<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_1512212</id>
	<title>The Science of Irrational Decisions</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256311920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Rat Race Trap blog has a look at <a href="http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html">one aspect of the irrational decision-making process</a> humans employ, based on the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061854549?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=yougrelif-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0061854549">Predictably Irrational</a> by Dan Ariely. <i>"Professor Ariely describes some experiments which demonstrated something he calls 'arbitrary coherence.' Basically it means that once you contemplate a decision or actually make a decision, it will heavily influence your subsequent decisions.  That's the coherence part.  Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made. I've read about that many times before, but what was surprising in this book was the the 'arbitrary' part. ... [In an experiment] the fact that the students contemplated a decision at a completely arbitrary price, the last two digits of their social security number, very heavily influenced what they were willing to pay for the product. The students denied that the anchor influenced them, but the data shows something totally different. Correlations ranged from 0.33 to 0.52. Those are extremely significant."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Rat Race Trap blog has a look at one aspect of the irrational decision-making process humans employ , based on the book Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely .
" Professor Ariely describes some experiments which demonstrated something he calls 'arbitrary coherence .
' Basically it means that once you contemplate a decision or actually make a decision , it will heavily influence your subsequent decisions .
That 's the coherence part .
Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made .
I 've read about that many times before , but what was surprising in this book was the the 'arbitrary ' part .
... [ In an experiment ] the fact that the students contemplated a decision at a completely arbitrary price , the last two digits of their social security number , very heavily influenced what they were willing to pay for the product .
The students denied that the anchor influenced them , but the data shows something totally different .
Correlations ranged from 0.33 to 0.52 .
Those are extremely significant .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Rat Race Trap blog has a look at one aspect of the irrational decision-making process humans employ, based on the book Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely.
"Professor Ariely describes some experiments which demonstrated something he calls 'arbitrary coherence.
' Basically it means that once you contemplate a decision or actually make a decision, it will heavily influence your subsequent decisions.
That's the coherence part.
Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made.
I've read about that many times before, but what was surprising in this book was the the 'arbitrary' part.
... [In an experiment] the fact that the students contemplated a decision at a completely arbitrary price, the last two digits of their social security number, very heavily influenced what they were willing to pay for the product.
The students denied that the anchor influenced them, but the data shows something totally different.
Correlations ranged from 0.33 to 0.52.
Those are extremely significant.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847251</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not one to normally complain about articles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, slashdot's article descriptions have really gone flat. You should be able to read the description and get a full understanding of what's going on. This doesn't happen anymore, hence why I go to TechDirt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , slashdot 's article descriptions have really gone flat .
You should be able to read the description and get a full understanding of what 's going on .
This does n't happen anymore , hence why I go to TechDirt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, slashdot's article descriptions have really gone flat.
You should be able to read the description and get a full understanding of what's going on.
This doesn't happen anymore, hence why I go to TechDirt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29854239</id>
	<title>.33 to .52 isn't much!</title>
	<author>ami.one</author>
	<datestamp>1256318940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>0.33 to 0.52 ? That doesn't seem too much of a co-relation to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>0.33 to 0.52 ?
That does n't seem too much of a co-relation to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0.33 to 0.52 ?
That doesn't seem too much of a co-relation to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846725</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256316420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science ?
.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science?
...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29854111</id>
	<title>Re:A Couple Small BS's</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1256317080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oops, you beat me to it. Now I feel silly for my much lighter post further down. Ditto on everything you said. "High significant" is one of my all-time favorite pet peeves, and I make any author I'm editing strip those adverbs out. It either is or is not. Don't give me this flowery bullshit.

</p><p>Nice post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops , you beat me to it .
Now I feel silly for my much lighter post further down .
Ditto on everything you said .
" High significant " is one of my all-time favorite pet peeves , and I make any author I 'm editing strip those adverbs out .
It either is or is not .
Do n't give me this flowery bullshit .
Nice post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops, you beat me to it.
Now I feel silly for my much lighter post further down.
Ditto on everything you said.
"High significant" is one of my all-time favorite pet peeves, and I make any author I'm editing strip those adverbs out.
It either is or is not.
Don't give me this flowery bullshit.
Nice post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846883</id>
	<title>The implications</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1256317140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our brains favor consistency over correctness... we're finally coming close to understanding the biological origins of conservativism. Here's hoping this research eventually leads to a cure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our brains favor consistency over correctness... we 're finally coming close to understanding the biological origins of conservativism .
Here 's hoping this research eventually leads to a cure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our brains favor consistency over correctness... we're finally coming close to understanding the biological origins of conservativism.
Here's hoping this research eventually leads to a cure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846977</id>
	<title>correlation != statistical significance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently I'm in a very pedantic mood today.<br> <br> <b>Correlation</b> is a measure of how well the model describes the data.  So according to the summary, 33 to 52\% of the variation in the data was explained by the model.  Depending on the inherent variability in the criteria being evaluated, that could be very good or very bad.  In my line of work that would be very bad, but for social sciences such as sociology, that is very high.  It all comes down to how many variables you can control.  The more control, the less variation, the higher the correlation when the model is a good fit.<br> <br> <b>Significance</b> is a measure of the probability that the response seen is due to random variation or errors in sampling.  They may have given a measure of significance in the article, but the summary did not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently I 'm in a very pedantic mood today .
Correlation is a measure of how well the model describes the data .
So according to the summary , 33 to 52 \ % of the variation in the data was explained by the model .
Depending on the inherent variability in the criteria being evaluated , that could be very good or very bad .
In my line of work that would be very bad , but for social sciences such as sociology , that is very high .
It all comes down to how many variables you can control .
The more control , the less variation , the higher the correlation when the model is a good fit .
Significance is a measure of the probability that the response seen is due to random variation or errors in sampling .
They may have given a measure of significance in the article , but the summary did not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently I'm in a very pedantic mood today.
Correlation is a measure of how well the model describes the data.
So according to the summary, 33 to 52\% of the variation in the data was explained by the model.
Depending on the inherent variability in the criteria being evaluated, that could be very good or very bad.
In my line of work that would be very bad, but for social sciences such as sociology, that is very high.
It all comes down to how many variables you can control.
The more control, the less variation, the higher the correlation when the model is a good fit.
Significance is a measure of the probability that the response seen is due to random variation or errors in sampling.
They may have given a measure of significance in the article, but the summary did not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29852853</id>
	<title>Re: Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256300880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm trying to get somewhere, not sure of where it is, and don't have anyone to ask, I'm better off walking in the same direction for a while, rather than constantly changing directions. A coherent approach is more likely to yield something useful, even if just "this approach doesn't work", than one that is incoherent. So I can see value in using previous decisions as constraints on future ones, lacking any strong reason to not do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm trying to get somewhere , not sure of where it is , and do n't have anyone to ask , I 'm better off walking in the same direction for a while , rather than constantly changing directions .
A coherent approach is more likely to yield something useful , even if just " this approach does n't work " , than one that is incoherent .
So I can see value in using previous decisions as constraints on future ones , lacking any strong reason to not do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm trying to get somewhere, not sure of where it is, and don't have anyone to ask, I'm better off walking in the same direction for a while, rather than constantly changing directions.
A coherent approach is more likely to yield something useful, even if just "this approach doesn't work", than one that is incoherent.
So I can see value in using previous decisions as constraints on future ones, lacking any strong reason to not do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627</id>
	<title>Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1256315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made.</p></div></blockquote><p>

People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules. If you load it up with bad data, especially data that is driven by pure emotions, you'll rationalize yourself into neat, coherent clusterfuck. The difference between wisdom and intelligence is that the former is an a priori mental filter for bad data, the latter is just raw capacity. That's why a wise person need not follow a life based on reason alone to generally make good decisions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made .
People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules .
If you load it up with bad data , especially data that is driven by pure emotions , you 'll rationalize yourself into neat , coherent clusterfuck .
The difference between wisdom and intelligence is that the former is an a priori mental filter for bad data , the latter is just raw capacity .
That 's why a wise person need not follow a life based on reason alone to generally make good decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made.
People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules.
If you load it up with bad data, especially data that is driven by pure emotions, you'll rationalize yourself into neat, coherent clusterfuck.
The difference between wisdom and intelligence is that the former is an a priori mental filter for bad data, the latter is just raw capacity.
That's why a wise person need not follow a life based on reason alone to generally make good decisions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848119</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1256322300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules.</p></div><p>Logic is a set of rules, or more truly a class of rulesets. It can be applied usefully or poorly.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you load it up with bad data, especially data that is driven by pure emotions...</p></div><p>How can data be driven by emotions? I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to say.</p><p>Logic works very well when applied as a formalized method for decision making. It helps to mitigate some of the emotionally driven flaws in decision making. Logic can also be used, after the decision, as a way to provide a reasonable sounding justification for why a decision was made. For pretty much everyone I've ever met (myself included), it is applied as a blend of these two. </p><p>A good example is the scientific method. It is a formalized, logical  method of forming an opinion and as a result can create differing results over time as more data is gathered. You can apply this method to decide if the planet is warming and what is the most likely cause and what the likely results are and what can be done to change that. Alternately, people can decide one way or the other based upon a decision making method that is not logical and formalized and emotions and logical flaws are much more likely to result in the incorrect opinion being formed. At this point, people can still effectively employ logical rules to defend the decision, but that's all it is, a logical defense of an arbitrary opinion, unless an individual is willing to go back and actually apply the scientific method anew,</p><p>The interesting part of this research is it shows how our brains are hardwired to tend not to do that and how other, seemingly unrelated decisions can sabotage our ability to make correct decisions, making formalized methods even more critical to effective decision making.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules.Logic is a set of rules , or more truly a class of rulesets .
It can be applied usefully or poorly.If you load it up with bad data , especially data that is driven by pure emotions...How can data be driven by emotions ?
I 'm not sure I even understand what you 're trying to say.Logic works very well when applied as a formalized method for decision making .
It helps to mitigate some of the emotionally driven flaws in decision making .
Logic can also be used , after the decision , as a way to provide a reasonable sounding justification for why a decision was made .
For pretty much everyone I 've ever met ( myself included ) , it is applied as a blend of these two .
A good example is the scientific method .
It is a formalized , logical method of forming an opinion and as a result can create differing results over time as more data is gathered .
You can apply this method to decide if the planet is warming and what is the most likely cause and what the likely results are and what can be done to change that .
Alternately , people can decide one way or the other based upon a decision making method that is not logical and formalized and emotions and logical flaws are much more likely to result in the incorrect opinion being formed .
At this point , people can still effectively employ logical rules to defend the decision , but that 's all it is , a logical defense of an arbitrary opinion , unless an individual is willing to go back and actually apply the scientific method anew,The interesting part of this research is it shows how our brains are hardwired to tend not to do that and how other , seemingly unrelated decisions can sabotage our ability to make correct decisions , making formalized methods even more critical to effective decision making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules.Logic is a set of rules, or more truly a class of rulesets.
It can be applied usefully or poorly.If you load it up with bad data, especially data that is driven by pure emotions...How can data be driven by emotions?
I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to say.Logic works very well when applied as a formalized method for decision making.
It helps to mitigate some of the emotionally driven flaws in decision making.
Logic can also be used, after the decision, as a way to provide a reasonable sounding justification for why a decision was made.
For pretty much everyone I've ever met (myself included), it is applied as a blend of these two.
A good example is the scientific method.
It is a formalized, logical  method of forming an opinion and as a result can create differing results over time as more data is gathered.
You can apply this method to decide if the planet is warming and what is the most likely cause and what the likely results are and what can be done to change that.
Alternately, people can decide one way or the other based upon a decision making method that is not logical and formalized and emotions and logical flaws are much more likely to result in the incorrect opinion being formed.
