Re: Folk Psychology and Social Convention

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Acme 
Posting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> David Longley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >
> > Well, they're not really about abnormal psychology in the traditional
> > sense of that terms. Whilst one *could* see the problems of folk
> > psychology as errant, the term abnormal would be wrong. That's where
> > Larry and a few others go awry - as you do. There's certainly nothing
> > wrong with what I am saying from a clinical point of view - but there
> > *is* something abnormal about your verbal behaviour - and you know it.
>
> Folked again. :-(
>
> Funny I don't hear any violin music.
>
> We've been reporting the number of Longley messages with "folk
> psychology" at about 1,000. That needs to be revised to 1,400+ for
> "folk psychology" OR "folk psychological".
>
> That's about one "folking" every other day for eight years, on
> average, undoubtely higher during his posting periods. (Ah, to dream
> of a non-posting period.)
>
> Still, I think those folk psychologists in the UK prison system that
> Longley blames for his failure knew exactly what they were talking
> about, despite the fact that they haven't folked us even one time.
>
> Repetition is the essence of brain programming, but seems Longley
> forgot about susceptibility. Wrong group. Another bad decision.
>
> Doesn't work in the AI groups, doesn't work in the sci groups. Let's
> help Longley find a "folk susceptible" group.
>
> Larry


Ever thought of sampling the real world Larry?

follow-ups to comp.ai.philosophy
--
David Longley