The pervasiveness and compatibility of pseudoscience and religion makes them a hard nut to crack!

31


Discussion by: scienceftw
*** I was not sure whether to post this in science or religion***
While having a lively debate with Christians on facebook about the frontiers of science and the 4th dimension, the idea of the soul came up and we started talking about the possibility of the unknown.  There were some excellent points made by some forward thinking Christians, then one person jumped into the conversation and said the following:
“..science shows that the first impulse of electricity when someone thinks, originates from the heart area, travels up the spine to the brain , and then can be translated through the mind out the body. The brain is a translator, to relay and relate through past experience and kmowledge. The conciousness is in the heart, there lays all communications beginnings, or our being. The mind is just a tool, the heart is where the life is, as well it pumps blood, which is where the life resides as well. You can damage evrything but the bodies ability to deal with blood correctly and still live. You mess with the blood or its main transporter, and you die. Life is in the blood. Our life force resides in our heart, not our head. Be wise my dear Rich, and you shall become wiser. Claim wisdom, or judge those with it, and you will lose even what you have! Science is always proving God, in fact , the more scientist seek actual unbiased truth, the more it will do so, to the world of mens dismay. Beast nature sucks, it is so carnal and stupid with arrogance that hides behind even false intellect. I was smarter meeting Jesus at age five than Einstein before he meet Him at 50.”

When you have religious ideas so intertwined with bad science, how then do we promote good science?   I took the opportunity to look up the video he had cited (but he conveniently opted out of providing me with the source due to his fears of doing exactly what Satan wants).  The video he got his “scientific” information from was posted by The Heart Math Institute run by a Doc Childre who, of course, is not a doctor.  When I asked for his source he got very defensive bordering on rage and began to insult me calling me a dumb ass and I should “go suck Satan’s nuts more”.  How to we combat such ignorance and closed mindedness when promoting real science?  Pseudoscience seems to give credit to that religious type of wish thinking that fosters the kind of ignorance and gullibility that seems to stand in the way of educating children properly. 

References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyfm5_LLxow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Childre
http://www.heartmath.org/about-us/ihm-team/about-doc-childre.html

31 COMMENTS

  1. It is impossible to debate with idiots and especially with people who are happy to lie. Most of the pseudoscience is nothing more than a pack of lies dressed up with a few scientific terms, along with quotes mined and used out of context.

    We can keep trying by publishing genuine scientific and academic arguments, although I accept these will fail to reach many, especially the bigotted parents of children who would benefit most from them. Obviously we must also try to use the law wherever possible, certain teaching almost definately transgresses the boundaries of the curricula layed down by some governments.

    The person who made their point so well by having to resort to insults is obviously a complete idiot or bigot and has no world view, or purposely stiffles it. The heart argument does not work too well for those who have been kept alive by artificial hearts or who have had transplants.

    As for the blood, I wonder what this nurk would make of a haemophilic friend of mine. He was, sometimes still is, known the the Pigman. One of the problems with Factor VIII therapies is that the body can develop inhibitors to them, one of the ways they used to get around it was by using porcine factor VIII. I still see my friend regualry at out haemophillia centre and I have never noticed him get particularly emotional about eating a bacon roll.

    Sorry for going a bit OT. As far as promoting real science, If I am with my nieces, I try to show them the fun side of science. I was lucky in that I have always liked science but to some it can seem a rather remote and difficult subject. This is why we have to thank people like Richard Dawkins who help us to show that science can be great fun, as well as educational, and that the more you learn the more fun it gets. I think this is a message worth trying to get across.

  2. Keep in mind that when debating a guy like this, you’re doing this for the rest of the people in the conversation, not for him. People like him have no wish at all to be convinced of the right thing, they want to validate their own beliefs by attacking you and convincing as many others, through lies if necessary.

    Present your arguments, provide the sources, refute his points in a calm and concise way. Those willing to be honest with themselves will gravitate towards your point, those never truly interested in changing their views (and there are a lot of them) are a lost case anyhow.

    By the way, that was some grade-A, batshit crazy, pseudoscientific nonsense he threw at you there. The easiest way to refute this would be to ask him why there was no complete personality-change in heart transplant patients I suppose.

    Edit: sorry Stephen for repeating the heart transplant part, hadn’t seen it in your comment before I wrote mine.

