When David and I arrived at work last Wednesday, our HR manager was in a pretty foul mood. When David asked how she was, she answered “scared. We’ve just voted in a Muslim terrorist as President.”
Now, Barack Obama is neither a terrorist nor a Muslim; in point of fact, he’s a Christian and a long-time member of a Christian church affiliated with the United Church of Christ. But that’s not really what I came here to talk about; in fact, I’m not really here to talk politics at all. I’m here to talk about what makes people believe outlandish things.
There’s a really interesting two-part essay over on Slactivist about an enduring urban legend surrounding Proctor & Gamble, the company that makes laundry detergent and soap and whatnot. According to the urban legend, an unnamed officer of Proctor & Gamble appeared on some television talk show some years ago and announced that the company donates part of its profits every year to the Church of Satan.
As with all urban legends, the details are fuzzy and change over time. Sometimes, it was the president of the company; in other tellings, it was the CEO. Sometimes it was Oprah; sometimes, Phil Donahue. The name of the person who appeared on the show and the date the show aired are, of course, never given.
The interesting thing about this urban legend is its total absurdity. It’s trivial to disprove; it can be demonstrated conclusively beyond even a single atom of doubt that it just plain never happened. Moreover, its utter absurdity would seem to suggest that no reasonable person could believe it.
The two-part essay is worth reading; you can find part one here and part two here.
The essay asserts that, in a nutshell, the folks who repeat this tale, which has been circulating since at least 1980 and possibly before, don’t believe it’s true; instead, they willingly pass on a story they know to be false, and only pretend to believe it’s true. The author asserts:
Those spreading this rumor can be divided into two categories: Those who know it to be false, but spread it anyway, and those who suspect it might be false, but spread it anyway. The latter may be dupes, but they are not innocent. We might think of them as complicit dupes. The former group, the deliberate liars, are making an explicit choice to spread what they know to be lies. The complicit dupes are making a subtler choice — choosing to ignore their suspicion that this story just doesn’t add up and then choosing to pass it along anyway because confirming that it’s not true would be somehow disappointing and would prevent them from passing it along without explicitly becoming deliberate liars, which would make them uncomfortable.
What I want to explore here is why anyone would make either of those choices. In both cases, the spreading of this rumor seems less an attempt to deceive others than a kind of invitation to participate in deception. The enduring popularity of this rumor shows that many people see this invitation as something attractive and choose to accept it, so I also want to explore why anyone would choose to do that.”
I think this is a very interesting argument–that those who pass on the story know it to be false, since it would seem that the story is so prima facie ridiculous that nobody could really believe it.
But I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t believe that the people who pass on this story know it to be false, but pass it on anyway, Instead, I think the real answer can be found in a comment posted after the end of the first part of the essay, and I’ve been chewing on it for weeks now. It offers, I think, a very useful insight into fallacy of all sorts.
The important bit, which caused something of an epiphany in my own understanding of the human condition, is this bit:
When an untrue story circulates, it’s generally because it expresses some kind of social unease. There may not be razors in the Halloween apples, but it’s a way of expressing the concern that your precious children are going out knocking on the doors of people who may not wish them well. There may not be rat poison in the Mars bars, but it’s a way of expressing the sense that they’re definitely not good for you. Not every Bridezilla story may be true, but it’s a way of expressing the sense that the wedding industry is too high-pressured and perfectionistic. There may not be Satanic abuse going on at day care centres, but it’s a way of expressing a sense of discomfort at women going to work and leaving their children in the care of others. And so on.
Human beings are inherently irrational. We carry around with us a kind of internal model of the way we make decisions: we are posed with a question, we think about the question, we evaluate evidence to support or refute each of the available options, and then we come to a conclusion. But that isn’t how it works at all.
More often, the decision is made emotionally, on a subconscious level, long before we ever start thinking about it. After the decision has been made deep within the bowels of our emotional lizard brains, our higher-order, monkey-brain reason is invoked–not to evaluate the decision, but to justify it.
One consequence of this emotion-first decision-making process is confirmation bias, a process of selective evaluation where we tend to exaggerate the value of anything which seems to support our ideas, and to devalue or discard anything which contradicts our ideas. It’s a powerful process that ends up making the decisions we’ve already made and the things we already believe all but immune to the light of disproof, no matter how compelling the disproof may be.
I’ve written before about how the brain is really not an organ of thought so much as an apparatus for forming beliefs, and how it has been shaped by adaptive pressure to b remarkably resilient at forming, and holding on to, beliefs about the physical world.
The adaptive pressures that gave rise to the belief engine within our heads don’t necessarily select in favor of organisms that generate correct beliefs, for reasons I talked about there. But the beliefs that we form do serve a purpose, and sometimes, it’s an emotional purpose.
The things a person believes can reveal a lot about that person’s underlying emotional processes. Beliefs often reflect, in a garbled and twisted way, the buried perceptions and the emotional landscape of those who profess them. Even the most outrageous, clearly absurd beliefs can be quite sincere, and otherwise sane, rational people will adopt insane, irrational beliefs if those beliefs serve some emotional function.
Looked at in this way, a lot of patently absurd beliefs begin to make a kind of sense. They’re distorted funhouse mirror projections of an underlying emotion, twisted out of all rational shape, and clung to through a powerful set of mental processes that make them seem attractive, even obvious.
The idea that Obama is a Muslim terrorist, ridiculous as it is, is an expression of an emotional state: “I do not identify with this person, he seems alien and strange to me, and I am afraid that he will not make decisions that reflect my needs.”
The notion, sometimes seen in a few of the more extremist corners of radical feminism, that all heterosexual sex is always rape becomes an expression of an emotional state: “When I have had sex, I have felt disempowered and violated by the experience.”
The idea that the government staged the attacks on the World Trade Center is a twisted-up, garbled expression of an emotional state: “I am afraid that my nation’s government is corrupt and evil, and is willing to resort to any means, however extreme, to achieve its own ends.”
This is why these beliefs are so vigorously resistant to debunking, even when the evidence against them is overwhelming. They are not assertions of fact in the way that many other statements are; they are assertions of emotional identity.
And they can not be treated as assertions of fact, even though on their face that’s what they look like.
If someone says “New York city is the capital of New York State,” that’s an assertion of fact. It’s easily countered; you can easily show him a map, or point him to Wikipedia, and say “No, the capital of New York State is Albany.” And, if he’s not mentally ill in some way, he’ll probably say “Really? I didn’t know that. Cool!”
But if someone asserts that Proctor & Gamble donates money to the Church of Satan, and you contradict him, he’s likely to respond with anger–in a way that he won’t if you tell him that Albany is New York’s capital. That’s because you’re not contradicting his assertion of fact; you’re telling him that his emotional identity is wrong.
And it’s important to understand that even if a particular belief is wrong, the emotional landscape supporting that belief might not be. Proctor & Gamble does not donate money to the Church of Satan, but what is that belief an expression of? One likely possibility is that the emotional state beneath it looks something like “I do not trust large, faceless corporations to have my interests at heart, and I am afraid that a society dominated by large, faceless corporations may not be responsive to my needs and my values.”
And you know what? That is a perfectly reasonable feeling to have. There very well indeed may be some truth to that idea, even though the specific beliefs that grow from this soil are twisted and misshapen.
Any attempt to debunk these ideas will never succeed if the debunking does not separate the idea from its emotional foundation. Furthermore, the fact that an idea grows from and is nourished by some kind of underlying emotional reality means that even the most otherwise skeptical, rational person can become attached to ideas that are patently false, and that person’s own tools of rational skepticism may not be able to evaluate, or even see, those ideas.
The challenges this notion poses to skeptics and rationalists is worthy of a post in its own right, and will be the subject of Part 2 of this essay.
Nice essay.
I’ll offer this as supporting,corroborating study: http://www.physorg.com/news145461143.html
Nice essay.
I’ll offer this as supporting,corroborating study: http://www.physorg.com/news145461143.html
oh, well done.
imma gonna have to go away and think about this. i’ll be baaack 🙂
oh, well done.
imma gonna have to go away and think about this. i’ll be baaack 🙂
Very well said.
