The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by George E Hammond, Jan 16, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    George E Hammond said:
    But, I also identify God as the "GFP"
    (General Factor of Psychology) of
    Psychometry since I prove that the 13
    2nd order factors are the "gods" of
    antiquity. (The 12 Olympian gods)

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Look James R, it is common knowledge that
    the "gods of antiquity" were personality types.

    If you type in a Google search: –

    Olympian gods as personality types?

    You will get over 3 million hits, with
    most of them using the MBTI (Myers –
    Briggs Personality Type Indicator)
    identifying the personality type of all
    of the Olympian gods. The Google search
    turns up listings such as: –

    – What Greek god/ goddess is each MBTI type?
    – The MBTI Types as Greek Gods/Goddesses
    – What Greek god is your Myers-Briggs type?
    etc, etc, etc.

    This is well known especially among female
    psychology students – here's a YouTube video
    of some female Psychology majors explaining
    how the gods are personality types: –

    So, the fact that the Gods of Antiquity were actually
    "personality types" is well known.
    What is not well known, is that there are EXACTLY
    13 GODS. HAMMOND is responsible for the
    discovery of that fact when he discovered that the
    gods because a cube has 13 symmetry axes.

    George E Hammond said:
    And the GFP DOES fit the "description
    of God given in the Bible".

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    The Bible doesn't say anything about moon landings,
    nuclear reactors, or smallpox vaccinations either !
    Why would the Bible explain a "Scientific Proof of God"
    when it wasn't discovered until 1997 A.D.?!

    To say that the Bible doesn't describe God as a
    "psychological effect" depends on who you are
    talking to !

    Certainly the Vatican and the Sanhedrin know
    very well that the Bible is written in an allegory
    and metaphorical literary style in which
    "psychological" matters are given a metaphorical
    mask of material objectivity to avoid scaring
    lay readers. – Telling the laity the someone was
    turned into a "pillar of salt" is obviously
    physically impossible – because what it means is
    that the person adopted a lifelong mental attitude
    of "stoney faced rejection" towards others for the
    rest of his life.

    Last edited: Jun 1, 2022
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Mr. Hammond, I'm not sure if you're deliberately being stupid, but your thinking is laughable.
    To wit:
    They certainly had personality types.
    Anything with a personality has a personality type.
    That is somewhat different than saying that the gods were personality types.
    Just as cars have coloured paint, cars themselves are not coloured paint.
    And all of them are simply looking at which personality types (of the 16 MBTIs) those gods most closely fit, just as any human with a personality will fit somewhere among them.
    Once again, this is different from saying that the personality types are gods.
    Coloured paint is not a car.
    A car is not coloured paint.
    A car has coloured paint.
    Are you too stupid to recognise the difference?
    Where is your evidence that one's sex has anything to do with it?
    Do you have a study to show that the belief is more prevalent among female psychology students?
    Or is your sexist comment simply because you found a video of some female students trying to explain what MBTI personality type matches which god?
    If you have no other evidence, like an actual study, please stop being sexist.
    No, they're explaining how the gods fit into the MBTI, i.e. what personality they have.
    This is not the same as saying, as you claim, that the personality types are gods.
    Having a property does not mean you are the property, or that the property is you.
    It is well known that they had personalities.
    Stop being so dumb as to equate that to meaning that the personality types are therefore gods, which you have done throughout the garbage you post.

    Furthermore, and something you appear utterly oblivious of, or just dishonestly keep yourself from addressing, is that while the 16 MBTI combinations are indeed personality TYPES, they are each made up of 4 factors (each factor being a binary option from two mutually exclusive factors).
    So there are 8 factors in the MBTI personality types.
    And anyone with a personality can be mapped to one of those types.

    YOU, however, are looking at mapping 13 individual FACTORS to gods.
    Not personality TYPES, but FACTORS.
    I have pointed this out to you before, but you continue to ignore it in the dishonest way that is rife throughout your drivel.
    If you're talking about the gods of antiquity - as you have previously done - there were 12 in the main pantheon and numerous others as well.
    Even the video you posted said that they had a list of 20 or so.
    YOU have even continually mentioned just the 12 of antiquity, raising the question (already raised countless times, and dishonestly ignored by you each time) of how the 13 personality FACTORS supposedly map to the 12 gods.
    If, as you are trying to do, each god is one of the factors, then you have one factor left over.