At this point, people can still effectively employ logical rules to defend the decision, but that's all it is, a logical defense of an arbitrary opinion, unless an individual is willing to go back and actually apply the scientific method anew,The interesting part of this research is it shows how our brains are hardwired to tend not to do that and how other, seemingly unrelated decisions can sabotage our ability to make correct decisions, making formalized methods even more critical to effective decision making.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847067</id>
	<title>Cognitive Dissonance</title>
	<author>Mister Fright</author>
	<datestamp>1256318160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, it is basically about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">cognitive dissonance?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it is basically about cognitive dissonance ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it is basically about cognitive dissonance?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851541</id>
	<title>Excellent similar book : Sway</title>
	<author>mattstorer</author>
	<datestamp>1256291820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, I'm currently reading "Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior" by Ori and Rom Brafman.  It's a really excellent book, similar in topic, and well-researched, and enjoyable to read with interesting real-life anecdotes to exemplify the points they raise.  It touches on many different influences that affect our decision making processes.</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1256331144&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1256331144&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , I 'm currently reading " Sway : The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior " by Ori and Rom Brafman .
It 's a really excellent book , similar in topic , and well-researched , and enjoyable to read with interesting real-life anecdotes to exemplify the points they raise .
It touches on many different influences that affect our decision making processes.http : //www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1256331144&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, I'm currently reading "Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior" by Ori and Rom Brafman.
It's a really excellent book, similar in topic, and well-researched, and enjoyable to read with interesting real-life anecdotes to exemplify the points they raise.
It touches on many different influences that affect our decision making processes.http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385530609/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1256331144&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848855</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1256324760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made.</p></div></blockquote><p>

People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules. If you load it up with bad data, especially data that is driven by pure emotions, you'll rationalize yourself into neat, coherent clusterfuck. The difference between wisdom and intelligence is that the former is an a priori mental filter for bad data, the latter is just raw capacity. That's why a wise person need not follow a life based on reason alone to generally make good decisions.</p></div><p>"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?'  I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
<br> <br>
-- Charles Babbage</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made .
People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules .
If you load it up with bad data , especially data that is driven by pure emotions , you 'll rationalize yourself into neat , coherent clusterfuck .
The difference between wisdom and intelligence is that the former is an a priori mental filter for bad data , the latter is just raw capacity .
That 's why a wise person need not follow a life based on reason alone to generally make good decisions .
" On two occasions I have been asked , 'Pray , Mr. Babbage , if you put into the machine wrong figures , will the right answers come out ?
' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question .
" -- Charles Babbage</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your brain will try to keep your decisions consistent with previous decisions you have made.
People tend to forget that logic is just a set of rules.
If you load it up with bad data, especially data that is driven by pure emotions, you'll rationalize yourself into neat, coherent clusterfuck.
The difference between wisdom and intelligence is that the former is an a priori mental filter for bad data, the latter is just raw capacity.
That's why a wise person need not follow a life based on reason alone to generally make good decisions.
"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?
'  I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
"
 
-- Charles Babbage
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575</id>
	<title>Yeehaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256315580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this science basically involves saying things everyone knows about using big words?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this science basically involves saying things everyone knows about using big words ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this science basically involves saying things everyone knows about using big words?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847473</id>
	<title>Shopaholics Explained?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the last two digits of their social security number, very heavily influenced what they were willing to pay for the product.</i></p><p>So apparently those with an SSN ending in 99 now have an excuse for their previously inexplicable impulse to BUY EVERYTHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the last two digits of their social security number , very heavily influenced what they were willing to pay for the product.So apparently those with an SSN ending in 99 now have an excuse for their previously inexplicable impulse to BUY EVERYTHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the last two digits of their social security number, very heavily influenced what they were willing to pay for the product.So apparently those with an SSN ending in 99 now have an excuse for their previously inexplicable impulse to BUY EVERYTHING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>MyLongNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1256315760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will it help me to understand why I read Slashdot instead of doing something productive with my time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it help me to understand why I read Slashdot instead of doing something productive with my time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it help me to understand why I read Slashdot instead of doing something productive with my time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850009</id>
	<title>Re:correlation != statistical significance</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256329200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not pedantic at all.  I was going to post the same thing.  One of the reasons armchair statisticians (i.e. the correlation is not causation crowd) are always railing against correlative studies is that they don't understand that any <i>measure</i> of correlation also comes along with a p-value indication the likelihood that an <i>actual</i> correlation exists.  If that likelihood is high enough, we call it "significant."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not pedantic at all .
I was going to post the same thing .
One of the reasons armchair statisticians ( i.e .
the correlation is not causation crowd ) are always railing against correlative studies is that they do n't understand that any measure of correlation also comes along with a p-value indication the likelihood that an actual correlation exists .
If that likelihood is high enough , we call it " significant .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not pedantic at all.
I was going to post the same thing.
One of the reasons armchair statisticians (i.e.
the correlation is not causation crowd) are always railing against correlative studies is that they don't understand that any measure of correlation also comes along with a p-value indication the likelihood that an actual correlation exists.
If that likelihood is high enough, we call it "significant.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847713</id>
	<title>Arbitrary my nose</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1256320980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some clarifications:</p><p>- The SSN is not itself important to the experiment. They could have asked for their driver's license and have the same correlation.<br>- About 40\% of the people would base their decisions on a previous decision that was not taken by themselves (starting price in this case), meaning that the coherence would apply to the situation rather than their own decisions.</p><p>So what we have here is a confirmation that a significant number of people can be pushed around if they didn't have a previous opinion on the matter. Not exactly novel and I fail to see the arbitrariness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some clarifications : - The SSN is not itself important to the experiment .
They could have asked for their driver 's license and have the same correlation.- About 40 \ % of the people would base their decisions on a previous decision that was not taken by themselves ( starting price in this case ) , meaning that the coherence would apply to the situation rather than their own decisions.So what we have here is a confirmation that a significant number of people can be pushed around if they did n't have a previous opinion on the matter .
Not exactly novel and I fail to see the arbitrariness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some clarifications:- The SSN is not itself important to the experiment.
They could have asked for their driver's license and have the same correlation.- About 40\% of the people would base their decisions on a previous decision that was not taken by themselves (starting price in this case), meaning that the coherence would apply to the situation rather than their own decisions.So what we have here is a confirmation that a significant number of people can be pushed around if they didn't have a previous opinion on the matter.
Not exactly novel and I fail to see the arbitrariness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847017</id>
	<title>Re:except decisions aren't made in a vaccum</title>
	<author>Anonymous Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1256317980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think about home sales right now,  not long ago homes in my area were selling for about $1,000,000.  However the price has decreased to around $800,000 to $700,000 and they are still dropping (Yeah the joy of CA).  However homes are being pulled off the market and sitting, vacant, not even being rented.  Why?  Because they have already decided that they need to get more than the current sale price.  Logically, they know it is imposable, and that bubble prices won't be back soon enough to make holding on to the real-estate and paying maintenance profitable.  Still they are anchored to one million dollars.  (PS  My area is mostly people who purchased back in the 60's and 70's and have lived in there homes seance then.  Mostly homes for sale are inheritance, or some one who is down sizing because the kids moved away. We don't have many people who bought in the bubble and can't afford to sell because sale price is lower than the mortgage)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about home sales right now , not long ago homes in my area were selling for about $ 1,000,000 .
However the price has decreased to around $ 800,000 to $ 700,000 and they are still dropping ( Yeah the joy of CA ) .
However homes are being pulled off the market and sitting , vacant , not even being rented .
Why ? Because they have already decided that they need to get more than the current sale price .
Logically , they know it is imposable , and that bubble prices wo n't be back soon enough to make holding on to the real-estate and paying maintenance profitable .
Still they are anchored to one million dollars .
( PS My area is mostly people who purchased back in the 60 's and 70 's and have lived in there homes seance then .
Mostly homes for sale are inheritance , or some one who is down sizing because the kids moved away .
We do n't have many people who bought in the bubble and ca n't afford to sell because sale price is lower than the mortgage )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about home sales right now,  not long ago homes in my area were selling for about $1,000,000.
However the price has decreased to around $800,000 to $700,000 and they are still dropping (Yeah the joy of CA).
However homes are being pulled off the market and sitting, vacant, not even being rented.
Why?  Because they have already decided that they need to get more than the current sale price.
Logically, they know it is imposable, and that bubble prices won't be back soon enough to make holding on to the real-estate and paying maintenance profitable.
Still they are anchored to one million dollars.
(PS  My area is mostly people who purchased back in the 60's and 70's and have lived in there homes seance then.
Mostly homes for sale are inheritance, or some one who is down sizing because the kids moved away.
We don't have many people who bought in the bubble and can't afford to sell because sale price is lower than the mortgage)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847263</id>
	<title>I wonder if this human trait can shed light on</title>
	<author>raybob</author>
	<datestamp>1256319060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>another current<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. headline: <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1249256/Data-Entry-Errors-Resulted-In-Improper-Sentences" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1249256/Data-Entry-Errors-Resulted-In-Improper-Sentences</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Think the prosecutors &amp; defense attorneys allowed their set point to be an assumption that the data must be correct ?  Sure they did.</p><p>And I've always wondered about the moral certitude which seems to guide the decisions of various group adherents, like the Moral Majority back in the 80's.  Say even the Acorn folks now.  Once the premise is accepted, all further reasoning is derived there from.</p><p>I think this is sort of common sense, though and we all know that this is how the mind operates.  Otherwise, how could organisms effectively process all of the stimulus information present in their environments with the outcome being a rational decision, in the time span necessary for survival decisions, with the limited 'computing resources' that our brains provide. ?</p><p>Don't we all generally accept that human thought processes work from categorization ?  Hence we get bad affects like biggotry, prejudice, racism, genocide, etc. along with the ability to decide quickly and hence survive our environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>another current / .
headline : http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1249256/Data-Entry-Errors-Resulted-In-Improper-Sentences [ slashdot.org ] Think the prosecutors &amp; defense attorneys allowed their set point to be an assumption that the data must be correct ?
Sure they did.And I 've always wondered about the moral certitude which seems to guide the decisions of various group adherents , like the Moral Majority back in the 80 's .
Say even the Acorn folks now .
Once the premise is accepted , all further reasoning is derived there from.I think this is sort of common sense , though and we all know that this is how the mind operates .
Otherwise , how could organisms effectively process all of the stimulus information present in their environments with the outcome being a rational decision , in the time span necessary for survival decisions , with the limited 'computing resources ' that our brains provide .
? Do n't we all generally accept that human thought processes work from categorization ?
Hence we get bad affects like biggotry , prejudice , racism , genocide , etc .
along with the ability to decide quickly and hence survive our environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>another current /.
headline: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1249256/Data-Entry-Errors-Resulted-In-Improper-Sentences [slashdot.org]Think the prosecutors &amp; defense attorneys allowed their set point to be an assumption that the data must be correct ?
Sure they did.And I've always wondered about the moral certitude which seems to guide the decisions of various group adherents, like the Moral Majority back in the 80's.
Say even the Acorn folks now.
Once the premise is accepted, all further reasoning is derived there from.I think this is sort of common sense, though and we all know that this is how the mind operates.
Otherwise, how could organisms effectively process all of the stimulus information present in their environments with the outcome being a rational decision, in the time span necessary for survival decisions, with the limited 'computing resources' that our brains provide.
?Don't we all generally accept that human thought processes work from categorization ?
Hence we get bad affects like biggotry, prejudice, racism, genocide, etc.
along with the ability to decide quickly and hence survive our environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848233</id>
	<title>Well-known phenomenon</title>
	<author>andrewagill</author>
	<datestamp>1256322660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a well-known phenomenon.  I first encountered it in Phil Zimbardo's Discovering Psychology series (<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890733336227483299" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Skip to about 9:30</a> [google.com])</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a well-known phenomenon .
