in this comment of yours and, quite frankly, it is a ridiculous argument of him. Why are you now an atheist, if you were a Christian? If this argument were real, you should never change your mind, then. I am not Christian because I was born Christian or in a Christian society; I freely BECAME a Christian because after learning about many other views of the world, I found Christianity true, and all others beliefs false.

[feanando]

@wowamonn And in case you just got scandalized by my words, we catholics recognize sparks of truth in many other religions, but Christ is the only who fully reveals to mankind the truth about man. He is the only way for me and you to find the truth about ourselves. All other views, Marxist, Existentialist, Nihilist, Hedonist, lead people to self destruction or to lies.

As for the Gospels, I'll have to read it again to see if this is a real problem to faith or if you're just having a difficulty.

[wowamonn]

@feanando Its funny that you say that any other ideolgy leads people to lies when the crux of christianity is based ON a lie, lol.

[feanando]

@wowamonn Well... that's just your opinion, which doesn't necessarily is true. The fact is that Jesus gave His life for us. I don't think He was a liar the same way I don't think that you would do what He did for me. Would you suffer for other people? Especially for... criminals... Christians... I don't know... especially for people that YOU normally don't easily love? I guess not. Therefore, how can you say that Christianity is based on a lie? No offense, but, to me, you're the one lying...

[wowamonn]

@feanando I keep forgetting you think that the stories of the gospels are true and when you comment about these tales, I think to myself, why is he commenting about these events as though they actually accrued? then it dawns on me that you believe this actually happened. Are there any contemporary Roman or Jewish writings of the time that mentioned the activities of this proclaimed Christ? I think someone thrashing the temple during a Prominant Jewish festival should have been recorded right?

[feanando]

@wowamonn Of course there is at least a worldly famously contemporary Jewish Historian that mentioned Jesus and his disciples! But if you really want to search for the truth instead of just assuming that the very 4 books are lies (can't you see a "a priori" bad will from your part in doubting?), then this is the task I will live to you, for faith demands free will. I am telling you that there is such a proof that you demand, but if you really are not biased, seek for it!

[wowamonn]

@feanando What did he say about Jesus of Nazereth? Let me ask you this the story of Jesus swaeting bllod in the book of luke was it found in the Original gospel? The last 8 verses of Mark were they part of the original gospel?

[feanando]

@wowamonn I don't get it... Do you think that sweating blood is impossible and is this a difficulty to your faith? Well, I happen to have a physician friend and have discussed the subject with him: it is possible. Even you could sweat blood in an extreme emotional condition. Concerning Mark's final verses, some scholars arose the idea that they were not original, but they are few, and they couldn't prove that they were added. It is just an idea. Aren't you missing the big picture?

[wowamonn]

@feanando Where in my statment did I suggest someone sweating blood is impossible? I asked if that story was found in the original text of Luke.

" some scholars arose the idea that they were not original, but they are few,"

Its that some scholars thought up the idea its that in the oldest Greek texts of Mark the ' long version ' simplay isnt there and the reason why the story in Mark ends abrutly is because the orginal ending is lost to us. In fact by the 5th century........

[wowamonn]

@feanando ....there were several competing ' ending versions ' to the story of Mark. Let me ask you a question do you think that the bible in its present form is the infalliable word of your god?

[feanando]

@wowamonn Well, since much has been debated from 2.000 years by intelligent, competent and good-will people, since the existent accounts have been scrutinized, and since many books have been rejected as untrustworthy accounts of the events by the Church, yes, I do believe that the actual Bible contains the word of God.

But this is not the single reason for me to believe in it, since Catholicism, as you probably know, also accepts the teachings of the Tradition.

[wowamonn]

@feanando The story of Jesus sweating blood was it in the original text of luke? The story of Mary Magdalene was it found in the oldest texts of John? Did the christian god decide to insert these verses later on because he thought they added more flavor to the stories?

[wowamonn]

@feanando Why were the Shepard of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas part of the Church canon and later dropped centuries later? Did the christian god change his mind on the authenticity of these books so he decide to drop them from the canon?