    No doubt you'll try to say that you haven't been implying that the 13 (second order) personality factors are gods, yet you repeatedly claim a link between the 13 (2nd order) factors, the 13 symmetries of a cube, and use that to claim that there were 13 gods.

    What you don't seem to get, though, is that you could come up with any number of factors, any number of personality types, and the gods of antiquity would still have a personality that you could match to those types.
    You are trying to link 13 to 13 to 13, almost irrespective of what each is 13 of, and then trying to crowbar some rationale as the link.
    To be a "fact" it has to be true, not simply the belief of a delusional dishonest crank.
    You have offered nothing to show that it is a fact, you have simply rambled on and on, cut and pasted repeatedly, and dishonestly and fallaciously refused to address any and all criticism.
    So, no, you have discovered nothing, you have justified nothing, and you are simply posting demonstrable garbage.
    And being highly dishonest and disrespectful as you do so.
    So sayeth the delusional dishonest crank.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    George E Hammond said:
    Look James R, it is common knowledge that the "gods of antiquity" were personality types.

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    The MBTI is 100 years old and predates the
    modern "metrical era" of Personality

    Because it was based on Carl Jung's personality
    theory and it is easy to use by nonprofessional
    people – and remains highly popular.

    The metrical era of psychology began after WW2
    with Cattell who actually connected a computer
    to an oscilloscope and rotated the "personality
    eigenvectors" to Simple Structure visually by
    hand in 1947.

    Modern computerized Psychometry has found
    over 50 years of worldwide study, that there are
    4-Orders of Personality eigenvectors: –

    1 – 4th order
    4 – 3rd orders
    13 – 2nd orders
    30 – 1st orders

    – The 1st-orders are simple things like
    kleptomania, tardiness, binging, etc.
    – The 4th-order is only a single eigenvector.
    – This means that "personality types" must
    be at the 2nd or 3rd order, but there are only
    4 Factors at the 3rd-order (ENPg) and this is
    easily identified as the bicameral two-party
    (Bi/2P) system – Republicans, Democrats,
    upper class, lower-class. So these can't be the
    "personality types".

    This leaves only the 2nd-order for personality
    , and the great Raymond B Cattell
    measured 12 of them and published them in
    his famous 1973 book:
    Personality and Mood by Questionnaire.

    More modern research has discovered that
    these 13-2nd-orders are


    and HAMMOND has discovered (1994) that
    this cubic intercorrelation comes from the



    Because a cube has precisely 13 rotational
    symmetry axes – Hammond has shown that
    the neuroanatomy and neurology of the
    cubic brain causes EXACTLY these
    "13-2nd-order personality types".

    From all this it is OBVIOUS that the
    "12 Olympian gods" of antiquity are in
    fact exactly these 13 same identical
    Personality Types.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    It is what it is.
    It uses 4 binary factors to arrive at 16 personality types.
    You don't get to just force something into the results of a model because you feel it "must be".
    The 2nd-order personality factors are merely the grouping of the first order according to correlations - e.g. the second-order Extraversion arises from analysis of personality traits such as Dominance and Sociability: they are all correlated to a relatively high degree, with that correlation labelled "extraversion" etc.
    But "Extravert" is not a personality TYPE, it is still just a TRAIT - or FACTOR.
    A personality TYPE encompasses the entire personality, not just elements of.

    So, please, stop talking garbage.
    So what are they?
    Please list them.
    And the 13th that Cattell didn't measure.
    Surely you can do that?
    Show us that they are, indeed, personality types.
    You mean that they can all be drawn using 3 dimensions.
    No, Mr. Hammond, you have simply chosen to link two unrelated matters through the word "cubic".
    That is all you have done.
    There is no evidence to support your claim.
    There is no sensible rationale, no sensible thought, behind your claim.
    And you consistently refuse to address any challenges about the claim.
    You have shown no such thing!
    Please stop lying.
    You are a delusional dishonest crank, but that is no excuse to continue lying.
    You have simply linked two things through the number 13.
    That is all you have done.
    It is all you ever do: link disparate elements through superficial and rather laughable commonalities, with no actual analysis or intelligence.
    And still you refuse to map the gods to the "personality types".
    Still you refuse to deal with the difference between the 12 gods and the 13 "personality types".
    Which "personality type" is not one of the gods, then?
    Furthermore, your continued reliance on using words such as "obvious" rather than actually providing a coherent and cogent argument, is just another sign of your dishonest character.
  8. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics said: ]–
    More modern research has discovered the
    13-2nd-orders are cubically intercorrelated
    and HAMMOND has discovered (1994) that
    this cubic intercorrelation comes from the
    cubic embryological cleavage of the brain

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Na Baldeee, guesswork will succeed against
    a crank, but it is
    hopeless against a truth.

