>>1671585>Again, I took no position personallyThere are these things called implied and expressed arguments. The post I am responding to is filled with both. The express argument being the two kinds of personalities, as the science suggests. The implied being if you fall into the more fearful category you're more than likely a science rejecting nitwit because you are on a higher level and understand statistics. This is why I stated you come off as a smug, dogmatic, asshole. Like you are now. You can say you took no position personally but when read in the context of self preservation and tone of that post and others in this thread there is a hinting that you are taking a position personally. That's how written discourse works. Language is a fickle thing that scientists often butcher because they are stuck in their mindsets. This is not to say all scientists do.
>so I don't know what you think you're arguing against.This is because you don't know how to read and comprehend things, apparently.
>you're so retarded you automatically think all scientists disagree with youThe point of this comment was what? An implication that because I think you're a pseudo-intellectual dick that I belive all scientists disagree with me. How "scientific" of you. Do you think before you post or do you just slap your keyboard hoping something coherent comes out? As I've grown older with more experience I've realized that I'd rather be prepared for the unknown than unprepared while telling myself the unknown is statistically unlikely to happen. I do this because I'm not an idiot, and would rather have something and not need it than need it and not have it.
