So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as you keep drawing cards from the ones I’m holding.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything.

I understand why you would take certain aspects of Q on faith, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as you keep drawing cards from the ones I’m holding.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believers is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS the therapists are connected, and is challenging you to find that connection.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q asks the questions and tells you that The Answer May Shock You. Q has already found the Truth, and is willing to tell you where to look.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believes is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS there’s something to find. He’s telling you what questions to ask to find the Truth. He’s pointing which doors are worth going through.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q has already found the Truth, and is trying to help you find it.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. In fact, psychologist countertransference and other forms of influence are theoretically attributed to, say, how Dissociative Identity Disorder manifests in a dissociative individual.

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred in the context he describes (political “Jason Bourne” “Manchurian candidate” machinations) and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believes is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS there’s something to find. He’s telling you what questions to ask to find the Truth. He’s pointing which doors are worth going through.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q has already found the Truth, and is trying to help you find it.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. This is not impossible and would be a serious accusation if Q wasn’t “just asking questions.”

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believes is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS there’s something to find. He’s telling you what questions to ask to find the Truth. He’s pointing which doors are worth going through.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q has already found the Truth, and is trying to help you find it.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. This is not impossible and would be a serious accusation if Q wasn’t “just asking questions.”

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that** if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.**

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believes is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS there’s something to find. He’s telling you what questions to ask to find the Truth. He’s pointing which doors are worth going through.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q has already found the Truth, and is trying to help you find it.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the significant difference between us isn’t intelligence, that you are simply a genius and I simply a moron, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. This is not impossible and would be a serious accusation if Q wasn’t “just asking questions.”

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that** if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.**

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believes is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS there’s something to find. He’s telling you what questions to ask to find the Truth. He’s pointing which doors are worth going through.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q has already found the Truth, and is trying to help you find it.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the difference between us isn’t that I’m a fucking moron and you’re a genius, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. This is not impossible and would be a serious accusation if Q wasn’t “just asking questions.”

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that** if Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.**

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believes is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS there’s something to find. He’s telling you what questions to ask to find the Truth. He’s pointing which doors are worth going through.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q has already found the Truth, and is trying to help you find it.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the difference between us isn’t that I’m a fucking moron and you’re a genius, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.

So Q provided a hypothesis. The easiest and most fun part of science.

“Are therapists responsible for brainwashing their patients into crimes?”

He’s correctly established a possibility. A therapist absolutely could do damage to a psychologically vulnerable person. This is not impossible and would be a serious accusation if Q wasn’t “just asking questions.”

What Q didn’t establish is any hard evidence that this has occurred and is responsible for mass shootings.

He’s just asking, “what if?” In the way that he does.

As a researcher, I encourage people to form hypotheses. That’s what drives science. I love when people ask questions, even ones I find silly. I appreciate curiosity.

But my frustration with the Q movement is that Q people seem to think that it Q suggests a hypothesis, that in itself is evidence that the hypothesis will reveal a surprising truth when researched.

There is zero expectation from Q World that Q would suggest that you look at the therapists, and you do, and you find nothing credible. And then Q says, “Good job researching, glad we ruled out the therapists.”

The expectation from Q believes is that if Q suggests looking at the therapists, it’s because Q KNOWS there’s something to find. He’s telling you what questions to ask to find the Truth. He’s pointing which doors are worth going through.

Q is not asking you to research. Q is asking you to uncover a truth that he is claiming that he already researched. Q has already found the Truth, and is trying to help you find it.

This is anti-scientific, pure and simple. There is no credible scientist who, upon hearing an intriguing hypothesis, would then say, “Well, this guy wouldn’t have presented the hypotheses unless there was evidence to support it.”

That’s backwards. You form a hypothesis with the full-throated acceptance that your research may find absolutely nothing to support it.

Scientific papers die by the millions when they fail to find any interesting evidence for the hypothesis. Until the lightbulb was invented, do you think there were thousands of published papers discussing machines that tried and failed to produce light?

Is there any Q post in which Q suggests a research avenue, nobody finds anything, and he congratulates his researchers on a job well done?

Or does he tell you that you aren’t looking hard enough for evidence? That you are believing lies by the media? That the Cabal is covering up the truth?

Because that isn’t research. That’s telling someone what to believe, but tricking them into thinking that they’re discovering it on their own.

In sleight-of-hand, that’s known as forcing a card. I promise if we ever meet and I have a deck of cards, I could force you to choose the 7 of hearts, each and every time you drew, no matter how hard you attempted to avoid it, as long as only are reaching for the cards I’m holding out to you.

I’m really hoping at some point that you realize the difference between us isn’t that I’m a fucking moron and you’re a genius, and that’s why Q makes sense to you, and not to me.

It’s just a matter of faith. You have faith Q wouldn’t suggest a research topic without a reason, because you have faith that Q is dropping breadcrumbs about an existing truth. You’re starting from the perspective that Q wouldn’t waste your time.

I don’t make that assumption about Q. And I truly believe that’s the biggest divide between us.

Because you are skeptical about certain things, even when it makes you unpopular, and I perhaps more than anyone else around here can appreciate that. I just don’t think you are skeptical about points that, if called into question, could lead to the conclusion that Q was never actually preparing you for anything. I understand why you would be skeptical of that, but if you weren’t, I’m not certain you and I would have much difference in how we view this stuff.