[feanando]

@wowamonn "Since many books have been rejected as untrustworthy accounts of the events by the Church"... "after scrutiny"... I thought I had already suggested an answer to this kind of doubt of yours. When compiling the Bible, it would be quite an irresponsible action to KEEP such books once they were found untrustworthy. We seek for the truth, not for the more convenient words. Concerning the alleged "insertions", you are discussing philology. Are you a philologist?

[feanando]

@wowamonn In case you are not a philologist, you probably have read somewhere about this POSSIBILITY and...

"When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart"

Your situation seems to be a little more complicated, for you DON'T WANT to believe, and faith requires a humble will. It took me a long time to understand that I had to exercise my WILL, my FREE-will towards God. Intelligence and will.

[wowamonn]

@feanando " Your situation seems to be a little more complicated, for you DON'T WANT to believe, and faith requires a humble will "

I dont believe because there is no evidence for a belief in gods its that simple.

[wowamonn]

@feanando Isnt it strange that these books had to undergo " scrutiny " in order to pass proto-orthodox approval in order to become canon? Why did the christian god allow his books, verses and passages of his ' holy ' word to be altered, inserted, deleted, re-inserted and then after 300 hundred years chaotic wrangeling come up with a canon that met the approval of the proto-orthodox sect of christianty. Why not just have John put together the canon since he was allegedlly alive in 2 CE?

[yoshobbit]

@wowamonn Why do you say CE?

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit CE means "Common Era" I use the term because I am a secularist. Also Jesus was probable born in the year 4 BCE (Before Common Era). So why would I use the term BC/AD if Christ was born before year 1? (There is no 0 year in the Gregorian Calender).

[yoshobbit]

@wowamonn Why bother to change the story books into 'CE' anyway? Should 'Christmas' be changed into 'Winter Holiday' because some people don't believe a Christ ever existed? And CE and BCE start from the same year as AD and BC, so what should be changed is not the terms but the dates. If Jesus was born in 6 BC you should change our timeline into 2005, not into BCE.

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit "Why bother to change the story books into 'CE' anyway?"

There are story books that change there Terms to CE from AD?

"Should 'Christmas' be changed into 'Winter Holiday' because some people don't believe a Christ ever existed?"

Well the Christians call it Christmas because they claim it was the birth day of their god. I don't know if other people call it a winter holiday. I don't really care I don't celebrate the holiday.

[yoshobbit]

@wowamonn Yes, that is the goal of people who want to "secularize". And weather or not you celebrate it has no relevance, You still call it either Christmas or Winter Holiday, Winter Solstice or whatever. And while you're at it, why don't you change the name of Thursday as well, you don't believe in Thor...Or maybe you do.

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit "And while you're at it, why don't you change the name of Thursday as well, you don't believe in Thor...Or maybe you do."

I do sometimes. Let me ask you this since you appear to be a god worshiper. When were the gospels canonized and what method was used to canonized NT?

[yoshobbit]

@wowamonn What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about the stupid use of "CE" and "BCE", being an atheist means just that, it doesn't mean you have to be opposed to all things Christian and ONLY Christian, and wanting to purge Europe's Christian past. Even Dawkins is culturally Christian. You should ask that to a religious Christian.

"I do sometimes"...?

And you call me the god worshiper?

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit "it doesn't mean you have to be opposed to all things Christian and ONLY Christian, and wanting to purge Europe's Christian past."

If I remember correctly Europe was not always christian. Over time, culture, customs, language, terminologies of words and religious beliefs change. Therefore there is always a shift in thought that affects these circumstances. So if one of those changes is the use of the terms BC/AD to BCE/CE then so be it. Its not a purging its just change.

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit "I do sometimes"...?

And you call me the god worshiper?

So saying Thors-day equates to believing in an ancient god?

[yoshobbit]

@wowamonn First, obviously I thought you were answering when I said if you believed in Thor. even though I doubt you actually do say Thorsday and you only said you do to defend your standpoint. Secondly, that's exactly my point! Saying 'Merry Christmas', AD/BC, etc does not equal believing in Christianity, so why don't atheists like you quit this stupid, sad shit with 'Happy Holiday', and all that kind of laughable CRAP.

