House of Eratosthenes

Went up into the hills yesterday with a friend of mine, to go hiking and make some far away inanimate objects dance around, by way of burning gunpowder. Great fun. Turns out, there’s a big bright round thing up in the sky and that might have something to do with why there are shadows and stuff. As we were walking along chit-chatting about this and that, we hit on the observation that some of the Internet-arguing people, the left-wingers debating non-debatable things endlessly under cutesy pseudonyms, flinging accusations around, moving goalposts, engaging all sorts of nonsense hyperbole and logical fallacies — they often act like this whole thing is, for them, some sort of a gig. They show all the surface-level passion of a car salesman in a teevee commercial. And I think you know what I mean by that: He acts more animated in delivering his message than a “true believer” would show in delivering his — you can tell he’s getting paid, or hoping to get paid.

Amateurs behave differently. They at least consider good, hard evidence that might upset their views. If someone is really and truly concerned about gun violence killing people, and their proffered solution is gun control, they may not ultimately accept or approve of the clear and obvious rebuttal, “Oh, like Chicago?” But that should at least slow them down a bit. My friend was getting frustrated because he was able to recall when the liberals put up bad citations, he had the citation of some other work that clearly proved the other one was faulty, fraudulent, a study made in bad faith, or some such; and, a little later in the comment thread, the lib would put up the same link all over again, as if he hadn’t dealt with that, like the earlier exchange never happened. Such frustrating behavior might very well be the work of an amateur, but it doesn’t seem likely. It certainly doesn’t reflect the characteristics of someone who’s truly concerned about the problem being discussed. And, it is exactly what you’d expect out of someone being paid.

We already have people who vote for a living. Could it be we have large number of people who argue on the Internet for a living?

I can recall when that was a very silly question to ask. Nowadays, there’s been a shift, I think, and we need to seriously consider it. Lord knows, it’s gotten much tougher to get a “real” job under Barack Obama, and there is a perceptible increase in strange, weird activities representative of the swelling ranks of people who, ya know, gotta pay the bills somehow. Registering the home phone with donotcall.gov doesn’t seem to do a bit of good anymore, you just get the same dinnertime phone calls from companies conducting “surveys.” I’ve occasionally been tempted to ask the person on the other end what the terms of their employment are. Truth be told though, that conversation so rarely happens because when I take the time to pick up the handset and say hello, and hear some machine whirring away or clicking or whatever to connect me to some other human who couldn’t manage to actually dial me, I hang up immediately. It’s a great feeling. But it would be better to skip the whole stupid exercise.

I digress, though.

Are these teeming multitudes of “gotta pay the bills somehow” people being recruited by liberal activist organizations to argue on the Internet, hmmmm. I haven’t seen anything that would create an actual problem for the theory. And for the things already seen, it’s a bit tough to come up with some alternative explanations. The Internet-arguing lefty says, here is a study that says X; my buddy says, here is the study that proves your study is a sham; a dozen comments go by, over the next day or two, and the lefty puts up here-is-the-study-that-says-X all over again like the earlier exchange never took place. Frustrating, maddening, and downright weird. If it isn’t paid trolling, it looks like brain damage.

One alternative explanation has the virtue of being simpler. Simple explanations are valuable. They deserve our attention, and maybe they even merit a friendly bias. The simpler explanation is the one we have always been assuming: People who are passionate about something, just don’t listen very well.

By way of explanation, and perhaps making good use of the earlier digression: I recall a certain older male relative who received one of these phone calls from a real estate “firm” of questionable repute, who called him up and got him all excited about a house-flipping opportunity out in the crumbling suburbs of Detroit. There followed a flurry of hasty long-distance family-conference, during which time my brother and I endeavored to shake him from this. Boy, was it ever tough. My brother then took an interesting tack on the whole thing, conceding the point that going into house flipping was the RIGHT thing to do, since the senior relative wanted to do it so badly, but then outlining the steps that should be followed if this is to be done right. The oldster, surprisingly, conceded back that this plan made all sorts of good sense. But then continued to chatter away excitedly about the shysters who called him.

This intrigued me as much as it perplexed me. I spoke to him about it some more and directly inquired: Why is it, exactly, that we’re hoping for good results from following a bad process? Doesn’t it make better sense to hope for good results from a good process?

That stopped him, and made him think. For a moment or two.

Then, he continued to chatter away excitedly about the shysters. Some more.

This is Confirmation Bias.

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.
:
Experiments have found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis. Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they phrase questions to receive an affirmative answer that supports their hypothesis. They look for the consequences that they would expect if their hypothesis were true, rather than what would happen if it were false. For example, someone using yes/no questions to find a number he or she suspects to be the number 3 might ask, “Is it an odd number?” People prefer this type of question, called a “positive test”, even when a negative test such as “Is it an even number?” would yield the exact same information.

I have noticed something over the years about confirmation bias, that might go a long way toward explaining the Internet behavior. Confirmation bias has a tendency to be LOUD. Ever notice that?

