Just be careful making connections that "make sense" for why B happens after A, but there may not be evidence for a reason, in sort, correlation but not causation.
Our brains are built to look for apparent patterns in data, which is the first step in eventual finding of any direct causality, so this is natural. But what we do as we mature is learn to further then find actual causality, which is much harder. Much of the real world is probablistic rather than run with geometric logic, so it's harder to do.
Both quantum mechanics and women's minds are very indeterminate fluctuating things where you can never have certainty, and so are social systems and political maneuvers.
LOL, you can be certain that women want to you do things with always them in mind, because many have the notion that they always do things with you in mind.
That's why women always ask, "What's on your mind?" whereas men don't. It's partially to be attentive, sure, but it's also to gauge where on the spectrum they are in current importance. That's why a correct answer almost always can be, "I'm thinking about you babe." Me, I go the difficult route and tell the truth. LOL :)
I made an innocuous fat joke about my girlfriend one time, and she cheated on me (because of that, seriously...just kissed a guy, but still). Meanwhile, she gave me the nickname "The White Etheropian" (South Park reference). She could roll with any punch except a fat joke LOL. Of course she was heavy enough to just roll around. :)
There are likely as many false positive as anything else as a result of that same brain training and evolution. I'm warning against it is all.
One of our ancestors saw Oog get bit by red snake that killed him. Our ancestors avoided all red snakes as a result. But not all red snakes are poisonous. Regardless of the false positive, they were still safer avoiding all red snakes than those those that didn't recognize "red snake = bad".
Not to mention, direct causality is very rare in large social systems, which you note.
Just be careful making connections that "make sense" for why B happens after A, but there may not be evidence for a reason, in sort, correlation but not causation.
Our brains are built to look for apparent patterns in data, which is the first step in eventual finding of any direct causality, so this is natural. But what we do as we mature is learn to further then find actual causality, which is much harder. Much of the real world is probablistic rather than run with geometric logic, so it's harder to do. Both quantum mechanics and women's minds are very indeterminate fluctuating things where you can never have certainty, and so are social systems and political maneuvers.
LOL, you can be certain that women want to you do things with always them in mind, because many have the notion that they always do things with you in mind.
That's why women always ask, "What's on your mind?" whereas men don't. It's partially to be attentive, sure, but it's also to gauge where on the spectrum they are in current importance. That's why a correct answer almost always can be, "I'm thinking about you babe." Me, I go the difficult route and tell the truth. LOL :)
..says the guy with a black eye after she asked 'does this dress make my butt look fat?" :)
Women, huh?
I made an innocuous fat joke about my girlfriend one time, and she cheated on me (because of that, seriously...just kissed a guy, but still). Meanwhile, she gave me the nickname "The White Etheropian" (South Park reference). She could roll with any punch except a fat joke LOL. Of course she was heavy enough to just roll around. :)
Kidding too much can get you in trouble though.
There are likely as many false positive as anything else as a result of that same brain training and evolution. I'm warning against it is all.
One of our ancestors saw Oog get bit by red snake that killed him. Our ancestors avoided all red snakes as a result. But not all red snakes are poisonous. Regardless of the false positive, they were still safer avoiding all red snakes than those those that didn't recognize "red snake = bad".
Not to mention, direct causality is very rare in large social systems, which you note.