And as we established pages ago, there's only one person in the world in a position to know the factual accuracy of this statement, and it isn't you.

And as I established pages ago, if he does indeed know that about his patients, then he has been unethical.

---

I guess everyone else on this thread thinks it's plausible that there could be a psychologist who recruits patients from the general population, who never brings up politics, who lets his patients bring up politics if they want, and more than nine out of 10 of his patients have brought up politics, and of those, almost all of them reported liberal politics.
That's not plausible, to me.

You saying something doesn't establish it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Liberals go to therapy to seek help with their mental health. Conservatives go to church to seek salvation for their damned souls.
None of this [BLEEP] seems to be working, tithe and vote harder.

---

And as I established pages ago, if he does indeed know that about his patients, then he has been unethical.

---

I guess everyone else on this thread thinks it's plausible that there could be a psychologist who recruits patients from the general population, who never brings up politics, who lets his patients bring up politics if they want, and more than nine out of 10 of his patients have brought up politics, and of those, almost all of them reported liberal politics.
That's not plausible, to me.

Now it’s more than 90%.  When the lying stop?

You guys really struggle with logic.
Before he can know that 90% of his patients have liberal politics, he has to discuss politics with more than 90% of them, right? Unless somehow he discussed with exactly 9 out of 10 and all of the ones he discussed it with were liberal.  Your scenarios get less and less plausible.

---

And as I established pages ago, if he does indeed know that about his patients, then he has been unethical.

---

I guess everyone else on this thread thinks it's plausible that there could be a psychologist who recruits patients from the general population, who never brings up politics, who lets his patients bring up politics if they want, and more than nine out of 10 of his patients have brought up politics, and of those, almost all of them reported liberal politics.
That's not plausible, to me.

You saying something doesn't establish it.

Sure, Pythagoras had his detractors also.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

---

Now it’s more than 90%.  When the lying stop?

You guys really struggle with logic.
Before he can know that 90% of his patients have liberal politics, he has to discuss politics with more than 90% of them, right? Unless somehow he discussed with exactly 9 out of 10 and all of the ones he discussed it with were liberal.  Your scenarios get less and less plausible.

---

You saying something doesn't establish it.

Sure, Pythagoras had his detractors also.

You want to discuss logic with this word salad?  Admit it, you lied!  Not once but twice now.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

---

You guys really struggle with logic.
Before he can know that 90% of his patients have liberal politics, he has to discuss politics with more than 90% of them, right? Unless somehow he discussed with exactly 9 out of 10 and all of the ones he discussed it with were liberal.  Your scenarios get less and less plausible.

---

Sure, Pythagoras had his detractors also.

You want to discuss logic with this word salad?  Admit it, you lied!  Not once but twice now.

Do you think the guy had a single conservative patient?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You want to discuss logic with this word salad?  Admit it, you lied!  Not once but twice now.

Do you think the guy had a single conservative patient?

Well, 10% of mental health patients are conservative, so he probably had a few.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Do you think the guy had a single conservative patient?

Well, 10% of mental health patients are conservative, so he probably had a few.

Do you think he was always ethical, and never brought up politics unless his patient brought it up first?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Well, 10% of mental health patients are conservative, so he probably had a few.

Do you think he was always ethical, and never brought up politics unless his patient brought it up first?

Like you, I have absolutely no way of knowing.

It's quite plausible that he offered his patients some type of voluntary questionnaire/survey, which is not an ethical violation.  The accuracy of such information gathering can certainly be debated, but if said data was presented as collected, he wasn't lying either.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Lol.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well, 10% of mental health patients are conservative, so he probably had a few.

Do you think he was always ethical, and never brought up politics unless his patient brought it up first?

What I do know is from one random post and no other knowledge of the guy, you have labeled him a liar and or unethical.  Quite the feat seeing as his practice for all you know could be in Beijing and the liberals he is discussing believe in democracy. 

Then to make your position a bit more less valuable you said "Sure, Pythagoras had his detractors also.". Comparing oneself to famous people, often  can manifest as an obsessive fascination and can lead to feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, and even mental health issues  You have the right to your opinion and welcome to it. Be happy dude. Just do not claim it is absolutely true or anyone else has to believe it.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Do you think he was always ethical, and never brought up politics unless his patient brought it up first?

Like you, I have absolutely no way of knowing.

It's quite plausible that he offered his patients some type of voluntary questionnaire/survey, which is not an ethical violation.  The accuracy of such information gathering can certainly be debated, but if said data was presented as collected, he wasn't lying either.

