Vixen's psychology degree course was most likely in the 1970s, would it have been thought valid then?This discussion happened in 2014.
Debunking the Myers-Briggs personality test
Vox's Joseph Stromberg says the ubiquitous personality test is a multimillion-dollar sham and a waste of corporate and US government money. Is Myers-Briggs no better than a Buzzfeed quiz?www.bbc.com
Decades ago. No psychologist, outside a few cranks, ever took it seriously.
www.bbc.com
www.theswaddle.com
www.vox.com
irr.org.za
www.enablersofchange.com.au
No. Actual psychologists (and psychiatrists) never considered it valid. While it enjoyed some corporate popularity in the '70s, as it does today, it was regarded as pseudoscience.
Oh longer. C informs me that it was being criticised in the mid-50s.
I've got ADHD and thus a pathologically poor memory and have difficulty keeping track of things, but Vixen's inability to follow a back and forth over the course of a day or even a few hours, and her inability to remember what she or anyone else has previously said, is particularly atrocious, and particularly notable given her continual boasts about her superior intellect, memory, debating skills, etc.
The goal of a conspiracy theorist is not to answer questions or resolve controversy. It instead to prolong the appearance of controversy and thereby keep themselves relevant and—if possible—the center of attention. A conspiracy theorist does not fear error or shame. A conspiracy theorist fears obscurity and the feeling that they are not special.
You are missing the point. What Bjorkman was saying is that JAIC didn't appear to show its GOM and GZ calculations (for example stability at 90° list).
Even though the list developed rapidly, the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability. As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles (Figure 12.12). The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.
According to the hydrostatic calculations, a continuously increasing amount of water on the car deck would make the aft windows of deck 4 the first possible flooding point to other areas (Figure 12.14). Soon thereafter the windows and the aft entrance doors of deck 5 would also be submerged. A little less than 2,000 t of water on the car deck would be sufficient to bring the first flooding points down to the mean water surface. In this condition the list would be about 35°. The lowest corner of the ramp opening would here be still a little above the mean water surface.
As soon as water was free to enter the accommodation decks all residual stability would be impaired and the ship in practice lost. Without an intact superstructure above deck 4, the largest possible equilibrium heel angle before a complete capsize would be 40°. This condition would be exceeded with about 2,000 t of water on the car deck.
Stability calculations show that the ESTONIA would have had a small positive initial stability if the two sauna compartments and the next compartment aft on deck 0 had been flooded. The stability would have been worst at the initial phases of flooding and would have improved when more water flowed to these three compartments.
The influence of cargo shifting was also investigated in separate studies. Due to the distribution of vehicles on deck, the maximum transverse shifting of cargo centre of gravity could have been of the order of just a few metres. Two metres of cargo shift would have the effect that the progressive flooding of deck 4 started with about 10 % less water on the car deck. https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt12_2.html
If they didn't have time to call MAYDAY how would they have time to change clothes?
Incorrect. A psychologist in the late-80's sent around a Myers-Briggs questionnaire to British Mensa members as part of some project she was doing. Whether or not you think Myers-Briggs is bunkum, simply dismissing it out of hand without even finding out its scope doesn't show scepticism, it shows closed-mindedness.
We simply called it 'pop psychology'.
The criticism comes from people using it as a ready job-interview tool. Rather like the online IQ tests. There is validity in psychometrics - correlation and reliability - but not in the hands of amateur HR bods or popular magazine writer puff pieces with their silly ten-question quizzes..
Well, the latest investigation - which the Swedish prosecutors have said is 'closed' and they are not investigating further - claims the breach in the hull was due to the vessel hitting a 'rocky outcrop' as it sank. OK, so there is a rocky ridge nearby (but then the whole area consists of granite boulders, a remnant from the Ice Age) but here's the thing: these rocks are not sharp and jagged as the average person not familiar with the Finnish archipelago terrain imagines they are (and even further inland) they are as smooth and round as a baby's bottom. In summer you can walk barefoot over them without fear of jagged edges. So yeah, let's see if Evertsson is the scoundrel that you make him out to be. So let's see if the forthcoming report can convince sceptics the massive holes in the hull were due to abnormal pointy rocks jabbing through, bearing in mind the resistance from falling into a body of water.
Stability at 90° list is irrelevant, the ship sank before it could roll further.
No, you are missing the point, which is that you have failed to cite a source for your claim that the JAIC said that a ship would float on its superstructure. What was your source for this claim?
Why bother sending divers down to examine the wreck? Why not just wait for summer and walk to it?