People who fall for this and start to engage the poor decision-making that results from it, seem to be a lot more interested in the confirmation than in the bias. They don’t want to do it all by themselves. They want to socialize their poor decisions. From watching how all this goes down, I’ve often formed the impression that there is real, and perhaps measurable, confirming going on here. The subject is perhaps 60% certain of the proposition before talking about it with others, and 80% to 90% certain of it afterward, even if no actual supporting evidence has been provided. For examples of this, I don’t have to think back too far or recall too much: As I drove home from the excursion, I passed one of those idiotic atheism billboards that said “‘Tis the season to apply reason” or some such. There. That right there is what I’m describing. Proselytizing a lack of belief. What’s it cost to rent a billboard? How does this emerge as a good decision, even if you have all the money in the world? Aren’t your resources still limited? Why do this? Seriously. Stupid.

A genuine and respectable atheist wouldn’t give a fig.

Humans have a way of welcoming confirmation bias, of working hard to make it happen to us. We all have an inclination, I think, to treat our own endorsements of something before audiences of familiars or strangers, as if it’s hard evidence. Blogging provides an enormous temptation toward doing that, by the very nature of the exercise. You have to work hard, with pretty much every paragraph, asking yourself “Waitaminnit, how do I know this is true?” The answer that comes easiest — few will admit it, but this is universally true — is: It must be true, I just wrote it down, and heck the whole Internet can see it! That, obviously, is faulty thinking right there. But you have to work to stay out of it, to not be sucked in.

No one is immune. And of course, it’s always fun and entertaining to point it out in the other side. But no greater harm in doing it, contrasted with not doing it. These things should be corrected. “Sayin’ so don’t make it so,” when someone just talks out their ass about the Tea Party being full of trigger-happy weirdos or something similarly slanderous and uninformed.

We’re all here by accident and there is no God? Sayin’ so don’t make it so.

The point to all this is: These people — assuming they are NOT being paid — are engaging in an ancient social pastime. They seem to inwardly know that their comments are not intended to observe the state of an object, quite so much as to change the state of an object. This is learned behavior from early on. You see it in classrooms of little kids arriving at a consensus about something; If some of the more charismatic ones happen to have their minds made up earlier than the majority, for whatever reason, they are very often heard using their “outside voices” inside. They are building a skill, which some of us are missing I notice. The skill of deciding and measuring things, that can be decided or measured only by way of including the human element.

Some everyday examples of this:

Where this emerging consensus is going;
Whether the decor in this room makes it delightful/cheerful;
Whether a newly discovered political figure has “charisma,” or as it is commonly phrased, “is the real deal”;
Whether a baby is beautiful, or ugly;
Whether the dance performance was worth a 10.0;
How to interpret an ambiguously worded test question, like “one hundred and one over five eighths”;
He’s a jerk (pass-fail assessment);
…but he’s an even bigger one (relative assessment);
He does, or doesn’t, “need” that money he has;
Joe Biden won that debate.

You go see a movie with a group of people, and one among you might say: “That actor really nailed the part, didn’t he?” The truth no one wants to acknowledge is that the “didn’t he?” is more important than the preceding statement. This is someone welcoming, on top of practicing, the exercise of confirmation bias. Actively seeking to have the bias confirmed. The question implicitly acknowledges the possibility that the actor didn’t really do that well. It grudgingly allows for this, in the sense that it seeks to eliminate it. There’s no point trying to eliminate something that isn’t actually there.

You can see the conflict, everyday, if you only take the time to look. As fewer and fewer people think Obama is a good president, the bullying-narrative that He is the greatest ever, has become more forceful. More intense. Any day now the healthcare.gov site is going to be working wonderfully…it’s said over and over, although there’s no evidence supporting this at all.

Matters to be decided in that bulleted-list up above, share common characteristics and these are worth some serious thought. They are testable, it could be said; it could even be said the tests are reproducible. If a hundred randomly selected people all agree that a room is tastefully and pleasingly decorated or that a baby is beautiful, you can go pick out an additional two or three participants and they’ll probably agree. What distinguishes them from the harder and firmer stuff, like “what is 2 + 2?” is that the human element is required.

Some of these squish-ball questions work very hard at masquerading as something objectively measurable. “Mitt Romney doesn’t need all that money” comes off sounding like an assessment has been made of what the Romney family “needs,” and either the income or the net worth has been mechanically and coldly assessed at something far above this. That is the implied sales job. We all know that is not the case, and that is not what is being expressed.

I have occasionally commented, to the surprise of some people I know, that if Autism was as trendy when I was a kid as it is now, I’d be diagnosed for sure. I don’t follow it up with a “wouldn’t I?” because there’s no confirmation bias taking place there, you’ll have to take my word for that. I’m absolutely sure of it. Of all the things that are different between a middle-age Morgan and a school-age Morgan, one thing that has remained absolutely consistent is my poor performance on written tests, even on tests confined to subjects on which my conceptual understanding is complete and strong. Even achieving total command, best I can do is about 70% at the end of it because I keep running into idiotic stupid questions like this one…and, responding much the same way as this so-called autistic kid:

You see, when the biggest part of answering the question is resolving the conundrum of “What did the test designer really mean to say?” — well, ya know, that’s a problem.

