I actually did read some of those emails, and I find it funny that those emails where complaining about what you are complaining about. Apparently, they thought, or felt, hell I don't know if they had any evidence. But, regardless, they where complaining that one of the Journals had been taken over by some kind of special interest group, subverting the peer review process. And, one of them suggested that they boycott the journal, circumventing what they felt was a corrupted peer review process.
So, now we've got one "side" bitching that the other is subverting the peer review process and vice-versa; and, neither is acknowledging their own hand in the matter. I find this oh, so amusing....and sad, very sad.
Likewise, they should not be automatically afforded the label as "skeptic" as a genuine skeptic is actually interested both information that confirms or denies (or perhaps something completely different) what they think may be true, in short a neutral position.
"But just keep answering the questions or pointing to places where they can get the answers."
How do you keep an idiot occupied? I dunno, how? How do you keep an idiot occupied? I dunno, how? How do you keep an idiot occupied? I dunno, how?... I'll pass thanks.
"I have no data, but my intuition indicates that many skeptics are being reinforced in their viewpoints simply because they are being ridiculed for their beliefs by well meaning people."
Skeptics? More like people in general. People have an amazing ability rationalize any belief. Seriously, get a hold on a social psych text book. The more pressure the person feels to justify the belief, the stronger the urge to reinforce that belief. For some real-world examples: 419 scams, cult worship, fraternity indoctrination, battered wives, etc...
As for progress: The circular arguments have more nodes now. But, it's still basically the same style of argument. And, quite frankly, I myself need to go through the numbers to weed out the political happy crap I've been fed over the years.
It's not their job to convince you of anything. You are supposed to get the necessary education and analyze the information and find the flaws and confirm the observations when they do not. Can't do it? Well, then you're going to have to rely on expert opinion and hope the leadership doesn't do something that screws you yet again. Or, at least that it screws you less than the (real) results of doing nothing.
But, no, two talking heads get on InterToobs and one tells the audience the sky is yellow and the other says the sky is green. Then, half the audience thinks the sky is yellow because it's obviously not green and the other half thinks the sky is green, because it's obviously not yellow. Then a nice little thinly veiled holy war ensues. And, the guy that stands up and says the sky is blue (along with the ones that say black, red, purple, etc...) gets treated like some kind of crazy-extremist-traitor or something. Oh, well.
Then say so. "...so the fact that China is doing so badly in this area probably has nothing to do with their form of government." != "...so the fact that China is doing so badly in this area probably has nothing to do with their government being totalitarian."
The indeterminate state of the argument was precisely my point. The person I as replying to was trying to use the knowledge that both states harbored totalitarian governments to state that the government could not be responsibility for the academic scientific corruption, which is ridiculous. A government != a system of government != ideology. Stop equivocating them to patch up your dissonance. The argument is not sound, the logic is fatally flawed.
And, why do you assume I take some kind of opposing view? I'm expected to agree with a shitty argument because it strokes my own egotistical beliefs? Seriously, and most of you wonder how we end up with these absolutely wonderful leaders we've got.
Just because two items share membership in set, does not mean the properties of those items are transitive via the set. For example: Just because a set contains a number that is prime does not mean all the numbers in that set are primes.
Just because the one totalitarian government didn't corrupt it's scientific research as much as another similar, but different government does not mean that that corruption can not be a property of that government.
Actually, I read a book on how to influence people that cited a study done on Watergate. And, it is a well known sales tactic, and is confirmed in social psychology texts. The implied conclusion of which is that the result does not even have to be "semi-reasonable" itself. The sales pitch (negotiation as you put it) just has to appear somewhat reasonable, not what is actually being sold. It just has to be less audacious, hence your quotes.
It seems people are hard coded to negotiate in good faith under the assumption that the other player is also acting similarly, even if evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, people will often reflexively entertain and agree to ridiculous arrangements based on the need to alleviate this external dissonance of sorts. Thus, a street peddler can sell you the $1 trinket necklace he just bought at a dollar store for $5 by asking for $8 first and then "compromising" to $5, despite the fact you wouldn't even have bought it for a buck otherwise. (FYI: That also includes an example of assumed high value for high cost and inadequately compensating for an initial impression.)
I don't know how it is in your stretch of the US. But, around here we have two major variants of asshole drivers.
There is group "A", the archtypical speeding asshole: They speed, tailgate, weave in and out of traffic, and pass on the right (using turn lanes, merge lanes, etc...) etc...