  3. @OP – The conciousness is in the heart, there lays all communications beginnings, or our being. The mind is just a tool, the heart is where the life is, as well it pumps blood, which is where the life resides as well. You can damage evrything but the bodies ability to deal with blood correctly and still live.

    This is just another faith-head ignoramus, who spouts rubbish, and has no understanding of biology or anatomy.

    You mess with the blood or its main transporter, and you die. Life is in the blood. Our life force resides in our heart, not our head. Be wise my dear Rich, and you shall become wiser. Claim wisdom, or judge those with it, and you will lose even what you have!

    This is the preaching of whizzdumb with the posing pseudo-authority of “faith-knowledge”!

    Science is always proving God, in fact , the more scientist seek actual unbiased truth, the more it will do so, to the world of mens dismay.

    Faith-blinker ignorance 1.01 ! They will see what they want to see, and ignore or dispute the rest.

    Beast nature sucks, it is so carnal and stupid with arrogance that hides behind even false intellect. I was smarter meeting Jesus at age five than Einstein before he meet Him at 50.”

    Yeah! The self-proclaimed “smarter” brain of buffoonery!

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

    You can’t reason with people like this – They don’t have any reasoning skills. With an audience, ridicule is the best option.

    • Why do these people get so angry about being challenged? You’d have thought if they were confident they are right (and surely they believe they are) they would have just ignored anything that challenged their faith.

      I’ve had a bit of a wake up discussing one of my friends xtianity in the last few days. We’ve been talking by email and I mentioned to her I’d been reading the bible, and she was interested in what I thought. When I explained my objections to the ible, and explained some of the inconsistencies, she did something I would never have expected – she pleaded complete ignorance.

      She was quite happy to admit that she had not read a lot of the bible, and didn’t understand the bits she had read, the implication being that the interpretation she relied on for her faith was purely from her church. She said things like ‘I’m young in my faith so I can’t explain everything’.

      I was quite shocked, as it was not the response I expected. So I’ve told her to go away and read the bible, and then we can talk some more!

  4. Medication and a wide berth is the answer you’re looking for. And of course, you should always happily share your tales of men with heads in their hearts, remembering that some even keep them in their fridge -what can you do …what can you do?

  5. Again, here is the issue: there are real things and there is bullshit. When a person eats bullshit and becomes angry when you point at it and call it bullshit, they are not worth your time or energy. I always try to remember that I get one shot at this thing called life; one shot.

    No heaven (bullshit) no hell (bullshit) no reincarnation (bullshit) no previous lives (bullshit)….. One shot. It makes it easier to walk away from a fool because the only time being wasted is yours.

  6. I just read a bunch of her stuff. She is interested in studying “the Creation” and loving it while she does it. It is bullshit and she is a bullshit artist.

    read it here :
    http://www.yamanascience.org/Feminine%20Face%20of%20Science,%20narrative.pdf

    and make up your own mind.

    She clearly has an axe to grind and is very confused about “masculine and feminine thought”.

    Why can’t science be more touchy feely??? Why won;t they listen to me when I am passionate but WRONG???? HORSESHIT.

  7. In reply to #11 by Fdouli:

    Of course, even if only by restricting what it is you will think about.

    I don’t see a problem until you try to brush aside the scientific method so you can rely on feelings instead.

  8. First and foremost, I am not excited nor emotional. It is you who is mistaken. I have been on this site for 5 years and everyone who deals with me for the first time says exactly what you have said. This guy is mad, he is emotional…. Firstly, I am neither. Secondly, by the way, you argue FOR emotion in your silliness.

    This person wants science to bend to her and her “feminine thoughts” even when they are wrong because she loves what she studies.

    I am sorry, it is called the scientific method and I don’t give a damn how it makes her FEEL. Science is all about proof… not how you feel about said proof.

    As for your

    Heart is intuition or intuitive insights , heart in this sense at least has nothing to do with the biological heart or with emotions, feelings .

    And no one can deny the fact that thought is also shaped by emotions and feelings ….no matter how hard one tries to avoid such a thing .

    That conventional distinction between reason and emotions, feelings and that the first cannot explain the seconds is…history .