Very well said.
Very interesting. Thank you for this.
Very interesting. Thank you for this.
Marvelous post, and one that I’d like some folks I know to read and think about. Linking it in my LJ so that they have a chance to see it.
Marvelous post, and one that I’d like some folks I know to read and think about. Linking it in my LJ so that they have a chance to see it.
Provocative. This is tasty food for thought, I admit that in my rush to be right I often (always?) skip over the emotional landscape, and am often not heard.
I have this problem too. I need to think on this some more.
Yes, me too!
Getting better about it, but I need lots of reminders like this one.
Provocative. This is tasty food for thought, I admit that in my rush to be right I often (always?) skip over the emotional landscape, and am often not heard.
I have this problem too. I need to think on this some more.
Extremely insightful — thank you.
It’s worth considering not only how much we fall into this trap ourselves, but how our failing to account for it in others leads to misunderstanding and ineffectiveness in trying to bring them around to our point of view.
Extremely insightful — thank you.
It’s worth considering not only how much we fall into this trap ourselves, but how our failing to account for it in others leads to misunderstanding and ineffectiveness in trying to bring them around to our point of view.
She thinks he’s a muslin terrorist?
I’m wondering if that’s different from a silk terrorist, or a wool terrorist.
*is silly*
Gaah! Good catch. Fixed. 🙂
You’re welcome.
Although now I want to run a game called “Muslin Terrorists.”
no is true!!!!
I seed it on tha intarwebz!!!
“Muslin terrorist”
That’d be the silverfish I keep finding near my closet.
Wool terrorist
Moths, or rather their larvae.
She thinks he’s a muslin terrorist?
I’m wondering if that’s different from a silk terrorist, or a wool terrorist.
*is silly*
Part of the problem with humans, too, is that they seek validation and look for wisdom in people that we consider leaders.
One of the reasons Obama has had such an incredible effect on people is that we look at him when he speaks and he comes across as wise, knowledgeable, literate and smart. The people that hold him in esteem become even more impressed with him as time goes one.
Many (not all, but many) republicans look to their leaders for the same thing. Consider, though, what those folks are saying. Limbaugh is a fear monger of the worst sort. Sarah Palin and her “he pals around with Terrorists” comments – and “he’s a socialist” comments. All of those types of personal attacks target people who already have fears and expand them. Fear becomes the national drug of choice – and the past-time of people who LIKE our country in a war somewhere. So the republicans who are sensitive to emotional blackmail and pressure feel this constant weight of doom on their heads from their “wise leaders”. And that’s really sad. 🙁
Greta Christina just wrote a post about how the religious fallacy of Argument From Authority is one of the main reasons why Prop 8 and others passed, and I think that’s related to your comment. She argues that there are those who blindly follow their leaders’ words with no sense of reason or logic, and no interest in the evidence (which I’m sure we’ve all seen a lot of lately).
And those are the people who heard Palin’s socialist terrorist comments and took them at face value, without even being interested in the evidence to the contrary.
Part of the problem with humans, too, is that they seek validation and look for wisdom in people that we consider leaders.
One of the reasons Obama has had such an incredible effect on people is that we look at him when he speaks and he comes across as wise, knowledgeable, literate and smart. The people that hold him in esteem become even more impressed with him as time goes one.
Many (not all, but many) republicans look to their leaders for the same thing. Consider, though, what those folks are saying. Limbaugh is a fear monger of the worst sort. Sarah Palin and her “he pals around with Terrorists” comments – and “he’s a socialist” comments. All of those types of personal attacks target people who already have fears and expand them. Fear becomes the national drug of choice – and the past-time of people who LIKE our country in a war somewhere. So the republicans who are sensitive to emotional blackmail and pressure feel this constant weight of doom on their heads from their “wise leaders”. And that’s really sad. 🙁
Gaah! Good catch. Fixed. 🙂
“When an untrue story circulates, it’s generally because it expresses some kind of social unease.”
The examples that follow this statement are similar to the theories behind the origins of children’s nursery rhymes, which if you’ve ever noticed are chock full of death, crime, pain and any number of very bad things that will potentially befall children if they are not moral and proper and minding of their parents. Social fears vs social mores expressed in an easy to remember parable or rhyme.
“When an untrue story circulates, it’s generally because it expresses some kind of social unease.”
The examples that follow this statement are similar to the theories behind the origins of children’s nursery rhymes, which if you’ve ever noticed are chock full of death, crime, pain and any number of very bad things that will potentially befall children if they are not moral and proper and minding of their parents. Social fears vs social mores expressed in an easy to remember parable or rhyme.
You’re welcome.
Although now I want to run a game called “Muslin Terrorists.”
Greta Christina just wrote a post about how the religious fallacy of Argument From Authority is one of the main reasons why Prop 8 and others passed, and I think that’s related to your comment. She argues that there are those who blindly follow their leaders’ words with no sense of reason or logic, and no interest in the evidence (which I’m sure we’ve all seen a lot of lately).
And those are the people who heard Palin’s socialist terrorist comments and took them at face value, without even being interested in the evidence to the contrary.
It’s kind of amazing. For much of my existence, I have always been the “voice of reason”, the logical, rational one who tries to explain concepts to people who insist on holding onto their emotional reactions and turn away from the evidence. Even when I was wrong, this was still the method of argument.
In the last handful of years, I have been intentionally surrounding myself with other rational, logical, analytical thinkers. Many of whom, like, understand the importance of emotions in the decision-making process. But a couple of them are so rational and analytical, that 2 things happen. 1) They often don’t even realize when they, themselves, make a decision based on an emotion and 2) I find myself in the position of trying to explain to them why they need to be more sensitive to their audience’s feelings when trying to convince someone of something.
That is a very hard position for me to take because I don’t always understand it myself. But it has forced me to recognize the importance of not ignoring the fact that people do make their decisions from an emotional base and to understand that if I want to be heard, simply yelling at them that I’m right while waving the facts in their face won’t do it.
Now, sometimes I don’t care – like my journal, for instance. That’s a place for *me*, not for others, but others who want to hear me, can. But in conversation, in actual dialogs where I do want to change someone’s mind, I have had to learn more about this emotional-base thinking process. And in watching others I know struggle to make people understand a concept that *I also* believe is an important one and that *I also* want others to hear, I’ve found myself in the unique position of “translator”, trying to explain why one should change one’s approach if one wants to be heard and understood, and that approach is to learn more about the emotional landscape from which the audience is listening.
It’s an uncomfortable position to be in, but, I think, ultimately a valuable one.
Good observation. In a similar vein, I constantly have to remind myself of this quote:
“Never appeal to a man’s better nature; he may not have one. Appealing to his self-interest gives you more leverage.”
— Robert Heinlein
This, of course, forces me to figure out what others consider to be in their self-interest.
If you want to spend the effort. I just ask.
If they tell me, then they get an ally in trying to get it.
If they don’t tell me or they lie, the deserve what they get.
It’s kind of amazing. For much of my existence, I have always been the “voice of reason”, the logical, rational one who tries to explain concepts to people who insist on holding onto their emotional reactions and turn away from the evidence. Even when I was wrong, this was still the method of argument.
In the last handful of years, I have been intentionally surrounding myself with other rational, logical, analytical thinkers. Many of whom, like, understand the importance of emotions in the decision-making process. But a couple of them are so rational and analytical, that 2 things happen. 1) They often don’t even realize when they, themselves, make a decision based on an emotion and 2) I find myself in the position of trying to explain to them why they need to be more sensitive to their audience’s feelings when trying to convince someone of something.
That is a very hard position for me to take because I don’t always understand it myself. But it has forced me to recognize the importance of not ignoring the fact that people do make their decisions from an emotional base and to understand that if I want to be heard, simply yelling at them that I’m right while waving the facts in their face won’t do it.