    Here's a list of 35 scientists,
    using experimentally measured
    intercorrelations to compute the
    cubic angular relations of these 3-D
    cubic models, thus PROVING that
    the models are EXPERIMENTALLY
    VERIFIED to be cubically
    intercorrelated in 3-D space: –

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If you think that you can handwavingly
    deny this overwhelming scientifically
    measured PROOF. Published by 35
    leading scientists in the field – that
    they are cubically intercorrelated in
    3-D space – then –your nuts!

    Besides that, HAMMOND has
    peer-published in a highly respected
    academic journal, the neurological
    and anatomical REASON for this
    "cubic intercorrelation" (namely a
    decussation in Jeffrey Gray's
    septo- hippocampal system): –

    Hammond G.E (1994)
    The Cartesian Theory, in
    New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2)
    153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd..
    Online copy of published paper is
    posted at:
    Elsevier Scientific Ltd. 1994

    also a full length free research only copy
    is located here:

    New Ideas in Psychology and
    Elsevier Scientific Ltd. (which
    is the world's largest scientific
    publisher) – DO NOT publish
    "garbage" as you have suggested.

    Get off it Baldeee – you have no
    credentials in Science and are
    simply a "wannabe ambulance
    chasing heckler ".


    Last edited: Jun 3, 2022
  9. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Fortunately there's very little truth in what you have so far posted.
    It is littered with flaws that you simply refuse to address.
    They are modelled in 3d.
    That's all you've shown with these images, Mr. Hammond.
    If you want to show that they actually are intercorrelated, show the work, link to the papers and research that does that.
    I'm not denying it, Mr. Hammond, I am pointing out that you haven't shown it to be the case.
    You have simply pointed at some pictures and gone "there! Proof!"
    You need to provide more, Mr. Hammond.
    Something that actually proves what you think is the case.
    And it is garbage.
    It is an "interesting" idea, but has no basis in reality.
    Hence garbage.
    You seem to think that having a paper published means that it is therefore not garbage and that it is thus also correct / true.
    Unfortunately neither is the case.

    Yes, they do, especially those that work at the fringe of science, those looking for "interesting" ideas.
    But feel free to share the peer review notes you got back, to show that people with what you consider to be sufficient and appropriate credentials reviewed your work prior to publishing.
    That way we will know for sure that it has been looked at by the experts, that it has been peer-reviewed by appropriate people etc.
    Until then, what you post here remains garbage.

    So you keep asserting so as to dishonestly evade addressing the criticism, through your fallacious appeal to authority.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The only ambulance needed is for your "proof", which unfortunately was dead on the scene of this car-crash of a thread.

    All the criticisms of your "proof" remain, Mr. Hammond.
    They remain unaddressed by you, even after 60+ pages.
    Yet all you do is regurgitate the same garbage.
    Because you are a delusional dishonest crank (nor forgetting the narcissism and delusions of grandeur, of course).
  10. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Okay Baldeee, you are referring to my post
    # 1265.

    The most complete "cubic" model is
    Gerard Saucier's 9-Factor cubic
    model: –

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Note that this model is ABSOLUTELY
    CUBIC – it would slide snugly into a
    perfectly cubic CARDBOARD BOX !

    Okay, Gerard Saucier's paper is online
    in PDF and is located here:

    Gerard Saucier
    1992 — Benchmarks: Integrating Affective
    and Interpersonal Circles.

    Saucier gives a complete description of
    the MEASUREMENTS, and of the
    CALCULATIONS, and of the geometric

    Okay, they've gotten as far as proving
    that the first 9 factors are cubically

    What they don't know is that the whole
    "Structural Model of Personality" is
    CUBIC and that a cube has 13 symmetry
    axes – and every one of them is a
    "Personality Type".

    There isn't one Psychometrist in the
    entire world that actually has a degree
    in Physics ! And that's why they don't
    realize it . And HAMMOND is here to
    tell them about it!

    Reading that paper will keep you busy
    for a while.