    It’s a whole package : emotions, feelings , inuition , reason…working together side by side and shaping each other …

    You are saying nothing but using lots of words to do it. You accuse me of being angry and emotional because I am direct and succinct. Well, this is drivel. Pure unadulterated drivel. New age double speak silliness.

    Here, I’ll do what you just did:

    “Feelings above all else delineate the parameters between what is shrouded and what is evident. The historical record distends with the avarice and cruelty of the well placed emoticon”…

    I could do it all day. And say more than you have.

    • In reply to #14 by crookedshoes:

      First and foremost, I am not excited nor emotional. It is you who is mistaken. I have been on this site for 5 years and everyone who deals with me for the first time says exactly what you have said. This guy is mad, he is emotional…. Firstly, I am neither. Secondly, by the way, you argue FOR em…

      Haha! That is some pretty twisted double-speak there. Orwell would would have a ball with that statement.

      I regret that I have to disagree with your statement that science is about proof, though. If that really is what it’s about, it’s a little misguided–and I know that isn’t so. Science is natural philosophy, a philosophy that assumes we can rely on sensory input (which I believe we can, for the most part). Now, I will not be like the fundy when I say interpretation of data is also important. Science has the advantage of peer review, among other things, that other philosophies do not. For the most part, scientists attempt to form conclusions that are as precise as possible.

      So I will insist that science is about evidence and rigorous, logical interpretation of that evidence, and not proof. It might just be me, but the word “proof” implies an absolute; I’ve always thought that science is more focused on probabilities than absolutes. It is the single most effective philosophy in our history, the one deserving my highest regard and respect over all others, but it is still a philosophy.

      EDIT: Hmm. Please allow me to apologize. I don’t mean to presume to tell you what science is. You know all of this. I just mean to clarify my position.

  9. In reply to #12 by Fdouli:

    In reply to #10 by crookedshoes:

    I just read a bunch of her stuff. She is interested in studying “the Creation” and loving it while she does it. It is bullshit and she is a bullshit artist.

    read it here :
    http://www.yamanascience.org/Feminine%20Face%20of%20Science,%20narrative.pdf

    and make up your own mind.

    She clearly has an axe to grind and is very confused about “masculine and feminine thought”.

    Why can’t science be more touchy feely??? Why won;t they listen to me when I am passionate but WRONG???? HORSESHIT.

    You don’t know what you are talking about , buddy .

    Read her book first and see my comment here right before this one .

    P.S.: Chill , why do you get excited ? why do you let your emotions get in the way by allowing them to cloud your judgement , ironically enough ?

    Project much?

    Heart is intuition or intuitive insights , heart in this sense at least has nothing to do with the biological heart or with emotions, feelings .

    “Heart” is the way people who have no understanding of the biology or psychology of emotional responses, talk about about a subject they are clueless about, pretending they have knowledge.

    And no one can deny the fact that thought is also shaped by emotions and feelings ….no matter how hard one tries to avoid such a thing .

    No one is trying to deny the hormonal and biochemical basis of emotions affecting thinking, but that does not convert emotional responses into rational thinking or into objective observations of reality.

    That conventional distinction between reason and emotions, feelings and that the first cannot explain the seconds is…history .

    This is just assertive nonsense based on ignorance. The medical and psychological researchers have long monitored and studied emotions and have written reasoned reports on the subject.

    It’s a whole package : emotions, feelings , inuition , reason…working together side by side and shaping each other …

    They certainly work together in forming some people’s thinking, but that in no way alters objective scientific observations of that thinking, or the recognition of the differences between emotional responses and evidenced reasoning.

    Logical reasoning is a process which is not subject to emotional biases. Once biased, it becomes illogical.

    Fdouli – 11

    Heart as the intuition or intuitive insights as the highest form of intelligence or as the highest form of intellect has nothing to do with the biological heart or with emotions, feelings , so .

    It also has nothing to do with intelligence or intellect. The claim is just puffed up semantic nonsense!

    Intuitive insight based on extensive knowledge of a subject, can certainly inspire scientists or mathematicians where to look, – as hunches about a topic, – but only after they have used scientific methodology to test their hunches, can they know if the hunches were flawed or correct.

  10. One more stab at it.

    This author has forwarded an idea. It is an idea based on a flawed premiss. Fdouli has accepted the premiss and subsequently the silliness that follows it. Here is the flaw:

    It is archaic and outmoded to attribute one style if thought or thought process to “masculine” and another style of thought or thought process to “feminine”. I dare say that we are way past this everywhere but in religious schools of thought.

