Interesting reading for anyone who isn't omniscient.
How to Analyze Information
- Thread starter XB70
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'd love to read it, but first I need a "How to analyze information analysis techniques" primer.
My daughter and I both agree that, due to the massive amounts of information available, everything ...EVERYTHING needs a Cliff Notes version.
My daughter and I both agree that, due to the massive amounts of information available, everything ...EVERYTHING needs a Cliff Notes version.
I'm omniscient. Ho-hum. I also know everything.
Intelligent design in the context of how the fundamental constants of physics came into being is interesting, in the context of 6000 year old universes as proposed by fundamentalists it's not, it's a couple of centuries of regression.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
Intelligent design in the context of how the fundamental constants of physics came into being is interesting, in the context of 6000 year old universes as proposed by fundamentalists it's not, it's a couple of centuries of regression.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
Intelligent design in the context of how the fundamental constants of physics came into being is interesting, in the context of 6000 year old universes as proposed by fundamentalists it's not, it's a couple of centuries of regression.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
Intelligent design in the context of how the fundamental constants of physics came into being is interesting, in the context of 6000 year old universes as proposed by fundamentalists it's not, it's a couple of centuries of regression.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
" "Survival of the fittest is correct," he said. "But we need to change the definition of "fitness" from what it meant when Darwin used it. In the modern world, "fitness" no longer refers to physical strength. From now on, it means wisdom." "
Pretty much every 'enlightened' civilization has depended upon an effective military to enjoy the ability to be come 'enlightened'.
This is basic information. He is just re-hashing and elaborating on a basic framework of decision making.
Read about topic im "Life" magazine, then read about same topic in "Soldier of Fortune" magazine. Take all you've read and divide somewhere in middle. Analisys will be near perfect.
Bob
Bob
Hmmm. I’m left with a few questions after reading that article:
1) Should I assume from his tone that he is implying impulsive decisions are generally less preferable than non-impulsive decisions? I can think of many cases where each type and types in between would have advantages and disadvantages.
2) What does “be sure you're seeing clearly” mean? If two people experience what appears to be the same event and both manage the data from the event in ways which are different, but still functional over a period of time for each of them as individuals, which person is seeing clearly? It makes more sense in my mind to say there are “functional” and “dysfunctional” ways of seeing the world instead of saying there are “distorted” and “undistorted” ways of seeing the world. His “prisms” analogy as it stands could leave the impression he feels comfortable with the terms he used.
3) Why did he choose to divide the sections the way he did? The second half of “step one” appears to take a markedly different direction from the first half, and seems to bleed unresolved complications into the rest of the article. If you don’t know “who you are”, how do you know what will benefit you in that role, much less how to obtain those benefits with consistent success over a period of time? How do you distinguish yourself from your environment? He addresses these issues very briefly in the last part of the section, but it seems like they would deserve much more attention than what he assigned them given the theme he chose to base his essay on. “Step seven” not only feels disconnected with the rest of the article, but appears to cloud the prior issues in “step one” which were remarkably only addressed in passing to begin with.
I realize his point was likely intended to highlight that the success of whatever behavior you enact could possibly be adversely (or beneficially) affected by whatever unaddressed prejudices you carry during the decision-making process. Just so I’m not misunderstood, I’m reading him as saying: “the natural prejudice you carry in your personal traits will sometimes bite you in the ____ (or save it) when you’re making a decision, but don’t get hung up on it because everyone does that and your personal traits are part of what makes you unique”. I’m surprised the term “combining” is used here so casually, though I think it’s the case that he is really just using the term in a strange way. His statement could give the impression that one would naturally want to do otherwise, which deserves clarification at best, though he doesn’t make an attempt in this direction.
You most certainly can “help but do this” (and for the record, I’m assuming he’s speaking in terms of degrees of influence, not hard determinism). I would actually say the default position for a lot of people is to not expend much effort to this end, which is what I am imagining the author is actually attempting to point out when I read the article as a whole. Ironically though, there are a large number of people who employ a lot of time/effort/compromise in hopes of independently accomplishing this task but still cannot to any given degree, which has nothing to do with how “human” I perceive them, whom the author apparently does not feel like meaningfully acknowledging, as evidenced by statements like:
...despite the almost comical fact that he is supposedly writing a huge how-to article to these very people, which he berates rather than encourages with his accounts of how “easy” and “obvious” everything is, and then irrationally dances around the very issues that pertain to them most!