But we have a much bigger problem than that, in our society. We are conflating these squishy questions with firmer questions. We are essentially intermixing questions that cannot be resolved…read that as, cannot be resolved without including the human element, questions that require the engagement of confirmation bias in order to be answered at all…with questions that rely on objectively measurable truth. We are making an everyday habit out of mistaking the former for the latter.

It’s only impacting those of us who never learned how to socialize our poorest decisions, never learned how to acquire and ingrain a sense of certainty about them. A sense of certainty that, it should be noted, never belonged there in the first place. Only we notice it, because only we have any reason to. And we’re not only being outvoted on this matter. We’re being diagnosed with learning disabilities that don’t actually exist, at least, not in the way they’re being portrayed.

The loud majority is fortunate…I guess they are. They get to run around saying risible, silly things like “the science is settled on climate change.” What they are doing is something they’ve been doing for a very long time, since back in those school days where, when the group is asked a question…the heads swivel left, then the heads swivel right. Everyone knows whether or not to put their hands up, after they’ve had a couple moments to check and see what everyone else is doing. They are affecting the state of an object while deluding themselves, and others, into thinking they’re just reading it. That object is ethereal and omnipresent — everywhere, surrounding us all, binding us together. It’s almost mystic. And they’ve managed to achieve some weird symbiotic relationship with it. “The actor really nailed the part, didn’t he?” feeds this ethereal object surrounding us and binding us together. They tell the ether what to think. And the ether rewards them by confirming their certainty, and in so doing, sustaining and nourishing them.

After a lifetime on the outside looking in, I’m still confused about whether I should feel jealous or not.

Their answers are always “right.” Until they’re not…and then, as we see in some examples of group-thinking error, like the “Obama’s gonna fix our health care” thing for example…they become not only estranged from reality, but resentful of it as well. The traumatic collision between theory and reality is airbrushed out of the recent history; it never happened. Anybody who brings it up is demoted to pariah status. Needs to leave. It is “futile to discuss” the matter with such people………….isn’t it?

Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts and Right Wing News.

[…] at House of Eratosthenes and Right Wing […]
- Feeding the Ether | Rotten Chestnuts | 12/29/2013 @ 08:15
mkfreeberg: “the science is settled on climate change.”

The science is ‘settled’ on the Earth’s movement. Do you see the problem with the statement?
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 10:03
How much could putting comments on blogs pay, though? I reckon if it were by the comment, you’d have to do quite a few to make it worthwhile to you. I suspect in cases where a refuted statement is simply ignored, that a program, or procedure if you prefer that term, is in operation. Either that or the commenter is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who definitely has a short term memory problem.

And the autistic kid’s test…looks more like lysdexia, to me.
- jdallen | 12/29/2013 @ 10:33
Good opint.
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 10:40
Ah, but there are many “jobs” out there, yes? Make-work until it’s time to do the real job, vote, vote, and vote again for the Democrats. But when no actual work is being done, how do you decide who gets promoted? Perhaps the blog posts by Zachriel and those like him are how they put their featherbedding nose to the grindstone?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/29/2013 @ 11:12
Robert Mitchell Jr: Perhaps the blog posts by Zachriel and those like him are how they put their featherbedding nose to the grindstone?

We have no interest in blogging other than for the exchange of ideas.
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 11:30
…and feeding the ether.
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 11:47
mkfreeberg: …and feeding the ether.

As we said, we have no interest in blogging other than for the exchange of ideas. You may want to define how you are using “ether”. It’s not clear from your original post.
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 12:45
I can cut and paste it all over again. I hear that’s fun:

They are affecting the state of an object while deluding themselves, and others, into thinking they’re just reading it. That object is ethereal and omnipresent — everywhere, surrounding us all, binding us together. It’s almost mystic. And they’ve managed to achieve some weird symbiotic relationship with it. “The actor really nailed the part, didn’t he?” feeds this ethereal object surrounding us and binding us together. They tell the ether what to think. And the ether rewards them by confirming their certainty, and in so doing, sustaining and nourishing them.

That looks pretty clear, to me. Was there something left undefined in there somewhere? Something I need to put in bold that will help clarify what’s not clear?
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 14:20
“The exchange of Ideas” Zachriel? I have seen many of your comments. Don’t remember any ideas from you. Lots of defending of the current Leftist “consensus”, a burning need to have the “last word”, without having every put out a word. I have seen the same effect on Wikipedia, and the few times I have dug down to the root of it, the “Guardian at the Gate” has turned out to be a “civil servant” posting and deleting so much, during work hours, that they obviously don’t have any real work during those hours……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/29/2013 @ 15:55
mkfreeberg: They are affecting the state of an object while deluding themselves, and others, into thinking they’re just reading it.

So the ether is an object, one “they” think “they” read.

mkfreeberg: That looks pretty clear, to me.