Now, sometimes I don’t care – like my journal, for instance. That’s a place for *me*, not for others, but others who want to hear me, can. But in conversation, in actual dialogs where I do want to change someone’s mind, I have had to learn more about this emotional-base thinking process. And in watching others I know struggle to make people understand a concept that *I also* believe is an important one and that *I also* want others to hear, I’ve found myself in the unique position of “translator”, trying to explain why one should change one’s approach if one wants to be heard and understood, and that approach is to learn more about the emotional landscape from which the audience is listening.
It’s an uncomfortable position to be in, but, I think, ultimately a valuable one.
“Muslin terrorist”
That’d be the silverfish I keep finding near my closet.
Wool terrorist
Moths, or rather their larvae.
Bravo.
Incidentally, this is the exactly the kind of insight that (*good*) therapy attempts to bring to the forefront of the consciousness of its clients. Some examples that I know of off the top of my head are the Imago relationship therapy developed by Harville Hendricks, who was in turn a client of John Pierakkos, who founded Core Energetics, which also worked to help clients discover their own “Lower Selves” in order to address the underlying fears that cause them to behave in these irrational ways. I’ve been out of the loop of conventional therapy for so long, that I’m not sure if it really digs deep enough to do the same. Admittedly, I have some disdain for conventional therapy now, because of this lack of depth, which it had when I was a participant/scholar of it almost 20 years ago, and it’s my fondest hope that it’s coming around.
Anyway, thanks for putting this out there.
Bravo.
Incidentally, this is the exactly the kind of insight that (*good*) therapy attempts to bring to the forefront of the consciousness of its clients. Some examples that I know of off the top of my head are the Imago relationship therapy developed by Harville Hendricks, who was in turn a client of John Pierakkos, who founded Core Energetics, which also worked to help clients discover their own “Lower Selves” in order to address the underlying fears that cause them to behave in these irrational ways. I’ve been out of the loop of conventional therapy for so long, that I’m not sure if it really digs deep enough to do the same. Admittedly, I have some disdain for conventional therapy now, because of this lack of depth, which it had when I was a participant/scholar of it almost 20 years ago, and it’s my fondest hope that it’s coming around.
Anyway, thanks for putting this out there.
no is true!!!!
I seed it on tha intarwebz!!!
Have you read the book “Religion Explained” by Pascal Boyer? I found it to be terribly compelling, and when you say “the brain is really not an organ of thought so much as an apparatus for forming beliefs” I think you would find a lot to agree with in it.
It starts by debunking every “standard” explanation of where religion comes from, and goes on to build in detail a fairly convincing case based on specific research in psychology, social psychology, and evolution. I learned more from it than any three other books I’ve read recently.
That book and the book ‘god is not Great’ by Christopher Hitchins were key to helping me understand religion (not having been raised in anything except some very loose Native Canadian mythology/spirituality)
Have you read the book “Religion Explained” by Pascal Boyer? I found it to be terribly compelling, and when you say “the brain is really not an organ of thought so much as an apparatus for forming beliefs” I think you would find a lot to agree with in it.
It starts by debunking every “standard” explanation of where religion comes from, and goes on to build in detail a fairly convincing case based on specific research in psychology, social psychology, and evolution. I learned more from it than any three other books I’ve read recently.
Aye, lucid as always. Thanks for the insight – while I know it to be true, it’s often hard to hold onto in a debate
‘They are not assertions of fact in the way that many other statements are; they are assertions of emotional identity.’
Aye, lucid as always. Thanks for the insight – while I know it to be true, it’s often hard to hold onto in a debate
‘They are not assertions of fact in the way that many other statements are; they are assertions of emotional identity.’
Interestingly, this also applies to those who recently voted to defeat the California same sex marriage vote, eh? People are voting with their beliefs, not necessarily facts. The protestors are protesting with their beliefs, backed (sometimes) by facts.
Reflecting on all this.. well.. it’s a rather sad thought.
Interestingly, this also applies to those who recently voted to defeat the California same sex marriage vote, eh? People are voting with their beliefs, not necessarily facts. The protestors are protesting with their beliefs, backed (sometimes) by facts.
Reflecting on all this.. well.. it’s a rather sad thought.
That book and the book ‘god is not Great’ by Christopher Hitchins were key to helping me understand religion (not having been raised in anything except some very loose Native Canadian mythology/spirituality)
Yes, me too!
Getting better about it, but I need lots of reminders like this one.
Even worse…why should it matter if he’s a Muslim or not, anyway? Don’t we supposedly have freedom of religion in this country? Why is there this underlying assumption that Muslim = not fit for presidency?
Even worse…why should it matter if he’s a Muslim or not, anyway? Don’t we supposedly have freedom of religion in this country? Why is there this underlying assumption that Muslim = not fit for presidency?
I first heard the rumours about Proctor and Gamble back in the 1960’s when peace, love and rock and roll were all the rage, only it was the “moonies” not the church of Satan. Maybe it’s the same thing??
I first heard the Proctor and Gamble thing from Amway uplines in about 1986. Which was weird, because P&G don’t exist as a brandname here in Australia.
We were told to comment on it and how they own lots of household product brands. [wink][wink][nudge][nudge]
Not long after that I gave up on Amway.
I first heard the rumours about Proctor and Gamble back in the 1960’s when peace, love and rock and roll were all the rage, only it was the “moonies” not the church of Satan. Maybe it’s the same thing??
Good observation. In a similar vein, I constantly have to remind myself of this quote:
“Never appeal to a man’s better nature; he may not have one. Appealing to his self-interest gives you more leverage.”
— Robert Heinlein
This, of course, forces me to figure out what others consider to be in their self-interest.
Great post.
This would be why, while my brother painstakingly debunks each email forwarded on by my lunatic family, I redirect them all to my spam folder. He’s probably the better person in this, but there’s only so much crazy I can take.
Great post.
This would be why, while my brother painstakingly debunks each email forwarded on by my lunatic family, I redirect them all to my spam folder. He’s probably the better person in this, but there’s only so much crazy I can take.
This is funny as I was discussing that legend just the other day. Though we were talking specifically about Jif peanut butter. I remembered first hearing this when I was in highschool so late 80s early 90s.
This is funny as I was discussing that legend just the other day. Though we were talking specifically about Jif peanut butter. I remembered first hearing this when I was in highschool so late 80s early 90s.
I first heard the Proctor and Gamble thing from Amway uplines in about 1986. Which was weird, because P&G don’t exist as a brandname here in Australia.
We were told to comment on it and how they own lots of household product brands. [wink][wink][nudge][nudge]
Not long after that I gave up on Amway.
Interesting post.
I haven’t thought about it in decades, but I remember my friend Dave coming over all excited and rummaging through the medicine chest looking for P&G products after seeing one of those big Xian shows (PTL? 700 Club?) do a full hour on the P&G symbol. (With only one TV in a double-wide, what Dad watches everyone watches.) Some big haired evangelist associated the moon and stars with pagan worship, paying close attention to the unlucky number of stars, 13.
P&G had a PR guy answer the allegations a few days later, saying the moon was just a popular symbol when the company was founded and that the stars referred to the 13 original colonies — but that the symbol meant nothing to them except as a tradition and that they would change it to quell fears.
I never heard (or don’t remember) the bit about the CEO confessing the finances; I wonder if that rumor started later.
Interesting post.
I haven’t thought about it in decades, but I remember my friend Dave coming over all excited and rummaging through the medicine chest looking for P&G products after seeing one of those big Xian shows (PTL? 700 Club?) do a full hour on the P&G symbol. (With only one TV in a double-wide, what Dad watches everyone watches.) Some big haired evangelist associated the moon and stars with pagan worship, paying close attention to the unlucky number of stars, 13.
P&G had a PR guy answer the allegations a few days later, saying the moon was just a popular symbol when the company was founded and that the stars referred to the 13 original colonies — but that the symbol meant nothing to them except as a tradition and that they would change it to quell fears.
I never heard (or don’t remember) the bit about the CEO confessing the finances; I wonder if that rumor started later.
If you want to spend the effort. I just ask.
If they tell me, then they get an ally in trying to get it.
If they don’t tell me or they lie, the deserve what they get.