    Last edited: Jun 3, 2022
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    You are admitting here that "the most complete 'cubic' model" is 9 factors, yet you say you have proven the 13-factors (2nd order) to be cubicly interrelated.
    So you have been lying.
    Thank you for admitting as much.
    Such an admission is at least one honest thing you have done.

    Then there's the article itself, which I can only assume you simply haven't read.
    Or, no doubt, you will claim that you did understand it but simply made an error in your use the information - which like last time won't wash.

    "Ideally, one might map the five-dimensional space defined by five orthogonal factors. Unfortunately, five-dimensional spaces are impossible to visualize and represent pictorially."
    I.e. the reason they, and seemingly all other models beyond three factors, appear to be "cubic" is simply because they are being drawn in a manner that allows the actual dimensional spaces to be visualised, NOT because they are actually three-dimensional.

    But, hey, why let the article you link stand in the way of your on-going delusion.

    Furthermore, Saucier is clearly taking the Big 5 (requiring 5-dimensional space) and adding in interstitials.
    It does not appear to be a 9-factor model at all.
    Where, in any of the paper, is the 9-factor model referenced?
    Does he give a list of the 9 factors, perhaps?
    That would be the most basic of things to do, would it not?
    Instead he simply references the Big 5, and names the 5 factors.
    Not 9.

    What he did find was that: "Pairings of 3 factors (I, II and IV) showed a markedly large incidence of interstitial variables. These 3 factors... formed a 3-dimensional space."
    And he later says, when referring to combinations of 3 factors: "Given this evidence, of the 10 possible three-dimensional spaces the five factors might provide..."
    I.e. There are 10 possible groupings of 3 factors from the total 5.
    If you take 3 factors in isolation then those 3 form a 3-dimensional space.
    5 factors requires 5-dimensional space.

    So please show that you have any reasonable understanding of the paper.
    Please show that Saucier is dealing with a 9-factor model, and that it is actually cubic rather than just represented in 3d for visualisation purposes.
    Can you do that, please?
    Or are you going to remain the delusional dishonest crank you seemingly want to confirm yourself to be with each post you make?
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    So will ANY shape that's the same size as the box. It has nothing to do with being "cubic".
  13. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Why don't you try to figure out why they
    call it a: –

    "Swifty" ?

  14. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    SNIP (Baldeee, post: 3698802, member: 267911)

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    I can only conclude from your
    that you are
    " absolutely scientifically

    You apparently have no scientific
    credentials of any kind.

    Beyond that you express no
    innate or natural scientific ability.

    And to top it all off, you have a

    lifelong quasi-psyco argumentative
    personality – IOW a natural born
    "wannabe crankbaiter" whose
    main interest in life, and only real
    enjoyment, is "crank baiting"
    morons for your own vicarious
    enjoyment. You're a real
    ntellectual "lo-life"

    Well guess what – you picked
    the wrong target this time –
    naturally you would eventually
    get caught red-handed –
    and that's what's happened !

    Your understanding of basic
    science doesn't exceed the
    Jr high school level

    Sorry, you'll have to go elsewhere
    to find a suitable "crank target" –
    I happen to be a competent scientist
    with verified academic credentials
    and published in the peer-reviewed

    You're absolutely useless
    scientifically speaking so I will
    not respond to you any further.

    I will even put you on "ignore"
    if necessary – your posts are boring!
    The world is full of useless
    people like you – you're probably
    a lawyer or something –
    but certainly not a public defender,
    I might add?

  15. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    So no actual counter to what I posted, and instead all you can muster is just a tirade of ad hominems, and more evasion.
    Delusional dishonest cranks will do what delusional dishonest cranks will do, I guess.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Why don't you read what I wrote, slowy? I said that your cubo-cubo-cube is not the ONLY shape that will fit in a box. Therefore, the fact that it will fit in a box does not support your argument.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2022
  17. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    Look Baldeee, you've got to lay off the
    nonstop ad hominem heckling or I am
    going to do something very rash like
    putting you on "ignore" simply because
    you ticked me off so bad! So lay off
    it a little, okay?

    Meanwhile I have reread Gerard Saucier's
    1992 (brilliant) psychometry paper which I
    haven't read for 30 years. And here is an
    explanation of why Gerard Saucier's
    Rhombicuboctahedron is not only
    experimentally and mathematically
    correct – but why it is an absolute
    experimental and mathematical
    CONFIRMATION of Hammonds
    cubic brain theory
    : –

    What Gerard Saucier has done is essentially
    REDISCOVER Hans Eysenck's ENP–space.
    Gerard Saucier is (or was) Lewis Goldberg's
    right-hand man during Lew's long research
    into the so-called "Big 5" model of personality.

