/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8226833
>pseudoscience
>burger grades

>all these tryhards
Just reduce and resume the opponent arguments.
Then ridiculize a bit his reasoning but laud his arguments.
Then accept your opponent is actually smart but his arguments are a bit bland.
Bit by bit start ridiculing his person and his arguments so he shows the core "argument".

Then proceed to apply the first rule. Resume, Reduce and Ridicule.

Smart-obstinate people have a lot to say. They are very hard to beat.

This method only works if you wanna beat someone in an argument. But this doesn't guarantee he is gonna accept your opinions.

That's not how human relationships work.

>>8217294
>statistic
You said enough. kek
>>8217292
Nice engineer-tier argument.
>>8217300
>they do x
Nice. Go circlejerk about your friends on >>>/pol/
>>8217303
>genotype relations are not mentioned
>it's a genetic research
Keep trying, brainlet.
>>8217311
>can't explain the cause of intelligence
>it's not pseudoscience!
heh
>>>/pol/

>>8208683
> if the test you took was only testing your verbal intelligence.
>mfw /sci/ can't even have a high score on verbal intelligence
Heh, brainlets.

>>8204068
>wah. bad image!
my sides!

>>8201127
>americans think World=USA
You made me remember that, kek.

>>8178445
heh didn't thought about that

>>8177258
Stop spouting pseudoscience and boogeyman conspiracies over here. Go back to your hugbox

>>8177259
>>8177261
>prefers conspiracy over sociology
It doesn't matter go discuss non-science on /his/

KEK
This little boys will never learn won't they?

>This thread

Everytime I talk to people I always end up giving my opinion on something and calificate subtly theirs as inferior. I end up explaining (if I can) how my POV works. Even though they started talking to me about their problems and lives.
It seems to be a problem.

How do I improve my personality scientifically?
Do you guys have a method?
Implying psychology is a science, of course.