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit "First, obviously I thought you were answering when I said if you believed in Thor. even though I doubt you actually do say Thorsday and you only said you do to defend your standpoint."

Sorry I have used this terminology in the past.

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit "Secondly, that's exactly my point! Saying 'Merry Christmas', AD/BC, etc does not equal believing in Christianity,"

I have no idea why you keep bringing Christmas into this discussion. I earlier commented I don't care what folks call the 25th of December. The Terms BCE/CE. is also used by Christians writers and groups Etc. Therefore the use of the terminology is not exclusive to Atheists.

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit "sad shit with 'Happy Holiday', and all that kind of laughable CRAP."

Then I recommend you post a video highlighting your concerns with this trend?

[yoshobbit]

@wowamonn Or just like videos like this:

/watch?v=8wtiU0s0NOo

[wowamonn]

@yoshobbit Nice video and great opinion piece. But as I stated before, terminologies change and I just prefer to use the Term BCE/CE. If someone wants to use the archaic form good for them. I have no problem with it.

[gwcstudio]

@feanando - you read that in a book. do you also believe harry potter is a wizard? or is it just because one book is older than another? LOL!

[wowamonn]

@feanando Did you not say, a couple of comments back, you know christianty is true because of millions upon millions of people accepted the religon but when this same model is applied to other religons its a sham? Also, your saying that where you happen to be born an live has no role in what religon you MAY accept when you are an adult? So if you were born and lived in Japan, according to your opinion, you probably would not practice shinto or japanese Buddhism but christianty?

[feanando]

@wowamonn No... I refuted Dawkins deterministic comment that has led many uneducated people to doubt...

[Palocles]

@wowamonn You have amazing patience with this guy, even though your discussion has amounted to throwing eggs at a brick wall.

It amazes me that this type of person can think themselves open minded yet be completely oblivious to any real evidence contradicting their view.

Congratulations on freeing yourself from the dogma and brainwashing of your former 'faith'.

[TheMidwestAtheist]

@feanando "not real scientists, who are not in conflict with religion" Ah! So only scientists who are not in conflict with religion are real scientists???

[feanando]

@TheMidwestAtheist Sure! Do you think those who used their scientific discoveries to build the Hydrogen Bomb and use it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are real scientists? I don't.

[tgwnn]

Usually when I go out, we pay separately with the waiter? Not just divide the sum equally, that sounds odd. Perhaps it's some technological advance in the past 25 years?:)

[robbymvb]

@jshowa But I explicitly said 'non-iterated,' and Dawkins is also discussing the non-iterated dilemma. If your prisoner's dilemma is one-time, the best strategy is always to defect, because you can't be punished next round. Let's imagine you live in a world, e.g., where everyone accepts your logic and picks C. You should then pick D to get an extra pound. Yet if you aren't sure everyone is a nice cooperator, you should still pick D to get an extra pound (2 over 1).

[robbymvb]

@jshowa2 It's illogical not to defect in the non-iterated prisoner's dilemma, if your goal is to maximize your own reward rather than the total reward of everyone. A purely self-interested player has nothing to gain from cooperating: If you think the other player is likely to defect, then you should defect too so you get 2 rather than 1. If you think the other player is unlikely to defect, then you should still defect, so you get 4 rather than 3. The incentive to defect is the same.

[ThumbprintTheatrics]

Boy on the left at 1:08 is attractive. Just putting that out there.

[timetraveler2006]

lol

Brown guy screws over white guy....

how evolutionary!

[AreaQNH870]

schhhhhhhhhht.............schh­hhhhhhhhhht

*generic pen comment*

[capoman1]

As another comment said, the loud markers give away the choice.

[WRF713]

Yeah, wtf is up with the markers they chose?

[tomitstube]

the stakes are lbs? i bet if you raise the stakes cooperation gets better.

[OniiOniiOnii]

A lot of what's being described seems to be the flaws of a monetary system and how 'unnatural' its concepts are considering scarcity and labor can be eliminated.

[HDaviator]

They should have changed the letters. Instead of D or C they should have put "be an asshole" & "don't be an asshole".

[1aaronaaron1]

i never got this game from a textbook i remember looking at it and not understanding how it works. this makes more sense hurray!