Hardly.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Don’t remember any ideas …

Sorry, didn’t see any relevant ideas in your comment.
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 18:07
Horrors! Some entirely-anonymous clique of busybodies-on-the-Internet, unknown in number and in background, can’t understand it! Obviously it must be wrong in every identifiable aspect and I shall have to withdraw it.

Thank y’all for demonstrating how the “peer review process” works, though. It works by feeding the ether.
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 18:46
mkfreeberg: Obviously it must be wrong in every identifiable aspect and I shall have to withdraw it.

People will draw their own conclusions about your inability to defend your position.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 06:05
And healthcare.gov will work great.

Defend my position from what? Some unnamed persons have chosen not to understand it? Not much of an indictment.
- mkfreeberg | 12/30/2013 @ 06:29
mkfreeberg: Defend my position from what?

From when inconsistencies are pointed out in your position.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 09:09
mkfreeberg:>/b> Defend my position from what?

Z:From when inconsistencies are pointed out in your position.

Y’all ain’t pointed out anything, though. You claimed something wasn’t clear to you. That’s all, and that’s less than nothing. The only things that are clear to you are things that don’t actually exist. Anything substantial, capable of casting any sort of mental shadow, you willfully ignore or misconstrue.

If you put one-fifth the effort into understanding someone else’s point of view as you did into bricking in your minds behind citations and doubletalk, you might actually get somewhere. If nothing else, you would be better at your own ether manipulating, since you’d actually be responding to real points given by real people.

I’m nearly convinced that “Zachriel” is actually the name of some complicating Turing test program. It has the appearance and form of conversation, without the substance. There is absolutely no exchange of thought or ideas, no matter what you claim you’re on the Internet for. Observation suggests strongly that you’re here to exchange confirmations, not ideas – chanting a creed into cyberspace and continually frustrated that your targeted congregants are not giving the proper responses.

In a way it’s as frustrating for us as playing an old text adventure game and getting nowhere because we haven’t hit on the precise combination of commands the program expects in order to simply move us across the room, pick up the MacGuffin, and walk out the door. “There is nothing to the Northeast of your position. You can’t pick that up from here. I don’t understand the word ‘walk.’ There is nothing to the North-Northeast of your position. I don’t understand the word ‘grab.’ You can’t reach the door from here. I don’t understand the word ‘door.’ There is nothing to the Northeast-by-North of your position.”

Your programmers have succeeded entirely in that respect… you’re flawless at quoting bits of a comment thread and claiming irrelevance, or refutation, based on the next link from the list or a cut-and-paste from one of your previous comments. But this shows no real interaction with the actual thoughts of the other persons. It’s all very impressive for the sheer amount of real work it takes to keep missing the point, but it’s not actually a conversation.
- nightfly | 12/30/2013 @ 10:08
nightfly: You claimed something wasn’t clear to you.

We did ask for clarification of how the term “ether” was being used. Mkfreeberg merely reposted the original text, which says that the “ether” was an object, one “they” think “they” read.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 10:14
Well said, Nightfly.

In fact, this whole thread has really hit on something that’s been bugging me forever — what’s the point of it all?

The Zachriel are an admittedly extreme example, but I just can’t come up with a goal that justifies all their effort, other than some kind of catechistic call-and-response. Ok, so they’re not “feeding the ether.” That seems to be the substance (such as it is) of their complaint. They claim to be looking for an exchange of ideas. So, ok: What ideas are they trying to exchange? What would prompt them to hang up the ol’ “mission accomplished” banner and swim away?

The whole business strikes me like like those long strings of Tibetan prayer flags. Ok, so every time the wind blows, that counts as another recitation of the mantra. Which achieves…. what, exactly? What benefits accrue to my soul — which I take to be the point of the exercise — by setting an entirely mechanical process into motion?
- Severian | 12/30/2013 @ 10:26
Severian: What ideas are they trying to exchange?

Mkfreeberg posted a thread called “feeding the ether”. In order to understand his idea, we would have to understand what he means by “ether”. It’s apparently an object of some sort, which is contrary to many notions of ether.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 11:07
Huh. And yet, y’all also claim to have pointed out inconsistencies in Morgan’s position.

Finding inconsistencies in a position you don’t understand is quite a feat. Do y’all also do card tricks?
- Severian | 12/30/2013 @ 11:27
Severian: Finding inconsistencies in a position you don’t understand is quite a feat.

We pointed to an apparent inconsistency, but we’re more than happy to consider a further explanation. The author has suggested the explanation will not be forthcoming.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 11:31
Ether.
- mkfreeberg | 12/30/2013 @ 11:54
Ether.
- mkfreeberg | 12/30/2013 @ 11:57
How can you find any inconsistencies, apparent or real, in an argument you don’t understand? The only way to tell if two statements are inconsistent with each other is to understand what they both mean.