You should have told her he is also going to usher in White slavery and watch her hit the roof. Sometimes it’s just fun to fuck with people who are that out of it. I know it’s wrong but wtf, I’m imperfect.
You should have told her he is also going to usher in White slavery and watch her hit the roof. Sometimes it’s just fun to fuck with people who are that out of it. I know it’s wrong but wtf, I’m imperfect.
From James Harvey Robinson’s ‘The Mind In The Making’
(quoted from memory)
“…most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding ways to go on believing what we have become accustomed to as being true”
When I read that more than 25 years ago I had what you would describe as “something of an epiphany in my own understanding of the human condition”
Now I understand WHY people are that way.
P.S. Bravo! I remember a time when you had no understanding of the human condition.
TMM
From James Harvey Robinson’s ‘The Mind In The Making’
(quoted from memory)
“…most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding ways to go on believing what we have become accustomed to as being true”
When I read that more than 25 years ago I had what you would describe as “something of an epiphany in my own understanding of the human condition”
Now I understand WHY people are that way.
P.S. Bravo! I remember a time when you had no understanding of the human condition.
TMM
Great post.
Great post.
Excellent post, thanks!
A funny coincidence: only today my friend forwarded me a chain email that warned us about 7 women who died from smelling free perfume samples that they received by mail. The email also added that the government tries to suppress the matter, because they suspect it was a terrorist act, and don’t want panic to ensue (!) The email was supposedly signed by Dr. * * (full name was given), the head of the pediatric department of a * hospital.
As you see, it’s even more ridiculous than the P&G rumor; so it was very interesting, how could my friend, (who is a CS PhD student — super-geek, very smart and intelligent) still fall for it!
And the short answer is that she wasn’t using her brains. The long answer has to do with what you wrote here, but even more with what you wrote in the previous essay on the subject: the consequences of believing this particular rumor if it is false are much less severe than the consequences of not believing it, if it is true. And even more than that, she felt it was her social duty to pass the rumor on, even when she was uncertain on its veracity. It was a click-whirr! reaction on her part — “I must warn my friends, or bad things might happen to them”. And she only needed to press two buttons to do it.
The author of the Slacktivist essay seems to believe that it is immoral to forward any rumor, unless you are reasonably certain that it is true. But most people I know would wholeheartedly disagree with this. They believe that it is their moral duty to forward any warning, unless they are certain that it is false. After all, what if it’s really true?! And you know what — it is really difficult to explain to these people what is the harm in their actions.
In Russian, there even is an expression that is used to preface the retelling of a story without any fact checking: “За что купил, за то и продаю”. It translates, literally, to: “I sell it for what I bought it”. Meaning: I heard it, I have no idea if it’s true, but I’m retelling it in the hope that someone, somewhere, sometime does the fact checking, informs us, and then we’ll all know for sure. The all-powerful Someone Else will do the thinking — I’m just a delivery boy. After all, one cannot check everything — knowledge is a collective effort… The existence of this expression goes on to show just how widespread such behavior is.
– Ola
Today, I got in my inbox a “warning” from “John Hopkins University” all the ways that microwaving various products cause cance. Both the claims it makes and the organization it purports to be from are false.
I used to have a pre-written response that I would respond with, with blanks for the specific Snopes page that referred to that specific hoax. In it, I detailed why forwarding hoaxes were bad, including pointing out that I now had everyone’s private email address that was not deleted from the headers or not BCC’d to.
People would get really upset that I had their email, those I didn’t know personally. They would angrily reply asking me to take them off my mailing list or demand to know how I got their email addy. So I explained again that this is the consequence for participating in email forwards and for not stopping their friends and family from participating.
Oh yes, I’m pretty sure that spammers send such letters into circulation, in the hope of getting them back with lots of email addresses attached.
What were the other reasons you cited in your email for why forwarding chain letters is bad?
Excellent post, thanks!
A funny coincidence: only today my friend forwarded me a chain email that warned us about 7 women who died from smelling free perfume samples that they received by mail. The email also added that the government tries to suppress the matter, because they suspect it was a terrorist act, and don’t want panic to ensue (!) The email was supposedly signed by Dr. * * (full name was given), the head of the pediatric department of a * hospital.
As you see, it’s even more ridiculous than the P&G rumor; so it was very interesting, how could my friend, (who is a CS PhD student — super-geek, very smart and intelligent) still fall for it!
And the short answer is that she wasn’t using her brains. The long answer has to do with what you wrote here, but even more with what you wrote in the previous essay on the subject: the consequences of believing this particular rumor if it is false are much less severe than the consequences of not believing it, if it is true. And even more than that, she felt it was her social duty to pass the rumor on, even when she was uncertain on its veracity. It was a click-whirr! reaction on her part — “I must warn my friends, or bad things might happen to them”. And she only needed to press two buttons to do it.
The author of the Slacktivist essay seems to believe that it is immoral to forward any rumor, unless you are reasonably certain that it is true. But most people I know would wholeheartedly disagree with this. They believe that it is their moral duty to forward any warning, unless they are certain that it is false. After all, what if it’s really true?! And you know what — it is really difficult to explain to these people what is the harm in their actions.
In Russian, there even is an expression that is used to preface the retelling of a story without any fact checking: “За что купил, за то и продаю”. It translates, literally, to: “I sell it for what I bought it”. Meaning: I heard it, I have no idea if it’s true, but I’m retelling it in the hope that someone, somewhere, sometime does the fact checking, informs us, and then we’ll all know for sure. The all-powerful Someone Else will do the thinking — I’m just a delivery boy. After all, one cannot check everything — knowledge is a collective effort… The existence of this expression goes on to show just how widespread such behavior is.
– Ola
“The idea that the government staged the attacks on the World Trade Center is a twisted-up, garbled expression of an emotional state: “I am afraid that my nation’s government is corrupt and evil, and is willing to resort to any means, however extreme, to achieve its own ends.”
This is why these beliefs are so vigorously resistant to debunking, even when the evidence against them is overwhelming. “
Sorry? Overwhelming? If you really think a bunch of box-cutter wielding thugs overpowered several planes and flew them into several different places, then I recommend you take a look at Loose Change.
And if you STILL think so, after watching it, then I have one question for you…what happened to two 6 ton turbofan engines which supposedly flew into the Pentagon?
Where are the two six ton engines? And don’t try to tell me that the small turbo fan they found was all that was left, it wasn’t even a piece of them…it didn’t even go to that plane.
It may not have been the government who did it, but you can bet that they were in cahoots.
And finally, you’re welcome. You can hold me up as an example of proof to all your other intellectual friends who “know” that it wasn’t the government, despite the “overwhelming evidence”. As for me, I’ll continue to refer to them as “Vezzini”…those and the ones who willingly selected Obama.
Christ…a taxpayer voting for Obama is like a cow voting for Burger King.
The “mystery” of what happened to the turbofans isn’t a mystery at all.
In fact, it’s a great example of confirmation bias. You read about the the attacks and accept factual assertions made by a person who wasn’t even there (in fact,t he first 9/11 conspiracy theories were written by a Frenchman who wasn’t even on the same continent when it happened), and don’t question those assertions. He says “there was no sign of the engines on the Pentagon lawn; what happened to the engines?” and his readers accept the idea that the engines were never found.
In fact, there’s no mystery here at all; the engines were recovered. They tore through the inner walls of the Pentagon and punched clear through to the atrium inside, where they came to rest–leaving incredible damage in their wake. The hole punched through to the atrium by the engines acted as a vent for the ensuing fire, intensifying it tremendously:
The engines later had to be removed by crane.
One hole?
Two 6-ton masses, moving at over 400 mile an hour, only punch one hole?
How come two engines didn’t punch two holes?
Read the Snopes article about it.
Your comments don’t give the impression that you’re emotionally detached from your arguments; rather the opposite.
Your reply doesn’t answer my questions.
And yes, I am emotionally attached.
The Snopes explanation explains nothing.
It certainly doesn’t explain where the two six ton engines went.
