Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
Wanna bet?
Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.
No, I got it. And yes, I want to bet.
Prove that the ideas are "insane".
Have you tried any of them?
Tweaks proposed by an insane poster?
Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane? Or is this yet
another personal attack and unsupported claim by the so-called
objectivists here? And assuming you're right, which I'm neither
confirming nor denying, what does that have to do with the validity of
the tweaks?
Only that one with the picture of the cat.
How did you apply it and what we're your experiences?
Have you ever tried any of your tweaks with elementary controls
in place?
Yes. DBTs. Including the one with the picture of the cat. For the
tweaks that I did use this type of testing, I have always had a result
greater than the probability of chance.
However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs. Most people don't
have the confidence to do that, under the stresses they create. And
there's no question that you don't have adequate listening skills, but
more than enough personal bias.