Here’s an example: Y’all claim to have found an “inconsistency” in Morgan’s position. And yet, here are all the statements y’all typed previous to that claim:

a) The science is ‘settled’ on the Earth’s movement. Do you see the problem with the statement?

b)We have no interest in blogging other than for the exchange of ideas.

c) As we said, we have no interest in blogging other than for the exchange of ideas. You may want to define how you are using “ether”. It’s not clear from your original post.

d) So the ether is an object, one “they” think “they” read.

e) Hardly.

f) Sorry, didn’t see any relevant ideas in your comment.

g) People will draw their own conclusions about your inability to defend your position.

Those are the sum total of the statements y’all made prior to the “inconsistency” claim. So: Which one points out the inconsistency in Morgan’s position? I have given each a letter for your convenience. Your choices are a, b, c, d, e, f, or g. Pick one.
- Severian | 12/30/2013 @ 13:29
mkfreeberg: Ether.

That wasn’t so hard. Thank you. So not so much an object, but a vital force or field.

What they are doing is something they’ve been doing for a very long time, since back in those school days where, when the group is asked a question…the heads swivel left, then the heads swivel right. Everyone knows whether or not to put their hands up, after they’ve had a couple moments to check and see what everyone else is doing.

Isn’t that just conformity?

They are affecting the state of an object while deluding themselves, and others, into thinking they’re just reading it. That object is ethereal and omnipresent — everywhere, surrounding us all, binding us together.

So what is this ethereal “object”?

And they’ve managed to achieve some weird symbiotic relationship with it. “The actor really nailed the part, didn’t he?” feeds this ethereal object surrounding us and binding us together. They tell the ether what to think. And the ether rewards them by confirming their certainty, and in so doing, sustaining and nourishing them.

Sounds like conformity. Is conformity ethereal? Or is it consensus?
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 16:03
Objects can’t be ethereal?
- mkfreeberg | 12/30/2013 @ 17:04
mkfreeberg: Objects can’t be ethereal?

We referred to your definition in which ether is defined as a substance or force. More particularly, ether is quintessence, the substance that makes up the classical heavens. It’s like you’re saying that matter is an object. Matter is a substance that can make up an object. Your unusual use of the term made it difficult to understand your meaning. Even with that clarification, it’s hard to know what you’re talking about.

So is your ether just another name for conformity?
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 17:33
Through this exchange of ideas, I think we’ve figured out why y’all have reading-comprehension problems. It’s a simple problem. We should direct our efforts there, at the source.

Object:

noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.

So the way y’all comprehends words, if this example is any indication, is: Y’all come to definition #1, attempt to reconcile, and stop. Ethereal object, oh no. Does not compute.

Meanwhile, according to definition #2, it computes fine. By the time we get to definition #5, we find the usage is absolutely perfect. But y’all didn’t take it that far, so y’all have this unworkable contradiction with which y’all struggle, which must be my making. But now that we’ve looked it up, we see that it was actually yours. People who are looking for reasons to get confused, will find a way.

And now y’all’s “concede nothing, ever, under any circumstances” rule is going to start getting in the way I suppose.

Object (computer science):

In Object-oriented programming, an object is an instance of a Class. Objects are an abstraction. They hold both data, and ways to manipulate the data. The data is usually not visible outside the object. It can only be changed by using a well-specified mechanism (usually called interface).

As far as what the ether actually is, I suppose the persons attempting to act upon it would have a better idea than I do. Once we understand this interaction better, we can inspect that. “Prevailing viewpoint” or something. severian has been wondering for awhile what “the point” is of liberals debating with people whose minds they say they do not want to change. I’ve been wondering that for a long time too, and so have a lot of other people.

But, it is very obvious this point has to do with the state of the ether. It has a state, and that state can be willfully changed. As such, it is an object. Are y’all trying to say I should have used a different word to make it clearer? It isn’t well established that y’all have an alternative to provide.
- mkfreeberg | 12/31/2013 @ 06:39
mkfreeberg: Ethereal object, oh no.

Our question concerned “ether”, not “ethereal”. Classically, ether is considered a substance, though it can also mean vital force. Matter isn’t an object, though objects can be made of matter.

mkfreeberg: By the time we get to definition #5, we find the usage is absolutely perfect.

Well, no. But we’re not trying to quibble, but to understand.

You seem to have given up on explaining your thesis. That’s okay. It probably can’t be salvaged anyway.
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 07:04
m: By the time we get to definition #5, we find the usage is absolutely perfect.

Z: Well, no. But we’re not trying to quibble, but to understand.

You seem to have given up on explaining your thesis. That’s okay. It probably can’t be salvaged anyway.

Salvaged from what?

It turns out, lots words have multiple definitions. Keeping that in mind is crucial to the process of reading things.
- mkfreeberg | 12/31/2013 @ 07:14
mkfreeberg: Salvaged from what?

From vagueness and inconsistency contained within the essay. We asked several times for a better explanation of this “ether”. We suggested some interpretations, but you twist and fight to avoid accountability for your own ideas.
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 07:17
How can you identify vagueness, when you don’t understand the true meaning of the words y’all are reading?

Once I put up the definition of the word in question, it turned out the problem was with y’all’s understanding of the word and the problem was not within what I wrote.