The two six ton engines went to the NTSB. After they were pulled from the wreckage. There’s no mystery here.
This argument kind of reminds me of the Tupac Shakur conspiracy theories. There’s a whole elaborate conspiracy theory that asks “If he really was shot, why was there no autopsy and no coroner’s report?” This in spite of the fact that there was an autopsy, and the coroner’s report is a matter of public record.
“Why were there no engines?” Same deal.
“The idea that the government staged the attacks on the World Trade Center is a twisted-up, garbled expression of an emotional state: “I am afraid that my nation’s government is corrupt and evil, and is willing to resort to any means, however extreme, to achieve its own ends.”
This is why these beliefs are so vigorously resistant to debunking, even when the evidence against them is overwhelming. “
Sorry? Overwhelming? If you really think a bunch of box-cutter wielding thugs overpowered several planes and flew them into several different places, then I recommend you take a look at Loose Change.
And if you STILL think so, after watching it, then I have one question for you…what happened to two 6 ton turbofan engines which supposedly flew into the Pentagon?
Where are the two six ton engines? And don’t try to tell me that the small turbo fan they found was all that was left, it wasn’t even a piece of them…it didn’t even go to that plane.
It may not have been the government who did it, but you can bet that they were in cahoots.
And finally, you’re welcome. You can hold me up as an example of proof to all your other intellectual friends who “know” that it wasn’t the government, despite the “overwhelming evidence”. As for me, I’ll continue to refer to them as “Vezzini”…those and the ones who willingly selected Obama.
Christ…a taxpayer voting for Obama is like a cow voting for Burger King.
The “mystery” of what happened to the turbofans isn’t a mystery at all.
In fact, it’s a great example of confirmation bias. You read about the the attacks and accept factual assertions made by a person who wasn’t even there (in fact,t he first 9/11 conspiracy theories were written by a Frenchman who wasn’t even on the same continent when it happened), and don’t question those assertions. He says “there was no sign of the engines on the Pentagon lawn; what happened to the engines?” and his readers accept the idea that the engines were never found.
In fact, there’s no mystery here at all; the engines were recovered. They tore through the inner walls of the Pentagon and punched clear through to the atrium inside, where they came to rest–leaving incredible damage in their wake. The hole punched through to the atrium by the engines acted as a vent for the ensuing fire, intensifying it tremendously:
The engines later had to be removed by crane.
One hole?
Two 6-ton masses, moving at over 400 mile an hour, only punch one hole?
How come two engines didn’t punch two holes?
Read the Snopes article about it.
Your comments don’t give the impression that you’re emotionally detached from your arguments; rather the opposite.
Your reply doesn’t answer my questions.
And yes, I am emotionally attached.
The Snopes explanation explains nothing.
It certainly doesn’t explain where the two six ton engines went.
The two six ton engines went to the NTSB. After they were pulled from the wreckage. There’s no mystery here.
This argument kind of reminds me of the Tupac Shakur conspiracy theories. There’s a whole elaborate conspiracy theory that asks “If he really was shot, why was there no autopsy and no coroner’s report?” This in spite of the fact that there was an autopsy, and the coroner’s report is a matter of public record.
“Why were there no engines?” Same deal.
You don’t. In many places, an atheist is banned from holding public office.
However, there is an oath that one can take without swearing on the Bible. I forget the details, but we do have in our justice system an alternate method.
You don’t. In many places, an atheist is banned from holding public office.
However, there is an oath that one can take without swearing on the Bible. I forget the details, but we do have in our justice system an alternate method.
Today, I got in my inbox a “warning” from “John Hopkins University” all the ways that microwaving various products cause cance. Both the claims it makes and the organization it purports to be from are false.
I used to have a pre-written response that I would respond with, with blanks for the specific Snopes page that referred to that specific hoax. In it, I detailed why forwarding hoaxes were bad, including pointing out that I now had everyone’s private email address that was not deleted from the headers or not BCC’d to.
People would get really upset that I had their email, those I didn’t know personally. They would angrily reply asking me to take them off my mailing list or demand to know how I got their email addy. So I explained again that this is the consequence for participating in email forwards and for not stopping their friends and family from participating.
Oh yes, I’m pretty sure that spammers send such letters into circulation, in the hope of getting them back with lots of email addresses attached.
What were the other reasons you cited in your email for why forwarding chain letters is bad?
Can you cut the suit after? To make it a differnt shape
Can you cut the suit after? To make it a differnt shape
Disaster supplies in a morgue consist of large numbers of body bags; several kinds of rubber gloves in many sizes and vast numbers; disposable rubberized suits, filter masks, rubber boots etc; and bleach, sweat cleaning bleach.
Also almost inevitably a disinfectant that claims to be lavender scented but smells distinctly alien.
Disaster supplies in a morgue consist of large numbers of body bags; several kinds of rubber gloves in many sizes and vast numbers; disposable rubberized suits, filter masks, rubber boots etc; and bleach, sweat cleaning bleach.
Also almost inevitably a disinfectant that claims to be lavender scented but smells distinctly alien.
(On these, I have little to say, as I had always been led to believe that that role was filled with elephants riding on the back of a great turtle…but I digress.)
<3<3<3
(On these, I have little to say, as I had always been led to believe that that role was filled with elephants riding on the back of a great turtle…but I digress.)
<3<3<3
When I first started considering pulling my Sprawling Web Empire off GoDaddy, I spent a couple of months researching Web hosting providers. I made a list of providers, placing a premium on reliability, bandwidth, speed (I was experiencing severe MySQL latency issues with GoDaddy), and uptime. I wanted the ability to host multiple sites on one hosting account, share databases between sites and subdomains, and run complex software like content management systems.
After I’d looked at the hosting providers out there, I narrowed the list down to Bluehost, Dreamhost (ironically), Hostgator, A2 Hosting, and Hostmonster. I specifically excluded 1&1 hosting (I’ve worked with them inthe past and I have clients who host with them, and I’ve experienced a number of problems with them), Above.net (they are, in my experience, highly tolerant of spam on their networks, and do not take action quickly against phish reports), and The Planet (for reasons similar to Above.net).
I read all the hosting plans, conditions, and bandwidth and disk space policies, and narrowed the list down to 3: A2, Bluehost, and Hostgator. I then read all the policies and Terms & Conditions for all three–which was a hell of a slog through mountains of legalese, let me tell you–and discovered that the content of my site at xeromag.com probably runs afoul of Bluehost’s Ts & Cs. That narrowed it down to two, A2 and Hostgator.
A2 was my preferred choice, but its Terms & Conditions are entirely ambiguous about what the qualify as “adult” Web sites, so I emailed them with the URL for xeromag.com and asked them if it violated their policies. They got back to me a day later and said that they were not willing to host it. That left Hostgator.
I’ve set up all my sites on Hostgator and I’ve been very happy with them so far. I was able to set up my sites without difficulty (Xeromag.com is more complex than it looks; it’s a database-driven CMS and the same database on the same hosting server also powers thinkbeyond.us and morethantwo.com — that was a pain in the ass to set up, and I sincerely do not want to move again). They provide a free SSL certificate for business class hosting and nominally provide unlimited bandwidth, though I have so much traffic across all my sites that I can’t realistically serve them all from one shared hosting acocunt (I have two). I’ve found their abuse team to be quite responsive.
I actually have a reseller affiliate link for Hostgator, which will pay for a month’s hosting should you choose to go with them, but any of the ones on my top 5 list (with the possible exception of Dreamhost, given their apparent security issues) will likely work well.
When I first started considering pulling my Sprawling Web Empire off GoDaddy, I spent a couple of months researching Web hosting providers. I made a list of providers, placing a premium on reliability, bandwidth, speed (I was experiencing severe MySQL latency issues with GoDaddy), and uptime. I wanted the ability to host multiple sites on one hosting account, share databases between sites and subdomains, and run complex software like content management systems.