    However Saucier is pretty much of an
    independent genius himself. And apparently
    what he recognized is the same thing that
    the legendary Hans Eysenck discovered, and
    that is that "Personality Space" is "

    So Saucier examined the experimental data
    and located the 3 out of the 5 Factors in the
    Big 5 that looked like a complete basis for a
    complete 3D "Personality Sphere" – and that
    turned out to be 1-2-4 (I/II/IV) of the Big 5
    which also turn out to be Eysenck's (E)(-P)(-N)


    (Which of course confirms that
    Saucier's hunch was in fact CORRECT)

    However, unlike Hans Eysenck who only
    identified the 3 orthogonal axes ENP
    Saucier using much larger data also
    discovered 6 more "interstitial" Factors
    giving a total of 6+3 = 9 Factors – or
    since he refers to the "2 poles" of a
    Factor as "2 clusters" he refers to
    2 x 9 = "18 clusters" of data points.

    Notice that all 18 of these clusters
    And if you compute the actual
    mathematical angles between these
    9-Factors they exactly fit (mathematically)
    the angles between the 9- symmetry



    Now all of this has a further importance
    because it reveals the long sought after
    "metric" of psychology space.

    Hans Eysenck used to constantly refer to
    the anticipated "discovery of the underlying
    metric of psychology"

    We're all familiar with the "metric" of real
    space time: (XYZt).

    Now we realize, due to guys like
    Hans Eysenck and Gerard Saucier
    that the metric of psychology
    space is actually (ENPg) . And
    the importance of that is that just
    like there can be a curvature of real
    space time (known as gravity) –
    there can be a curvature of
    "psychology space"
    (subjective spacetime)
    which turns out to be GOD !

    And that's an earthshaking discovery!

  18. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    You mean like your post #1271?
    A post that lacks any actual rebuttal of the challenges made, but is made up instead of 2 elements:
    1. Attacks against me (rather than my argument), e.g.:
    "I can only conclude from your remarks that you are " absolutely scientifically incompetent""
    "You apparently have no scientific credentials of any kind."
    "Beyond that you express no innate or natural scientific ability."
    "And to top it all off, you have a lifelong quasi-psyco argumentative personality – "
    "IOW a natural born "wannabe crankbaiter" whose main interest in life, and only real enjoyment, is "crank baiting" morons for your own vicarious
    "You're a real ntellectual "lo-life""
    "Your understanding of basic science doesn't exceed the Jr high school level"
    "You're absolutely useless scientifically speaking so I will not respond to you any further."
    "The world is full of useless people like you – you're probably a lawyer or something – but certainly not a public defender, I might add?"

    2. Appeals to authority (rather than any argument), e.g.
    "I happen to be a competent scientist with verified academic credentials and published in the peer-reviewed literature."

    That's is all your post contains.
    If you are complaining that I constantly refer to you as a delusional dishonest crank then there is an easy remedy on your part:
    1. Drop the delusion and start accepting reality
    2. Stop being so patently dishonest
    3. Stop your other behaviour that makes you a crank.

    You could, in fact, do all three of these simply by responding to the challenges against your proof in a grown-up manner.
    Not attack what you think are a lack of credentials.
    Not dismiss what someone says simply because you might think them incompetent or unworthy.
    Not ignore what they say.
    But actually respond in a sensible, grown-up, manner that is free from dishonesty and fallacious reasoning.

    I get that you're trying to defend your "proof", that it is the culmination of your thinking over the past years, but you don't defend something by ignoring what people say about it.
    That is simply to bury your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.
    Well, it won't: the challenges remain, and they remain unanswered.

    But ultimately, if you don't want to be referred to as a delusional dishonest crank, then don't act and post like one.
  19. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    You still don't get it, do you.
    Saucier is categorically considering the 5-dimensional model: the Big Five (the clue as to number of dimensions is in the name).
    ANY 3 of those factors (e.g. I/II/IV) in isolation can, however, be modelled in 3-dimensions.
    ANY 3 of the 5.
    Not all 5, not 6, not 7, not 13.
    Any 3.
    And if you take something with 3 dimensions, lo and behold it can be modelled in 3 dimensions.
    He could take I/II/III and model that in 3 dimensions.
    Or II/IV/V
    Or any of the ten 3-factor combinations.
    He says so as much (and as I previously quoted): "Given this evidence, of the 10 possible three-dimensional spaces the five factors might provide..."