    The author rests her thesis on the “fact” that males think one way and females think another. We all think in our own unique ways and those ways are a blend of the masculine and the feminine. It is a continuum and we all lie along it; not men on the left and women on the right…. but men and women interspersed all along the continuum… So, her conclusions are resting on a flawed thesis.

    It is kind of like this: (and this is NOT the way I think but rather an example of bullshit reasoning). Men typically do better in maths than women. Therefore, when a woman performs science, she should not have to uphold her findings with statistical evaluations because, well, they are math and after all, math is the domain of the “masculine” thinkers.

    the scientific method does not change for the individual. That is certainly not to say that the modes of thought mentioned are not important; they are. However, there is nothing inherently feminine about “love”.

    I smell a religious overtone, here and it stinks.

    • In reply to #18 by crookedshoes:

      It is archaic and outmoded to attribute one style if thought or thought process to “masculine” and another style of thought or thought process to “feminine”. I dare say that we are way past this everywhere but in religious schools of thought…. The author rests her thesis on the “fact” that males think one way and females think another…. So, her conclusions are resting on a flawed thesis.<

      One problem is the definition of “intuition.” It can mean an unconscious, yet still rational, process of deduction. Or it can mean ‘a voice in my head told me so.’ Per the latter, Son of Sam could be described as highly intuitive.

      A prime motivation behind the masculine/feminine nomenclature is to frame ‘feminine’ intuition (woo version) as on par with, and equally valid as, ‘masculine’ deductive reasoning, just like other masculine/feminine attributes.

      When working with horses, I can anticipate their moves and responses long before other people see them coming. Am I tapping into my feminine nature? Are the epona ancestor spirits talking to me? Or am I just a very observant guy with quick reflexes?

  11. A great thing about the internet is mentally-illness has free access, and we get exposed to it in its many forms. I don’t think there is anything to learn from the example other than how diverse and pathological the consciousness experience can be. I also find it an atavistic curiosity. It was once believed the mind resided in the heart because it is the most vital organ, which was reasonable. This is why we point to our heart when we say “I”, as opposed to other cultures like the Japanese who point to their face. When the Occident learned the mind resided in the anterior region the dichotomy of mind and emotion was created, making the heart the seat of emotion (hence those chalky little candies).

    I would like to see science cease to be a synonym for truth. The same goes for logic and reason. This misunderstanding is what tempts people into wrapping themselves in the banner. There is a lot of great wisdom that is non-scientific, and there is no need to scientize it. If someone wants to believe in Wicca (which is often mislabeled by enthusiasts as scientific) fine. They might have reasons to believe it, but if there is no hypothesis, experimentation, repeatable results, peer review, or any adherence to protocols of the methodology, it’s not science.

  12. In reply to #19 by Fdouli:

    In reply to #17 by Alan4discussion:

    .

    Intuitive insight based on extensive knowledge of a subject, can certainly inspire scientists or mathematicians where to look, – as hunches about a topic, – but only after they have used scientific methodology to test their hunches, can they know if the hunches were flawed or correct.

    Ok, no time now , i will give you a reply after tomorrow, because i am very busy .

    Just know first that objectivity does not exist , not even at the level of exact sciences , let alone elsewhere .

    Objectivity is a myth .

    Err no!

    Individuals may fail to be objective, but the scientific method of publishing peer-reviewed results and independent repeat testing is as near as we can get to “objectivity”. It is what works in the real world, and what makes it possible to land rovers on Mars, and run technical transport, production, and communication systems. The laws of science are accurate to very high probabilities.

    Concerning logics , just know that even highly qualified mathematicians, mathematics as the queen of all sciences, as the queen of logic and reason, even those mathematicians thus admit that most of their work was a result of a feeling,or was a result of intuition or intuitive insights ,

    Unless this “intuition” is used as I outline it in the quote above, this is just an appeal to the fallacy of the Argument from authority with a few anecdotes thrown in.

    In other words, “intuition” (from a knowledge base of the subject) can provide speculative insights, but these then need to be objectively scientifically tested before they can be confirmed.

    intuitive insights or intuition = heart .

