What Triggers you?

[minteK917]

Also, this thread shows how missued the word "trigger" in this sense has gotten.

Being Triggered isn't getting mad or angry or shit like that. It's getting a strong psycological reaction memory more like miniature PTSD. Not getting roadrage or angry at idiots.

So we found what triggers you.

[Twoddle]

Idk, it just annoys the fuck outta me. Put that shit in a closed cup.

No plastic ones.

[Themius]

My biggest is definitely people who don't respect statistics as the highest form of proof, or people who cherry pick the use of statistics to defend the beliefs they have and yet completely ignore them (or call them falsified) for beliefs they don't have.

This is just one facet of people who just don't respect the scientific method or have any basic level of scientific literacy.

Statistics are part of a story. Pure statistics without a view at factors for instance is half the picture and a poor measure.

[unbound]

I mostly get triggered by drivers who push their way in front of you (improper merge, jumping into traffic from an intersection, etc), but drive slower than you were driving. I will happily flip them off. Otherwise, there really isn't much that triggers me as I've learned to just roll my eyes and move on for most of the stupid stuff.

I mostly get amused by those who claim they are triggering others when reality shows they are the ones who are constantly triggered.

[Goldielocks]

Statistics are part of a story. Pure statistics without a view at factors for instance is half the picture and a poor measure.

We’re talking about proof here, not a conclusion. I’m not sure what point you’re making.

It was only in reference to people who make baseless claims.

[Katchii]

We’re talking about proof here, not a conclusion. I’m not sure what point you’re making.

It was only in reference to people who make baseless claims.

The point is that statistics alone don't make an argument and can be misconstrued, misleading or used to make baseless claims.

Just because someone brings up a valid statistic doesn't mean they're using it right or that it proves or even supports the specific point they're trying to make.

[Goldielocks]

The point is that statistics alone don't make an argument and can be misconstrued, misleading or used to make baseless claims.

Just because someone brings up a valid statistic doesn't mean they're using it right or that it proves or even supports the specific point they're trying to make.

That has nothing to do with what I’m saying. You’re at best describing human error.

[Katchii]

That has nothing to do with what I’m saying. You’re at best describing human error.

Your exact quote is:

My biggest is definitely people who don't respect statistics as the highest form of proof, or people who cherry pick the use of statistics to defend the beliefs they have and yet completely ignore them (or call them falsified) for beliefs they don't have.

This is just one facet of people who just don't respect the scientific method or have any basic level of scientific literacy.

Statistics alone are not the highest form of proof. They are powerful, but it takes more than just statistics to tell the full story, and unless you have the information to back up the stats and provide context for WHY the stats are so powerful, the statistic is almost meaningless.

[Bodonius]

People calling others nazis or alt right

[Kumorii]

Speaking of voice comms...

I fucking despise all those retards using voice activation.

The only ones you hear are the ones that have it setup terribly.. I'm sure you've played with people who have it and you didn't notice.

[Jotaux]

People that are too dumb or ignorant to understand basic math. I'm not talking anything crazy just like x/y basic stuff.

[Goldielocks]

Your exact quote is:


Statistics alone are not the highest form of proof. They are powerful, but it takes more than just statistics to tell the full story, and unless you have the information to back up the stats and provide context for WHY the stats are so powerful, the statistic is almost meaningless.

You and I are clearly have different takes on what “proof” really means here. I’m talking about evidence to back up a claim. That claim already has all the context required.

This from the start has been nothing more than calling out people who think anecdotal evidence (or something akin) is valuable.

People who misuse good data to find a bad conclusion based on a bad premise is human error. That isn’t what I’m talking about.

[Puupi]

The only ones you hear are the ones that have it setup terribly.. I'm sure you've played with people who have it and you didn't notice.

There's no way to setup it perfectly. There's always some noice coming through, even a small click here and there is god damn annoying.

The users of voice activation obviously don't understand this.

[Kumorii]

There's no way to setup it perfectly. There's always some noice coming through, even a small click here and there is god damn annoying.

The users of voice activation obviously don't understand this.

no...there is a way to set it up properly. From position of the microphone to the amount of noise required to activate it. If it picks up everything it's poorly set up.

[Katchii]

You and I are clearly have different takes on what “proof” really means here. I’m talking about evidence to back up a claim. That claim already has all the context required.

This from the start has been nothing more than calling out people who think anecdotal evidence (or something akin) is valuable.

People who misuse good data to find a bad conclusion based on a bad premise is human error. That isn’t what I’m talking about.

I don't think you and I have different takes on proof, I just think you're trying to completely separate the human from the argument and I simply can't do that. I work in a business where data and statistics are used all the time as evidence or support for decisions and EVERY.SINGLE.TIME there is someone who doesn't get the data or the statistics and why they support the argument or in some cases actually work to undermine it.

That said, I completely agree with your premise. I just can't separate the two aspects of it. The sad part is that statistics and data are so easily manipulated and massaged to show what you want (something as simple as changing the scale of a graph to show "giant fluctuations" when the changes are actually very small) that I can understand why people are skeptical of it.

[Goldielocks]

I don't think you and I have different takes on proof, I just think you're trying to completely separate the human from the argument and I simply can't do that. I work in a business where data and statistics are used all the time as evidence or support for decisions and EVERY.SINGLE.TIME there is someone who doesn't get the data or the statistics and why they support the argument or in some cases actually work to undermine it.

That said, I completely agree with your premise. I just can't separate the two aspects of it. The sad part is that statistics and data are so easily manipulated and massaged to show what you want (something as simple as changing the scale of a graph to show "giant fluctuations" when the changes are actually very small) that I can understand why people are skeptical of it.

Look at it this way. If the human aspect is not able to be separated, then treat it as a common denominator and cut it out.

When comparing forms of proof to one another, the human element is a part of all of them. So, might as well compare the forms themselves.

[Puupi]

no...there is a way to set it up properly. From position of the microphone to the amount of noise required to activate it. If it picks up everything it's poorly set up.

If it picks up ANYTHING except speech it's poorly set up.

[Fahrenheit]

Hookers with cold hands.

[Bodonius]

People that are against nuclear enegry and still say that they like carbon free future

[Kumorii]

If it picks up ANYTHING except speech it's poorly set up.

exactly.
/10