Lets get back to topic. 


ps: mine is Ramsey xD

Actually, it's been scientifically proven that when one eats meat, they take on a little bit (VERY little bit) of the personality of the animal that they have eaten.

That's an extraordinary claim. I'm always wary of the words "scientifically proven" - do you have a link for that? I'd be very interested to read it. If it is "scientific proof" rather than a pseudoscientific claim, I'd like to get more info so that I can incorporate it into some writing about hunting your own food.

As I've said several times before, I'm quite a skeptic. Therefore, I understand your uneasiness. Actually, yes, I have an article somewhere - I'll provide it here once I can find it. It could have been a little bit of an exaggeration on the part of the journalist / writer of the article, but I'll see what I can't pull up for you.

From personal experience i would agree that there is a psychic residue we can feel after eating something that was alive.

I get all sorts of strange sensations after eating things like rabbit duck oysters etc. With sensitivity all sorts of wierd and wonderful effects start to make themselves felt.

As regards the best diet for developing psychic abilities , i  have to say that eating genuine shaman, drug addicts, insane people or religious fanatics might be the best and quickest route to psychism. Failing that any extreme change of diet will also shock you into to potentially activating psychic functions, as does complete starvation, over eating,  poisoning and consumption of hallucinogenic substances.

 Sorry to point out the obvious.

Cannibalism as a way to heighten senses... hm, not so new really. Although, we were trying to discuss ways that dont necessarily kill or harm you (or someone else for that matter) forever.

[Azurahn]

But...... I'm a dog not a rabbit!

I hate eating healthy

If you are a dog, then rabbit IS healthy food 

ps: i know you adore me when im being a smart ass 

[Azurahn]

Yes yes but eating like a rabbit is.............. boring. 

[Moneyman]

As I've said several times before, I'm quite a skeptic. Therefore, I understand your uneasiness. Actually, yes, I have an article somewhere - I'll provide it here once I can find it. It could have been a little bit of an exaggeration on the part of the journalist / writer of the article, but I'll see what I can't pull up for you.

Every once in a while, I like to read random scientific papers and examine them for flaws in logic. Its a sort of weird hobby that matches my rather unhealthy obsession with pointing out flaws/untruth in things. Whether its science, engineering, or religion, there are two fundamental rules that I tend to keep in mind when looking at viewpoints:

1. The vast majority of mankind is stupid, and stupidity can be found on every level of society and in every conceivable place.

2. Because of rule #1, it usually works out that the most common opinion is fully, or partially, wrong.

This holds true for Science as well, in fact there is quite a lot of stupidity to be found in Science. Psychology papers like this animal personality one are prime examples. The crucial point people miss is these papers are not "what science says". Even if the "scientific community" doesn't reject the paper, it is in no way, shape, or form, to be understood as proven fact. Even if there is a "scientific article" about something, never accept anything it says until you read and review the evidence for yourself.
There is an unnerving amount of scientific literature/theories that adopt an "innocent until proven stupid" mentality.

I haven't looked at the article yet, but I'm going to assume its probably full of crap because:

a) It involves psychology, and psychology has an above-average rate of bulls**tters

b) It involves complex parameters that cannot easily be defined, such as the personality of a person/animal

c) In order to prove that you behave like the animal you eat, you must remove anything else that could alter your behavior and distort the results. This is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

d) It makes no logical sense and sounds far to much like the oversimplification "You are what you eat". Carnivorous animals don't act like the animals they eat.

e) Did I mention I hate psychology papers?

Please don't take this personal, journalists and even some in the scientific community are to blame for the overconfidence that has been put in "what science says".

[ViciouslyMe]

If you look hard enough in to anything, it wouldn't be hard to find a flaw. Even in your own logic there are flaws (not to insult you, but to make my point), it's just the way things are. Understand though, I am not trying to defend the article or sway your opinion, but it is a fact I needed to point out.

To anyone, sorry if it seems I'm rambling, there are just some things I don't like. If I simply said nothing, I'd eventually say something terrible.

[Moneyman]

If you look hard enough in to anything, it wouldn't be hard to find a flaw. Even in your own logic there are flaws (not to insult you, but to make my point), it's just the way things are. Understand though, I am not trying to defend the article or sway your opinion, but it is a fact I needed to point out.

To anyone, sorry if it seems I'm rambling, there are just some things I don't like. If I simply said nothing, I'd eventually say something terrible.

I agree fully, there is flaws to be found in everything, especially our own perceptions.

Regarding logic, even logicians agree that perfect logic is not only unattainable, but it is also fallible according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem:

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html