    = unevidenced pseudo-science. Why not use the correct term (intuition) and be clear, if that’s what you mean. “Heart”, has far too many antiquated ambiguous pseudo-scientific meanings.

    Heart in this sense at least has nothing to do with the biological heart or with emotions, feelings….once again : and that’s no semantic : See Linda Jean’s book i mentioned here below in that regard and you would know what i was talking about .

    It really does not matter if she said it too. Negative definitions are worthless. Unless semantic obfuscation is an objective, there is no reason to substitute “heart”, (defined as what it is not) for normal scientifically defined terminology.

    Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference and/or the use of reason.[1] “The word ‘intuition’ comes from the Latin word ‘intueri’ which is usually translated as ‘to look inside’ or ‘to contemplate’.”[2]

    Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot justify in every case. For this reason, it has been the subject of study in psychology, as well as a topic of interest in the supernatural. The “right brain” is popularly associated with intuitive processes such as aesthetic abilities.[3][4][5]

    Some scientists have contended that intuition is associated with innovation in scientific discovery.[6]

    Intuition is also a common subject of New Age writings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition-%28psychology%29

    I am , myself, struggling with these matters and i do not pretend to have the final say on them, so, that’s why this discussion , so See ya later then .

    Thanks, appreciate indeed .

    Perhaps the use of regular definitions would make things clearer.

    • @crookedshoes

      I have been on this site for 5 years and everyone who deals with me for the first time says exactly what you have said. This guy is mad, he is emotional….

      That’s always been fascinating to watch. Religion and pseudoscience pack into their sermons this idea that people who disagree with them are doing it for emotional reasons. So as you have an honest inclination to say WTF in polite but clear terms, you unintentionally trigger these immune systems.

      Funny, I’ve never found you “emotional”. :-) I haven’t found you robotic or anything, but your responses aren’t motivated by emotion. Alan got it with his “projection” link.

      It’s not just religion and pseudoscience that provoke this idea. Many times when I’ve as politely and diplomatically as I possibly could disagreed with an assertion or just questioned it, I’ve been met with the “Who peed in your cornflakes?” response. Or, and this happens a lot if you’re a woman, “OK.. You don’t have to be such a bitch about it.” I sincerely mean when I’ve been as polite and diplomatic as any human could be asked to be.

      It’s an old trick. “If you don’t accept my assertion on face value, it’s because you’re irrational. They warned me about people like you.”

      We’re funny little critters.

  13. Pseudoscience is essentially backward science. You start with your conclusion and work backward from there. Of course, you may need to throw out a lot of evidence along the way if it doesn’t work with your original conclusion. I think that the use of pseudoscience to “prove The Bible” is common for those who believe that god is a God of the Gaps. The Bible doesn’t provide a lot of explanation for the exact mechanism used to create all things and is filled with analogy and allegory. If we assume that it can only be correct as long as it contains every “true” scientific discovery, we will need to throw out a lot of well supported “untrue” discoveries.
    You need to understand that your friend’s belief in god is likely very heartfelt and important to him. You don’t need to take that away to promote genuine scientific understanding in him. Maybe just help him see that the dichotomy that many profess between acceptance of science and belief in god is artificial. Religion speaks of the meaning of life. Science explains the mechanism behind all we can observe to the best of our ability. There is no real overlap.

    • In reply to #24 by Chipmunk:

      You need to understand that your friend’s belief in god is likely very heartfelt and important to him. You don’t need to take that away to promote genuine scientific understanding in him. Maybe just help him see that the dichotomy that many profess between acceptance of science and belief in god is artificial. Religion speaks of the meaning of life. Science explains the mechanism behind all we can observe to the best of our ability. There is no real overlap.

      wow. you’ve trotted out the NOMA argument without a hint of irony

  14. Maybe just help him see that the dichotomy that many profess between acceptance of science and belief in god is artificial.

    But it isn’t. What are you squaring here? In what way does talk of gods and science fit? In claims? In evidence? In methodology? One of them just makes things up, you know.

    Religion speaks of the meaning of life.

    What is the meaning of life? In what way does religion speak of it?

    Science explains the mechanism behind all we can observe to the best of our ability.

    Yes. It does.

  15. I am sorry but isn’t this way to easy?

    We open your chest, cut out your heart and put you on an artificial heart. Where is your soul, in the medical waste bucket? Make your choice of where you want to be and act on your belief.