But, then there is a larger group "B", a group I rarely hear about: This group will floor it through stop signs and red lights to cut off traffic (I have seen SUVs spin out on ice attempting this.), even if there is a mile of space clearly just after it. They almost always go immediately into the left lane and stay there, even if they have to cut off everyone to make an emergency right after spending the past 20 miles in the left. They will actively attempt to prevent people from passing them, usually by flooring it until no one can safely and legally pass them, then slowing down (like that helps). Like group A, they will also attempt to use turn and merge lanes to pass people, the only difference being they pretend to be dumbasses that need help instead of the pricks they are.
Although, aside from cutting off traffic, they generally drive at or below the speed limit. I guess it's to console themselves that at least they are not the asshole drivers in group A, like the speeding is the only fault with that style.
Group A is usually identified when they ride up people's asses and/or change lanes at the last second. Group B will usually cut off traffic by failing to stop or yeild (or even slow down), and then immediately situate themselves in the left lane.
Of course it's an economic assessment. And, you are dealing with people that think the lottery is the best-shot investment strategy for retirement. Bad stuff only happens to bad people and I am a good person. So, what's the point of this again?
From the psychology texts I've read, the constant surveillance promotes paranoia, the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" amoral punishment promotes schizophrenia, and the outbursts of erratic, harsh punishment promotes sociopathy. Although, to be fair, the information I read on that aspect of sociopathy focused on early childhood development. It was not specified if it had an influence in later childhood as well.
...make the rules. Do as I say, not as I do. It's the same in every authoritarian government, whether it be a superpower, a multinational corporation, or just the family next door.
The reason why this works is rather simple: It's not a competition between something that costs and something that is free. That is only on the surface. I'll give my own rational: I hear a track I like on the (satellite) radio. Now, I can either spend the next 10 to 15 minutes wading through broken links, abandoned torrents, and spam sites to end up with something that has a high likelihood of not even being the remix or the quality I wanted. I could also run the off chance someone I know already has it and mentions it at some point, then spend a similar amount of time trying to exchange the media. Or, I can go to a central website, spend 5 minutes listening to previews and spend a buck for the track using a low hassle micro-payment system.
As the saying goes, time is money. If your customers have the disposable income that accumulates at a rate higher than the rate of benefit, they will often choose to spend that income rather than work for a benefit at a lower rate of return. And, then they have the luxury of spending their time on something more beneficial.
Someone mentioned porn? Pay for porn does not work because: - It is typically a significant monetary cost, two to three orders of magnitude. It goes from being petty cash to being a discretionary budget item. - In the digital form, requires a month to month commitment. Human sexual desire typically involves a lot of spontaneity. You don't marry porn. - Shyster websites will often not have the level of content implied and will keep charging customers long after they have terminated your subscription. - The catalog is limited from site to site, and people are typically not going to pay the full fee just to see one spread. - The record of your purchase is basically public (corporate) information that anyone can purchase. -...which brings me to the public humiliation that is involved in acknowledging one's own sexuality, for IRL or online purchases.
"...it seems to me that the bulk of human interactions is based on deception, whether they be of a legal, religious, economic, or romantic nature. This was true in school, and it remains true in adulthood."
Oh, it's far more sinister than that. People literally can not cope with themselves in a healthy manner without the assumption that they are generally good natured, rational, and sane. Expose their ill natured, irrational, and crazy side for what it is and they will typically go apeshit trying to stop you. (This is typically where you end up with the shit kicked out of you for doing exactly as they asked and why you get punished for good deeds.) The deception is there so they can reap the benefits of their dark sides without having to actually acknowledge they exist to anyone, especially themselves.
Something that bugs me about that statement: Out of curiosity, since when does a lack of evidence amount to an adequate explanation?
And, also, how does malicious incompetence fall under that false dichotomy? Or, for that matter, what of reckless incompetence and plausible dependability?
Oh, and for the record: Experience tells me such an outcome is often the result of a PHB or two and a few "I don't give a fuck anymore." engineers. It's fun to dismiss PHBs as merely incompetent. But, what they are competent in is convincing people their actions warrant promotion, regardless of the actual results of their actions.
This is in theory, how it is supposed to work in my organization. However, in reality, it takes two weeks, involves 4 different IT divisions acting in unison, and getting someone to pull rank in the executive branch to get the central IT department to change one character in a name attached to a standard windows domain user account. But, yes, the initial request is sent via the ticketing system.
