Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
Since you feel the need to drag up previous posts, for no reason (I know you originally had a reason, but not twice, I'm not fucking blind.)
Posted by jessthehuman: Generally speaking - I've been really good in regards to avoiding playing mid-high stakes ring games, but s**t happens and I'm glad I don't keep thousands in my account any more - because last night, after eating about 4mg of xanax and nearly a whole bottle of scotch, I have no doubt I would have easily burn't through quite a few thousand if it was sitting there.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
After reading your last couple posts I've realised you're not very bright.I won't reply to any more of them. Make of it what you will. Personally - I believe in evidence, science and things that are measurable. If you wanna believe in magic, go right ahead - but it makes you an idiot.
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
OMG, It just came to me, I finally understand what you are saying, to be a good poker player you need to have superstitious instincts/gut instinct..yer the sane society claim that to be retarded.
I have read a few books, watched Hrs of vids, had coaching, and never once did anyone even suggest gut instinct, never think reading someone is a gut instinct.
Have you ever seen poker players making crazy play and go bust or lose big, bet that happens more.
No one is doubting that superstition exists, its just that those who are superstitious tend not to be able to rationalise, actually that's a bit off, lots of superstitious people know what they are doing makes no difference, they are just overwhelmingly compelled to do so, OCD.
Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
Yep carry on misdirecting. It's not magic. It's gut instinct.
In psychology The term "instinct" in psychology was first used in 1870s by Wilhelm Wundt. By the close of the 19th century, most repeated behavior was considered instinctual. In a survey of the literature at that time, one researcher chronicled 4,000 human "instincts," having applied this label to any behavior that was repetitive.[citation needed] As research became more rigorous and terms better defined, instinct as an explanation for human behavior became less common. In a conference in 1960, chaired by Frank Beach, a pioneer in comparative psychology, and attended by luminaries in the field, the term was restricted in its application.[citation needed] During the 60's and 70's, textbooks still contained some discussion of instincts in reference to human behavior. By the year 2000, a survey of the 12 best selling textbooks in Introductory Psychology revealed only one reference to instincts, and that was in regard to Sigmund Freud's referral to the "id" instincts.[citation needed]. In this sense, instincts appeared to have become regarded as increasingly superfluous in trying to understand human psychological behavior. Some Freudian Psychoanalysts have retained the term instinct to refer to human motivational forces (such as sex and aggression), sometimes represented as Eros - life instinct and Thanatos - death instinct. This use of the term motivational forces has been replaced by the term drives to correct the original error in the translation of |Freud's work.[citation needed] Psychologist Abraham Maslow argued that humans no longer have instincts because we have the ability to override them in certain situations. He felt that what is called instinct is often imprecisely defined, and really amounts to strong drives. For Maslow, an instinct is something which cannot be overridden, and therefore while the term may applied to humans in the past, it no longer does.[6] The book Instinct (1961) established a number of criteria which distinguish instinctual from other kinds of behavior. To be considered instinctual, a behavior must: a) be automatic, b) be irresistible, c) occur at some point in development, d) be triggered by some event in the environment, e) occur in every member of the species, f) be unmodifiable, and g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training (although the organism may profit from experience and to that degree the behavior is modifiable). [7] In a classic paper published in 1972[8], the psychologist Richard Herrnstein decries Fabre's opinions on instinct (see: In biology section).
Instinct has not yet been fully explained by science.
But just for you here the closest scientific explanation you'll get.....