I first encountered it in Phil Zimbardo 's Discovering Psychology series ( Skip to about 9 : 30 [ google.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a well-known phenomenon.
I first encountered it in Phil Zimbardo's Discovering Psychology series (Skip to about 9:30 [google.com])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851071</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256290020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I could mod you up but I have no points<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could mod you up but I have no points : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could mod you up but I have no points :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625</id>
	<title>TFA</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1256315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html" title="ratracetrap.com">http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html</a> [ratracetrap.com]</p><p>Editors sleeping on the job<br>What a sweet job</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html [ ratracetrap.com ] Editors sleeping on the jobWhat a sweet job</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html [ratracetrap.com]Editors sleeping on the jobWhat a sweet job</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846593</id>
	<title>Not sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256315700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Im 50 / 50 on this one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Im 50 / 50 on this one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Im 50 / 50 on this one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615</id>
	<title>I'm not one to normally complain about articles...</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1256315820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the hell did this article make it off the firehose?<br> <br>There is a quote in the summary from a blog referenced.  The blog is not linked to -- instead the only link is to a site (Amazon, I think) selling the book.<br> <br>Where's the actual discussion of what's in the book?  Where's the article (or blog entry)?<br> <br>If you're going to post a book review... please, include the review.  Otherwise it looks like you're just hocking a book.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell did this article make it off the firehose ?
There is a quote in the summary from a blog referenced .
The blog is not linked to -- instead the only link is to a site ( Amazon , I think ) selling the book .
Where 's the actual discussion of what 's in the book ?
Where 's the article ( or blog entry ) ?
If you 're going to post a book review... please , include the review .
Otherwise it looks like you 're just hocking a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell did this article make it off the firehose?
There is a quote in the summary from a blog referenced.
The blog is not linked to -- instead the only link is to a site (Amazon, I think) selling the book.
Where's the actual discussion of what's in the book?
Where's the article (or blog entry)?
If you're going to post a book review... please, include the review.
Otherwise it looks like you're just hocking a book.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849011</id>
	<title>A Couple Small BS's</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1256325300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"something he calls "arbitrary coherence."</p><p>And that other call things like behavioral persistance, behavioral momentum, priming, avoidance of cognitive dissonance, etc. He can call it whatever he wants, but that's not going to make the concept his.</p><p>"Correlations ranged from 0.33 to 0.52. Those are extremely significant."</p><p>Those are correlations, the magnitude and direction of co-variance of two measures. These are positive so they vary the same directions. Correlations, are often done using Pearson's technique and are then given the variable little r. A handy but of work with r is the ability to tell at a glance just how much of the observed variance can be explained by the scores. To do so, simply square them. So the amount of variance explained in these tests are 0.11 to 0.27 (11\% to 27\%). That means from 73\% to 89\% of the observed variance is unexplained. In practical terms, that's poor. I know in psychology we tend to accept such low r's as meaningful, but we're about the only ones.</p><p>As to "significance": there is no such thing as "highly" (or any other modifier) significant. The significance score, using the variable little p, is what it is, whether you have a program tell you it's equal to or less than a number calculated from the data, or you calculate it and find it to be less than some arbitrary cut off value. If p  0.001 or if p = 0.9, that is the significance level. You can't use the modifiers because significance depends on things like the number of subjects and/or samples, score variance, multiple comparisons between scores, etc. The significance changes. Even with the same data set, if you calculate a second result, you're doing a second comparison which requires a correction factor and that changes p. What significance means in one data set (how many times Mary punches the Bobo doll after watching Homer choke Bart) has nothing to do with another (how many meters depth on average the Earth's surface would be sterilized by all US vs. all Russian thermonuclear weapons), so some dangling, arbitrary "much much MUCH so" means even less, being of zero import but incorrectly suggesting there is.</p><p>So those (.33 to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.52) are the r values, In calculating them p was also. It should have been reported. I have no idea of the author ever did or not because the references here consist of two blog posts about the guy's work and one about a book on this subject, and zero that I see on peer reviewed journal articles. Now, I'll be the first to tell you that last bit doesn't count for near what people think, but at least they see to it the formulae are followed, one being proper (as in APA format) quoting of statistics. I might have looked up an article to see if the author gets it right, but I'm not about to read a book by someone who either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that the concept he's examining has already been, in much greater depth and clarity than what's given here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" something he calls " arbitrary coherence .
" And that other call things like behavioral persistance , behavioral momentum , priming , avoidance of cognitive dissonance , etc .
He can call it whatever he wants , but that 's not going to make the concept his .
" Correlations ranged from 0.33 to 0.52 .
Those are extremely significant .
" Those are correlations , the magnitude and direction of co-variance of two measures .
These are positive so they vary the same directions .
Correlations , are often done using Pearson 's technique and are then given the variable little r. A handy but of work with r is the ability to tell at a glance just how much of the observed variance can be explained by the scores .
To do so , simply square them .
So the amount of variance explained in these tests are 0.11 to 0.27 ( 11 \ % to 27 \ % ) .
That means from 73 \ % to 89 \ % of the observed variance is unexplained .
In practical terms , that 's poor .
I know in psychology we tend to accept such low r 's as meaningful , but we 're about the only ones.As to " significance " : there is no such thing as " highly " ( or any other modifier ) significant .
The significance score , using the variable little p , is what it is , whether you have a program tell you it 's equal to or less than a number calculated from the data , or you calculate it and find it to be less than some arbitrary cut off value .
If p 0.001 or if p = 0.9 , that is the significance level .
You ca n't use the modifiers because significance depends on things like the number of subjects and/or samples , score variance , multiple comparisons between scores , etc .
The significance changes .
Even with the same data set , if you calculate a second result , you 're doing a second comparison which requires a correction factor and that changes p. What significance means in one data set ( how many times Mary punches the Bobo doll after watching Homer choke Bart ) has nothing to do with another ( how many meters depth on average the Earth 's surface would be sterilized by all US vs. all Russian thermonuclear weapons ) , so some dangling , arbitrary " much much MUCH so " means even less , being of zero import but incorrectly suggesting there is.So those ( .33 to .52 ) are the r values , In calculating them p was also .
It should have been reported .
I have no idea of the author ever did or not because the references here consist of two blog posts about the guy 's work and one about a book on this subject , and zero that I see on peer reviewed journal articles .
Now , I 'll be the first to tell you that last bit does n't count for near what people think , but at least they see to it the formulae are followed , one being proper ( as in APA format ) quoting of statistics .
I might have looked up an article to see if the author gets it right , but I 'm not about to read a book by someone who either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that the concept he 's examining has already been , in much greater depth and clarity than what 's given here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"something he calls "arbitrary coherence.
"And that other call things like behavioral persistance, behavioral momentum, priming, avoidance of cognitive dissonance, etc.
He can call it whatever he wants, but that's not going to make the concept his.
"Correlations ranged from 0.33 to 0.52.
Those are extremely significant.
"Those are correlations, the magnitude and direction of co-variance of two measures.
These are positive so they vary the same directions.
Correlations, are often done using Pearson's technique and are then given the variable little r. A handy but of work with r is the ability to tell at a glance just how much of the observed variance can be explained by the scores.
To do so, simply square them.
So the amount of variance explained in these tests are 0.11 to 0.27 (11\% to 27\%).
That means from 73\% to 89\% of the observed variance is unexplained.
In practical terms, that's poor.
I know in psychology we tend to accept such low r's as meaningful, but we're about the only ones.As to "significance": there is no such thing as "highly" (or any other modifier) significant.
The significance score, using the variable little p, is what it is, whether you have a program tell you it's equal to or less than a number calculated from the data, or you calculate it and find it to be less than some arbitrary cut off value.
If p  0.001 or if p = 0.9, that is the significance level.
You can't use the modifiers because significance depends on things like the number of subjects and/or samples, score variance, multiple comparisons between scores, etc.
The significance changes.
Even with the same data set, if you calculate a second result, you're doing a second comparison which requires a correction factor and that changes p. What significance means in one data set (how many times Mary punches the Bobo doll after watching Homer choke Bart) has nothing to do with another (how many meters depth on average the Earth's surface would be sterilized by all US vs. all Russian thermonuclear weapons), so some dangling, arbitrary "much much MUCH so" means even less, being of zero import but incorrectly suggesting there is.So those (.33 to .52) are the r values, In calculating them p was also.
It should have been reported.
I have no idea of the author ever did or not because the references here consist of two blog posts about the guy's work and one about a book on this subject, and zero that I see on peer reviewed journal articles.
Now, I'll be the first to tell you that last bit doesn't count for near what people think, but at least they see to it the formulae are followed, one being proper (as in APA format) quoting of statistics.
I might have looked up an article to see if the author gets it right, but I'm not about to read a book by someone who either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that the concept he's examining has already been, in much greater depth and clarity than what's given here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847295</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>linguizic</author>
	<datestamp>1256319240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Studies have shown that 80-90\% of everything that humans talk about is gossip.  When you think about this from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense.  We're highly social animals and our biggest competitors are other humans.  Sharing information about the members of tribe is a HUGE advantage.  Unfortunately, today we have the same brains that our tribal ancestors did and these brains seem to include celebrities in our tribes, so we eat up gossip about them.  The implementation isn't terrible, it's just legacy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Studies have shown that 80-90 \ % of everything that humans talk about is gossip .
When you think about this from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense .
We 're highly social animals and our biggest competitors are other humans .
Sharing information about the members of tribe is a HUGE advantage .
Unfortunately , today we have the same brains that our tribal ancestors did and these brains seem to include celebrities in our tribes , so we eat up gossip about them .
The implementation is n't terrible , it 's just legacy : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studies have shown that 80-90\% of everything that humans talk about is gossip.
When you think about this from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense.
We're highly social animals and our biggest competitors are other humans.
Sharing information about the members of tribe is a HUGE advantage.
Unfortunately, today we have the same brains that our tribal ancestors did and these brains seem to include celebrities in our tribes, so we eat up gossip about them.
The implementation isn't terrible, it's just legacy :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847525</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool. This means that I can stop trying to get my wife to make more rational decisions. At least until someone invents a time machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .
This means that I can stop trying to get my wife to make more rational decisions .
At least until someone invents a time machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.
This means that I can stop trying to get my wife to make more rational decisions.
At least until someone invents a time machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29857321</id>
	<title>Re:A Couple Small BS's</title>
	<author>deodiaus2</author>
	<datestamp>1256405160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One interesting thing I learned in statistics is that often just the fact that certain things exhibit significant correlation, then there is a high probability they they are interrelated.  <br>
A case in point is how events are treated in the pharmaceutical industry.  It is just enough that events are correlated that one makes a judgment about efficacy.  One cannot possibly study all the chemical interactions that can and will occur.  So, it just comes down to a calculated guess.  In fact, there are lots of drugs which have both positive and negative effects.  One approach is to administer the drug and to moderate the negative counter effects via other drugs or therapy.  This is one reason why people say that the cure is often worse than the symptom.  For example, 100 years ago, mercury was used to cure syphilis.  
Too bad I can't think of other examples, but this mode is used in many fields where one cannot control the experiment or the nature is too complicated to be quantified or modeled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One interesting thing I learned in statistics is that often just the fact that certain things exhibit significant correlation , then there is a high probability they they are interrelated .
A case in point is how events are treated in the pharmaceutical industry .
It is just enough that events are correlated that one makes a judgment about efficacy .
One can not possibly study all the chemical interactions that can and will occur .
So , it just comes down to a calculated guess .
In fact , there are lots of drugs which have both positive and negative effects .
One approach is to administer the drug and to moderate the negative counter effects via other drugs or therapy .
This is one reason why people say that the cure is often worse than the symptom .
For example , 100 years ago , mercury was used to cure syphilis .
