[explaininjs]

Your point has been telling me my experiment isn't valid because it doesn't align with your preconceived notions, telling me I'm "seeing things that aren't there" and that you know better than me about what I went through, then coming up with bogus claim after bogus claim to try to justify that position, then back in reality after a half dozen messages you finally self-admit to having a mental condition that makes you reluctant to see patterns clear as day.

That's rude.

[LegibleCrimson]

Seeing patterns clear as day is, in fact, bias. My condition heightens my biases and makes me confront how flawed reasoning about the "obvious" is. I wouldn't have brought it up if I thought you might try some weird ad hominem about how anxiety makes me immune to "real science". I haven't been attacking you. I just don't think your methods are sound. I don't know what your quote is coming from either, because I didn't say "seeing things that aren't there" either. I said reading more into things than are there and seeing patterns where they don't exist. This is the basis of things like numerology, homeopathy, racism, and many other human failings. The obvious, "clear as day" things can be actively dangerous.

How about your data? Like I said before, I'd be happy to see the data. You've thrown some numbers off the top of your head, but I'd rather see the raw gathered data.

[explaininjs]

Collect it yourself. I don't have a detailed log because the results were immediately obvious. You pretend to claim nothing can be obvious. I'm sure if you saw 12 people in a row guess your sign you'd think the correlation was obvious. My experience was similar.

> I didn't say "seeing things that aren't there" either. I said reading more into things than are there and seeing patterns where they don't exist.

Ha.

And it's not an ad hominum when the trait is something directly related to the topic at hand.