    I think they’ve been cut off at the knees and you can wait until they grow another set of legs.

  16. In reply to #9 by Fdouli:

    I think everyone should read this following unique book on the matter written by the American scientist Linda Jean Shepherd, i guess : “Lifting the veil : the feminine face of science ” : very enlightening indeed .

    She left science as a result .

    Left or got kicked out?

  17. In reply to #30 by Fdouli:

    In reply to #27 by papa lazaru:

    In reply to #9 by Fdouli:

    I think everyone should read this following unique book on the matter written by the American scientist Linda Jean Shepherd, i guess : “Lifting the veil : the feminine face of science ” : very enlightening indeed .

    She left science as a result .

    Left or got kicked out?

    Now , i have some time , so :

    No, she did leave voluntarily .

    If you read her book , you would understand why .

    Who can blame her ?

    Well, only people who would disagree with her , i guess

    I Can see people using intuition to form a hypothesis, but when it comes to the scientific method.. its blind. I can only see that book being a giant waste of my time; but that’s my opinion.

  18. In reply to #31 by Fdouli:

    No answers to any of the points???

    It tackles many issues like the myth of “objectivity” in science , intuition, epistemology ,ethics in science ……..and a lots of other materialistic orthodox dogmas in modern science: very enlightening indeed.

    “Mythology” about “objectivity”? Sorry no sale! I have better things to read and do!

  19. I love when people decide something is a “myth”. Cracks me right up. Especially when the reason for the “myth classification” is “because I say so”. I also love when posters “hit and run”. Very effective. Assert something and then disappear so that you do not have to come to terms with how wrong you are.

    On another thread I made a sloppy calculation and was off by a couple orders of magnitude. i was embarrassed to be wrong, but when called out on the point, I realized my error and corrected it. I then thanked the person who called me out; you see I do not want to be wrong. I’d rather be corrected and adjust my mindset than to be wrong and not know it.

    Many of the folks here are scientists or science enthusiasts. When you assert something that is wrong about science, they are obligated to tell you. It’s a damn shame you aren’t obligated to LEARN from them.

    Science IS objective. I do not care if you don’t want it to be. i also do not care that this author doesn’t want it to be. Go do something else…

    I understand that many women face roadblocks to success in whatever field they choose to pursue and I am sympathetic and accommodating. I’d welcome contributions from any person, black, white, green, plaid, gay, straight, female, male….

    However, the idea that science should change because you don’t like objectivity and logic and reason is ludicrous at best and inflammatory at worst.

    I have read enough of this woman’s stuff (because you suggested it) to know that she had some type of religious conversion and is mad at science for not allowing bullshit to pass as truth.

  20. life in the heart? you mean that thing that can be replaced?, and the blood that can be replaced? Now a brain transplant would be something to behold. I was fortunate in my youth to also know more than Einstein. I knew the origins of the universe, was a moral authority, knew what I shouldn’t eat or drink. Thank FSM I began to realize my particular brand of religion was crazy. Now I just try to make up for lost time realizing all the things I didn’t know. :) So much better not having all the answers.I still have family that are religious and it is difficult. In the end we can only guide or be guided but ultimately have to be willing to face reality. The guy in your example is not ready :(

  21. Angry about being challenged is part of it, as they hopefully have a disconnect like I did, but part is a “knowledge” that they know better than you do, because god. I still have a bit of pain looking back on how brainwashed I was, and the conditioning was even harder to break. It was cool knowing more than the top scientists about the creation of the universe and how life started though :P

  22. Did he really say “Be wise, blah blah blah…. I was smarter….”? There is a presumptuous tone to his words. This usually clues me into avoiding any further conversation with anyone. Comments like being on a higher plane or more spiritually advanced, etc. let’s me know that they have issues. Most people think this, but to outright say it, is socially inappropriate.

    I agree that other people are watching. I was once a watcher also. Yet, I disagree with the ridicule. To step away from the computer or to wait before hitting enter/submit is a good sign of someone able to sort through their thoughts and give their best response. The internet/certain boards allow you time to backspace, collect your thoughts, get a drink, use the bathroom, come back and reread the comment. Face-to-face comments do not allow such a luxury.

Leave a Reply