Hypothesis on meltdowns

[Never1AShow]

I think there are some who would like to quit their obsession with Getbig but do to have the willpower.  Therefore, just like getting in a fight with a girlfriend so she will break up with you, they deliberately meltdown so they will get banned and be saved from their addiction.

Apologies if others have floated this before.

[SF1900]

I would  like to clarify one thing. You do not have a "theory" on meltdowns. A theory is the highest accolade of science, and something with substantial evidence. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it has substantial evidence, i.e., Germ Theory, Theory of Gravity, Game Theory, Quantum Theory.

As of now, you have a hypothesis. Once people begin to chime in, we can gather evidence. If the evidence overwhelmingly fits with your hypothesis, and it is retestable, then it will become a theory, i.e., "'Theory of Meltdowns."

Either way, you have a strong hypothesis. I will check back later to see if any data has been collected.

[OB1]

I would  like to clarify one thing. You do not have a "theory" on meltdowns. A theory is the highest accolade of science, and something with substantial evidence. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it has substantial evidence, i.e., Germ Theory, Theory of Gravity, Game Theory, Quantum Theory.

As of now, you have a hypothesis. Once people begin to chime in, we can gather evidence. If the evidence overwhelmingly fits with your hypothesis, and it is retestable, then it will become a theory, i.e., "'Theory of Meltdowns."

Either way, you have a strong hypothesis. I will check back later to see if any data has been collected.

LOL
very good.

[Never1AShow]

I would  like to clarify one thing. You do not have a "theory" on meltdowns. A theory is the highest accolade of science, and something with substantial evidence. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it has substantial evidence, i.e., Germ Theory, Theory of Gravity, Game Theory, Quantum Theory.

As of now, you have a hypothesis. Once people begin to chime in, we can gather evidence. If the evidence overwhelmingly fits with your hypothesis, and it is retestable, then it will become a theory, i.e., "'Theory of Meltdowns."

Either way, you have a strong hypothesis. I will check back later to see if any data has been collected.

This is a very good point.  My language was loose.  I am not a scientist by trade.

My larger worry is in collecting the data.  Those who meltdown and are banned cannot report back that in hindsight (getbig's favorite kind of sight) they melted down so they would get banned.  Also if we try during a meltdown to determine that the person is doing it in an attempt to be banned for their own good, then we could be influencing the meltdown and possibly prevent it.  There is some kind of scientific name for the testers influencing the test but I can't recall what it is.

Any suggestions on ways to better collect data?

[SF1900]

This is a very good point.  My language was loose.  I am not a scientist by trade.

My larger worry is in collecting the data.  Those who meltdown and are banned cannot report back that in hindsight (getbig's favorite kind of sight) they melted down so they would get banned.  Also if we try during a meltdown to determine that the person is doing it in an attempt to be banned for their own good, then we could be influencing the meltdown and possibly prevent it.  There is some kind of scientific name for the testers influencing the test but I can't recall what it is.

Any suggestions on ways to better collect data?

Well, we can start off by collecting data from those people who melted down and were either banned or left on their own accord, but came back. We can interview them to determine the processes behind their meltdown and subsequent ban/them leaving. Although, they are currently posting on getbig, we can still collect retrospective data (data from events that have happened in the past). Obviously, there are methodological shortcomings to this sort of data. This  may be the closest we can get to gathering data. 

Yes, its called "Researcher's Bias." (where the researcher influences the results of the test). I mean, that is the broad term.

[Kwon_2]

[OB1]

Well, we can start off by collecting data from those people who melted down and were either banned or left on their own accord, but came back. We can interview them to determine the processes behind their meltdown and subsequent ban/them leaving. Although, they are currently posting on getbig, we can still collect retrospective data (data from events that have happened in the past). Obviously, there are methodological shortcomings to this sort of data. This  may be the closest we can get to gathering data. 

Yes, its called "Researcher's Bias." (where the researcher influences the results of the test). I mean, that is the broad term.

We should also take into account the ancestors and social surroundings, upbringing, race and education of the given subject.
Also their let's say mental history. Any meds taken. Substance abuse. etc.