It seems y’all are the ones trying to “salvage” something.
- mkfreeberg | 12/31/2013 @ 07:23
mkfreeberg: How can you identify vagueness, when you don’t understand the true meaning of the words y’all are reading?

We’re quite aware of the usual meaning of the words. As per your usual habit, your use is unorthodox. That’s not in itself a problem as long as you are willing to explain your usage.

Frankly, you don’t seem interested in your own thesis.
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 07:32
Let’s try this. Rather than quoting your original article, can you explain what you mean by “ether” in your essay? Is it conformist thought? Group consensus?
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 07:41
Z: We’re quite aware of the usual meaning of the words. As per your usual habit, your use is unorthodox.

UNORTHODOX? He quoted an encyclopedia and a dictionary!

Z:Let’s try this. Rather than quoting your original article, can you explain what you mean by “ether” in your essay? Is it conformist thought? Group consensus?

The original article is the explanation. You’ve led us right round the mulberry bush and learned exactly zero from this “exchange of ideas” you’re always so happy about.

Z: Is it conformist thought? Group consensus?

Try a mirror.
- nightfly | 12/31/2013 @ 07:46
nightfly: UNORTHODOX? He quoted an encyclopedia and a dictionary!

Ether is usually construed as a substance, not an object. In any case, we’re not concerned with the semantics, but the ideas mkfreeberg is attempting to express. He doesn’t seem interested in his own thesis, though.

nightfly: The original article is the explanation.

So nothing more can be added or explained that isn’t in the original article. Heh.
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 07:50
Okay, so the exchange of ideas has been fruitful and we have learned something.

Problem statement: The Zachriel possess low reading comprehension; I’m not the only one who has said so. This results, in whole or in part, from their habit of applying only the first definition out of the dictionary to each word as they read it. This leads to illusory contradictions in the things they read, illusory ambiguities and illusory vagueness.

Proposed solution #1: People who write things could take the time to look up each word in the things they write and, rather than applying the test of “is this the best word I can use,” which is already pretty hard to apply all the time, think instead about the much more challenging and time-consuming test of “am I applying definition #1, so The Zachriel won’t get confused.” That could be invigorating and mind-expanding, but I have to doubt that very much would get written.

Proposed solution #2: The Zachriel could go off-line and write a computer application that would do this for us. Takes in a text file that is an essay, applies each word to a dictionary-lookup process, flags every word that doesn’t seem to be implemented in the first-definition. That, too, would be invigorating and mind-expanding, for them, although that, too, would involve such a time investment that I doubt they’d have much to say.

I’m seeing multiple benefits in solution #2. Y’all have impressed me for quite awhile as a collective of individuals who could stand to acquire more experience in seeing theory meet up with implementation, and from the repeated exercise of modifying a design to better fit the demands of tested and validated reality.

Meanwhile, lots of words do have multiple definitions.

As far as what the ether is, it would be difficult to say since I know it only by the efforts invested by others to try to modify it. So it’s “dark matter” to me. I yield to y’all’s superior knowledge, since y’all have repeatedly commented that y’all are trying to exchange ideas to influence the perceptions of yet-other-people, “readers,” who it seems are not among y’all, and are not among the people with whom y’all exchange these ideas. It’s therefore well established that y’all have much more direct knowledge of this than I do.

Is there a different word I should be using to describe it? With my limited understanding of it, it still seems to me that “object” is the best word available. Definitions #2 and #5; 5 primarily, and 2 secondarily in other contexts applicable here.
- mkfreeberg | 12/31/2013 @ 08:06
nightfly: UNORTHODOX? He quoted an encyclopedia and a dictionary!

Z: Ether is usually construed as a substance, not an object.

His usage was precise and clear, and well-supported. You’re awfully obsessed with orthodoxy for a bunch of alleged free-thinkers.

Z: In any case, we’re not concerned with the semantics

That is a straight-out lie. Your entire quibble started with semantics over the terms “ether” and “object.” We’ve come to expect your willful obtuseness and disingenuity about what others write, but it’s preposterous to lie about your own words and methods… unless Morgan’s got you pegged about your pathological need to never concede anything ever. I’ma go ahead and agree with him on it.

nightfly: The original article is the explanation!

Z: So nothing more can be added or explained that isn’t in the original article.

There’s plenty more. The whole comment thread is no doubt quite illuminating… if you’re not hiding under the covers with your blinds pulled and your eyes shut. At this point you’re complaining that it’s not bright enough at blazing noon because there’s still that little bit of shadow over there under that rock so you demand that spotlights be set up. Why should anyone bother? It’s not that it’s not possible to do, it’s that it’s a wasted and pointless effort. Adding more coffee to a completely-full cup just wastes good coffee.

Besides, going back to Morgan’s assessment, I strongly suspect that you like to get five different explanations so that you can pick at the cosmetic differences between them and claim that they thus invalidate the substance of the position. Again – this isn’t an exchange of ideas or a conversation – at least not as those terms are usually construed.
- nightfly | 12/31/2013 @ 08:12
mkfreeberg: This results, in whole or in part, from their habit of applying only the first definition out of the dictionary to each word as they read it.