After I’d looked at the hosting providers out there, I narrowed the list down to Bluehost, Dreamhost (ironically), Hostgator, A2 Hosting, and Hostmonster. I specifically excluded 1&1 hosting (I’ve worked with them inthe past and I have clients who host with them, and I’ve experienced a number of problems with them), Above.net (they are, in my experience, highly tolerant of spam on their networks, and do not take action quickly against phish reports), and The Planet (for reasons similar to Above.net).
I read all the hosting plans, conditions, and bandwidth and disk space policies, and narrowed the list down to 3: A2, Bluehost, and Hostgator. I then read all the policies and Terms & Conditions for all three–which was a hell of a slog through mountains of legalese, let me tell you–and discovered that the content of my site at xeromag.com probably runs afoul of Bluehost’s Ts & Cs. That narrowed it down to two, A2 and Hostgator.
A2 was my preferred choice, but its Terms & Conditions are entirely ambiguous about what the qualify as “adult” Web sites, so I emailed them with the URL for xeromag.com and asked them if it violated their policies. They got back to me a day later and said that they were not willing to host it. That left Hostgator.
I’ve set up all my sites on Hostgator and I’ve been very happy with them so far. I was able to set up my sites without difficulty (Xeromag.com is more complex than it looks; it’s a database-driven CMS and the same database on the same hosting server also powers thinkbeyond.us and morethantwo.com — that was a pain in the ass to set up, and I sincerely do not want to move again). They provide a free SSL certificate for business class hosting and nominally provide unlimited bandwidth, though I have so much traffic across all my sites that I can’t realistically serve them all from one shared hosting acocunt (I have two). I’ve found their abuse team to be quite responsive.
I actually have a reseller affiliate link for Hostgator, which will pay for a month’s hosting should you choose to go with them, but any of the ones on my top 5 list (with the possible exception of Dreamhost, given their apparent security issues) will likely work well.
Reblog and thoughts
User referenced to your post from Reblog and thoughts saying: […] through my friends page here and saw this post by him: tacit.livejournal.com/249011.html […]
Reblog and thoughts
User referenced to your post from Reblog and thoughts saying: […] through my friends page here and saw this post by him: tacit.livejournal.com/249011.html […]
It’s a tasty cocktail, which has rather less alcohol than the popular-around-here Left Bank… St Germain is tasty though 😛
It’s a tasty cocktail, which has rather less alcohol than the popular-around-here Left Bank… St Germain is tasty though 😛
It’s very much a vintage-inspired ad. As others have said, I think you’re reading in subtext. Sometimes it’s very easy to get so much in to one mindset that you start seeing things everywhere. That, in turn, can lead to seeing “enemies” everywhere and alienating people who don’t mean harm but might not see the bad connotations in what they do because you seeing it comes off as a strident attack. It’s a fine line.
On the other hand, I’d argue that the subtext you’re discussing, even if it were far more blatant (tho not to the extent of that awful recent vodka ad) would still only carry the “date rape” subtext to a relatively small portion of the population. Even tho there’s a much greater awareness of the issue now, a relatively small portion actually pays much attention, which’s sad.
It’s very much a vintage-inspired ad. As others have said, I think you’re reading in subtext. Sometimes it’s very easy to get so much in to one mindset that you start seeing things everywhere. That, in turn, can lead to seeing “enemies” everywhere and alienating people who don’t mean harm but might not see the bad connotations in what they do because you seeing it comes off as a strident attack. It’s a fine line.
On the other hand, I’d argue that the subtext you’re discussing, even if it were far more blatant (tho not to the extent of that awful recent vodka ad) would still only carry the “date rape” subtext to a relatively small portion of the population. Even tho there’s a much greater awareness of the issue now, a relatively small portion actually pays much attention, which’s sad.
This is fascinating and informative. Thank you.
This is fascinating and informative. Thank you.
The Jesuits must be loving that “living fossils” poster; how often* does one see such a great example of a logical fallacy? So clearly laid out.
(* On second thought, don’t answer that.)
The Jesuits must be loving that “living fossils” poster; how often* does one see such a great example of a logical fallacy? So clearly laid out.
(* On second thought, don’t answer that.)
I always love reading your chronicles of your adventures. So much whimsy!
I always love reading your chronicles of your adventures. So much whimsy!
You are just as excited about this movie as Daddy was about “John Carter” and that is just full of awesome!
You are just as excited about this movie as Daddy was about “John Carter” and that is just full of awesome!
Thank you for that. I’m sitting here at 5AM, heart racing because I’m about to embark on an adventure that is probably much more tame than your average Friday night pre-movie routine, and I really, really needed to smile, crack up a little bit, and relax. (((HUGS)))
Thank you for that. I’m sitting here at 5AM, heart racing because I’m about to embark on an adventure that is probably much more tame than your average Friday night pre-movie routine, and I really, really needed to smile, crack up a little bit, and relax. (((HUGS)))
I love the look and feel of this version. I’d frame it and hang it in my home.
I love the look and feel of this version. I’d frame it and hang it in my home.
Hm, when I click to add it to cart, I get an Error 404?
Hm, when I click to add it to cart, I get an Error 404?
*At no point have I insulted or attacked anyone, in anyway, including implying that they were ignorant.*
Nope, you’ve just been rude. You may not understand that you’ve been rude, but you have been.
You may think it pointless that you are engaging the practice of othering when it comes to trying to put yourself as an entirely different breed of person than those who practice monogamous relationships, but I happen to think it isn’t pointless to bring that to your attention.
Again, feel free to dismiss it. Choosing to do so only shows disingenuousness on your part. So if that’s your goal, well done. Best of luck to you with your degree in communication.
*At no point have I insulted or attacked anyone, in anyway, including implying that they were ignorant.*
Nope, you’ve just been rude. You may not understand that you’ve been rude, but you have been.
You may think it pointless that you are engaging the practice of othering when it comes to trying to put yourself as an entirely different breed of person than those who practice monogamous relationships, but I happen to think it isn’t pointless to bring that to your attention.
Again, feel free to dismiss it. Choosing to do so only shows disingenuousness on your part. So if that’s your goal, well done. Best of luck to you with your degree in communication.
All good points, but…
I don’t recall seeing any air ops (just one f-35, and a handful of transport aircraft coming and going, right up until the nuke launch) But I do recall seeing stealthy behavior (active camo, emcon, the baddies using Loki’s staff as a homing beacon), I think you are confusing form-factor for function. I do agree the whole concept is silly, but it doesn’t interfere with my suspension of disbelief, and I am notoriously picky about such things. (the F-5s in X-men first class, that were several years ahead of their time, that the animators didn’t bother to check, for example)
All good points, but…
I don’t recall seeing any air ops (just one f-35, and a handful of transport aircraft coming and going, right up until the nuke launch) But I do recall seeing stealthy behavior (active camo, emcon, the baddies using Loki’s staff as a homing beacon), I think you are confusing form-factor for function. I do agree the whole concept is silly, but it doesn’t interfere with my suspension of disbelief, and I am notoriously picky about such things. (the F-5s in X-men first class, that were several years ahead of their time, that the animators didn’t bother to check, for example)
I literally choked on my coffee over the Darth Vader bit.
Before the movie came out, I shot an extensive bondage cosplay set with a model dressed as the hot chick who’s bad at security. Here’s a bit of humor we came up with: http://slephoto.deviantart.com/art/Maria-Hill-vs-The-Basement-Dweller-290084254
Maybe that’ll teach her!
I literally choked on my coffee over the Darth Vader bit.
Before the movie came out, I shot an extensive bondage cosplay set with a model dressed as the hot chick who’s bad at security. Here’s a bit of humor we came up with: http://slephoto.deviantart.com/art/Maria-Hill-vs-The-Basement-Dweller-290084254
Maybe that’ll teach her!
haa! you crack me up!
giggles!
I’m not as comic book fan either but at the very least can you asdmit thta iron man is a fuin portrayal? 😉
Can *I* have plot device? I could use it to get my roof destroyed & then my garage destroyed & potentially even removed from my backyard. whaddaya think? will it work??
that last line only works ifyou are one og those that stays until the credits are all done though *lol*
haa! you crack me up!
giggles!