There is also a ton of extra flak. But, I'll spare you all of that. Suffice to say, if I was allowed to fix it myself, I would.
No, I am actually quite experienced with winter (...and fall...and spring) precipitation. Although, I typically do not have to suffer through the bitter cold of those further north. (I consider the single digits F to be dangerously cold, if that helps you guess.) I was actually thinking about using lenses with defroster elements, and perhaps a sensor to detect whether or not the lens actually is obstructed rather than a simple thermometer based thermostat. Oh, and on most intersections I can see the lights for 3 of the directions.
I am not saying it should be dismissed outright. The factual information itself is actually useful. In some cases the LED lights may need to be modified or replaced to deal with unforeseen consequences. I do not have any issue with that.
As I said, my issue with it is that people that do not think will read this and only respond to the emotional elements, basically fear of the unknown. And, further, the information is delivered in such a manner as to communicate a false conclusion, despite the individual elements being syntactically true. While I myself might be able to derive some intellectual benefit from this individually, I will now have to deal with people that will insist on protecting their emotionally out of control egos.
Or, basically, it is a warning that the useful discussion on the matter is ensured to be minimal, and will most likely degenerate into "*blank* is EVIL! Kill it!" ideological stupidity. Which is, of course, the point of propaganda. And, notice, I'm not just talking about people that are against "green" shit.
I read this and I almost immediately thought "propaganda." Why? A appeal to fear based on a insignificant and easily fixable event, then attempting to tie the fear to larger political concepts. Fear change! Fear green! Equals death! Keep same! Same is warm! Same is reliable! Same is safe! You don't have to think about same!
It's not that one dimensional. Regardless of the relative depth of authoritarianism, there are differing chains of command. It's one thing to order one of your lackeys to do something. It's another to order some other nation's lackeys to do something. The latter requires spending political capital. They can do it; but, it takes time and sometimes requires more effort than it's worth.
Laws against spitting in public are justified. But, chances are, if a officer of the law is actually coming down on your ass for spitting in public, the spitting in public is just an excuse to punish you for something you have a right to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually did read some of those emails, and I find it funny that those emails where complaining about what you are complaining about. Apparently, they thought, or felt, hell I don't know if they had any evidence. But, regardless, they where complaining that one of the Journals had been taken over by some kind of special interest group, subverting the peer review process. And, one of them suggested that they boycott the journal, circumventing what they felt was a corrupted peer review process.
So, now we've got one "side" bitching that the other is subverting the peer review process and vice-versa; and, neither is acknowledging their own hand in the matter. I find this oh, so amusing. ...and sad, very sad.
Likewise, they should not be automatically afforded the label as "skeptic" as a genuine skeptic is actually interested both information that confirms or denies (or perhaps something completely different) what they think may be true, in short a neutral position.
"But just keep answering the questions or pointing to places where they can get the answers."
How do you keep an idiot occupied? ... I'll pass thanks.
I dunno, how?
How do you keep an idiot occupied?
I dunno, how?
How do you keep an idiot occupied?
I dunno, how?
"I have no data, but my intuition indicates that many skeptics are being reinforced in their viewpoints simply because they are being ridiculed for their beliefs by well meaning people."
Skeptics? More like people in general. People have an amazing ability rationalize any belief. Seriously, get a hold on a social psych text book. The more pressure the person feels to justify the belief, the stronger the urge to reinforce that belief. For some real-world examples: 419 scams, cult worship, fraternity indoctrination, battered wives, etc...
As for progress: The circular arguments have more nodes now. But, it's still basically the same style of argument. And, quite frankly, I myself need to go through the numbers to weed out the political happy crap I've been fed over the years.
It's not their job to convince you of anything. You are supposed to get the necessary education and analyze the information and find the flaws and confirm the observations when they do not. Can't do it? Well, then you're going to have to rely on expert opinion and hope the leadership doesn't do something that screws you yet again. Or, at least that it screws you less than the (real) results of doing nothing.
But, no, two talking heads get on InterToobs and one tells the audience the sky is yellow and the other says the sky is green. Then, half the audience thinks the sky is yellow because it's obviously not green and the other half thinks the sky is green, because it's obviously not yellow. Then a nice little thinly veiled holy war ensues. And, the guy that stands up and says the sky is blue (along with the ones that say black, red, purple, etc...) gets treated like some kind of crazy-extremist-traitor or something. Oh, well.
Then say so. "...so the fact that China is doing so badly in this area probably has nothing to do with their form of government." != "...so the fact that China is doing so badly in this area probably has nothing to do with their government being totalitarian."
