Hi Veeky Forums, /x/ here.
I just realized that we have a lot in common. We talk about matrices and quantum physics and the exploration of the natural world all the time, and we both have a tacit need for logic and reasoning. If I didn't know any better I'd say we were literally the same board. Which is perplexing, because it seems like nobody thinks of it that way.
Why are we different Veeky Forums? What sets us apart? Why aren't we better friends with each other?
...
/qa/ is not a representative sample of any board. Also this isn't a meta thread. A meta thread is a thread about the board it's posted on. This is a legitimate question towards the Veeky Forums userbase.
you'll need to post this thread everyday for a year in order to establish a baseline taking into account the full userbase
>what sets us apart
spirituality
>We talk about matrices and quantum physics
Tell me what you think a matrix is?
I visit /x/ and Veeky Forums, and they are nothing similar, fortunately.
Fuck off OP, you are a faggot.
Noted.
It's just science, technology, and psychology rolled into a cohesive holistic mass. How has the holistic approach ever hurt anyone?
A network (you might use the proper term 'graph') of variables used to analyze a phenomenon, possibly for the sake of calculating better avenues for interaction with said modeled phenomenon.
In any overlap betwwen the two boards, /x/ is redundant. Anything quantifiable need only be talked about in quantitative terms
Again, I don't see the harm in a holistic/qualitative discussion. Provided we share the same basic beliefs, how can it hurt to explore that tangent of the conversation in addition to the usual ones?
If we know something quantitatively, there's no need to muddy the water with anything else, we understand it exactly and to add anything additional will always introduce an imperfection. Qualitative discussion is only useful when we don't yet understand something fully, like emotions or beauty
>What sets us apart?
Confirmation bias.
I think there's enough cognitive neuroscience out there to justify the claim that not everyone handles information best when it's in its quantitative format. Having a community that can break down the artificial barriers to understanding and communicate that precision knowledge back down to intuitive space wouldn't be a bad thing.
HMM. Let me think on that one for a bit.
But /x/ is evidence of exactly the problem that occurs when "breaking down the information", the meaning is lost and new wild predictions are made. In the nicest way possible, we don't need people giving there own ideas of how complicated science works over imageboards. Better that we encourage people to learn maths or that we fund good science communicators.
*their own ideas, sorry
You don't know what a matrix is dude.
This is why the boards are separate.
\thread
A matrix is a representation of a linear map in a particular basis.
On behalf of /x/ I apologize for our lost brother and ask that you ignore and no longer reply to his ramblings.
I agree, but not everyone is a quantum spirituality true buhleaver. I actually lurk /x/ because there are anons lurking who can make a profound and detailed argument, we just don't always have that many opportunities to make such posts there.
I'm all for encouraging learning, including of math, but I think it'd be more realistic to address the immediate issue of is not being better friends.
Maybe I should have said "system of variables." You restrict the phenomena modeled to "linear maps," but why should we not model abstract phenomena using linear maps if we feel we can do so consistently? It's a high level representation of course, I think we both agree on that.
Also from /x/, fuck this guy
>What is the difference between someone pretending to know what they're talking about and someone who actually does?
>What is the difference between gibberish and coherence?
>What is the difference between mental illness and sanity?
>We talk about matrices and quantum physics
You use those words, sure
I mean I hope you're not offended by my willingness to actually respond. I take this seriously, because I really truly don't think there should be such a divide. We shouldn't need to be afraid of each other.
>What is the difference between someone pretending to know what they're talking about and someone who actually does?
Someone who pretends to know what they're talking about uses words in an inconsistent manner, and can't rephrase their meaning very well if asked to do so. Someone who can actually rephrase themselves and explain something multiple different ways likely at least understands what they're talking about on a conceptual level.
As far as I can tell, both boards have people who fall into both the former and latter categories. So not a difference between boards there, as far as you have currently presented your opinion.
>What is the difference between gibberish and coherence?
Gibberish can be automatically generated, ie., by a machine algorithm. It's hard to read, even if you have "practice" reading gibberish, and won't make much sense, if any, on further analysis. Coherent dialogue actually involves interaction, learning to see the other user's message, and responding in kind with your own stance.
On this point you can, legitimately, I willingly admit, claim that there is a distinct difference between boards. But even then, /x/ anons don't much like seeing word salad either, and we even have a name for it precisely because we want to rid ourselves of the meme.
>What is the difference between mental illness and sanity?
Not much, as far as we can tell. (Or as far as I can tell, I won't pretend to be a representative sample of /x/ users.)
That's why I'm asking; I don't get why so many from /x/ get dismissed as loons or Schizos. What, ultimately, makes up the difference? Help me understand, if there is any real understanding to be had and it's not just wrong assumptions about each other on both sides of the fence.
...
>Welcome to /x/ - Paranormal. This is not a board for the faint of heart.
Oh boy... I know a guy who would tick off more than half of the fields with ease...
science is not pseudoscience
>computer science jobs
are we playing "spot the odd one out"?
As an /x/-phile, wtf OP? The very nature of "paranormal" means that science cant explain it. If it was, it wouldnt be "paranormal" anymore. I would think this is bait if /x/ didnt attract so many schizos and autists that would seriously think like you OP.
Ok retard but wtf is wrong with String Theory, Relativity, Schrodingers' Cat and Blackholes?
>I already know the answer is nothing