Too bad I ca n't think of other examples , but this mode is used in many fields where one can not control the experiment or the nature is too complicated to be quantified or modeled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One interesting thing I learned in statistics is that often just the fact that certain things exhibit significant correlation, then there is a high probability they they are interrelated.
A case in point is how events are treated in the pharmaceutical industry.
It is just enough that events are correlated that one makes a judgment about efficacy.
One cannot possibly study all the chemical interactions that can and will occur.
So, it just comes down to a calculated guess.
In fact, there are lots of drugs which have both positive and negative effects.
One approach is to administer the drug and to moderate the negative counter effects via other drugs or therapy.
This is one reason why people say that the cure is often worse than the symptom.
For example, 100 years ago, mercury was used to cure syphilis.
Too bad I can't think of other examples, but this mode is used in many fields where one cannot control the experiment or the nature is too complicated to be quantified or modeled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29855503</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256387700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"here is no natural mechanism that filters out useless information."</p><p>Actually there is for information already comitted to memory, people who have insanely good memories notice lot of people saying the same things over again, or talking about the same thing they did some time before.  For these people with really good memories it can be excruciating to hear the same stuff over and over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" here is no natural mechanism that filters out useless information .
" Actually there is for information already comitted to memory , people who have insanely good memories notice lot of people saying the same things over again , or talking about the same thing they did some time before .
For these people with really good memories it can be excruciating to hear the same stuff over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"here is no natural mechanism that filters out useless information.
"Actually there is for information already comitted to memory, people who have insanely good memories notice lot of people saying the same things over again, or talking about the same thing they did some time before.
For these people with really good memories it can be excruciating to hear the same stuff over and over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847917</id>
	<title>Looking for patterns</title>
	<author>Nexus7</author>
	<datestamp>1256321700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I can be a quack evolutionary biologist too! The mind is constantly trying to cast objects and phenomena into patterns, so that it can identify similar patterns of events that happen in the future. That way, it'll have some idea of how a certain decision turned out in a situation patterned a certain way. So naturally, it doesn't just describe or identify patterns, it also constructs them. So by trying to construct the coherences described in the TFA, it is trying to construct a world in which it has an advantage, because it has a tool (pattern matching) that works quite well in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I can be a quack evolutionary biologist too !
The mind is constantly trying to cast objects and phenomena into patterns , so that it can identify similar patterns of events that happen in the future .
That way , it 'll have some idea of how a certain decision turned out in a situation patterned a certain way .
So naturally , it does n't just describe or identify patterns , it also constructs them .
So by trying to construct the coherences described in the TFA , it is trying to construct a world in which it has an advantage , because it has a tool ( pattern matching ) that works quite well in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I can be a quack evolutionary biologist too!
The mind is constantly trying to cast objects and phenomena into patterns, so that it can identify similar patterns of events that happen in the future.
That way, it'll have some idea of how a certain decision turned out in a situation patterned a certain way.
So naturally, it doesn't just describe or identify patterns, it also constructs them.
So by trying to construct the coherences described in the TFA, it is trying to construct a world in which it has an advantage, because it has a tool (pattern matching) that works quite well in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847389</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>war4peace</author>
	<datestamp>1256319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So at our <i>base</i> we feel equally rewarded learning about Britney spears' baby as we do about our political system.</p></div><p>...Which are both nonsensical, stupid and unrewarding things to learn about and retain. Does that mean there's no escape from idiocy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So at our base we feel equally rewarded learning about Britney spears ' baby as we do about our political system....Which are both nonsensical , stupid and unrewarding things to learn about and retain .
Does that mean there 's no escape from idiocy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So at our base we feel equally rewarded learning about Britney spears' baby as we do about our political system....Which are both nonsensical, stupid and unrewarding things to learn about and retain.
Does that mean there's no escape from idiocy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846699</id>
	<title>Paul Simon said it</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1256316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
<br>- Paul Simon, <em>The Boxer</em>
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A man hears what he wants to hear , and disregards the rest .
" - Paul Simon , The Boxer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.
"
- Paul Simon, The Boxer
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29854099</id>
	<title>11\% - 27\% of the shared variance</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1256316900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just want to point out that even though the correlation coefficients are definitely significant, that isn't effect size. Squaring the coefficients will give you a better idea of the size of the effect we're talking about here. In this case, the effect was found to account for about 11\% to 27\% of the shared variance. This is certainly nothing to sneeze at, but it also doesn't mean that you can really bet on it.

</p><p>I'm not one of these "social science isn't science" trolltards. I just like to remind people to think in effect sizes to temper their enthusiasm. This is interesting stuff, no matter what, but having a couple quick 'n' dirty formulae for calculating effect size in your mental pocket will keep your reality check intact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just want to point out that even though the correlation coefficients are definitely significant , that is n't effect size .
Squaring the coefficients will give you a better idea of the size of the effect we 're talking about here .
In this case , the effect was found to account for about 11 \ % to 27 \ % of the shared variance .
This is certainly nothing to sneeze at , but it also does n't mean that you can really bet on it .
I 'm not one of these " social science is n't science " trolltards .
I just like to remind people to think in effect sizes to temper their enthusiasm .
This is interesting stuff , no matter what , but having a couple quick 'n ' dirty formulae for calculating effect size in your mental pocket will keep your reality check intact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just want to point out that even though the correlation coefficients are definitely significant, that isn't effect size.
Squaring the coefficients will give you a better idea of the size of the effect we're talking about here.
In this case, the effect was found to account for about 11\% to 27\% of the shared variance.
This is certainly nothing to sneeze at, but it also doesn't mean that you can really bet on it.
I'm not one of these "social science isn't science" trolltards.
I just like to remind people to think in effect sizes to temper their enthusiasm.
This is interesting stuff, no matter what, but having a couple quick 'n' dirty formulae for calculating effect size in your mental pocket will keep your reality check intact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850891</id>
	<title>Hiring...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1256289420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't people being irrational, it's just a question of people assigning logic to random data...</p><p>If you are interviewed for a job, and you are asked the hypothetical question "Would you take the job for $50/hour", and then are actually offered the job at $20/hour, you'll be very suspicious that something sneaky is going on, and may believe you can get more money out of the negotiation, EVEN THOUGH you would probably have been happy with a $20/hour job up-front.  On the flip side, if the first number is ridiculously low, and the second is more reasonable, you have every reason to assume you're luck to get as much as you were first offered.</p><p>Obviously, if you KNOW that data is random, you realize that's not the case.  However, if you think there's a human behind the scenes, trying to gauge your reactions, it makes some sense.</p><p>OTOH, some of these tactics are already used to intentionally manipulate people.  Ridiculous MSRP prices, leading to "99\% OFF" sales, and similar tricks.  Come to think of it, I may have to try using this to re-negotiate my salary...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't people being irrational , it 's just a question of people assigning logic to random data...If you are interviewed for a job , and you are asked the hypothetical question " Would you take the job for $ 50/hour " , and then are actually offered the job at $ 20/hour , you 'll be very suspicious that something sneaky is going on , and may believe you can get more money out of the negotiation , EVEN THOUGH you would probably have been happy with a $ 20/hour job up-front .
On the flip side , if the first number is ridiculously low , and the second is more reasonable , you have every reason to assume you 're luck to get as much as you were first offered.Obviously , if you KNOW that data is random , you realize that 's not the case .
However , if you think there 's a human behind the scenes , trying to gauge your reactions , it makes some sense.OTOH , some of these tactics are already used to intentionally manipulate people .
Ridiculous MSRP prices , leading to " 99 \ % OFF " sales , and similar tricks .
Come to think of it , I may have to try using this to re-negotiate my salary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't people being irrational, it's just a question of people assigning logic to random data...If you are interviewed for a job, and you are asked the hypothetical question "Would you take the job for $50/hour", and then are actually offered the job at $20/hour, you'll be very suspicious that something sneaky is going on, and may believe you can get more money out of the negotiation, EVEN THOUGH you would probably have been happy with a $20/hour job up-front.
On the flip side, if the first number is ridiculously low, and the second is more reasonable, you have every reason to assume you're luck to get as much as you were first offered.Obviously, if you KNOW that data is random, you realize that's not the case.
However, if you think there's a human behind the scenes, trying to gauge your reactions, it makes some sense.OTOH, some of these tactics are already used to intentionally manipulate people.
Ridiculous MSRP prices, leading to "99\% OFF" sales, and similar tricks.
Come to think of it, I may have to try using this to re-negotiate my salary...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850391</id>
	<title>Contradiction in terms</title>
	<author>Venik</author>
	<datestamp>1256330700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arbitrary coherence is an oxymoron. It is either coherence or it's arbitrary. Decisions we make are never arbitrary, not even when we try to make a random choice. Ariely's experiment found an interesting correlation in the decisions made by the test subjects. However, the experiment was not designed to determine the reasons behind the decisions. Just because you don't understand the motivation behind someone's decisions, does not make these decisions arbitrary. And, obviously, they are not arbitrary since the experiment established a strong pattern to the subjects' actions.

Ariely's findings are not exactly new either. Open just about any product catalog and you will notice the same pattern: common, "on-sale", moderately-priced items are tucked at the end of the page containing expensive products that often are not even in the same category. Clearly, we assign value by association in the absence of relevant facts. However, this does not make our decisions arbitrary. What results did Ariely expect his experiment to produce? True randomness from a human brain? I don't think so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arbitrary coherence is an oxymoron .
It is either coherence or it 's arbitrary .
Decisions we make are never arbitrary , not even when we try to make a random choice .
Ariely 's experiment found an interesting correlation in the decisions made by the test subjects .
However , the experiment was not designed to determine the reasons behind the decisions .
Just because you do n't understand the motivation behind someone 's decisions , does not make these decisions arbitrary .
And , obviously , they are not arbitrary since the experiment established a strong pattern to the subjects ' actions .
Ariely 's findings are not exactly new either .
Open just about any product catalog and you will notice the same pattern : common , " on-sale " , moderately-priced items are tucked at the end of the page containing expensive products that often are not even in the same category .
Clearly , we assign value by association in the absence of relevant facts .
However , this does not make our decisions arbitrary .
What results did Ariely expect his experiment to produce ?
True randomness from a human brain ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arbitrary coherence is an oxymoron.
It is either coherence or it's arbitrary.
Decisions we make are never arbitrary, not even when we try to make a random choice.
Ariely's experiment found an interesting correlation in the decisions made by the test subjects.
However, the experiment was not designed to determine the reasons behind the decisions.
Just because you don't understand the motivation behind someone's decisions, does not make these decisions arbitrary.
And, obviously, they are not arbitrary since the experiment established a strong pattern to the subjects' actions.
Ariely's findings are not exactly new either.
Open just about any product catalog and you will notice the same pattern: common, "on-sale", moderately-priced items are tucked at the end of the page containing expensive products that often are not even in the same category.
Clearly, we assign value by association in the absence of relevant facts.
However, this does not make our decisions arbitrary.
What results did Ariely expect his experiment to produce?
True randomness from a human brain?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847831</id>
	<title>Re:TFA</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1256321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The editors were merely following a previous decision.  From the first, they never actually edited, so to do so now would be contradictory.  It's irrational cohesion.  The ad revenue influenced them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The editors were merely following a previous decision .
From the first , they never actually edited , so to do so now would be contradictory .
It 's irrational cohesion .
The ad revenue influenced them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The editors were merely following a previous decision.
From the first, they never actually edited, so to do so now would be contradictory.
It's irrational cohesion.
The ad revenue influenced them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846675</id>
	<title>Extremely significant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256316180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is r = 0.32 anything like a strong correlation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is r = 0.32 anything like a strong correlation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is r = 0.32 anything like a strong correlation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847379</id>
	<title>Re:TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html" title="ratracetrap.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html</a> [ratracetrap.com] </p><p>Editors sleeping on the job
What a sweet job</p></div><p>No shit.  Some of us who are unemployed are damned sure about one thing:  we could do a much better job than some of the editors I have seen here.  Of course, that could mean anything from using a spell-checker once in a while, checking that a link goes where you intended before submitting it to an audience of millions, and otherwise acting like quality is truly important to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html [ ratracetrap.com ] Editors sleeping on the job What a sweet jobNo shit .
