White wins by having more health than their opponents, and outlasting them in battle.īlue represents drawing the right card, mostly by drawing a lot of cards. White represents not dying, both by preventing damage and by healing damage.
Crucially, by design, no color is best, nor is any combination of colors best. I think that the five colors are better explained in terms of deck strategies and win conditions.
It is fun to see how much of this overlaps with the official guidelines for colors. Put another way, there's a difference between "the evidence says this is wrong" and "there is no evidence that this is true". Particularity if none of the "proven" solutions are working for you. Real people in the real world have to make decisions based on nothing more than plausibility all the time, and I don't see why diet should be any different. I've noticed a trend where scientifically minded people tend to get hung up the "proven" at the expense of the "plausible", forgetting that everything they rightfully treat as proven once could have been dismissed in a similar manner. Could it be ideal for people with extremely rare auto-immune conditions that have an allergic reaction to virtually everything else? Sure, and that existing doesn't sound crazy to me at all.
Is a beef-only diet a good idea for the general population? Probably not. Īs someone who's mother died of a rare/poorly understood cancer after fighting it for 10 years and multiple experimental treatments, and met others in similar boats along the way (support groups), there are tons of niche medical conditions that science hasn't even bothered/had the resources to investigate. All in all, even IQ can be considered a personality trait (as it is correlated with other traits of personality, it is not a separate entity). It is likely that we can find a more refined way.Īll in all, I would love to make people2vec, where we embed various psychological trains as vectors, as see which other parameters (scientific or not) we can reproduce. Some explanations or interpolations may not be valid. Just because it is an impromptu psychological explanation, does not mean it does not work. In this case, Colors of Mana are one basis. Some bases are better (unit length, dimensions are orthogonal (uncorrelated)), but otherwise there is a lot of room here. We can express the same thing is a few different ways. In mathematics, there is a concept of a basis - more or less, directions, or orientation. There is also a corollary that psychology is still in its infancy, much like biology before the discovery of bacteria, viri, or DNA. as a self-identification) more times than I care to admit (for some insights, this is decent). Still, I defended MBTI (in a dating context, e.g. Plus, there is too much Jungian interpretation for MBTI, which is not up to current scientific standards. While MBTI is not up to academics standards, it is highly correlated with Big Five, trait by trait (still, AFAIR there is reason to use it in the place of Big Five). The difference between science and pseudo-science is much more smooth than most scientists would like to admit. ) they capture various traits of character people consider important. month of birth and relationship comparability, vide. Of course, as long as you read it at the meta-level, comparing with other tools (scientific, pseudo-scientific), for example: Four Temperaments, MBTI, Big Five, Western Zodiac, Chinese Zodiac, etc. I already sent it to quite a few people, as a long-read remark on the applicability of models. It is one of my favorite stimuli in psychometrics and the philosophy of science.
0 kommentar(er)
