amused
nameless_abyss and I were conferring over a rather puzzling state of affairs occurring between me and another person...The Situation:
- The other person (henceforth, O) said statement ~A and statement B yesterday.
- Statement ~A is a not so good thing. Statement B is a good thing.
- In the normal scheme of things, statement ~A would lead to ~B.
- However, this is not the case here.
- Given the rather contradictory nature of the data points, nameless_abyss and I decided that we simply needed more data points from O in order to determine which was aberrant, statement ~A or statement B.
- Unfortunately, asking for more data points straight out is very likely to irritate O, since O has tacitly indicated that the discussion is over.
- If O were irritated sufficiently, ~B would probably then be true.
Suggestion containing possibly spurious analogy to the way religion deals with things: Since the problem is a lack of balance between ~A and B (~A should lead to ~B), and ~B can be brought about by poking for more data points, I should thus poke for more data points. Trust in the power of the balance and all will be well. Yes, alllllll....
The appropriate analogies to religion can be drawn with sufficient cynicism and are left as an exercise to the reader.