Some of us who are unemployed are damned sure about one thing : we could do a much better job than some of the editors I have seen here .
Of course , that could mean anything from using a spell-checker once in a while , checking that a link goes where you intended before submitting it to an audience of millions , and otherwise acting like quality is truly important to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/irrational-decisions-anchoring-and-arbitrary-coherence.html [ratracetrap.com] Editors sleeping on the job
What a sweet jobNo shit.
Some of us who are unemployed are damned sure about one thing:  we could do a much better job than some of the editors I have seen here.
Of course, that could mean anything from using a spell-checker once in a while, checking that a link goes where you intended before submitting it to an audience of millions, and otherwise acting like quality is truly important to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847041</id>
	<title>Re:Extremely significant?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1256318100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since someone was trying to sell a book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since someone was trying to sell a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since someone was trying to sell a book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849655</id>
	<title>Re:Yard Sales</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1256327820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet you're one of those jerks who started haggling on the $1.50 ceramic frog from my last yard sale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet you 're one of those jerks who started haggling on the $ 1.50 ceramic frog from my last yard sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet you're one of those jerks who started haggling on the $1.50 ceramic frog from my last yard sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256316840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>To bring it full circle... you made a logical decision to do x, this sets a rule in your mind that x is true.  Once you made x decision, you had no further reason to question that, and you would base many more decisions on that "logical rule".  When x is challanged, it would require you to re-think all past decisions that were based on x, which might include who you married, why you took this job, your religious beliefs and other important life decisions.<br> <br>

Is it any wonder our minds are wired to assume we were right and keep on moving in the same directions?  The brain is trying to keep you alive; anything you have done up to this point won't kill you, so why would the brain try to change that?  That's why few people really have a life changing moment unless forced upon them by war, death, or other bad things.  When the going is good, you will keep going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To bring it full circle... you made a logical decision to do x , this sets a rule in your mind that x is true .
Once you made x decision , you had no further reason to question that , and you would base many more decisions on that " logical rule " .
When x is challanged , it would require you to re-think all past decisions that were based on x , which might include who you married , why you took this job , your religious beliefs and other important life decisions .
Is it any wonder our minds are wired to assume we were right and keep on moving in the same directions ?
The brain is trying to keep you alive ; anything you have done up to this point wo n't kill you , so why would the brain try to change that ?
That 's why few people really have a life changing moment unless forced upon them by war , death , or other bad things .
When the going is good , you will keep going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To bring it full circle... you made a logical decision to do x, this sets a rule in your mind that x is true.
Once you made x decision, you had no further reason to question that, and you would base many more decisions on that "logical rule".
When x is challanged, it would require you to re-think all past decisions that were based on x, which might include who you married, why you took this job, your religious beliefs and other important life decisions.
Is it any wonder our minds are wired to assume we were right and keep on moving in the same directions?
The brain is trying to keep you alive; anything you have done up to this point won't kill you, so why would the brain try to change that?
That's why few people really have a life changing moment unless forced upon them by war, death, or other bad things.
When the going is good, you will keep going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847159</id>
	<title>eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>but i'm not american and therefore don't have a social security number! does that mean i cant be irrational?! where's the logic in that? anyhow, correlation is not causation... what if the experiments <i>caused</i> the social security numbers??  eh? it's just another FAILED attempt of american secret services attempting to CONTROL our minds and steal our LOLZ!!! and a correlation of 0.52 is rubbish - explains ONLY 27\% of the variance. and that's not worth getting out of bed for. no sir. cunt bubbles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but i 'm not american and therefore do n't have a social security number !
does that mean i cant be irrational ? !
where 's the logic in that ?
anyhow , correlation is not causation... what if the experiments caused the social security numbers ? ?
eh ? it 's just another FAILED attempt of american secret services attempting to CONTROL our minds and steal our LOLZ ! ! !
and a correlation of 0.52 is rubbish - explains ONLY 27 \ % of the variance .
and that 's not worth getting out of bed for .
no sir .
cunt bubbles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but i'm not american and therefore don't have a social security number!
does that mean i cant be irrational?!
where's the logic in that?
anyhow, correlation is not causation... what if the experiments caused the social security numbers??
eh? it's just another FAILED attempt of american secret services attempting to CONTROL our minds and steal our LOLZ!!!
and a correlation of 0.52 is rubbish - explains ONLY 27\% of the variance.
and that's not worth getting out of bed for.
no sir.
cunt bubbles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29852975</id>
	<title>Complex determinism and local characteristics</title>
	<author>mrclevesque</author>
	<datestamp>1256302140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subjects use "arbitrary" factors to influence their decisions and they also take into account everything else to varying degrees. The brain "decides" the best it can and that includes relying on things like white matter, memory, and all its input up to, and, including the experiment's demand characteristics.</p><p>Assuming arbitrary and erroneous factors are quantitatively qualitatively different; we use all our resources to decide and if some of these factors and the degree they influence us seems arbitrary it is only because the decision process is more complex than we understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subjects use " arbitrary " factors to influence their decisions and they also take into account everything else to varying degrees .
The brain " decides " the best it can and that includes relying on things like white matter , memory , and all its input up to , and , including the experiment 's demand characteristics.Assuming arbitrary and erroneous factors are quantitatively qualitatively different ; we use all our resources to decide and if some of these factors and the degree they influence us seems arbitrary it is only because the decision process is more complex than we understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subjects use "arbitrary" factors to influence their decisions and they also take into account everything else to varying degrees.
The brain "decides" the best it can and that includes relying on things like white matter, memory, and all its input up to, and, including the experiment's demand characteristics.Assuming arbitrary and erroneous factors are quantitatively qualitatively different; we use all our resources to decide and if some of these factors and the degree they influence us seems arbitrary it is only because the decision process is more complex than we understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847349</id>
	<title>Laziness and Pride</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me laziness and pride are the two biggest obstacles to rational thinking.</p><p>Laziness since, more often than not, simply sitting down and thinking things through you can avoid most irrational decisions. Time constraints can make this difficult. But I'm surprised at how often I see family/friends make poor decisions simply because they don't know how to stop and think. I like this quote from Samuel Johnson since it articulates the fact that easy access to information does not mean people will spend the energy to even look at it (let alone use it wisely):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.</p></div><p>Next to laziness, is pride. This boils down to the fact that culturally we're often taught to focus on being right rather than focusing on what's right. This comes from the illusion that one can own or control truth. I've seen this affect friendships, marriages, professional atmospheres, politics, etc. Truth is independent. You either align yourself with it or continue to live in ignorance. Of course, objective indisputable truth is rare or even non-existent in humanity, but it's the honest, humble desire to align oneself with truth (not the other way around) that's important here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me laziness and pride are the two biggest obstacles to rational thinking.Laziness since , more often than not , simply sitting down and thinking things through you can avoid most irrational decisions .
Time constraints can make this difficult .
But I 'm surprised at how often I see family/friends make poor decisions simply because they do n't know how to stop and think .
I like this quote from Samuel Johnson since it articulates the fact that easy access to information does not mean people will spend the energy to even look at it ( let alone use it wisely ) : Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor ; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable , more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.Next to laziness , is pride .
This boils down to the fact that culturally we 're often taught to focus on being right rather than focusing on what 's right .
This comes from the illusion that one can own or control truth .
I 've seen this affect friendships , marriages , professional atmospheres , politics , etc .
Truth is independent .
You either align yourself with it or continue to live in ignorance .
Of course , objective indisputable truth is rare or even non-existent in humanity , but it 's the honest , humble desire to align oneself with truth ( not the other way around ) that 's important here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me laziness and pride are the two biggest obstacles to rational thinking.Laziness since, more often than not, simply sitting down and thinking things through you can avoid most irrational decisions.
Time constraints can make this difficult.
But I'm surprised at how often I see family/friends make poor decisions simply because they don't know how to stop and think.
I like this quote from Samuel Johnson since it articulates the fact that easy access to information does not mean people will spend the energy to even look at it (let alone use it wisely):Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.Next to laziness, is pride.
This boils down to the fact that culturally we're often taught to focus on being right rather than focusing on what's right.
This comes from the illusion that one can own or control truth.
I've seen this affect friendships, marriages, professional atmospheres, politics, etc.
Truth is independent.
You either align yourself with it or continue to live in ignorance.
Of course, objective indisputable truth is rare or even non-existent in humanity, but it's the honest, humble desire to align oneself with truth (not the other way around) that's important here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850685</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256288580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Studies have shown that 80-90\% of everything that humans talk about is gossip.</p></div><p>That explains why I don't talk very much; I don't gossip.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Studies have shown that 80-90 \ % of everything that humans talk about is gossip.That explains why I do n't talk very much ; I do n't gossip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studies have shown that 80-90\% of everything that humans talk about is gossip.That explains why I don't talk very much; I don't gossip.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848305</id>
	<title>Re:Yeehaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So this science basically involves saying things everyone knows about using big words?</p></div><p>No, science involves proving things people might have thought is true (yet had no proof is true, so can't honestly even claim IS true, as being correct would be only an accident) using normal sized words that you just happen to be on the end of the bell curve which finds them not small enough to understand (and consequently complain about.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this science basically involves saying things everyone knows about using big words ? No , science involves proving things people might have thought is true ( yet had no proof is true , so ca n't honestly even claim IS true , as being correct would be only an accident ) using normal sized words that you just happen to be on the end of the bell curve which finds them not small enough to understand ( and consequently complain about .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this science basically involves saying things everyone knows about using big words?No, science involves proving things people might have thought is true (yet had no proof is true, so can't honestly even claim IS true, as being correct would be only an accident) using normal sized words that you just happen to be on the end of the bell curve which finds them not small enough to understand (and consequently complain about.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847705</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1256320920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our brains are wired this way because as predators, it was more successful to continue chasing the same animal from the herd than to continually change targets who were not already tired from the chase.  It predates anything we would likely call logic since this behavior is found in lower life forms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our brains are wired this way because as predators , it was more successful to continue chasing the same animal from the herd than to continually change targets who were not already tired from the chase .
It predates anything we would likely call logic since this behavior is found in lower life forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our brains are wired this way because as predators, it was more successful to continue chasing the same animal from the herd than to continually change targets who were not already tired from the chase.
It predates anything we would likely call logic since this behavior is found in lower life forms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849345</id>
	<title>They've GOT to come to Evansville!</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1256326560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our town had a small-ish stadium: 10,000 seats. For 40 years we missed the big stuff and had to drive for hours to see big-named talent.</p><p>So we're about to start on another, slightly-smaller one.</p><p>Many years ago, someone though it a good idea to make all the streets in downtown Evansville one-way, as if there was traffic to support it. It didn't. And it took down traffic because of it's harassment, until it's a ghost town.</p><p>They're still this way; they can't figure out why the traffic's low.</p><p>A commerce-center got tired of the huge circles of traffic around them. Kids in cars FILLED the place all weekend long. Well this won't do!  We're gonna ask for receipts or turn them into jail!</p><p>Thirty years later, it, too, is a ghost town and everyone wonders why.</p><p>Evansville's a great place to be in a recession....we'll see how good it is in a depression. And now that money's tight, they STILL won't look into Linux....that would be a change.  Everyone else will be on Linux, before Evansville starts heading that way.</p><p>Evansville's just a strange place with incoherent decisions. Looks like a great place for a doctoral thesis!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our town had a small-ish stadium : 10,000 seats .