    Yes, there is something more interesting about the particular grouping of I/II/IV (namely high incidence of interstitials) but taken in isolation this would be a 3-factor model, not 4, not 9, not 13.
    No, he didn't take I/II/IV because they "looked like a complete basis for a complete 3D 'Personality Sphere'".
    He identified I/II/IV because they were most likely prone to high incidence of interstitials, and because "In contrast, factor pairs involving III (Conscientiousness) and particularly V (Intellect) seem characterised by a clearer simple structure."
    So you are once again deliberately misrepresenting your own "evidence".

    Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that those 3 factors are identified as the focus of his paper?
    As he says: "Perhaps we should not be surprised that the spotlight falls on these three particular factors..." and then lists plenty of research that suggests it should not be surprising.
    You are conflating "cluster" with "Factor".
    They are different, as you should know.
    The clusters are each a grouping of 6 traits that describe facets that are a combination of 2 factors.
    The clusters are not in and of themselves Factors, as they would resolve upon factor analysis to the two factors the trait falls between.
    Basically he is taking the 3-dimensions of I, II, and IV, and rather than just mapping the 6 faces of the cube, he is rounding the model somewhat.
    But still only 3 factors being considered.
    Which is why, yes, it can be modelled in 3 dimensions - because it only considers 3 factors.
    Note that it doesn't include 2 of the dimensions of the big five (i.e. III and V).
    Which requires 5 dimensions to be modelled.
    No they don't.
    Once again you are simply taking a rather superficial representation and making far too much of it.
    As Saucier writes: "Finally, one might represent the clusters all on a single polyhedron, such as the square faces of a rhombicuboctahedron..."
    Which makes sense, visually speaking, as he's looking at the clusters that are between each of the 3-factors in the I/II/IV model.
    But don't fool yourself into thinking that it is somehow an accurate representation, and anything other than just a visual representation.
    And you really should read how he put the clusters together.
    And now you start drifting off into your garbage.
    1. His results are "mathematically correct" presumably because he has correctly calculated the factor loadings etc, not because it fits some conclusion that you are hoping for.
    2. It is NOT any verification of your "cubic brain theory", or even speaks to that theory in any way.
    All it shows is that if you take something with 5 dimensions and only consider 3 of them, then you can represent those 3 in 3 dimensions.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with your "cubic brain" nonsense.
    And if anything it is evidence against your nonsense theory, as he is categorically considering only 3 factors of a 5-factor model.

    So you're still left with the issue that you have fundamentally misunderstood what Saucier was doing in this paper (i.e. expanding on 3 of the 5 dimensions in the Big Five, rather than providing a separate model of personality, as a means of showing how the approach can help provide some order to the "staggering proliferation of constructs", and help in "Reconciling Variant Versions of the Big Five").

    Or maybe you do understand, and realising that it is not what you wanted, are now just trying to crowbar it into your "proof".
    "Oh, look, a rhombicuboctahedron!
    That's 3d!
    Therefore it must my prove my theory!
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2022
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I think we're almost done with this nonsense.


    It's time for you to start answering some of the specific objections that have been put to you. Specifically, what you have presented here is full of holes. You claim connections between things apparently without making any attempt to establish that those connections exist anywhere other than in your imagination. You claim to have proved things, but you have not presented anything that remotely resembles a proof; what you have given us is a series of claims, which you seem to like repeating, pointlessly.

    Nobody cares about your supposed credentials, George. Your claims need to be supported. It doesn't matter whether you're the President of the United States, Einstein's uncle, Eysenck's best buddy, or whatever. Your claims stand or fall on their merits, not on any credentials you claim to have.

    Similarly, the credentials of your critics are irrelevant. All that matters is whether their objections are valid, and whether you can rebut them. So far, you're making a dismal showing at that, to the extent where I'm dubious about the reality of the credentials you claim you have (but note well that it doesn't matter - I don't care whether the credentials you claim are real).