[lifeofbob]

This is actually a really good illustration of data leakage.

[pinoy426]

they chose the loudest sharpie ever for the experiment... genius !

[neonaction]

one can write d in one stroke, they've should told the participants that to avoid cheating

[andrewf108]

its a flawed experiment anyway you can hear the marker on the board, easily deciphering if it's a D or C. And i don't think it's warranted to generalize this for normal situations.

[IcedPhoenix666]

@andrewf108 It's not a flawed experiment. This experiment is years old. What Richard is doing is showing us how what happens in nature can be explained by simple choices.

[jazzx251]

This game is "Golden Balls"!

[userwl2850]

7.30. my mate always has the biggest meal and the most drinks, but that,s cus he,s a fat twat.

[simplic10]

You're right! Bad experimental setup. Good call!

[Sutskoen]

it's just a demonstration though :)

[IbnAlla]

And be assured of one thing:

I certainly DO understand specific sciences.

I`m an experienced remote viewer and you shouldn`t be angry; LEARNING IS FUN!!!

[ashman165]

Me too! I've spent quite a lot of time looking for the damned thing myself. Have you noticed a peculiar pattern? It's always in the last place I look!

Now my goal is to be an experienced remote hanger-onto-er instead of a remote viewer, thus trimming the amount of time I can't mindlessly flip through late night T.V.

I'm glad we're talking about the same thing and completely agree. ^_^

[IbnAlla]

Sorry, that I understand how it was when I`ve passed through your ages period.

[IbnAlla]

And under pressure any decision obviously will be a different one than in case of having enough time!

[IbnAlla]

Sorry if you feel uncomfortable about your age!

[IbnAlla]

Why with the men it was "ready steady go" to write down

and for the women "take your time"??????

[sulthus]

honstly, probbaly conicidence, he probbaly just picked people out and said "ready steady go" for some men and wemon, and "take your time" for some men and wemon

[IbnAlla]

PROBABLY because you are young it`s not a COINCIDENCE that you are still naiv.

If scientists say something they do it with a purpose.

And first of all should you have listened to the vid and secondly read my comment meticulously.

He didn`t say it to some "men and WOMEN" but this to the men and that to the WOMEN!

HONESTLY, no problem; grow up and learn................

[sulthus]

Uhhhh, i wrote that after i watched it.......it still dosent matter....it wouldnt change

things

I.E. whats the diffrence between

"are you ready?"

and

"shall we move on?"

nothing, there the same phrase in difffrent contexts.

not that if you understand anything about science, that would be like caliming that "the air in this room has 1% more carbon IT EFFECTED THE TEST"

unless your testing air it dosent matter, this null and voids your argument compleetly, and insults to age? take a geuss

[IbnAlla]

Since words can target our subconscious it matters a lot!

How can a reference to age be an insult????????

But since you`ve never yet heard of influencing questioning:

"Ready steady go" puts you in a hurry,

where as "Take your time" is the complete opposite of that!!

Getting a guess now......?

[sulthus]

yes, but its not testing peoples reaction to being in a hurry, or taking there time. its testing there responces (which that could have an effect on i get that)

BUT this could be a control. and as i said before its just concidence that it happend to be a man and a woman that he said it to, he could have randomly said it to diffrent sexes (hes obiously preformed the experiment before)

how is this not an insult "PROBABLY because you are young it`s not a COINCIDENCE that you are still naiv."

[IbnAlla]

If a scientist conducts an experiment which includes to use words, how so ever, he will consider every aspect of it.

And at all is science the exact opposite of coincidence!

To underestimate the capability of consideration of professionals is naiv.

One could also say, a blue eyed world view.

Perhaps it was coincidence,

but to asume you have to that it was not.

The question is only, as I`ve asked in the first place, why?!

[TomfromExeter]

The very squeaky marker pens seem to give the game away a little! One squeak for C, two squeaks for D :)

[davidmly08]

Ya, that was a poor control on the psychologists part.

[MugenTJ]

@TomfromExeter It's might be true after the fact, but one can write a D with one stroke! One can also write C with 2 strokes. That is if they are aware of the squeak.

[freeballs7]

thankyou dawkinschannel for posting this!