Id
The id is the unorganized part of the personality structure which contains the basic drives. The id contains the libido, which is the primary source of instinctual force that is unresponsive to the demands of reality.[2] The id acts according to the "pleasure principle", seeking to avoid pain or displeasure aroused by increases in instinctual tension.[3] The id is unconscious by definition: "It is the dark, inaccessible part of our personality, what little we know of it we have learned from our study of the Dreamwork and of the construction of neurotic symptoms, and most of that is of a negative character and can be described only as a contrast to the ego. We approach the id with analogies: we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations.... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle."[4] In the id, "contrary impulses exist side by side, without cancelling each other out.... There is nothing in the id that could be compared with negation ... nothing in the id which corresponds to the idea of time."[5] Developmentally, the id precedes the ego; i.e. the psychic apparatus begins, at birth, as an undifferentiated id, part of which then develops into a structured ego. Thus, the id: "... contains everything that is inherited, that is present at birth, is laid down in the constitution — above all, therefore, the instincts, which originate from the somatic organization, and which find a first psychical expression here (in the id) in forms unknown to us." [6] The mind of a newborn child is regarded as completely "id-ridden", in the sense that it is a mass of instinctive drives and impulses, and needs immediate satisfaction, a view which equates a newborn child with an id-ridden individual—often humorously—with this analogy: an alimentary tract with no sense of responsibility at either end, paraphrasing a quip made by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan during his 1965 campaign for Governor of California in which he compared government to a baby [7]. The id is responsible for our basic drives, "knows no judgements of value: no good and evil, no morality.... Instinctual cathexes seeking discharge — that, in our view, is all there is in the id."[8] It is regarded as "the great reservoir of libido",[9] the instinctive drive to create — the life instincts that are crucial to pleasurable survival. Alongside the life instincts came the death instincts — the death drive which Freud articulated relatively late in his career in "the hypothesis of a death instinct, the task of which is to lead organic life back into the inanimate state."[10] For Freud, "the death instinct would thus seem to express itself — though probably only in part — as an instinct of destruction directed against the external world and other organisms."[11]: through aggression. Freud considered that "the id, the whole person ... originally includes all the instinctual impulses ... the destructive instinct as well."[12] as Eros or the life instincts.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by sadamman: Insanity can only be determined by the society that judges it. Think about that one. True dat! Braaap!
That's not even high school philosophy, psychology or sociology, it just sounds like you've smoked some pot or dropped some acid and think you're profound.
------------ I have never used LSD. Wouldn't, and do not condone it in anyway. But since this is now devolving into an 'irrational' argument. Ironically being provoked by gut instinct. In for a penny in for a pound.
Joined: Feb '12
Location: New Zealand
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 145
Posted by jessthehuman: Personally - I believe in evidence, science and things that are measurable. If you wanna believe in magic, go right ahead - but it makes you an idiot.
So are u saying millions people that believe God (churches) etc are superstitious Idiot's, because it hasn't been proven, (yet god particle closest so far, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/330039 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson ) "God save the Queen", the worlds, based on lie in your opinion( IM NOT SAYING YOUR RIGHT OR WRONG), "Science save the queen" LOL In old day's (Dark Age's), some Churches/Scientists (mostly Roman linked) of the day, said the world is/was flat (and the earth was center of universe), but isn't that superstition (& they where proven wrong) as we all know the world is round, and if u said other wise u be burnt on stake for being a witch,wizard etc (even though other culture's knew it was, thousands years before, like Druids, Egyptians, Chinese etc)
Just because u/I can't see something with your sense's, eye's,touch, hearing, etc doesn't mean that it doesn't exist/or dose exist, take Oxygen for example we can't see it, touch it, hear it, but its there other wise we be not here, In till it was proven it was there, some people would of called the Scientists, that said there was Oxygen, that we breath, superstitious Idiot's! All thee Best
Edited by 0HighTimes0 (05 August 2012 @ 23:55 GMT)
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by 0HighTimes0:
Posted by jessthehuman: Personally - I believe in evidence, science and things that are measurable. If you wanna believe in magic, go right ahead - but it makes you an idiot.
So are u saying millions people that believe God (churches) etc are superstitious Idiot's, because it hasn't been proven
in a word; yes
also RE: Higgs_boson - scientists don't call it "The god particle" nor do they like it being called that. It's a media thing.
------------ note my avatar, just in case my position wasn't more obvious.