For 40 years we missed the big stuff and had to drive for hours to see big-named talent.So we 're about to start on another , slightly-smaller one.Many years ago , someone though it a good idea to make all the streets in downtown Evansville one-way , as if there was traffic to support it .
It did n't .
And it took down traffic because of it 's harassment , until it 's a ghost town.They 're still this way ; they ca n't figure out why the traffic 's low.A commerce-center got tired of the huge circles of traffic around them .
Kids in cars FILLED the place all weekend long .
Well this wo n't do !
We 're gon na ask for receipts or turn them into jail ! Thirty years later , it , too , is a ghost town and everyone wonders why.Evansville 's a great place to be in a recession....we 'll see how good it is in a depression .
And now that money 's tight , they STILL wo n't look into Linux....that would be a change .
Everyone else will be on Linux , before Evansville starts heading that way.Evansville 's just a strange place with incoherent decisions .
Looks like a great place for a doctoral thesis !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our town had a small-ish stadium: 10,000 seats.
For 40 years we missed the big stuff and had to drive for hours to see big-named talent.So we're about to start on another, slightly-smaller one.Many years ago, someone though it a good idea to make all the streets in downtown Evansville one-way, as if there was traffic to support it.
It didn't.
And it took down traffic because of it's harassment, until it's a ghost town.They're still this way; they can't figure out why the traffic's low.A commerce-center got tired of the huge circles of traffic around them.
Kids in cars FILLED the place all weekend long.
Well this won't do!
We're gonna ask for receipts or turn them into jail!Thirty years later, it, too, is a ghost town and everyone wonders why.Evansville's a great place to be in a recession....we'll see how good it is in a depression.
And now that money's tight, they STILL won't look into Linux....that would be a change.
Everyone else will be on Linux, before Evansville starts heading that way.Evansville's just a strange place with incoherent decisions.
Looks like a great place for a doctoral thesis!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847591</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1256320500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once you made x decision, you had no further reason to question that, and you would base many more decisions on that "logical rule". When x is challanged, it would require you to re-think all past decisions that were based on x, which might include who you married, why you took this job, your religious beliefs and other important life decisions.</p></div><p>
That's not entirely a bad thing, however (which I think is probably the point of your second paragraph).  If you had to re-evaluate every decision you ever made throughout your entire life, you would find that never did anything else.  For there to be any progress, you <i>must</i> assume that the decisions that lead to where you are currently were good.
<br> <br>
Hindsight may be 20/20, but at some point, you've <i>got</i> to stop second guessing yourself and actually act on your decisions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you made x decision , you had no further reason to question that , and you would base many more decisions on that " logical rule " .
When x is challanged , it would require you to re-think all past decisions that were based on x , which might include who you married , why you took this job , your religious beliefs and other important life decisions .
That 's not entirely a bad thing , however ( which I think is probably the point of your second paragraph ) .
If you had to re-evaluate every decision you ever made throughout your entire life , you would find that never did anything else .
For there to be any progress , you must assume that the decisions that lead to where you are currently were good .
Hindsight may be 20/20 , but at some point , you 've got to stop second guessing yourself and actually act on your decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you made x decision, you had no further reason to question that, and you would base many more decisions on that "logical rule".
When x is challanged, it would require you to re-think all past decisions that were based on x, which might include who you married, why you took this job, your religious beliefs and other important life decisions.
That's not entirely a bad thing, however (which I think is probably the point of your second paragraph).
If you had to re-evaluate every decision you ever made throughout your entire life, you would find that never did anything else.
For there to be any progress, you must assume that the decisions that lead to where you are currently were good.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but at some point, you've got to stop second guessing yourself and actually act on your decisions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847951</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's more, I would say it's very unclear that we'd be able to live, let alone become intelligent, without such irrational assumptions.  This is something that people miss a lot when they talk about intelligence and AI: irrationality is part of intelligence.
</p><p>Imagine you didn't generally make basic assumptions that your past actions and beliefs were appropriate.  Let's say you wake up in the morning and feel a pain in your belly.  Well, yesterday and the day before that, you ate a bowl of cereal with milk in it, and that seemed to make the pain go away.  But you're not just going to follow habit or assume that it's a good decision.  You're going to wake up every morning from now on and try random things.  Maybe you'll try scratching your belly with a stick, or maybe you'll throw yourself out the window.  How is intelligence ever going to emerge from that?
</p><p>People are creatures of habit, and people are mimics.  We do what other people around us are doing.  We role-play and we follow fads and we talk the way our neighbors talk.  We see friends and family and people on TV eating breakfast in the morning, and so we do it too.  Our brains then try to tie all of that habit and mimicry up in a nice tidy logical explanation so that we can understand what we're doing, so that we can explain it to ourselves and to others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's more , I would say it 's very unclear that we 'd be able to live , let alone become intelligent , without such irrational assumptions .
This is something that people miss a lot when they talk about intelligence and AI : irrationality is part of intelligence .
Imagine you did n't generally make basic assumptions that your past actions and beliefs were appropriate .
Let 's say you wake up in the morning and feel a pain in your belly .
Well , yesterday and the day before that , you ate a bowl of cereal with milk in it , and that seemed to make the pain go away .
But you 're not just going to follow habit or assume that it 's a good decision .
You 're going to wake up every morning from now on and try random things .
Maybe you 'll try scratching your belly with a stick , or maybe you 'll throw yourself out the window .
How is intelligence ever going to emerge from that ?
People are creatures of habit , and people are mimics .
We do what other people around us are doing .
We role-play and we follow fads and we talk the way our neighbors talk .
We see friends and family and people on TV eating breakfast in the morning , and so we do it too .
Our brains then try to tie all of that habit and mimicry up in a nice tidy logical explanation so that we can understand what we 're doing , so that we can explain it to ourselves and to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's more, I would say it's very unclear that we'd be able to live, let alone become intelligent, without such irrational assumptions.
This is something that people miss a lot when they talk about intelligence and AI: irrationality is part of intelligence.
Imagine you didn't generally make basic assumptions that your past actions and beliefs were appropriate.
Let's say you wake up in the morning and feel a pain in your belly.
Well, yesterday and the day before that, you ate a bowl of cereal with milk in it, and that seemed to make the pain go away.
But you're not just going to follow habit or assume that it's a good decision.
You're going to wake up every morning from now on and try random things.
Maybe you'll try scratching your belly with a stick, or maybe you'll throw yourself out the window.
How is intelligence ever going to emerge from that?
People are creatures of habit, and people are mimics.
We do what other people around us are doing.
We role-play and we follow fads and we talk the way our neighbors talk.
We see friends and family and people on TV eating breakfast in the morning, and so we do it too.
Our brains then try to tie all of that habit and mimicry up in a nice tidy logical explanation so that we can understand what we're doing, so that we can explain it to ourselves and to others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847363</id>
	<title>The wife's ends in 99</title>
	<author>threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1256319480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wife's number ends in 99, which explains everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wife 's number ends in 99 , which explains everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wife's number ends in 99, which explains everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849579</id>
	<title>Sin</title>
	<author>HomelessInLaJolla</author>
	<datestamp>1256327520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between "want" and "need" inspires people to demonstrate behavior of "get" and "take".  Those are irrational decisions and, over the course of a lifetime, lead to death through accumulated damage to something we could define as faith.</p><p>The way to preserve faith, and avoid death, is by practicing faith.  Have the patience to receive and be free of the weaknesses which cause action based upon the desire to get or to take.</p><p>Consider that you are a fish living in a stocked pond.  99.99999\% of everything is bait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between " want " and " need " inspires people to demonstrate behavior of " get " and " take " .
Those are irrational decisions and , over the course of a lifetime , lead to death through accumulated damage to something we could define as faith.The way to preserve faith , and avoid death , is by practicing faith .
Have the patience to receive and be free of the weaknesses which cause action based upon the desire to get or to take.Consider that you are a fish living in a stocked pond .
99.99999 \ % of everything is bait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between "want" and "need" inspires people to demonstrate behavior of "get" and "take".
Those are irrational decisions and, over the course of a lifetime, lead to death through accumulated damage to something we could define as faith.The way to preserve faith, and avoid death, is by practicing faith.
Have the patience to receive and be free of the weaknesses which cause action based upon the desire to get or to take.Consider that you are a fish living in a stocked pond.
99.99999\% of everything is bait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847427</id>
	<title>So always open high</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why everyone from market stall traders, to Governments will pitch an initial amount that's ludicrously high. Not only is there a sense of relief when you haggle downwards (or an initial estimate is lowered, or whatever) but also, if you've previously contemplated the effects of the higher number, then here's the proof that you're more likely to accept a higher cost when it comes down to business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why everyone from market stall traders , to Governments will pitch an initial amount that 's ludicrously high .
Not only is there a sense of relief when you haggle downwards ( or an initial estimate is lowered , or whatever ) but also , if you 've previously contemplated the effects of the higher number , then here 's the proof that you 're more likely to accept a higher cost when it comes down to business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why everyone from market stall traders, to Governments will pitch an initial amount that's ludicrously high.
Not only is there a sense of relief when you haggle downwards (or an initial estimate is lowered, or whatever) but also, if you've previously contemplated the effects of the higher number, then here's the proof that you're more likely to accept a higher cost when it comes down to business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846673</id>
	<title>except decisions aren't made in a vaccum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256316180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...so when we're faced with an uncertain decision, we take cues from those around us rather than from our social insurance numbers. As a result, industries characterized by high technological uncertainty -- like those discussed on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. -- tend to be governed less by the the clarity of perfect information in competitive markets and more by inherently social processes: imitation of either past behavior or the behavior of successful competitors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...so when we 're faced with an uncertain decision , we take cues from those around us rather than from our social insurance numbers .
As a result , industries characterized by high technological uncertainty -- like those discussed on / .
-- tend to be governed less by the the clarity of perfect information in competitive markets and more by inherently social processes : imitation of either past behavior or the behavior of successful competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...so when we're faced with an uncertain decision, we take cues from those around us rather than from our social insurance numbers.
As a result, industries characterized by high technological uncertainty -- like those discussed on /.
-- tend to be governed less by the the clarity of perfect information in competitive markets and more by inherently social processes: imitation of either past behavior or the behavior of successful competitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847343</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256319420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, if your logic is internally consistent, it will form a valid base of logic-space and will only lead to correct results. The problem is a lot of people have and defend broken logic. It doesn't matter if you rationalize about emotions or the bible, if you can manage to make it coherent you are right. I do admit that cohorent emotions are hard, and the bible itself is incoherent, but those are just examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , if your logic is internally consistent , it will form a valid base of logic-space and will only lead to correct results .
The problem is a lot of people have and defend broken logic .
It does n't matter if you rationalize about emotions or the bible , if you can manage to make it coherent you are right .
I do admit that cohorent emotions are hard , and the bible itself is incoherent , but those are just examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, if your logic is internally consistent, it will form a valid base of logic-space and will only lead to correct results.
The problem is a lot of people have and defend broken logic.
It doesn't matter if you rationalize about emotions or the bible, if you can manage to make it coherent you are right.
I do admit that cohorent emotions are hard, and the bible itself is incoherent, but those are just examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29852805</id>
	<title>Re:Yard Sales</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256300280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is exactly why I never buy anything that is not previously labeled with a price. I will negotiate but not if I have to contemplate a starting value myself.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>So just imagine seeing a price of $1.00 on the item. Would you buy it at that price? If so, double it. If not, halve it. Keep repeating until your answer changes. Now you have prices on both sides. Offer something between. If your offer is accepted, buy the item. If rejected, don't (yes, I don't like haggling; take it leave it is my style).

</p><p>But I'm generally too lazy to even go through this thought experiment when something is unpriced. It's literally not worth it. It's not that hard to price everything at a yard sale; either have a default price for unmarked things, or divide things into groups with set prices, along with a group where higher-priced things are marked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why I never buy anything that is not previously labeled with a price .
