If we're trying to understand and discuss reality, we should absolutely be referencing real data and information and build our conjectures from there. Not just making some statement that reality is a certain way, refusing to engage in any data that points otherwise, and berating people who bring evidence contrary to the conjecture. Otherwise, we're just discussing fantasy and being rude to each other. Personally, I'm wanting to talk about reality, not some urban/rural areas 9rx is envisioning in his mind entirely divorced from any real places and data in the United States.

You say things like "as a rule", give arguments of a drive from a rural area into an urban area should take the same time as just transiting around within the urban area, and offer zero actual real examples, data sets, or proof to your conjectures and berate those who show real data pointing opposite to your statements.

Science is for understanding reality. Discussion is for understanding what someone is thinking.

> we should absolutely be referencing real data

If that's all that your limited thought is able to offer, I guess, but what, then, do you understand as the value you are bringing to the table? Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had the minds capable of coming up with that data in the first place if I want to know more about the thinking behind the data. Your involvement would be absolutely pointless.

As you are actually defying your own premise here right now by sharing what you are thinking, not regurgitating someone else's thoughts and data, you remain a valuable contributor. But if you were to devolve into what you suggest you want to be, how could the discussion go anywhere?

> Otherwise, we're just discussing fantasy

If fantasy is what someone is thinking about in the moment, I suppose that is what you are going to get. But that's exactly what discussion seeks to learn. If that's not what you are actually looking for, consider that discussion isn't what you need. As hinted at earlier, there are other ways to explore the world around you. Use the right tool for the job.

For example:

> As a result, people are much more likely to be without work in cities, as seen in the data.

This is a demonstrably untrue statement. In the US, labor participation rates are lower in rural areas. Unemployment is generally higher in rural areas. Poverty rates are generally higher in rural areas. I'd link the data, but it's not like you'd bother actually reading it from what I gather.

> Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had the minds capable of coming up with that data in the first place if I want to know more about the thinking behind the data. Your involvement would be absolutely pointless.

Seeing as how you're making statements not grounded in reality and data, I'd say my involvement would have a point of actually directing you to the real statistics and data. I'd hope that one would change their preconceptions when given actual data showing their statements are incorrect. If I continued to push the point that generally dogs have eight legs and you managed to provide me with sources that showcased dogs actually usually only have four, I wouldn't just say your involvement of showing real data is pointless. But pointing out your fantasies aren't based in reality and aren't backed by actual data just results in you berating me.

I agree, we're also wanting to delve into the "whys" of how the world works, which isn't always just directly looking at what the numbers say. But when our base facts we start from aren't actually grounded in reality, the whys we come up with are largely meaningless. The "general rules" we concoct from our fantasies become pretty useless if we take those rules to actually then measure reality and find reality doesn't line up with those rules.

> As hinted at earlier, there are other ways to explore the world around you.

Yes, we can look at data or we can base our ideas of the world off delusions and assumptions. But I take it you'd rather continue to live in your delusions and berate those pointing out when those statements aren't grounded in truth.

Our thoughts, ideas.

> This is a demonstrably untrue statement.

My thoughts disagree, but that was said with respect to my country, not the US, so whether or not you are right, the US data is not indicative of that. While I do understand I wasn't fully clear in expressing my thoughts there, what is fascinating is that you jumped into assuming that I meant the US instead of asking "Are you sure you are talking about the US?" or something to that effect.

That is the kind of cool thing you learn in discussion. Who gives a rat's ass about data? I mean, there is good reason to care about data, but the data is right there to look at directly if you really are more interested in the data. Use the right tool for the job.

> I'd say my involvement would have a point of actually directing you to the real statistics and data.

So can I take from this that you aren't looking for discussion, but rather you want to be a teacher? While there is definitely a place for teachers in this world, a place of discussion isn't it. Colloquially, what we call the place you are looking for is "school".

You were wondering:

> Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers?

> I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I question why people are doing it.

I gave lots of data and analysis as to why Americans seem to make this choice. You berated me for giving an actual analysis, gave conjectures not grounded in reality for those people making these choices explaining why my analysis is wrong, and continued to wonder why people would make these choices. Your conjectures weren't valid for the people in question. They weren't based in their reality. But you seem to not want to actually engage in the reality of it.

> Colloquially, what we call the place you are looking for is "school".

People can learn new things and be corrected on their false preconceptions without necessarily being in a school building with a teacher.

I wondered what the thoughts about why people make the housing decisions they do were. My country is within America, as it happens, so I suppose if it were to be limited to America that would be all well and good, but it wouldn't have been a detail of any significance.

> You berated me for giving an actual analysis

I engaged in your analysis to see if I can understand if you were confusing opportunity with number of jobs. I don't think we ever gained that understanding, and eventually we just moved on as it was clear that the only thoughts present were about the concept of data itself, which was well outside of the topic at hand and not producing anything of interest to latch onto.

