8e01b3a0   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:04:12 +0000, chris wrote:   
      
   > Er, but snakes *do* injure people - even kill on rare occasions. Why do   
   > raise indefensible arguments?   
      
   Actually Chris, you seem reasonable, so, I'll explain as if I were your   
   friend where you and I were having a discussion sitting comfortably   
   over a glass of wine or a cup of coffee next to a warm crackling fire.   
      
   If you and I were friends, we could try many approaches to discuss this   
   topic, but one approach I might take with you, my new friend, is the   
   Myers-Briggs personality profile approach.   
      
   WARNING: Very many people do *not* understand Myers-Briggs!   
            Most don't understand how CRITICALLY IMPORTANT the "strength"   
            of the trait is. If you're a very strong J, you're always going   
            to be a strong J, and, you have very few traits of a strong P;   
            however if you're a weak J, you can flip flop to a weak P and   
            you will have a balanced mix of both J and P traits no matter what.   
      
            The argument below assumes STRONG xIxJ traits only!   
      
   a. Clearly, *all* of us would assume, in the absence of good data,   
      that the use of cellphones while driving distracts a person such that   
      this person would be more dangerous on the road than someone who isn't   
      distracted.   
      
      I must repeat what I just said!   
      
      You and I both would naturally *assume*, in the absence of contradicting   
      data, that the use of cellphones in vehicles makes that driver inherently   
      more dangerous and therefore prone to being in an accident.   
      
      I must stress again, that this is intuitively logical to everyone.   
      Yes. It's intuitively logical to me also.   
      
   b. Clearly, *all* of us have seen the reports that driving while using   
      the cellphone is as dangerous as (whatever grabs the headlines).   
      
      Most of the time they say it's as dangerous as drunk driving, but,   
      really, they say whatever grabs attention in the headlines, just as   
      all of us have seen that almost anything causes cancer and that   
      the same stuff prevents cancer (chocolate, coffee, whatever).   
      
      I must repeat what I just said!   
      
      You and I both, as friends, can easily admit to each other that we   
      both have seen a zillion news articles that imply that driving while   
      using the cellphone has been *proven* [sic] to be as dangerous as   
      (insert horrible headline-grabbing activity here).   
      
   c. Some people are strongly intuitive judgmental people (Myers-Briggs xNxJ).   
    - If they're strongly intuitive (N), they don't bother with extensive data   
   checks.   
      They simply *know* the answer (intuitively).   
      If the headline agrees with them; that's all the cross checking they need!   
      
    - If they're also strongly judgmental (J), they order their lives.   
      That means they strictly follow rules, just because they are rules;   
      and, more importantly, they strongly expect others to follow those rules.   
      
      (Note: This is where strong N/J types become dangerous to society.)   
      
   d. Here's how those people handle the problem of the cellphone:   
    - Since they're strongly intuitive (N), that means they're weakly sensing (S).   
      That means they don't bother with gathering "good" data.   
      Any data will do. Good data. Bad data. It doesn't matter to them at all.   
      The data just has to support what their intuition is telling them.   
      So, they have *tons* of so-called studies, that support what we all   
      intuitively feel is the case - which is that cellphone use is as distracting   
      as (insert horrible headline-grabbing activity here), and, that, as a   
      result, more accidents *must* be occurring (they know this intuitively).   
      
   e. Since they're also strongly judgmental (J), they follow the rules.   
      Worse. They expect everyone else to follow the same rules they follow.   
      
      So, to them, everything lines up:   
      - Cellphone use is intuitively distracting.   
      - If you're distracted, it's intuitive that you'll have more accidents.   
      - Since there usually is an (illogical or not) law against driving with   
        cellphones they, themselves, follow that rule (not bothering to   
        question the logic of that law one bit)   
      - Worse, they expect everyone else to follow that (illogical or not)   
        rule also!   
      
   Given what I just said, do you see, my friend, how everything lines up so   
   beautifully for the very strong xNxJ personality types?   
     - cellphones are distracting while driving (intuition)   
     - there are laws (logical or not) against using them while driving (fact)   
     - there are published articles which *prove* [sic] that they're dangerous   
   (fact)   
     - they don't use them while driving (judgmental)   
     - and they can't stand when they see others using them while driving   
   (judgmental)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)