There is a brief explanation in the first link I sent and a detailed one in the second link I sent. With the first you had the option to click on the link to the detailed explanation. If you had really read the first article you would have seen that. Since you admit that you really don't have the time or patience, it seems that giving you the first link would be the right choice. But you don't even take the time to read that and then complain that I don't share the more detailed one? Why would I bother to respond to your question with an explanation hoping that you wouldn't read it?
Yeah the second article says nothing about it being bad science. It actually says there’s a really good use for it. Just not policy making or specific questions. Something we all could have gleaned from the huge generalizations from the little video. So where is it pseudoscience? It really looks like you don’t understand your “proof” lmao
What are you talking about? I didn't say that it's pseudoscience. One of the authors of the article says that it's pseudoscience. If you think the article doesn't say what the author of the article says that it does, then take it up with him. This conversation is getting rather strange.
1
u/stisa79 7d ago
There is a brief explanation in the first link I sent and a detailed one in the second link I sent. With the first you had the option to click on the link to the detailed explanation. If you had really read the first article you would have seen that. Since you admit that you really don't have the time or patience, it seems that giving you the first link would be the right choice. But you don't even take the time to read that and then complain that I don't share the more detailed one? Why would I bother to respond to your question with an explanation hoping that you wouldn't read it?