As long as I am reading him correctly, it would be much more appropriate had he said: “the knowledge you’ve gained from the information you’ve collected will not be amended by insight into your own character, your own personality, and your own instincts, and you cannot help but do this, because you are a machine and not a human being” or something to that effect, which is still dead-wrong, but at least more clear. I can count how many fingers and toes I have; aside from being a "bit" more complicated, why can’t I gather information about my personality/character/instincts/horoscope and utilize it as I can apparently do with so many other types of information? ____, you can even use the method he laid out. Bizarrely, he then goes on to say:
The exception he writes himself by using “short term” provides an opportunity for reconciliation with the statement which immediately follows, but the statement which immediately follows conflicts with his preceding statement about how people “can’t help but” act like machines or “can’t help but” act like humans (explain the difference then please?), whatever terminology he feels fit to use, even if he’s not speaking strictly deterministically. It’s like he can’t make up his mind. There’s an obvious conflict, though he just floats right over it as if it doesn’t exist, and his interpretation is not at all adequately explained with his cap of: “and this, of course, is what analyzing information is all about”. Yes Herb, that is what analyzing information “is all about”. Thanks for writing a handful of sentences about it in your massive article. It feels like there were five pages that got deleted from their server somehow.
If you wanted the short version of my opinion, I think he takes the most important aspects of the issue and barely breezes by them, when they should have instead been a major focus in his writing. His “step two” should really have much more in common with the latter half of “step one” in my opinion, to say the least. I’m not saying the whole article is worthless; I just think the focus is completely out of line, especially for something written by a banner-waving “leading authority” on critical thinking (and writing, no less).
For the record, I think most of the information in the article could be helpful, and I like his general ideas about using steps, especially the fact that step three and four are separated. I read a few of his other articles that the page links to, and he seems like a very reasonable and professional fellow with a lot of good ideas and an expertise in many other fields. It’s just that I’m completely amazed an “expert” author has chosen to forego addressing a keystone series of concepts in an area which he professes to be fluent. That’s just my opinion, of course. What I think the real issue happens to be is that Herb’s cup of tea is intelligence on a very large scale, like making national security decisions, as is detailed in his mini-résumé on the bottom of the page and evident in the many other very interesting articles he has written where his particular viewpoints are very utilitarian. I doubt impulsive decisions were a focus in many of his critical job-related functions, and so perhaps he hasn’t given them as much weight in his system. Likewise, he doesn’t necessarily come at the issue from an individual perspective, because that’s not the perspective that is necessarily going to be the most functional for him. Not that he certainly couldn’t or doesn’t, it’s just that it doesn’t appear to be his thing, which is maybe why this article seemed a little fishy.
I’m sure he understands a lot of stuff that I can’t even wrap my mind around, but this article was just weird. I don’t like his tie either.
I really am cool with him though. I shot this guy a letter (albeit a more succinct version than the one you are reading), especially since he thought his essay was provocative enough as to deserve its own website. If he replies, I’ll let you know what he said.
4) Why does he appear or want to appear so impressed with what seems to be a largely unimpressive quote about adaptation, especially when the speaker he is quoting appears to misunderstand the subject he is speaking on (at least in the way the author chooses to portray him)?
I think old Herb is being a tease. He probably just wants everyone to buy his books.
1) Should I assume from his tone that he is implying impulsive decisions are generally less preferable than non-impulsive decisions? I can think of many cases where each type and types in between would have advantages and disadvantages.
2) What does “be sure you're seeing clearly” mean? If two people experience what appears to be the same event and both manage the data from the event in ways which are different, but still functional over a period of time for each of them as individuals, which person is seeing clearly? It makes more sense in my mind to say there are “functional” and “dysfunctional” ways of seeing the world instead of saying there are “distorted” and “undistorted” ways of seeing the world. His “prisms” analogy as it stands could leave the impression he feels comfortable with the terms he used.
3) Why did he choose to divide the sections the way he did? The second half of “step one” appears to take a markedly different direction from the first half, and seems to bleed unresolved complications into the rest of the article. If you don’t know “who you are”, how do you know what will benefit you in that role, much less how to obtain those benefits with consistent success over a period of time? How do you distinguish yourself from your environment? He addresses these issues very briefly in the last part of the section, but it seems like they would deserve much more attention than what he assigned them given the theme he chose to base his essay on. “Step seven” not only feels disconnected with the rest of the article, but appears to cloud the prior issues in “step one” which were remarkably only addressed in passing to begin with.
I realize his point was likely intended to highlight that the success of whatever behavior you enact could possibly be adversely (or beneficially) affected by whatever unaddressed prejudices you carry during the decision-making process. Just so I’m not misunderstood, I’m reading him as saying: “the natural prejudice you carry in your personal traits will sometimes bite you in the ____ (or save it) when you’re making a decision, but don’t get hung up on it because everyone does that and your personal traits are part of what makes you unique”. I’m surprised the term “combining” is used here so casually, though I think it’s the case that he is really just using the term in a strange way. His statement could give the impression that one would naturally want to do otherwise, which deserves clarification at best, though he doesn’t make an attempt in this direction.