I’m not as comic book fan either but at the very least can you asdmit thta iron man is a fuin portrayal? 😉
Can *I* have plot device? I could use it to get my roof destroyed & then my garage destroyed & potentially even removed from my backyard. whaddaya think? will it work??
that last line only works ifyou are one og those that stays until the credits are all done though *lol*
“if I need something from my partner that I’m not getting, but I don’t ask for it, clearly and directly, then it’s not my partner’s fault if I don’t have it. Still another is transparency–always sharing with my partner, even things that might be hard to talk about or that I’m afraid my partner might not want to hear.”
Hear, hear.
“if I need something from my partner that I’m not getting, but I don’t ask for it, clearly and directly, then it’s not my partner’s fault if I don’t have it. Still another is transparency–always sharing with my partner, even things that might be hard to talk about or that I’m afraid my partner might not want to hear.”
Hear, hear.
Yes, absolutely get you here! One thing that always strikes me is that this possible-creep detector thing pops up even in a message online, with no body language or face to face contact at all. An approach that I would respond to positively from one total stranger totally puts me off from another total stranger. And I tend to respond to initial messages without having read the profile, just the message they sent, so it’s not even that. It’s so hard to articulate the difference, but you’ve really put it into words here: it’s the vibe of expectation and entitlement that practically radiates off the page.
Another thing is that I, like quite a few people I know, am pretty much entirely flirt-blind. I genuinely can’t tell if someone is interested in me or just being friendly (and in many cases, the first option doesn’t actually occur to me independently). I rely on people who are interested in me coming right out and saying ‘you know, I think you’re cool and I’d like X if you’d be happy with that too’. This means that I do the same in return. I’ll say to someone ‘btw, I think you’re cool and I’d like X but I’m pretty much flirt-blind, so please just let me know if I’m bothering you or if that’s something you’d like as well’. Plus, if I’ve chatted to someone enough to start crushing on them (and it’s never happened the other way around) and I still like them, then they’re probably a lovely, tolerant, understanding person that I would gladly have as a friend if they don’t fancy me back! So, win-win.
Yes, absolutely get you here! One thing that always strikes me is that this possible-creep detector thing pops up even in a message online, with no body language or face to face contact at all. An approach that I would respond to positively from one total stranger totally puts me off from another total stranger. And I tend to respond to initial messages without having read the profile, just the message they sent, so it’s not even that. It’s so hard to articulate the difference, but you’ve really put it into words here: it’s the vibe of expectation and entitlement that practically radiates off the page.
Another thing is that I, like quite a few people I know, am pretty much entirely flirt-blind. I genuinely can’t tell if someone is interested in me or just being friendly (and in many cases, the first option doesn’t actually occur to me independently). I rely on people who are interested in me coming right out and saying ‘you know, I think you’re cool and I’d like X if you’d be happy with that too’. This means that I do the same in return. I’ll say to someone ‘btw, I think you’re cool and I’d like X but I’m pretty much flirt-blind, so please just let me know if I’m bothering you or if that’s something you’d like as well’. Plus, if I’ve chatted to someone enough to start crushing on them (and it’s never happened the other way around) and I still like them, then they’re probably a lovely, tolerant, understanding person that I would gladly have as a friend if they don’t fancy me back! So, win-win.
I’ve never experienced weird slow-down issues with Google Navigator, but I have experienced Navigator Schizophrenia: My google Nav, over 2 phones and 3 Android OSs, has always had multiple voices. Right now I have The Sexy Lady and The Stern School Mistress. It’s not really a problem, per se, but it does seem to disturb my friends when I’m the designated driver and I’m driving them home when they’re drunk.
I’ve never experienced weird slow-down issues with Google Navigator, but I have experienced Navigator Schizophrenia: My google Nav, over 2 phones and 3 Android OSs, has always had multiple voices. Right now I have The Sexy Lady and The Stern School Mistress. It’s not really a problem, per se, but it does seem to disturb my friends when I’m the designated driver and I’m driving them home when they’re drunk.
Wow, you got a crap phone. In addiiton to being not a high-end phone (but not necessarily a crappy one), I think you also got a lemon.
I heartily concur that iOS has a better interface than Android, hands down. Android still has a lot of growing up to do, in general. But the experience you had? Not normal.
Also, most of the horribleness was not “Android”, but carrier and manufacturer. Your points on Android itself are valid: CPU for graphics (this is changing rapidly), clunky UI (changing less rapidly), and uncoordinated updates (this will likely never change…). But, the global roaming bit, the battery life, the bloatware, the camera flash issue, the keyboard…that’s all the manufacturer and carrier. You can bypass all that by getting better hardware and putting something cleaner on it, like Cyanogenmod or just plain old stock Android. The phone you got was not top of the line by any means.
Really, though, get iOS if you want something to “Just Work” as a phone and PDA. Android isn’t that. Get Android if you want a portable computer in your pocket, complete with al the trials and tribulations thereof, that also happens to make phone calls. Actually, the metaphor goes quite a ways: Blaming Android for the crap hardware or bundled bloatware is a bit like blaming whatever OS was preloaded on the laptop you just bought. Make better laptop buying choices! Either buy a decent PC and put your own OS on it to fit your needs, or go Apple if you don’t care about control and want something pretty that just works. It’s pretty much the same choice.
Not saying Android is better than iOS, or vice versa. They’re both better than the other at certain things. Just be aware of the tradeoffs, and pick the one that lines up with the things you care about. Unless someone is an uber-geek or loves to fiddle with technology, I usually recommend iPhone.
Wow, you got a crap phone. In addiiton to being not a high-end phone (but not necessarily a crappy one), I think you also got a lemon.
I heartily concur that iOS has a better interface than Android, hands down. Android still has a lot of growing up to do, in general. But the experience you had? Not normal.
Also, most of the horribleness was not “Android”, but carrier and manufacturer. Your points on Android itself are valid: CPU for graphics (this is changing rapidly), clunky UI (changing less rapidly), and uncoordinated updates (this will likely never change…). But, the global roaming bit, the battery life, the bloatware, the camera flash issue, the keyboard…that’s all the manufacturer and carrier. You can bypass all that by getting better hardware and putting something cleaner on it, like Cyanogenmod or just plain old stock Android. The phone you got was not top of the line by any means.
Really, though, get iOS if you want something to “Just Work” as a phone and PDA. Android isn’t that. Get Android if you want a portable computer in your pocket, complete with al the trials and tribulations thereof, that also happens to make phone calls. Actually, the metaphor goes quite a ways: Blaming Android for the crap hardware or bundled bloatware is a bit like blaming whatever OS was preloaded on the laptop you just bought. Make better laptop buying choices! Either buy a decent PC and put your own OS on it to fit your needs, or go Apple if you don’t care about control and want something pretty that just works. It’s pretty much the same choice.
Not saying Android is better than iOS, or vice versa. They’re both better than the other at certain things. Just be aware of the tradeoffs, and pick the one that lines up with the things you care about. Unless someone is an uber-geek or loves to fiddle with technology, I usually recommend iPhone.
Galaxy 3 on TMo
I live in the Tampa Bay area, where t-mobile has good coverage; many would say the best coverage here because of low traffic, I suspect. I have a Galaxy III 4.0 Universal phone, not the Tmo issued one with bloat ware, and it rocks around here and up the I-95 corridor and across I-10. Tmo does have its soft spots, away from metro areas and off the highways, but so do other carriers, in different areas. I travel to Quebec Province and back to Vermont without being haunted by rooming pop-ups, so the 49th parallel doesn’t seem to be the problem either. Left coast –Right coast are both in Rogers court so it’s not a carriers issue across the board. I had an early iPhone (hacked) and moved to a Sony Xperia and then to an earlier version of Samsung. For build quality Sony wins hands down. For carrier service in this area iPhones on At&T have serious coverage issues, especially on the beaches and on boats near the waters edge. Verizon is a much better carrier for iPhones in this area.