I will negotiate but not if I have to contemplate a starting value myself .
So just imagine seeing a price of $ 1.00 on the item .
Would you buy it at that price ?
If so , double it .
If not , halve it .
Keep repeating until your answer changes .
Now you have prices on both sides .
Offer something between .
If your offer is accepted , buy the item .
If rejected , do n't ( yes , I do n't like haggling ; take it leave it is my style ) .
But I 'm generally too lazy to even go through this thought experiment when something is unpriced .
It 's literally not worth it .
It 's not that hard to price everything at a yard sale ; either have a default price for unmarked things , or divide things into groups with set prices , along with a group where higher-priced things are marked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why I never buy anything that is not previously labeled with a price.
I will negotiate but not if I have to contemplate a starting value myself.
So just imagine seeing a price of $1.00 on the item.
Would you buy it at that price?
If so, double it.
If not, halve it.
Keep repeating until your answer changes.
Now you have prices on both sides.
Offer something between.
If your offer is accepted, buy the item.
If rejected, don't (yes, I don't like haggling; take it leave it is my style).
But I'm generally too lazy to even go through this thought experiment when something is unpriced.
It's literally not worth it.
It's not that hard to price everything at a yard sale; either have a default price for unmarked things, or divide things into groups with set prices, along with a group where higher-priced things are marked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In case you were actually curious which I'm sure you are... <br> <br>Humans are naturally curious, and we have a love for information. These are great things, clearly evolving to strive for greater knowledge and understanding is a good thing. And a certain level of curiousity is also good. So there are mechanisms in our brain that reward us for gaining knowledge... generally you feel good learning something.<br> <br>That said, the implementation is terrible. We get rewarded (chemically) for ANY information we learn. There is no natural mechanism that filters out useless information. So at our <i>base</i> we feel equally rewarded learning about britney spears' baby as we do about our political system. This results in you feeling good learning the tidbits of information though they may not be very pertinent to your life. If you are good at trivial pursuit you are likely more of an addict and so on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case you were actually curious which I 'm sure you are... Humans are naturally curious , and we have a love for information .
These are great things , clearly evolving to strive for greater knowledge and understanding is a good thing .
And a certain level of curiousity is also good .
So there are mechanisms in our brain that reward us for gaining knowledge... generally you feel good learning something .
That said , the implementation is terrible .
We get rewarded ( chemically ) for ANY information we learn .
There is no natural mechanism that filters out useless information .
So at our base we feel equally rewarded learning about britney spears ' baby as we do about our political system .
This results in you feeling good learning the tidbits of information though they may not be very pertinent to your life .
If you are good at trivial pursuit you are likely more of an addict and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case you were actually curious which I'm sure you are...  Humans are naturally curious, and we have a love for information.
These are great things, clearly evolving to strive for greater knowledge and understanding is a good thing.
And a certain level of curiousity is also good.
So there are mechanisms in our brain that reward us for gaining knowledge... generally you feel good learning something.
That said, the implementation is terrible.
We get rewarded (chemically) for ANY information we learn.
There is no natural mechanism that filters out useless information.
So at our base we feel equally rewarded learning about britney spears' baby as we do about our political system.
This results in you feeling good learning the tidbits of information though they may not be very pertinent to your life.
If you are good at trivial pursuit you are likely more of an addict and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847337</id>
	<title>Re:Yard Sales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of curiosity, what is your social security number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity , what is your social security number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity, what is your social security number?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847567</id>
	<title>Watch Dan Ariely on TED</title>
	<author>blue\_teeth</author>
	<datestamp>1256320380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>For better understanding on Dan Ariely's point, see this video

<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_ariely\_on\_our\_buggy\_moral\_code.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_ariely\_on\_our\_buggy\_moral\_code.html</a> [ted.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For better understanding on Dan Ariely 's point , see this video http : //www.ted.com/talks/dan \ _ariely \ _on \ _our \ _buggy \ _moral \ _code.html [ ted.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For better understanding on Dan Ariely's point, see this video

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_ariely\_on\_our\_buggy\_moral\_code.html [ted.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847281</id>
	<title>Re:Yeehaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. I knew the "hurr durr, what good is this study, it's only repeating common sense, what a waste of time/resources" response was coming as soon as I read the summary title, but I didn't expect it would be the first post. Especially since this story is specifically ABOUT the way that people are prone to believe "obvious" things in spite of actual evidence.</p><p>Please, get this through your heads: "common sense" (another name for biases gained from anecdotes and cultural groupthink) is often misleading, unreliable, over-broad, or outright wrong. At one time it was "common sense" that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. It was "common sense" that large, heavy objects can't float in water. It was "common sense" that the world is flat and women and blacks are intellectually inferior to white men and that the planets and moons are perfect spheres orbiting in perfect circles.</p><p>Science is about testing claims through empirical experiment--sometimes the results match up with "common sense", sometimes they don't. Sure, this story an example of a place where experiment confirmed something that is fairly obvious on its face--but the data goes a long way towards better understanding the WHYS and HOWS of this "obvious" phenomenon. Data is never a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I knew the " hurr durr , what good is this study , it 's only repeating common sense , what a waste of time/resources " response was coming as soon as I read the summary title , but I did n't expect it would be the first post .
Especially since this story is specifically ABOUT the way that people are prone to believe " obvious " things in spite of actual evidence.Please , get this through your heads : " common sense " ( another name for biases gained from anecdotes and cultural groupthink ) is often misleading , unreliable , over-broad , or outright wrong .
At one time it was " common sense " that heavy objects fall faster than light objects .
It was " common sense " that large , heavy objects ca n't float in water .
It was " common sense " that the world is flat and women and blacks are intellectually inferior to white men and that the planets and moons are perfect spheres orbiting in perfect circles.Science is about testing claims through empirical experiment--sometimes the results match up with " common sense " , sometimes they do n't .
Sure , this story an example of a place where experiment confirmed something that is fairly obvious on its face--but the data goes a long way towards better understanding the WHYS and HOWS of this " obvious " phenomenon .
Data is never a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I knew the "hurr durr, what good is this study, it's only repeating common sense, what a waste of time/resources" response was coming as soon as I read the summary title, but I didn't expect it would be the first post.
Especially since this story is specifically ABOUT the way that people are prone to believe "obvious" things in spite of actual evidence.Please, get this through your heads: "common sense" (another name for biases gained from anecdotes and cultural groupthink) is often misleading, unreliable, over-broad, or outright wrong.
At one time it was "common sense" that heavy objects fall faster than light objects.
It was "common sense" that large, heavy objects can't float in water.
It was "common sense" that the world is flat and women and blacks are intellectually inferior to white men and that the planets and moons are perfect spheres orbiting in perfect circles.Science is about testing claims through empirical experiment--sometimes the results match up with "common sense", sometimes they don't.
Sure, this story an example of a place where experiment confirmed something that is fairly obvious on its face--but the data goes a long way towards better understanding the WHYS and HOWS of this "obvious" phenomenon.
Data is never a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847313</id>
	<title>Windows</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1256319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, a company that installs Windows on its first PC will probably install it on thousands of additions, instead of installing Linux on hundreds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , a company that installs Windows on its first PC will probably install it on thousands of additions , instead of installing Linux on hundreds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, a company that installs Windows on its first PC will probably install it on thousands of additions, instead of installing Linux on hundreds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850165</id>
	<title>Re:Yard Sales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256329860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just start at zero. Condition yourself for your own good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just start at zero .
Condition yourself for your own good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just start at zero.
Condition yourself for your own good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847557</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not one to normally complain about articles</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1256320320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A book on 'irrational thinking'....aka "Chicks Think the Darndest Things".</htmltext>
<tokenext>A book on 'irrational thinking'....aka " Chicks Think the Darndest Things " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A book on 'irrational thinking'....aka "Chicks Think the Darndest Things".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846607</id>
	<title>Personalized Ads</title>
	<author>Baby Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1256315820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember those personalized hologram ads in Minority Report? Now, if they know your SSN, they can personalize a "deal" for you at a price you might be more willing to pay for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember those personalized hologram ads in Minority Report ?
Now , if they know your SSN , they can personalize a " deal " for you at a price you might be more willing to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember those personalized hologram ads in Minority Report?
Now, if they know your SSN, they can personalize a "deal" for you at a price you might be more willing to pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848003</id>
	<title>TV advertisers know this.</title>
	<author>Bob-taro</author>
	<datestamp>1256321940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure advertisers already know this: "How much would you pay for all this?  $100?  Guess again!  If you call within 10 minutes we'll sell it to you for <b>ONLY $19.99!</b>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure advertisers already know this : " How much would you pay for all this ?
$ 100 ? Guess again !
If you call within 10 minutes we 'll sell it to you for ONLY $ 19.99 !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure advertisers already know this: "How much would you pay for all this?
$100?  Guess again!
If you call within 10 minutes we'll sell it to you for ONLY $19.99!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847375</id>
	<title>Re:Still, GIGO</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1256319540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or to put it more simply "This worked yesterday, so it'll work today too". Clearly a survival mechanism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or to put it more simply " This worked yesterday , so it 'll work today too " .
Clearly a survival mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or to put it more simply "This worked yesterday, so it'll work today too".
Clearly a survival mechanism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848531</id>
	<title>Re:Reasing TheDot!</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1256323860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>It increases Dopamine spikes in your brain. Doing Productive Things is boring, so they don't. It's the same brain center as other addictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.It increases Dopamine spikes in your brain .
Doing Productive Things is boring , so they do n't .
It 's the same brain center as other addictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.It increases Dopamine spikes in your brain.
Doing Productive Things is boring, so they don't.
It's the same brain center as other addictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847401</id>
	<title>So, it is bad to have sales</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1256319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a store puts a product on sale, and it gets a new customer, it also loses that customer when the sale is off?  Interesting that a number sticks so hard, not just the relative scale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a store puts a product on sale , and it gets a new customer , it also loses that customer when the sale is off ?
Interesting that a number sticks so hard , not just the relative scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a store puts a product on sale, and it gets a new customer, it also loses that customer when the sale is off?
Interesting that a number sticks so hard, not just the relative scale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847083</id>
	<title>Correlation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when correlation between 0.33 and 0.52 has been significant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when correlation between 0.33 and 0.52 has been significant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when correlation between 0.33 and 0.52 has been significant?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851413</id>
	<title>Not globally irrational</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256291340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this  may lead to suboptimal decisions in individual cases it is rational behavior for animals with finite intelligence and limited and unreliable information (i.e., us).  This behavior has evolved  because, in the general case, it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this may lead to suboptimal decisions in individual cases it is rational behavior for animals with finite intelligence and limited and unreliable information ( i.e. , us ) .
This behavior has evolved because , in the general case , it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this  may lead to suboptimal decisions in individual cases it is rational behavior for animals with finite intelligence and limited and unreliable information (i.e., us).
This behavior has evolved  because, in the general case, it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737</id>
	<title>Yard Sales</title>
	<author>dschmit1</author>
	<datestamp>1256316480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why I never buy anything that is not previously labeled with a price.  I will negotiate but not if I have to contemplate a starting value myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why I never buy anything that is not previously labeled with a price .
I will negotiate but not if I have to contemplate a starting value myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why I never buy anything that is not previously labeled with a price.
