As I noted above. Humans have a hard time acting non-human. For this theory to apply to humans, humans would have to act non-human. Ergo, the theory is likely to find little or no application in human affairs.

Alas, it is a very good one - one of the best I've read in the last couple of years.

No. You are impinging on 'conspiracy theory' territory here.

Yes, that may be true, but Freud is still an idiot. I do not respect his work. Jungian psychology puts Freud to shame.

WTF are you talking about? Looks like mathematical mumbo-jumbo to me! How many angels can dance on the head of a parameter?

Mathematics appeals to those who lack imagination.

I think we can call this settled then. I agree.

It goes on the longlist.

I expected as much. It's hilarious to think that a simple model as swarm theory already has such big issues when it comes to human behaviour and that at the same time there is a whole well respected field that claims to model human behaviour in its fullness.

I like pioneers such as Freud, Lyell, Darwin, .. even if their work becomes obsolete later on. The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Totem and Taboo, and the Interpretation of Dreams are my favourites regarding Freud.
Jung is better, yes, but he also impinges on conspiracy theory territory on occasion

It's easy, even for the philosophically inclined. When you start out with no knowledge of the system and want to establish a parameter of the system between 0 and 1 with a precision of one thousandth, the options are 0.000, 0.001, 0.002, and so on. A thousand in all. If the system were random, each of these outcomes would have an equal probability to emerge. If you have encountered in other studies a parameter of 0.236 only one outcome corresponds to this expected value. Thus, a chance of 1 in 1000 that the correspondance is random.

I suspect an interesting field of future discussion brewing here.

Bordering on the occult in fact.

And yet, an event with a 'chance of 1 in 1000' can occur 3 times in a row, and that can logically be taken as 'evidence' of the theory, or yet still pure random. In such cases, I'm not sure if the distinction is arbitrary or just subjective.

And you wonder why I call it mathematical mumbo-jumbo?