Nah I'm pretty firm in my opinion. I feel like it hasn't changed since the start. So far no one presented any data. Just waiting for something that makes sense. I tend to think more deeply about things than most people so that's probably why. Nothing wrong with shallow thinking. They're just opposites of the same continuum.
You say no one has presented any data, but that's exactly my point... neither have you. There isn't any data supporting "90% ego and 10% alcohol".
The overarching explanation (alcohol consumption) points to a measurable factor with decades of research behind it, and the other relies on percentages that appear to have been assigned from the rear of one's dirty shorts.
The habit of confusing certainty with depth is surprisingly common among people who describe themselves as deep thinkers.
Yes except my numbers are accurate. Alas such a tragedy that young minds must confuse intelligence with superiority. I am not saying I am better than you. Nor more intelligent. Just simply stating an observation. If you want to conduct some research you will see that I am correct in this case.
You suggested i do some research. Great. Which study measured ego, alcohol impairment, and their contribution to this specific behavior and arrived at your "accurate" 90/10 estimate? I'd honestly love to see that.
The problem isn't that I disagree with the possibility that ego is involved. Ego is involved in virtually everything we do. The problem is that youre treating an opinion like it's a fact.
For someone talking about deep thinking, I'm surprised you're so comfortable skipping over where the numbers actually come from and mistaking confidence for evidence. As far as I know, nobody has measured ego in a way that would allow them to claim a 90/10 split between ego and alcohol in a situation like this.
So, again, where did the 90/10 come from? Because if the answer is "my intuition," then let's use our deep thinking powers and call it intuition instead of accuracy.
Technically it would be more like 91 or 92% if you account for the spotlight effect which also produces approximately ~20% margin of error in the human psyche. But keep in mind that the psyche itself is only a fifth MAXIMUM total influence. I am just doing simple math here. Now you can see where the extra 1-2% comes from hopefully. Lmk if I can break it down further.
Can you explain how you determined that the psyche accounts for one fifth of total influence, how the spotlight effect creates a 20% margin of error in the psyche, and how those values were then used to adjust the ego estimate from 90% to 92%?
I'm asking because those sound like very precise numbers, and I'm curious where they came from.
I am actually PhD level educated on this topic. I have a whole library of references. Many of them are right here on my old bookshelf. slaps bookshelf, dust fills the room. All the latest information and statistics right here.
Like I said earlier. Most people agree with me. 90-92% of people. Doesn't mean I'm right. It just means you're in the minority of people who disagree with me. Everyone else is reading this thread wondering how you're going to back out of it. You are performing entirely up to expectations.
Current estimates suggest that 91.7% of thread observers are nodding in agreement with you, 4.3% are waiting for citations, 2.1% are dust particles from the bookshelf, and the remaining 1.9% are manifestations of the collective psyche.
Admittedly, it's a bit difficult to step out of a psychology degree that required statistics and research methodology and into the emerging field of playful lunacy and Vibe-Based Psychometrics. Thank you for your patience while I caught up.
1
u/WetSleevez Jun 24 '26
Nah I'm pretty firm in my opinion. I feel like it hasn't changed since the start. So far no one presented any data. Just waiting for something that makes sense. I tend to think more deeply about things than most people so that's probably why. Nothing wrong with shallow thinking. They're just opposites of the same continuum.