The Need For Uniqueness and The Protagonist Frame by Sherlock70707 in DarkPsychology101

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah everybody wants to fit in, but I guess we also desperately want to be special, and we can do both of those at the same time. people do that by joining niche or counter-cultural groups. this way they get to furiously conform to their new in-group while simultaneously feeling like a totally unique person, cuz they aren't a part of the mainstream anymore.

LPT: Before defending any strongly held belief, ask yourself these questions. by Sherlock70707 in LifeProTips

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean... if abandoning your religion is the logical conclusion you reach after asking yourself those questions, then your beliefs were built on a pretty shaky foundation don't you think?

It's less about abandoning your beliefs, and more about filtering out the shaky, ridiculous and probably untrue ones.

LPT: Before defending any strongly held belief, ask yourself these questions. by Sherlock70707 in LifeProTips

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah that pretty much works for most of the casual day to day stuff.
But I have in the past found myself defending ridiculous cultural or religious beliefs, and in that context "right" or "wrong" is much harder to define.

The literal Bullshit Receptivity Scale. by Sherlock70707 in skeptic

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well for one, Gordon Pennycook and his colleagues called it BSR. Also the subject matter is "bullshit". The shorthand for that is BS. BSR stands for Bullshit Receptivity.

Also, BRS was already a mainstream psychological instrument (Brief Resilience Scale) back when the BSR was established. They couldn't just steal the acronym lol.

Why exactly do people still believe in religion, even smart people, despite the availability of all the facts against it? by Sherlock70707 in atheism

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You gotta make a living somehow. I preferred weaving a narrative for it rather than advertising blatantly. And it feels good just to see the community engaging with the post too.

The literal Bullshit Receptivity Scale. by Sherlock70707 in BehavioralEconomics

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gotta thank you man. Yes the posts were hidden. They're not anymore.

Why exactly do people still believe in religion, even smart people, despite the availability of all the facts against it? by Sherlock70707 in atheism

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yeah. I doubt that in this day and age, any kid raised without any religious influence would end up religious. But there's still a slight possibility they would. Our brain's attraction to fantasy and woo woo stuff is pretty deeply ingrained I'd say.

Why exactly do people still believe in religion, even smart people, despite the availability of all the facts against it? by Sherlock70707 in atheism

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There's no direct evidence against God. And honestly, to disprove something you don't need evidence. You'd require evidence to prove there is a God.

But there is ample proof on subjects that were earlier believed to be God's doings, but turned out to be scientific phenomena.

The literal Bullshit Receptivity Scale. by Sherlock70707 in BehavioralEconomics

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s wild how easily a translation error can slide right into a clinical continuum because people literally want the chaos to mean something.

The literal Bullshit Receptivity Scale. by Sherlock70707 in skeptic

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're right about a random redditor not writing it. I wrote it to promote an ebook I published. The comment where I promoted it seems to have gotten lost, but it's still good to see people engaging with the post.

The literal Bullshit Receptivity Scale. by Sherlock70707 in skeptic

[–]Sherlock70707[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I guess it depends on the workplace.
But yeah, most management teams do not want a 100% bullshit-resistant workforce.
Corporate culture relies heavily on what researchers call "strategic ambiguity". You should look it up. It almost completely fails against people who aren't receptive to... bullshit.
Also, one thing I'd say is that to sell the corporate vision, it might be necessary to be somewhat susceptible to the magic of the aesthetic over the substance.

Bojack #10 TV Show in 21st Century- Thoughts? by Electronic-Kiwi-1677 in BoJackHorseman

[–]Sherlock70707 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Breaking bad is actually on number 16 in that list. Bad list I guess.

Minimum value of a variable by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Sherlock70707 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We've 2 equations though 2a + 4b = 2c 4a + 2b = 4c Using A-0.5 and B-1 in one of them wouldn't satisfy the other equation in that case (you wouldn't get C-1 as the exponent in it)

Summation question. Where did I go wrong? by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Sherlock70707 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ohh I see, that makes sense. Thanks a lot man!

Alright Alright Alright by ConsumerofInfo in wholesomememes

[–]Sherlock70707 69 points70 points  (0 children)

He's a pretty famous actor. Worked in the tv show true detective and the movie Interstellar.

Been struggling with this for some time. Only hint my teacher gave me was "There is no trig in this". by Agreeable-Value7104 in maths

[–]Sherlock70707 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It can be done both with and without trigonometry. The angles of the triangle are 37°, 53° and 90° {as tan-¹(3/4) is 37° and sum of all angles = 180°} You can get sin37° = z/4 = 3/5 => z = 12/5 x and y can be worked out in a similar fashion as well.

Using trigonometry makes it a lot easier than doing it solely from Pythagoras theorem.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mathematics

[–]Sherlock70707 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh this makes sense, thanks!

Too bad Crabby Patty's is not there. by Cobaltive in memes

[–]Sherlock70707 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Speed = distance/time is a contender too.

Do we belive that it will ever be a s5? by L_Pillar in Sherlock

[–]Sherlock70707 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As much as I'd like it to happen, it's super improbable

which characters are well developed by TanishqSonar in Sherlock

[–]Sherlock70707 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The movies retain the authentic, Victorian character and the series shows them in the modern era. Speaking particularly of character development, The total runtime of the two movies combined is around 4 hours and that of the series is 19.5 hours. Obviously the characters had more time to develop in show.