You most certainly can “help but do this” (and for the record, I’m assuming he’s speaking in terms of degrees of influence, not hard determinism). I would actually say the default position for a lot of people is to not expend much effort to this end, which is what I am imagining the author is actually attempting to point out when I read the article as a whole. Ironically though, there are a large number of people who employ a lot of time/effort/compromise in hopes of independently accomplishing this task but still cannot to any given degree, which has nothing to do with how “human” I perceive them, whom the author apparently does not feel like meaningfully acknowledging, as evidenced by statements like:
...despite the almost comical fact that he is supposedly writing a huge how-to article to these very people, which he berates rather than encourages with his accounts of how “easy” and “obvious” everything is, and then irrationally dances around the very issues that pertain to them most!
As long as I am reading him correctly, it would be much more appropriate had he said: “the knowledge you’ve gained from the information you’ve collected will not be amended by insight into your own character, your own personality, and your own instincts, and you cannot help but do this, because you are a machine and not a human being” or something to that effect, which is still dead-wrong, but at least more clear. I can count how many fingers and toes I have; aside from being a "bit" more complicated, why can’t I gather information about my personality/character/instincts/horoscope and utilize it as I can apparently do with so many other types of information? ____, you can even use the method he laid out. Bizarrely, he then goes on to say:
The exception he writes himself by using “short term” provides an opportunity for reconciliation with the statement which immediately follows, but the statement which immediately follows conflicts with his preceding statement about how people “can’t help but” act like machines or “can’t help but” act like humans (explain the difference then please?), whatever terminology he feels fit to use, even if he’s not speaking strictly deterministically. It’s like he can’t make up his mind. There’s an obvious conflict, though he just floats right over it as if it doesn’t exist, and his interpretation is not at all adequately explained with his cap of: “and this, of course, is what analyzing information is all about”. Yes Herb, that is what analyzing information “is all about”. Thanks for writing a handful of sentences about it in your massive article. It feels like there were five pages that got deleted from their server somehow.
If you wanted the short version of my opinion, I think he takes the most important aspects of the issue and barely breezes by them, when they should have instead been a major focus in his writing. His “step two” should really have much more in common with the latter half of “step one” in my opinion, to say the least. I’m not saying the whole article is worthless; I just think the focus is completely out of line, especially for something written by a banner-waving “leading authority” on critical thinking (and writing, no less).
For the record, I think most of the information in the article could be helpful, and I like his general ideas about using steps, especially the fact that step three and four are separated. I read a few of his other articles that the page links to, and he seems like a very reasonable and professional fellow with a lot of good ideas and an expertise in many other fields. It’s just that I’m completely amazed an “expert” author has chosen to forego addressing a keystone series of concepts in an area which he professes to be fluent. That’s just my opinion, of course. What I think the real issue happens to be is that Herb’s cup of tea is intelligence on a very large scale, like making national security decisions, as is detailed in his mini-résumé on the bottom of the page and evident in the many other very interesting articles he has written where his particular viewpoints are very utilitarian. I doubt impulsive decisions were a focus in many of his critical job-related functions, and so perhaps he hasn’t given them as much weight in his system. Likewise, he doesn’t necessarily come at the issue from an individual perspective, because that’s not the perspective that is necessarily going to be the most functional for him. Not that he certainly couldn’t or doesn’t, it’s just that it doesn’t appear to be his thing, which is maybe why this article seemed a little fishy.
I’m sure he understands a lot of stuff that I can’t even wrap my mind around, but this article was just weird. I don’t like his tie either.
4) Why does he appear or want to appear so impressed with what seems to be a largely unimpressive quote about adaptation, especially when the speaker he is quoting appears to misunderstand the subject he is speaking on (at least in the way the author chooses to portray him)?
I think old Herb is being a tease. He probably just wants everyone to buy his books.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
(visions of 100 year old Rose Dawson (Rose DeWitt Bukater) as Mr.Lewis Bodine got done describing how the Titanic sank)
Thank you for that fine forensic analysis, Julian.
I couldn't get past the first couple of paragraphs. It was a shipwreck to me from the point where the gas and hotel room thingy got going I really couldn't handle it anymore. I salute you! (envision a raised polymer cup filled with real iced tea).
Thank you for that fine forensic analysis, Julian.
I couldn't get past the first couple of paragraphs. It was a shipwreck to me from the point where the gas and hotel room thingy got going I really couldn't handle it anymore. I salute you! (envision a raised polymer cup filled with real iced tea).
- Status
Similar threads