The indeterminate state of the argument was precisely my point. The person I as replying to was trying to use the knowledge that both states harbored totalitarian governments to state that the government could not be responsibility for the academic scientific corruption, which is ridiculous. A government != a system of government != ideology. Stop equivocating them to patch up your dissonance. The argument is not sound, the logic is fatally flawed.
And, why do you assume I take some kind of opposing view? I'm expected to agree with a shitty argument because it strokes my own egotistical beliefs? Seriously, and most of you wonder how we end up with these absolutely wonderful leaders we've got.
Just because two items share membership in set, does not mean the properties of those items are transitive via the set. For example: Just because a set contains a number that is prime does not mean all the numbers in that set are primes.
Just because the one totalitarian government didn't corrupt it's scientific research as much as another similar, but different government does not mean that that corruption can not be a property of that government.
Actually, I read a book on how to influence people that cited a study done on Watergate. And, it is a well known sales tactic, and is confirmed in social psychology texts. The implied conclusion of which is that the result does not even have to be "semi-reasonable" itself. The sales pitch (negotiation as you put it) just has to appear somewhat reasonable, not what is actually being sold. It just has to be less audacious, hence your quotes.
It seems people are hard coded to negotiate in good faith under the assumption that the other player is also acting similarly, even if evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, people will often reflexively entertain and agree to ridiculous arrangements based on the need to alleviate this external dissonance of sorts. Thus, a street peddler can sell you the $1 trinket necklace he just bought at a dollar store for $5 by asking for $8 first and then "compromising" to $5, despite the fact you wouldn't even have bought it for a buck otherwise. (FYI: That also includes an example of assumed high value for high cost and inadequately compensating for an initial impression.)
I don't know how it is in your stretch of the US. But, around here we have two major variants of asshole drivers.
There is group "A", the archtypical speeding asshole: They speed, tailgate, weave in and out of traffic, and pass on the right (using turn lanes, merge lanes, etc...) etc...
But, then there is a larger group "B", a group I rarely hear about:
This group will floor it through stop signs and red lights to cut off traffic (I have seen SUVs spin out on ice attempting this.), even if there is a mile of space clearly just after it. They almost always go immediately into the left lane and stay there, even if they have to cut off everyone to make an emergency right after spending the past 20 miles in the left. They will actively attempt to prevent people from passing them, usually by flooring it until no one can safely and legally pass them, then slowing down (like that helps). Like group A, they will also attempt to use turn and merge lanes to pass people, the only difference being they pretend to be dumbasses that need help instead of the pricks they are.
Although, aside from cutting off traffic, they generally drive at or below the speed limit. I guess it's to console themselves that at least they are not the asshole drivers in group A, like the speeding is the only fault with that style.
Group A is usually identified when they ride up people's asses and/or change lanes at the last second. Group B will usually cut off traffic by failing to stop or yeild (or even slow down), and then immediately situate themselves in the left lane.
I'll go one step further and state that if there was someone who was willing and able to finish it, they would be fired for not being a team player.
Of course it's an economic assessment. And, you are dealing with people that think the lottery is the best-shot investment strategy for retirement. Bad stuff only happens to bad people and I am a good person. So, what's the point of this again?
And, remember folks! Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity!
From the psychology texts I've read, the constant surveillance promotes paranoia, the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" amoral punishment promotes schizophrenia, and the outbursts of erratic, harsh punishment promotes sociopathy. Although, to be fair, the information I read on that aspect of sociopathy focused on early childhood development. It was not specified if it had an influence in later childhood as well.
IANAP: Take this as amateur speculation.
...make the rules. Do as I say, not as I do. It's the same in every authoritarian government, whether it be a superpower, a multinational corporation, or just the family next door.
The reason why this works is rather simple: It's not a competition between something that costs and something that is free. That is only on the surface. I'll give my own rational: I hear a track I like on the (satellite) radio. Now, I can either spend the next 10 to 15 minutes wading through broken links, abandoned torrents, and spam sites to end up with something that has a high likelihood of not even being the remix or the quality I wanted. I could also run the off chance someone I know already has it and mentions it at some point, then spend a similar amount of time trying to exchange the media. Or, I can go to a central website, spend 5 minutes listening to previews and spend a buck for the track using a low hassle micro-payment system.
As the saying goes, time is money. If your customers have the disposable income that accumulates at a rate higher than the rate of benefit, they will often choose to spend that income rather than work for a benefit at a lower rate of return. And, then they have the luxury of spending their time on something more beneficial.