My contract with T-Mobile expired 4 years ago, but if I have a question, they have the best service department in the industry. I operate new phones with no contract on T-mobiles 4G all you can eat menu for $50 a month (grandfathered) and I buy my phones offshore, which allows me to run with an At&t Sim-card or T-Mo or local simcards in the Bahamas or Europe. I would have thunk that a computer savy guy like you 😉 would have been out front on this issue, perhaps it just a case where you can’t do it all.
Galaxy 3 on TMo
I live in the Tampa Bay area, where t-mobile has good coverage; many would say the best coverage here because of low traffic, I suspect. I have a Galaxy III 4.0 Universal phone, not the Tmo issued one with bloat ware, and it rocks around here and up the I-95 corridor and across I-10. Tmo does have its soft spots, away from metro areas and off the highways, but so do other carriers, in different areas. I travel to Quebec Province and back to Vermont without being haunted by rooming pop-ups, so the 49th parallel doesn’t seem to be the problem either. Left coast –Right coast are both in Rogers court so it’s not a carriers issue across the board. I had an early iPhone (hacked) and moved to a Sony Xperia and then to an earlier version of Samsung. For build quality Sony wins hands down. For carrier service in this area iPhones on At&T have serious coverage issues, especially on the beaches and on boats near the waters edge. Verizon is a much better carrier for iPhones in this area.
My contract with T-Mobile expired 4 years ago, but if I have a question, they have the best service department in the industry. I operate new phones with no contract on T-mobiles 4G all you can eat menu for $50 a month (grandfathered) and I buy my phones offshore, which allows me to run with an At&t Sim-card or T-Mo or local simcards in the Bahamas or Europe. I would have thunk that a computer savy guy like you 😉 would have been out front on this issue, perhaps it just a case where you can’t do it all.
i don’t have a partner so i have to tell potential partners that i just don’t really believe in sexual exclusivity. i think it’s possible that allowing people to choose how they behave instead of how they identify would make it easier for people to accept a different kind of relationship. do you have to be “a poly” to be in an open relationship?
i don’t even know if i myself would want multiple partners i just shudder at the thought of a relationship in which that’s forbidden. it seems like so many people struggle with monogamy, there’s got to be some other way to do relationships.
i don’t have a partner so i have to tell potential partners that i just don’t really believe in sexual exclusivity. i think it’s possible that allowing people to choose how they behave instead of how they identify would make it easier for people to accept a different kind of relationship. do you have to be “a poly” to be in an open relationship?
i don’t even know if i myself would want multiple partners i just shudder at the thought of a relationship in which that’s forbidden. it seems like so many people struggle with monogamy, there’s got to be some other way to do relationships.
I am well beyond wanting or trying to like Dan Savage. Just off the top of my head he’s nasty, dogmatic, rigid, sexist, doesn’t like bis or transfolk, took potshots at black people blaming them for opposition to Proposition 8, and endorses cheating. His “everybody is nonmonogamous” thing apparently comes from Sex at Dawn, which is a deeply effed up book by a rape-whitewashing sexist creep with a gangbang fetish (who should just admit that’s what it is. Nothing wrong with a fetish.) Savage is the one who used the term “orientation” in his response to the poly writer-in, who had used the phrase “sexual identity,” so he’s beating up a straw man, and just posting someone’s tweet calling him a bigot in the next column, instead of actually giving poly people a forum to present reasoned arguments disagreeing with him like he said he would, was….the exact opposite of that. It was just a ‘look at how froth at the mouth crazy those polys are and how reasonable I’m being.’ He also went off to an inordinate extent on this week’s writer who asked about how to respond to family’s pressure to get hitched and hatch some babies (see “nasty” above.)
I am well beyond wanting or trying to like Dan Savage. Just off the top of my head he’s nasty, dogmatic, rigid, sexist, doesn’t like bis or transfolk, took potshots at black people blaming them for opposition to Proposition 8, and endorses cheating. His “everybody is nonmonogamous” thing apparently comes from Sex at Dawn, which is a deeply effed up book by a rape-whitewashing sexist creep with a gangbang fetish (who should just admit that’s what it is. Nothing wrong with a fetish.) Savage is the one who used the term “orientation” in his response to the poly writer-in, who had used the phrase “sexual identity,” so he’s beating up a straw man, and just posting someone’s tweet calling him a bigot in the next column, instead of actually giving poly people a forum to present reasoned arguments disagreeing with him like he said he would, was….the exact opposite of that. It was just a ‘look at how froth at the mouth crazy those polys are and how reasonable I’m being.’ He also went off to an inordinate extent on this week’s writer who asked about how to respond to family’s pressure to get hitched and hatch some babies (see “nasty” above.)
twvafr Moncler Lans
baz4
YxteMGMR [url=http://uggrakuten.WebStarts.com]ugg 楽天 æ£è¦å“[/url]
zjjwAHIgt http://nikeshoxsverige.WebStarts.com
coetzykypa ELWtJvyla gjwhur [url=http://tiffanynewyork.cabanova.com/]Tiffany New York[/url]
LqyFURBFcnd NvycVDOE [url=http://uggrakuten.WebStarts.com]ugg 楽天 æ£è¦å“[/url]
ljprHQSkn ExjkFBJQ http://tiffanynewyork.cabanova.com/
jdmfUTKsh
twvafr Moncler Lans
baz4
YxteMGMR [url=http://uggrakuten.WebStarts.com]ugg 楽天 æ£è¦å“[/url]
zjjwAHIgt http://nikeshoxsverige.WebStarts.com
coetzykypa ELWtJvyla gjwhur [url=http://tiffanynewyork.cabanova.com/]Tiffany New York[/url]
LqyFURBFcnd NvycVDOE [url=http://uggrakuten.WebStarts.com]ugg 楽天 æ£è¦å“[/url]
ljprHQSkn ExjkFBJQ http://tiffanynewyork.cabanova.com/
jdmfUTKsh
Ahh, you forgot breeder logic. Having kids lends you some immortality. A piece of you will continue into the future.:)
K.
Ahh, you forgot breeder logic. Having kids lends you some immortality. A piece of you will continue into the future.:)
K.
*gasp* Oh, Juli(y)a! Can it be?
Hello my name is Julia
I am from small city in the center of Russia. I am very friendly and romantic person.
I saw your structure and have decided to do record in you as I search for the friend on the Internet!
I want to have serious relationship and it true.My dream is search for the man which will appreciate me and to respect.
I like to get acquainted with unknown people.
Sometimes I go to disco with my friends. I like to spend my free time on the nature.
I hope soon to see your message in my box.
Maybe she worked out the poly thing or something? *snerk*
(I’ll admit, I was more amused by the ones in Dec-Jan that gently remonstrated the recipient about how “many people are alone in this world today, it is so sad,” and went on to imply that it was obviously because they were ignoring the amazing romantic prospects offered by friendly young Russians…)
*gasp* Oh, Juli(y)a! Can it be?
Hello my name is Julia
I am from small city in the center of Russia. I am very friendly and romantic person.
I saw your structure and have decided to do record in you as I search for the friend on the Internet!
I want to have serious relationship and it true.My dream is search for the man which will appreciate me and to respect.
I like to get acquainted with unknown people.
Sometimes I go to disco with my friends. I like to spend my free time on the nature.
I hope soon to see your message in my box.
Maybe she worked out the poly thing or something? *snerk*
(I’ll admit, I was more amused by the ones in Dec-Jan that gently remonstrated the recipient about how “many people are alone in this world today, it is so sad,” and went on to imply that it was obviously because they were ignoring the amazing romantic prospects offered by friendly young Russians…)
LOVE YOUR WEBSITE, ESPECIALLY THE SEX GAMES/MAP
Wow, I don’t know where to start, but I digress. I came to your site upon seeing the sexual experience map, or what ever the exact name you have for it. I like it and enjoyed reading your various other written work & photos.
LOVE YOUR WEBSITE, ESPECIALLY THE SEX GAMES/MAP
Wow, I don’t know where to start, but I digress. I came to your site upon seeing the sexual experience map, or what ever the exact name you have for it. I like it and enjoyed reading your various other written work & photos.