To be credible, these would still need some sort of empirical validation. Naming them "psychology" instead of "science" does not excuse them from needing to provide some sort of rationale. Because I can talk to a few people, draw some conclusions, and assert that I have a "hack" as well. Doesn't make me any more credible.
Like I said, some are likely true. Some likely aren't. But we have no way of knowing without proper research and citation of that research. Until that point, most of these are worthless...clickbait pablum that can amuse but not inform.
I'm not offended. I'm only pointing out the obvious, and responding to those who have addressed my posts. I consider healthy skepticism a virtue, so exercising it is a good thing. I'll occasionally disbelieve something that's true because of it, but it ensures that the knowledge I do consider true is held to a higher standard.
Now, if you do have sources for your OP, I'd be interested to see them. As it is, there are too many to research individually, and some are worded in such a way that they're likely unfalsifiable or subjective anyway. So I wouldn't even know where to begin to attempt to confirm them.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 13th, 2015 01:34 AM
No source for you.
