Oh, what the hell, I'll play.

In scientific terms, you have a hypothesis. In normal social terms, you have a theory. For it to be a scientific theory, the idea has to have predictions, be testable, and repeatable. So, since we're going the scientific route ...

You've stated an idea. What are your predictions and how do you propose to test them?

Beyond that, how do you propose to deal with the consequences of going on tilt and reverse, or eliminate the condition?

And again, most important, how will you test it and how will it be different from what people are doing on their own anyway.

I don't believe you can provide solid answers to ALL of these questions. So, if you do the work and you're honest with yourself, you'll understand what it's nonsense.

OP is operating from a data set of 1, how it feels to him. It might be 100% accurate for OP, 0% accurate for some other individual, but it's highly unlikely to be 100% true for the entirety of humanity.



As to his logic, while OP may or may not be correct in his guess/conclusion, his logic can be called Hasty Generalization Fallacy or Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy. That's not a great start for someone who claims to be a scientist.

Even if it's only 80-90% true, this is still a lot.

And I don't feel obliged to make any official tests or experiments, because as long as I know there hasn't been one confirming the existence of tilt (in general psychology for example). We know it exists, that's all. There's no official evidence that proves it.

I'd bet most people in the scientific community believe aliens exist. The math alone would make their existance highly probable. That's because math is a science that can help explain the universe. Purely on the sheer size of the universe, the odds that many other planets exist in a goldilocks distance from a star like Earth is basically 99.99999999%. You've conflated your idea alongside ufology hoping the comparison will give your Emotagram nonsense some validity. It doesn't.

You know so little about science, that somehow you think you know "what I think about science." I've only taken 300 level Psych courses, and my scientific knowledge is far different from my friend who took organic chem, and another friend with a biology degree.
It's completely absurd to simply act like you can somehow "know what I know" based on 3 posts in a forum. It's because you know so little about science, that you think there must not be much to know (ie. the Dunning-Kruger effect).

I think I've wasted enough time on this nonsense. Best of luck with this.

Thank you. Aliens who visit Earth as UFOs are 99,99% beings FROM OTHER DIMENSION. They are not from another planet. That's a completely different thing.

As long as the life on other planets goes it looks like this, you have 3 options to choose from:

1. I believe we are alone in the universe
2. I believe we are not alone in the universe
3. I think both 1 and 2 are possible

Fermi's paradox is on my side with my "theory of three options". Of course I choose option #3. It's basic stuff, you should be aware of those things when you mention "aliens".

And about the Emotagram - I may not know what you think, but I can see your attitude and it's 99% skeptic and negative.

When I stumbled across that bit of psychology about 10 years ago, it was a light bulb moment for me. It explains so much of how and why people act and believe as they do and it made me question everything that I think I know about myself.

as I have stated previously in this forum, 93.47% of statistics cited on the internet are just brown stuff pulled out of someone's rear.

and now you display the logical fallacy of limited choices. There is at least one other choice and probably others.

4. I believe I don't know.

agreed, that would be a helpful psychological theory if it were 80-90% true, but you have no idea if it is true even for 1%.



Your use of the pentagram is just laughable. Why pick the top 5 emotions? why not 4 or 6? never mind, don't answer.



Thanks for the fun.

Very telling that the OP just sort of bypassed this. I guess I was right to belittle him in the first place.

Post #28

It's not surprising that the OP applies the same amount of rigor into developing a psychological theory as he does into designing new poker games. Basically, "Hey, I had an idea I thought really hard about so I must be perfect".

Sigh

I'll try to explain it to you.



It's a PENTAGRAM....an actual pentagram. Don't you realize what that means? What's wrong with you man? You're not only not getting his point, you're not getting his five points.

Oh! Well, why didn't he just say so? I understand now. It's brilliant!

If it was only me who sees the world this way, it would mean I am the Devil himself.

So far, there is nothing to disprove that hypothesis.

Oh my! My butt fell off (lmao).

This perfectly shows how clever you are and what is your thinking level, because your 4 = my 3. It's the same answer.

Uhh...no.

In psychology, you're lucky if you have a theory that explains 3% of the variance...

Shortcut to understanding tilt imo is realizing that our egocentric and narcissistic aspects can be deeply frustrated when things aren't going our way. We then thru lack of impulse control act contrary to our knowledge of the best decision. We are then in many more unprofitable spots than usual. Flailing ... but still seeking the soothing of the win/winning hand. Right now will do, please. The solution to this is not more knowledge of the game and strategy, but more knowledge of the self and its nature and pitfalls while playing the game. To prove this, we can hypothetically offer an expert player on tilt a written exam of what to do in the given spots he is spewing. He/she answers dead on. Yet plays against their knowledge. If more knowledge is the answer to this, it is more knowledge of oneself.

While this is completely and absolutely true, it is also the second step. The first is that you need to know what's what first.

How does that apply to tilt? A horrible, ignorant player isn't on tilt when they are playing bad, they are just playing their level. A knowledgable player when they are playing horrible is tilted.

Because we are thinking creatures that have the capability to see our own behavior as desirable, or undesirable. When we see ourselves doing something stupid, such as tilting, knowledge allows us to recognize it as such. You see the first step in correcting a problem is knowing there is a problem.

Which is exactly what I said about knowing oneself as opposed to only knowing the game.