No. We used the common definition, then asked for clarification.

mkfreeberg: As far as what the ether is, it would be difficult to say since I know it only by the efforts invested by others to try to modify it.

That might explain why your description is vague. It doesn’t explain why you fought so hard to explain your idea.

mkfreeberg: So it’s “dark matter” to me.

Fair enough. So with that in mind, let’s reexamine your original thesis.

They are affecting the state of an object while deluding themselves, and others, into thinking they’re just reading it. That object is ethereal and omnipresent — everywhere, surrounding us all, binding us together. It’s almost mystic. And they’ve managed to achieve some weird symbiotic relationship with it. “The actor really nailed the part, didn’t he?” feeds this ethereal object surrounding us and binding us together. They tell the ether what to think. And the ether rewards them by confirming their certainty, and in so doing, sustaining and nourishing them.

It seems that you are the one who is reveling in the mystic ether inaccessible to the uninitiated.
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 08:18
nightfly: Your entire quibble started with semantics over the terms “ether” and “object.”

Only insofar as to understand his idea.
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 08:25
nightfly: Besides, going back to Morgan’s assessment, I strongly suspect that you like to get five different explanations so that you can pick at the cosmetic differences between them and claim that they thus invalidate the substance of the position.

Actually, mkfreeberg says it’s “dark matter” to him. That helped quite a lot. The problem is that there is no way for him, or anyone else to know who is in the ether, and who is not.
- Zachriel | 12/31/2013 @ 08:27
Nightfly,

you’ve nailed it. If I had the programming chops,* I’d write a computer program that predicts where their comments go next, based on the frequency of their word choice. For instance, they were going on about “inconsistencies” for a while, until I listed every statement they’d made to that point and invited them to point to the one containing the inconsistency. Since they couldn’t do that, they switched catchphrases and started going on about “objects.” When this was revealed as yet one more instance of arguing with the dictionary**, they moved on to “vague,” with minor rhetorical stops at “salvage” and “uninterested.” Should anyone reply to the comment with the phrase “dark matter” in it, I bet they’ll start quoting pop-physics.
.
.
.

*alas, I lack the object oriented programming skills.
** A pathology among lefties, no? Bill Clinton couldn’t define “is” in under three tries, and Obama actually argued with Mirriam-Webster.
- Severian | 12/31/2013 @ 17:28
It seems that you are the one who is reveling in the mystic ether inaccessible to the uninitiated.

I agree, if by “reveling in” y’all mean to say “trying to figure out by way of examining the energies and efforts being exerted on it.”

Not seeing the problem. No contradiction, no inconsistency, no ambiguities, no incorrect terminologies, nothing left unclear. I get what the act is y’all are trying to pull off: “Mkfreeberg stated something badly, and just because we’ve read his words accurately it’s left us all confused.” Y’all haven’t filled in the blanks though, so it comes off looking like posturing and nothing more.

Not that I’ll make any sort of absurd claim that I always word things as concisely or clearly as might be done. I won’t even say I always avoid creating needless confusion. Won’t even say I performed to that standard here. What I will say is that once again, y’all have been given a literally limitless opportunity to define how such a thing is an actual problem, and since y’all have yet to succeed there, y’all’s posturing looks like…posturing…which is what it is. Yeah, I know y’all relish y’all’s ability to make things look like other things. Sometimes y’all succeed at this. This is not one of those times.
- mkfreeberg | 12/31/2013 @ 20:06
mkfreeberg: Not that I’ll make any sort of absurd claim that I always word things as concisely or clearly as might be done.

Nor do we always read with perfection. That’s why we ask questions.

mkfreeberg: No contradiction, no inconsistency, no ambiguities, no incorrect terminologies, nothing left unclear.

The inconsistency you resolved. Thank you. The ambiguities, though, are intrinsic. You said it’s “dark matter” to you. The problem remains that there is no way for you, or anyone else, to know who is in the ether, and who is not.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 07:33
“Who” is in the ether? This concept of people-in-the-ether goes beyond anything I said.

“Ambiguities” is probably not an accurate word, if if y’all acknowledge they’re intrinsic. An essay on the very basics of dark matter might leave some things unexplained, but it would show a critic’s lack of comprehension of the scientific method if he were to fault the paper for failing to explain dark matter itself. He would essentially be criticizing the essay for distinguishing the unknown from the known, which is something science is supposed to do.

The behavior of these (mostly) liberal blog-commentators is a known. Some theories explain that behavior, some theories do not. But we do know that, consciously or otherwise, they are laboring to affect the state of something in the way I have described.
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 08:16
mkfreeberg: “Ambiguities” is probably not an accurate word, if if y’all acknowledge they’re intrinsic.

It could be the ether that blinds you. You’re left with solipsism.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 08:20
How so?

And do tell me more about this “people in the ether” thing. Y’all either fastened that one on to what I said, or I forgot to include it. I’m not sure which.
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 08:22
mkfreeberg: How so?

Heh.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 08:24
Mkay. Ya got nothin’, then.
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 08:25
mkfreeberg: Mkay. Ya got nothin’, then.