Sure.  
I was asking copycat but you can join in.
Suppose he has 100 patients.  How many of them would have to voluntary offer their political opinion before he would be able to say that his patients are 90% liberal.

---

Do you think he was always ethical, and never brought up politics unless his patient brought it up first?

What I do know is from one random post and no other knowledge of the guy, you have labeled him a liar and or unethical.  Quite the feat seeing as his practice for all you know could be in Beijing and the liberals he is discussing believe in democracy. 

Then to make your position a bit more less valuable you said "Sure, Pythagoras had his detractors also.". Comparing oneself to famous people, often  can manifest as an obsessive fascination and can lead to feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, and even mental health issues  You have the right to your opinion and welcome to it. Be happy dude. Just do not claim it is absolutely true or anyone else has to believe it.

You're right that there isn't a lot to go on.  We have to fill in some blanks. We can fill them in one way, see what that conclusion would be, then fill them in the other way, and see what that conclusion would be. We don't have to know the guy. We just have to be able to use logic.
And when we do that, every plausible scenario ends with either "he lied" or "he was unethical."
Don't believe me? Explain a scenario that isn't.  Prove me wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

74% percent of leftists talk about it within the first five minutes of introduction. The other 26% don't wait to be introduced.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

74% percent of leftists talk about it within the first five minutes of introduction. The other 26% don't wait to be introduced.

Fact Check:

True

---

Like you, I have absolutely no way of knowing.

It's quite plausible that he offered his patients some type of voluntary questionnaire/survey, which is not an ethical violation.  The accuracy of such information gathering can certainly be debated, but if said data was presented as collected, he wasn't lying either.

Sure.  
I was asking copycat but you can join in.
Suppose he has 100 patients.  How many of them would have to voluntary offer their political opinion before he would be able to say that his patients are 90% liberal.

---

What I do know is from one random post and no other knowledge of the guy, you have labeled him a liar and or unethical.  Quite the feat seeing as his practice for all you know could be in Beijing and the liberals he is discussing believe in democracy. 

Then to make your position a bit more less valuable you said "Sure, Pythagoras had his detractors also.". Comparing oneself to famous people, often  can manifest as an obsessive fascination and can lead to feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, and even mental health issues  You have the right to your opinion and welcome to it. Be happy dude. Just do not claim it is absolutely true or anyone else has to believe it.

You're right that there isn't a lot to go on.  We have to fill in some blanks. We can fill them in one way, see what that conclusion would be, then fill them in the other way, and see what that conclusion would be.  We don't have to know the guy.  We just have to be able to use logic.
And when we do that, every plausible scenario ends with either "he lied" or "he was unethical."
Don't believe me? Explain a scenario that isn't.  Prove me wrong.

That has been done by countless posters in this string many times. Your making a judgement based on one text without any supporting evidence other than "I know better than everyone" which is not a valid assumption. Bottom line without any other information than a post on X the best that can be said is that is his experience in his practice. Anything more either way is indefensible.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Inflation coming back down.. I voted for this!!

https://x.com/IanJaeger29/status/1908913...7txew&s=19

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/19089089...NS01Q&s=19

---

74% percent of leftists talk about it within the first five minutes of introduction. The other 26% don't wait to be introduced.

This country has a lot of liberals and very few leftists.
You are making stuff up, for humor.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sure.  
I was asking copycat but you can join in.
Suppose he has 100 patients.  How many of them would have to voluntary offer their political opinion before he would be able to say that his patients are 90% liberal.

---

You're right that there isn't a lot to go on.  We have to fill in some blanks. We can fill them in one way, see what that conclusion would be, then fill them in the other way, and see what that conclusion would be.  We don't have to know the guy.  We just have to be able to use logic.
And when we do that, every plausible scenario ends with either "he lied" or "he was unethical."
Don't believe me? Explain a scenario that isn't.  Prove me wrong.

That has been done by countless posters in this string many times. Your making a judgement based on one text without any supporting evidence other than "I know better than everyone" which is not a valid assumption. Bottom line without any other information than a post on X the best that can be said is that is his experience in his practice. Anything more either way is indefensible.

I don't know better than everyone.
I'm just using logic more rigorously than anyone else in this thread at this time. 
I invite you to join me.  
Copycat called me a liar because in one place I said 90% and in another place I said "more than 90%"
I'm trying to explain to copycat, I'm not lying.  But like most things with rigorous logic, there are steps. 
Start at the beginning, and this is just one possible scenario: 

Suppose he has 100 patients.  How many of them would have to voluntarily offer their political opinion before he would be able to say that his patients are 90% liberal?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.