If your thinking sees that as a berating: Fascinating. Can we dive deeper into your thought process there?

> I engaged in your analysis to see if I can understand if you were confusing opportunity with number of jobs

It sure seems more like you engaged with the analysis to say I'm wrong about objectively factual things and called me a dog when I provided sources.

> I wondered what the thoughts about why people make the housing decisions they do were

You're wondering why people make the housing decisions they do but unwilling to actually engage in looking at the actual data of job opportunities, home values, etc. that might actually give you insights into it, from what I can tell. Because, who gives a rat's ass about the data to answer our questions when assumptions and conjectures will do. Obviously, the answer is because these houses in the exurbs are more likely to be tan and people just love the color tan for their home. We don't need to actually look at any information to see if this is true or not, we'll just discuss as if this is truth. Are the houses more likely to be tan? Do people even prefer tan houses? Who cares.

How so? What are you thinking?

Additionally, it is interesting that you left out the "if". What was the thought process there?

> called me a dog when I provided sources.

I likened you to a dog wanting to pointlessly please its master. Call it berating if you will, but that is the behavior I see dogs exhibit and that is the behavior I observed here. I'm sure you have data to contradict my understanding, but to the extent of the understanding I have, that is simply a factual account.

> You're wondering why people make the housing decisions they do

I asked what others thought about it.

> but unwilling to actually engage in looking at the actual data of job opportunities, home values, etc.

This wouldn't indicate what others thought about it. There is a place for looking at the data, but that would happen independently and wouldn't carry into a discussion. Different tools for different jobs.

No. If someone has limited thought capacity, they have limited thought capacity. That is just a fact of life. For someone so concerned about the veracity of data, how can you see a datapoint as being berating?

Granted, the datapoint in this case is only hypothetical (as you would have noticed if you retained the "if"), but such datapoints also do exist in the real data. There absolutely are people in this world with limited thought capacity. That much is not a hypothetical.

> You don't see how being called a dog is berating.

Likened to a dog. But, no. Why?

> You might want to re-evaluate what people would commonly find berating.

I'm sure you've got some great data for me to look at, but my understanding is that people find something berating when they understand a statement as some kind of truth that they don't want to admit to themselves. It is quite obvious that nobody feels berated when an assertion is so outlandish that it couldn't be true. That becomes comedy.

I have no illusions of being anything related to a dog, so if you likened me to — or even straight up called me — a dog, I would not find that berating, no. If you went after my actual insecurities, then sure. I would then. I am certainly not immune to silly human emotion, but silly human emotion does not get triggered by random strings of text.

So, perhaps this is good opportunity to dive into why you feel insecure about your thought capacity and animal shapeliness for these particular strings to activate your emotions. What are your thoughts there?

(And my apologies for finding your insecurities. I would have never guessed those particular things would bother anyone. The things you learn from having a discussion!)

> but silly human emotion does not get triggered by random strings of text

Once again, seemingly completely divorced from reality. You must live on an entirely different planet far away from actual humans if you think human emotions are usually not affected by strings of text.

> but my understanding is that people find something berating when they understand a statement as some kind of truth that they don't want to admit to themselves

No. Things can be berating even if one knows that statement isn't true about them. But I imagine you know that. If someone calls you a worthless piece of trash its being berating regardless of if you think you are or are not a worthless piece of trash.

Incredible it is, I agree. But that's why I'm here. So that I can learn to imagine such things. Learning has to start somewhere. That's what discussion is all about!

> ...unintelligent dogs.

I am intrigued that you think dogs are unintelligent. The exhibit intelligence as far as I can see. What is the thinking there?

> You must live on an entirely different planet far away from actual humans if you think human emotions are not affected by strings of text.

Strings of text and random strings of text are not one in the same. How did your thought process lead you here?

I never made the claim. My statement was you effectively called me that through your comments. But sure, just make things up.

> Strings of text and random strings of text are not one and the same. How did your thought process lead you here?

Are you suggesting all your words are just random and have no intention or structure or meaning behind them?

Truly seems like I've just been talking to a bot this whole time.

I likened your behavior to that of a dog. Nothing said you or dogs are unintelligent. That was first seen in the previous comment – the one written by you.

> Are you suggesting all your words are just random and have no intention or structure or meaning behind them?

The fact that emotions are not triggered by random strings of text does not equate to, or even suggest, an inexistence non-random strings of text. How did you think up that one?

> Truly seems like I've just been talking to a bot this whole time.

Would that make a difference? Discussion doesn't have to be only about learning what a human thinks. What a robot thinks can be just as interesting. Hell, if you can figure out how to communicate with a dog to learn what it thinks, why wouldn't you jump all over that? That would be amazing.

Maybe you just don't like learning? It seems like you don't care for it much based on what you are responding with, but that may be a poor interpretation on my part. What do you think?