You’re blinded by the ether. Or they are. There’s no way to tell.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 08:34
I see.

…[T]hey were going on about “inconsistencies” for a while, until I listed every statement they’d made to that point and invited them to point to the one containing the inconsistency. Since they couldn’t do that, they switched catchphrases and started going on about “objects.” When this was revealed as yet one more instance of arguing with the dictionary**, they moved on to “vague,” with minor rhetorical stops at “salvage” and “uninterested.”

To that long list, we now add the tried-and-true last refuge: Empty mockery.

Y’all simply won’t carry on a conversation in good faith. Y’all’s reading comprehension is abysmal. Y’all see things that aren’t there (“people in the ether”) and fail to see things that are there (mystical properties, implied as well as explicitly spelled out, in “ether”).

Other than those very few minor flaws — perfect participation, absolutely perfect.
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 09:15
mkfreeberg (quoting): “Since they couldn’t do that, they switched catchphrases and started going on about “objects.” :

After quite some time, you explained your unorthodox usage. Thank you.

You are trying to explain some sort of “dark matter”, an ether that others can apparently relate to, but you can’t. You can, however, observe how others interact with the ether, and therefore garner some understanding.

mkfreeberg: To that long list, we now add the tried-and-true last refuge: Empty mockery.

It’s not mere mockery. Do you realize how ironic you can be?

Consider a person born color-blind. People around you talk about color. Who is blind? Who is in the ether? You point to people who relate to something you can’t see. Is “color” imaginary? Or are you blind to color? How can you tell?
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 09:31
After quite some time, you explained your unorthodox usage. Thank you.

The usage was not unorthodox, as nightfly has already explained.

You are trying to explain some sort of “dark matter”, an ether that others can apparently relate to, but you can’t. You can, however, observe how others interact with the ether, and therefore garner some understanding.

Correct, except explaining it is outside of my field of interest and therefore outside of my scope. I think of it the way Howard Roark thought of Ellsworth Toohey, which is to say I don’t. That may change if it’s ever demonstrated that there is a testable reality to the darn thing, but as of now that much has been demonstrated only about the behavior people show as they try to interact with it, not about the object itself.

It’s a subtle distinction but it’s an important one. If the behavior around this ethereal object were rational, then this desire to change its state would be acted out and then evaluated. Failure would require a modification of the behavior, until such time as the desired state change is realized. Success would mean going on to some other objective. The behavior observed is irrational, much like a man chugging down on Classic Coke to kill the burning sensation after eating a plate of Jalapeños. Or a dog scratching an itch under the collar that won’t go away.

It may or may not be a real thing that exists; I don’t know and I don’t care. As noted in the very first paragraph, the object of study is the surrounding behavior.
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 09:43
mkfreeberg: The usage was not unorthodox, as nightfly has already explained.

Is matter an object? Not by the usual meaning of the term.

mkfreeberg: It may or may not be a real thing that exists; I don’t know and I don’t care.

Heh.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 09:45
Hand waving is not an argument. Heh.
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 09:47
mkfreeberg: Hand waving is not an argument.

That’s right. “They” manipulate color/ether, and you don’t see the difference, you think they haven’t made any changes, but that’s because you are blind to color/ether.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 09:53
It’s probably not a question of blindness. The dog’s behavior tells me all I need to know about whether or not he’s really getting rid of an itch.
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 10:11
Aaaaaaand so we’re back to “discussing” the magic power of words.

Funny how it always ends that way with the Cuttlefish. The outcome never matters, only the process. It’s very Confucian — get the names right, and the thing itself will be called into being.

Hitler was a right-winger because “standard usage” says that in this one case, “socialist” doesn’t mean “socialist.” Global warming is happening because “consensus” says temperature readings don’t accurately measure temperature. The Affordable Care Act made health care “affordable,” because that’s what the name of the bill says. Conversely, anything the left doesn’t like will be “defined” into nonexistence. Forbid people from expressing what they notice, and the thing itself will wink out of existence in a puff of dialectic.
- Severian | 01/01/2014 @ 11:23
mkfreeberg: The dog’s behavior tells me all I need to know about whether or not he’s really getting rid of an itch.

And those crazy people who see color, keep right on coloring things.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 13:29
Severian: Aaaaaaand so we’re back to “discussing” the magic power of words.

It has nothing to do with the “magic” of words, but the intended meaning, which mkfreeberg clarified above.
- Zachriel | 01/01/2014 @ 13:35
And those crazy people who see color, keep right on coloring things.

Right. And America’s First Holy Emperor will have that website working any day now. Oh wait, **scrub scrub scrub** **rewrite rewrite rewrite** It’s been working all wonderful ever since ~~October 1~~ 2010. We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

Irrational.

How y’all coming on that computer application? Got a sturdy enough attachment to reality to get it working as well as Emperor Barry’s website?
- mkfreeberg | 01/01/2014 @ 16:39

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Feeding the EtherSunday, December 29th, 2013

Feeding the Ether
Sunday, December 29th, 2013