I will negotiate but not if I have to contemplate a starting value myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847205</id>
	<title>Religion is fraught with irrational decisions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I submit that religion illustrates perfectly our ability to make irrational decisions in the absence of evidence, and cling to obviously false explanations in spite of real facts subsequently brought to light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I submit that religion illustrates perfectly our ability to make irrational decisions in the absence of evidence , and cling to obviously false explanations in spite of real facts subsequently brought to light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submit that religion illustrates perfectly our ability to make irrational decisions in the absence of evidence, and cling to obviously false explanations in spite of real facts subsequently brought to light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847777</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1256321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Studies have shown that 80-90\% of everything that humans talk about is gossip.  When you think about this from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense.  We're highly social animals and our biggest competitors are other humans.  Sharing information about the members of tribe is a HUGE advantage.  Unfortunately, today we have the same brains that our tribal ancestors did and these brains seem to include celebrities in our tribes, so we eat up gossip about them.  The implementation isn't terrible, it's just legacy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>That makes a lot of sense to me.  Before technology allowed anything other than face-to-face communication, such a tendency might have been valuable.  You can, after all, be greatly affected by the decisions of those closest to you.  However, it seems to break down due to telecommunications.  Telecommunications and mass media mean that this mechanism is being used for strangers that the individual will probably never meet.  Due to that, it loses the meaningful function of "staying in touch" that it once served.
<br> <br>
I don't know if "instinct" is the correct word here, but I'll use it knowing that there may be a better one.  I have always felt that human beings don't have to be slaves to their instincts.  Their instincts are strong influences; they are not absolute masters.  Wise/enlightened individuals can recognize when following an instinct in a certain way no longer serves their interests.  They can find healther and more fulfilling ("higher") ways to take care of the same needs.  In this case, they can choose to become more involved in their family and community life instead of adoring strangers who don't even know that they exist.  This would, however, require a mindful awareness of the situation and the willingness to perform a little self-examination, what you might call the ability to be in the driver's seat of your own life.  These are traits that superficial people are not known for having, which may explain why celebrity-worship is most often associated with people who are childish and easily impressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Studies have shown that 80-90 \ % of everything that humans talk about is gossip .
When you think about this from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense .
We 're highly social animals and our biggest competitors are other humans .
Sharing information about the members of tribe is a HUGE advantage .
Unfortunately , today we have the same brains that our tribal ancestors did and these brains seem to include celebrities in our tribes , so we eat up gossip about them .
The implementation is n't terrible , it 's just legacy : ) That makes a lot of sense to me .
Before technology allowed anything other than face-to-face communication , such a tendency might have been valuable .
You can , after all , be greatly affected by the decisions of those closest to you .
However , it seems to break down due to telecommunications .
Telecommunications and mass media mean that this mechanism is being used for strangers that the individual will probably never meet .
Due to that , it loses the meaningful function of " staying in touch " that it once served .
I do n't know if " instinct " is the correct word here , but I 'll use it knowing that there may be a better one .
I have always felt that human beings do n't have to be slaves to their instincts .
Their instincts are strong influences ; they are not absolute masters .
Wise/enlightened individuals can recognize when following an instinct in a certain way no longer serves their interests .
They can find healther and more fulfilling ( " higher " ) ways to take care of the same needs .
In this case , they can choose to become more involved in their family and community life instead of adoring strangers who do n't even know that they exist .
This would , however , require a mindful awareness of the situation and the willingness to perform a little self-examination , what you might call the ability to be in the driver 's seat of your own life .
These are traits that superficial people are not known for having , which may explain why celebrity-worship is most often associated with people who are childish and easily impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studies have shown that 80-90\% of everything that humans talk about is gossip.
When you think about this from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense.
We're highly social animals and our biggest competitors are other humans.
Sharing information about the members of tribe is a HUGE advantage.
Unfortunately, today we have the same brains that our tribal ancestors did and these brains seem to include celebrities in our tribes, so we eat up gossip about them.
The implementation isn't terrible, it's just legacy :)That makes a lot of sense to me.
Before technology allowed anything other than face-to-face communication, such a tendency might have been valuable.
You can, after all, be greatly affected by the decisions of those closest to you.
However, it seems to break down due to telecommunications.
Telecommunications and mass media mean that this mechanism is being used for strangers that the individual will probably never meet.
Due to that, it loses the meaningful function of "staying in touch" that it once served.
I don't know if "instinct" is the correct word here, but I'll use it knowing that there may be a better one.
I have always felt that human beings don't have to be slaves to their instincts.
Their instincts are strong influences; they are not absolute masters.
Wise/enlightened individuals can recognize when following an instinct in a certain way no longer serves their interests.
They can find healther and more fulfilling ("higher") ways to take care of the same needs.
In this case, they can choose to become more involved in their family and community life instead of adoring strangers who don't even know that they exist.
This would, however, require a mindful awareness of the situation and the willingness to perform a little self-examination, what you might call the ability to be in the driver's seat of your own life.
These are traits that superficial people are not known for having, which may explain why celebrity-worship is most often associated with people who are childish and easily impressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847109</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not one to normally complain about articles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hawking, you mean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawking , you mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawking, you mean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847331</id>
	<title>Re:The implications</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, why would we want engineers designing bridges to be conservative about safety margins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , why would we want engineers designing bridges to be conservative about safety margins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, why would we want engineers designing bridges to be conservative about safety margins?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851139</id>
	<title>I hate it when they name call</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1256290260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They describe the thouhgt as 'irrational'.
<p>
No.  The thought process itself is totally rational.
</p><p>Here it is:
</p><p>1.  I agreed to pay X previously.
</p><p>2.  I am a logical person.  (see the steps I am doing right now for proof.)
</p><p>3.  Therefore if a logical person previously agreed to pay X, then X is a valid price.
</p><p>4.  Examine further price changes by comparing to X.
</p><p>Their is NOTHING irrational about it, it is a great method for for use with little information.  Making decisions based on little information is part of life and definitely requires rational methods.  As long as no new information is introduced, the method they used is VERY ratioanl. If you are later told that the wholesale price of is X/10, (or 3 times X), then and only then should you ignore the original price X.
</p><p>The scientist (or more likely the reporter reporting the study) simply was NOT smart enough to realize the value of the RATTIONAL thought process involved and decided it must be stupid, so they called it 'irrational'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They describe the thouhgt as 'irrational' .
No. The thought process itself is totally rational .
Here it is : 1 .
I agreed to pay X previously .
2. I am a logical person .
( see the steps I am doing right now for proof .
) 3 .
Therefore if a logical person previously agreed to pay X , then X is a valid price .
4. Examine further price changes by comparing to X . Their is NOTHING irrational about it , it is a great method for for use with little information .
Making decisions based on little information is part of life and definitely requires rational methods .
As long as no new information is introduced , the method they used is VERY ratioanl .
If you are later told that the wholesale price of is X/10 , ( or 3 times X ) , then and only then should you ignore the original price X . The scientist ( or more likely the reporter reporting the study ) simply was NOT smart enough to realize the value of the RATTIONAL thought process involved and decided it must be stupid , so they called it 'irrational' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They describe the thouhgt as 'irrational'.
No.  The thought process itself is totally rational.
Here it is:
1.
I agreed to pay X previously.
2.  I am a logical person.
(see the steps I am doing right now for proof.
)
3.
Therefore if a logical person previously agreed to pay X, then X is a valid price.
4.  Examine further price changes by comparing to X.
Their is NOTHING irrational about it, it is a great method for for use with little information.
Making decisions based on little information is part of life and definitely requires rational methods.
As long as no new information is introduced, the method they used is VERY ratioanl.
If you are later told that the wholesale price of is X/10, (or 3 times X), then and only then should you ignore the original price X.
The scientist (or more likely the reporter reporting the study) simply was NOT smart enough to realize the value of the RATTIONAL thought process involved and decided it must be stupid, so they called it 'irrational'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847889</id>
	<title>Re:TFA</title>
	<author>prunedude</author>
	<datestamp>1256321580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Editors sleeping on the job<br>
What a sweet job</p></div><p>

Slashdot editors and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/us/24plane.html?hp" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">airline pilots</a> [nytimes.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Editors sleeping on the job What a sweet job Slashdot editors and airline pilots [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editors sleeping on the job
What a sweet job

Slashdot editors and airline pilots [nytimes.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846763</id>
	<title>Common law system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scary thing is... the entire English common law system (US, UK, others) is based on "arbitrary coherence", better known as precedent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scary thing is... the entire English common law system ( US , UK , others ) is based on " arbitrary coherence " , better known as precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scary thing is... the entire English common law system (US, UK, others) is based on "arbitrary coherence", better known as precedent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846861</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not one to normally complain about articles</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1256317020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I just want to give props to kdawson (or whoever) for correcting the oversight... link to the blog is now there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I just want to give props to kdawson ( or whoever ) for correcting the oversight... link to the blog is now there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I just want to give props to kdawson (or whoever) for correcting the oversight... link to the blog is now there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851431</id>
	<title>How to make better decisions - BBC show</title>
	<author>ardle</author>
	<datestamp>1256291460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check this out - particularly part 2. In fact, check out part 2 first: it makes you wonder how much we lie to ourselves and post-rationalise. We need to do it.
<br>We get a buzz out of making decisions: therefore there is <i>always</i> an emotional component in "rationality".
<br>However, there is a danger of being lazy, letting others do the thinking and just experiencing the "rational" buzz second-hand.
<br>People can tend to accept outlandish things when they are said in a "sensible" tone-of-voice...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check this out - particularly part 2 .
In fact , check out part 2 first : it makes you wonder how much we lie to ourselves and post-rationalise .
We need to do it .
We get a buzz out of making decisions : therefore there is always an emotional component in " rationality " .
However , there is a danger of being lazy , letting others do the thinking and just experiencing the " rational " buzz second-hand .
People can tend to accept outlandish things when they are said in a " sensible " tone-of-voice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check this out - particularly part 2.
In fact, check out part 2 first: it makes you wonder how much we lie to ourselves and post-rationalise.
We need to do it.
We get a buzz out of making decisions: therefore there is always an emotional component in "rationality".
However, there is a danger of being lazy, letting others do the thinking and just experiencing the "rational" buzz second-hand.
People can tend to accept outlandish things when they are said in a "sensible" tone-of-voice...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846969</id>
	<title>As Brought To You By Your Criminals-In-Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACkiKVtF3nU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Unregulated OTC Derivatives</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Good luck in the next financial meltdown.</p><p>Yours In Vladivostok,<br>K. T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unregulated OTC Derivatives [ youtube.com ] Good luck in the next financial meltdown.Yours In Vladivostok,K .
T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unregulated OTC Derivatives [youtube.com]Good luck in the next financial meltdown.Yours In Vladivostok,K.
T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846773</id>
	<title>Anchoring</title>
	<author>INeededALogin</author>
	<datestamp>1256316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing really new here.  Decisions making based on anchors is a large part of why we use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning\_poker" title="wikipedia.org">Planning Poker</a> [wikipedia.org] when doing our estimations.  All it takes is that one guy that says everything is easy to influence everyone's brain to under-estimate a project.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing really new here .
Decisions making based on anchors is a large part of why we use Planning Poker [ wikipedia.org ] when doing our estimations .
All it takes is that one guy that says everything is easy to influence everyone 's brain to under-estimate a project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing really new here.
Decisions making based on anchors is a large part of why we use Planning Poker [wikipedia.org] when doing our estimations.
All it takes is that one guy that says everything is easy to influence everyone's brain to under-estimate a project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849939</id>
	<title>Who'd a thunk</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256329020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Irrational decisions? By college students? Wow, amazing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrational decisions ?
By college students ?
Wow , amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrational decisions?
By college students?
Wow, amazing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847203</id>
	<title>Re:Yeehaw</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1256318880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science basically involved checking whether what "everyone knows" is actually correct, and then trying to find out why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science basically involved checking whether what " everyone knows " is actually correct , and then trying to find out why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science basically involved checking whether what "everyone knows" is actually correct, and then trying to find out why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29855503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29852853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29854111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29857321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29852805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1512212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29857321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29854111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29852853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29851431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29855503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847295
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850685
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29848531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29852805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29850165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29849655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29847205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1512212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1512212.29846607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