    Here's what you need to do, George:

    1. Do you have a website or other resource where we can find all of the details of your "proof", along with the the supporting evidence? Surely you must have this somewhere on the web, having shopped your claims around for 20 years (sadly, without any takers). Please post the link, if you have one.
    2. Can you provide a concise description of the steps in reasoning that took you from personality factors (such as used in the Myers Briggs inventory) to identification of God as a "curvature of psychological spacetime"? Make sure you don't leave gaps. We don't want the sort of "And then a miracle happened, and so..."
    3. Please provide a precise description of your method for measuring "psychological spacetime". What is the manifold? How are you measuring the curvature?
    4. Please explain in precise terms what the link is between the "curvature of psychological spacetime" and the "God of the bible".
    5. Please explain what you did to identify 12 factors of personality with 12 Gods of Olympus, exactly. You need to show us your maths, etc. Claiming that it is "common knowledge" that Olympian gods are personality types won't cut it, I'm afraid. You need to establish the link.
    6. Explain how you measure "mental speed", and the psychological rate at which time passes. Note: again, what is needed here are the precise mathematical definitions you used.
    7. Answer the objections that we have raised regarding the "gap" you assert exists between the "phenotype" and "genotype". Specifically, you need to show us that you understand what those words mean.
    8. Please provide reputable references showing a "cubic embryological cleavage" of the brain.
    9. Answer Baldeee's more detailed and specific objections, specifically and in detail.

    Note: reposting cut-and-paste versions of what you have already posted will not be sufficient. You can take it that we have already read what you posted earlier - especially in cases where we have asked you specific questions and raised specific criticisms of what you have previously posted.

    This will do for starters. Having shopped your claims around for 20 years, you ought to be well prepared to answer the above questions. Let's see how you go. If you can't produce anything more persuasive than your offerings to date, I think we can safely write you off as a crank and close this thread.

    Good luck, George.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2022
    sideshowbob likes this.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I think there probably were. There's always been the village idiot and the weird guy who scribbles away at stuff nobody cares about in his garden shed. If you're the village idiot, everybody else in the village comes to realise that sooner or later, so they tend to limit their interactions with you. Mind you, the eccentric old guy scribbling away in his shed might be normal enough to be able to go to the shop and buy a carton of milk. The villagers just learn that he shouldn't be taken seriously when discussing topics such as cubic brain cleavage or how he's best mates with Eysenck, so they generally avoid discussing such things with him. The weather is usually a safe topic.

    With the internet, those weird old guys get to leave their metaphorical sheds. There are lots of people who have never met them, so every new conversation can involve the nutter's pet topic, which keeps the nutter happy until eventually he is recognised for what he is, which usually doesn't take very long. The other thing, of course, is that the weird shed guy can now find other weird shed guys to talk to. Not that they are likely to agree on things. But at least they can claim a common enemy - essentially all the less eccentric people in the world who refuse to recognise the shed guys' obvious (to them) superiority and special insights.
    Even before the internet, there were plenty of people concocting garbled versions of science. The best they could hope for would be to write a Hammond-style missive and post it off to Carl Sagan or Scientific American or to a randomly-chosen professor at a university somewhere. It would, in all probability be binned rapidly, following a cursory perusal of the content.

    None of these people ever actually take the time to learn science properly, or to study the theories they claim to have found disproofs of. In some cases, their brains don't actually operate well enough to take in the information and process it, anyway. So, I don't think they would spend months in actual meaningful study of anything. After all, they usually consider their own thoughts to be far superior to anything a mere professional scientist could produce.
    I think that two things are in play here. One is that there are now lots of high-quality resources online for those who actually want their science questions answered. For people who can google, it's usually not hard to find good answers to the most common science questions that are asked by non-specialists. There's no need to go and ask somebody on a forum any more.

    Another thing is that "homework help" is now an industry. Maybe students aren't aware that high-quality help can be had for free, and they are willing to give their money to dubious operators who are only in the "education" business for profit.

    Add to that the general move away from subject-specific forums towards more general and giant "social media" monopolies.

    Even the cranks these days are probably having a hard time on internet forums. Moderators tend to have seen all the usual crank behaviours, so cranks can't last as long as they used to. sciforums is extraordinarily tolerant of cranks. And let's face it, they can be good for a laugh and a bit of diverting fun, for a while. They can even provide an excuse to educate (not educate them, of course), from time to time.
  22. George E Hammond Registered Senior Member

    [GE Hammond MS physics]
    I've maintained an

    website for years: –

    It's had 10,000 visitors and has frequently
    reached top 2% on Academia:

  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Great. Where can I find the shortest complete "proof" of God? Which article should I read?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page