<Thanks for disproving your own theory.>
Does a speculation about MD’s at large somehow invalidate a comparison of the average public to Psychologist & Psychiatrists? Maybe for you in Bizzarro World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro but not in this Universe.

<Hey, I can't help who you hang around with!>
Granted, it’s clear enough I find value in exposure to a wider variety of people than you; that is my preference. If you ever mature past your obvious insecurities and compulsive desire for validation, you may also begin to understand the value of personal contact with those that clearly do not reflect the sensibilities you choose to Parrot.

<Even if that were true,coincidence does not imply causality.>
Can you point out where I said it did?
I offered a Theory while also indicating the possibility of random chance. As you apparently don't understand the relevant meaning of “Theory”, for the moment I'll excuse yet another of your retreats down a deer path in the Ignorance Forest. When you’ve resolved the meaning "Deduction" and "Proof" from our previous thread, start on “Theory” and “Empirical Observation”.

< For one who is such a strict adherer to scientific method, that does not seem like a very scientifc sample on which to test your theory>
You are apparently making some unstated assumptions about the sample set?
Ecgberht, you have a serial bad habit of creating incorrect assumptions in your mind to justify the incorrect conclusions that rattle out.

<Review the term "non-sequitur" (hint: Latin for "does not follow").>
Lol! I always get a kick when you take the time to inappropriately dip into the 8thgrade vocabulary list, then further impress us with a definition!! It reminds me of playing fetch w/a dim witted dog that consistently trots back with the wrong stick and a beaming sense of great satisfaction!