Someone mentioned porn? Pay for porn does not work because: ...which brings me to the public humiliation that is involved in acknowledging one's own sexuality, for IRL or online purchases.
- It is typically a significant monetary cost, two to three orders of magnitude. It goes from being petty cash to being a discretionary budget item.
- In the digital form, requires a month to month commitment. Human sexual desire typically involves a lot of spontaneity. You don't marry porn.
- Shyster websites will often not have the level of content implied and will keep charging customers long after they have terminated your subscription.
- The catalog is limited from site to site, and people are typically not going to pay the full fee just to see one spread.
- The record of your purchase is basically public (corporate) information that anyone can purchase.
-
"...it seems to me that the bulk of human interactions is based on deception, whether they be of a legal, religious, economic, or romantic nature. This was true in school, and it remains true in adulthood."
Oh, it's far more sinister than that. People literally can not cope with themselves in a healthy manner without the assumption that they are generally good natured, rational, and sane. Expose their ill natured, irrational, and crazy side for what it is and they will typically go apeshit trying to stop you. (This is typically where you end up with the shit kicked out of you for doing exactly as they asked and why you get punished for good deeds.) The deception is there so they can reap the benefits of their dark sides without having to actually acknowledge they exist to anyone, especially themselves.
Something that bugs me about that statement: Out of curiosity, since when does a lack of evidence amount to an adequate explanation?
And, also, how does malicious incompetence fall under that false dichotomy? Or, for that matter, what of reckless incompetence and plausible dependability?
Oh, and for the record: Experience tells me such an outcome is often the result of a PHB or two and a few "I don't give a fuck anymore." engineers. It's fun to dismiss PHBs as merely incompetent. But, what they are competent in is convincing people their actions warrant promotion, regardless of the actual results of their actions.
This is in theory, how it is supposed to work in my organization. However, in reality, it takes two weeks, involves 4 different IT divisions acting in unison, and getting someone to pull rank in the executive branch to get the central IT department to change one character in a name attached to a standard windows domain user account. But, yes, the initial request is sent via the ticketing system.
There is also a ton of extra flak. But, I'll spare you all of that. Suffice to say, if I was allowed to fix it myself, I would.
It's because we suffer under the delusion that corporations cannot be part of the amorphous entity known as government.
No, I am actually quite experienced with winter (...and fall...and spring) precipitation. Although, I typically do not have to suffer through the bitter cold of those further north. (I consider the single digits F to be dangerously cold, if that helps you guess.) I was actually thinking about using lenses with defroster elements, and perhaps a sensor to detect whether or not the lens actually is obstructed rather than a simple thermometer based thermostat. Oh, and on most intersections I can see the lights for 3 of the directions.
I am not saying it should be dismissed outright. The factual information itself is actually useful. In some cases the LED lights may need to be modified or replaced to deal with unforeseen consequences. I do not have any issue with that.
As I said, my issue with it is that people that do not think will read this and only respond to the emotional elements, basically fear of the unknown. And, further, the information is delivered in such a manner as to communicate a false conclusion, despite the individual elements being syntactically true. While I myself might be able to derive some intellectual benefit from this individually, I will now have to deal with people that will insist on protecting their emotionally out of control egos.
Or, basically, it is a warning that the useful discussion on the matter is ensured to be minimal, and will most likely degenerate into "*blank* is EVIL! Kill it!" ideological stupidity. Which is, of course, the point of propaganda. And, notice, I'm not just talking about people that are against "green" shit.
It's not always that they are in a hurry. It's often just a plain old sense of entitlement.
I read this and I almost immediately thought "propaganda." Why? A appeal to fear based on a insignificant and easily fixable event, then attempting to tie the fear to larger political concepts. Fear change! Fear green! Equals death! Keep same! Same is warm! Same is reliable! Same is safe! You don't have to think about same!
It's not that one dimensional. Regardless of the relative depth of authoritarianism, there are differing chains of command. It's one thing to order one of your lackeys to do something. It's another to order some other nation's lackeys to do something. The latter requires spending political capital. They can do it; but, it takes time and sometimes requires more effort than it's worth.
Laws against spitting in public are justified. But, chances are, if a officer of the law is actually coming down on your ass for spitting in public, the spitting in public is just an excuse to punish you for something you have a right to do.
Just in case it matters: IANAL.
Vote for the other guy and hope it changes. ...oops.