Do you think that cognitive biases (like anchoring, for example) don't have any evidence for them? Do you disagree that humans have high false positive rates when looking for patterns (like the classic gamblers fallacy)?
I think you're asking questions so you can find an answer to attack. It's an old and boring way to argue on the internet.
The truth is nothing is perfect, the reason these discussions don't go anywhere is because you're going to insist on finding the imperfections and then try to exploit that to win.
That is your right, but I explained both what it is, and why it's often correct.
I'm just too old to let myself get pulled into one of these discussions, sorry.
I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm just trying to find out where we might disagree. Those two questions where the ones I thought would be key points on which we might disagree and would get us closer to understanding where we both stand rather than stopping because I found someone that disagreed with me. I don't want to ignore opportunities to find out I'm wrong, or find another side to things I'd not considered.
The ways in which we respond to things instinctively is a topic I find both fascinating and incredibly important. Personally I think there is enough evidence to suggest we should be highly wary of ways in which we think that we don't carefully analyse. If I'm wrong I could be ignoring a very powerful way of quickly responding to things. I think that people who rely on gut instinct are putting themselves at risk of making worse decisions on important issues, or trusting others that operate in the same way.
I'm not going to keep poking, because there's no joy in talking to someone that doesn't want to respond, and certainly no joy in talking to someone who thinks that a discussion or debate is either something to be won or something where neither person should expect to come out with a different opinion.