------------ FWIW - I know very few intelligent people who believe in god/magic/spirituality/etc.
Those that are intelligent and have some beliefs like that are generally agnostic at most - and certainly aren't fanatically or obsessed with the idea of "faith".
I'm not kidding either - most intelligent people I've come across certainly don't believe in the invisible sky people.
------------
Posted by 0HighTimes0:
Just because u/I can't see something with your sense's, eye's,touch, hearing, etc doesn't mean that it doesn't exist/or dose exist, take Oxygen for example we can't see it, touch it, hear it, but its there other wise we be not here, In till it was proven it was there, some people would of called the Scientists, that said there was Oxygen, that we breath, superstitious Idiot's! All thee Best
This is a ridiculous argument and best illustrated by the teapot orbitting the sun analogy or The Church of the Flying Spagetti monster.
Scientists aren't idiots, we accept we don't know everything - we're just not willing to fill in the gaps with made up b******t (god of the gaps).
All we ask for is some evidence and we refuse to believe something based on 'faith' and made-up fairy tales.
Your argument is totally flawed. And FYI - oxygen is pale blue in liquid/solid form. However it loses it's colour when it becomes a gas (as do a lot of things).
Edited by jessthehuman (06 August 2012 @ 00:35 GMT)
Joined: Jan '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 1204
Byngo you are a giant oaf. Jess I think you mean his mother must have been proud of him. He's 61 shes probably dead.
High times....ugh.....everytime you start posting links I get embarrassed for you. The big man with a grey beard, floating in the sky who controls your day to day life doesn't exist. However that doesn't mean I don't not believe in a god of some form. All I know is, I exist, I have a consciousness. I think therefore I am. Does that make me an idiot jess?
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by sadamman: He's 61 shes probably dead.
Yeah, I considered that possibility and decided to roll with it anyway.
------------
Posted by sadamman: However that doesn't mean I don't not believe in a god of some form.All I know is, I exist, I have a consciousness. I think therefore I am. Does that make me an idiot jess?
No, it makes you agnostic and I *do* get that.. It's when people start putting faith in something with a total lack of evidence that I call them an idiot. I don't pretend to have all the answers to life - I just don't like it when people make them up, or otherwise make unsupported claims.
Edited by jessthehuman (06 August 2012 @ 22:12 GMT)
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by 0HighTimes0:
claiming NZ medals for them (aus' )
lol - Aus claims ALL of NZ's worldly achievements.. Pretty much all Australian movie stars, etc - are from NZ, plus a bunch of other culture-related stuff.. pretty much anything good/famous NZ do Aus steal it and pretend it was ours.
Joined: Aug '08
Location: Canada
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 658
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by kingfisha: Just read the title and i still cant see the link between prostitution and poker !!!!!
I do not play the lucky numbers on the back of fortunes or even the lotto ever. I understand everyone's concerns and share them. Jess and B1g laid it out perfectly in relation to poker. I just noticed a correlation and i also read about butterflies and bettnig in general above but the amount im betting is negligable and i only ever trust my gut when im in a position where i can afford to make a misplay. Like 10k in chips holding 55, get the feeling and then a guy moves in for 1250 or something. It enver escaped my reasoning what i proclaimed is actually impossible considering sites may not even have access to the next card before it comes or other such things i know nothing about.
Still i thought it was worth mentioning. shits and giggles type o stuff .
LOL at prostitution and poker. That is a pair of things i can easily link up.
Joined: Jan '11
Location: United States
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 3361
I seem to get these crazy intuitions when I have some poop hand like a 10, 4 or 9,6 and would basically ignore it. Well, you know what would happen? The flop would come and boom, I wish I would of went with that gut feeling. So, every once in awhile I've been doing it, going with the gut feel and it actually has some justification. I know there donk calls, but it's not like it's three or four times in agame. Maybe once, sometimes twice and I usually have to deal with the insults, but all I can reply is, I had a gut feeling I was going to hit. I never play those hands 96% of the time.
