Curiosity killed the lodge

This guy is obviously “right” in his mind, however..

His model looks definite, and logical, and must thus be flawed on every level, while the problem is the presupposition of the frame. Sceptical thought might seem too negative, and it takes a lot of work to get “nowhere” (or “nanywhere” ’t all). But it is a really good (i.e. effective) example of wrong-headed thinking:

Now, over to the attempt to redecorate:

First of all, exactly because he has such a definite understanding of it I wonder ‘bout his idea of friendship. The graph in question looks perfectly sound, just because it is soundly logical. It cannot be false (untrue/evil), because it suggests completeness, and clarity. Which is exactly why it must be superficial, simplistic, perfect, and lifeless.

Source: Tim Urban – http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/10-types-odd-friendships-youre-probably-part.html december 14

Obviously, this guy is for real, and he’s surely one of the good guys. But the suggestions are still there: if we pull two dimensions – intuitively defined by extreme values – we’ll have 4 corners that will be defined not by nuance and subtlety (if that’s what this is all about), but by these extremes.

And it will always be the case U will be able to say something interesting about anything, because U pick the dimensions yourself.