More philosophy, and some grammar!
In today's rant, we will be discussing logic and irony.
All of this stems out of last night, when J and I went to a party. It was Spyder and Gordy's farewell party, which was both sad and good. Sad because Spyd won't be just down the road, good because she is going to live in a great house in a great part of Victoria and have the life she and Gordy and AJ want to be living, while still being within an eight-hour drive at J speeds.
And it's not as though we see her and Gordy all the time anyway, what with them having a toddler and us having too much work, it's just that we could ...
So it was good luck in the end that I'd procrastinated for so long about buying my flights to Tassie, because I wouldn't have been able to go. (Although I felt very bad, NotElf! Hope that it was all great!)
However, no sooner had I started chatting to folk than two old pals told me of an astonishing rumour (which other people had heard, but no bugger could tell me where it had come from, you're all crap!) Apparently I'm meant to be having an affair with someone who shall remain nameless because he's a pretty decent person and I'm more interested in talking about the abstracts here.
While I was very happy to see that my friends are in fact my friends and all treated it as the least likely thing they had ever heard (which, if I was naming names, you, gentle reader would be doing, too), I was still annoyed that there is someone out there who thought this plausible.
And they've been putting it about because there were at least two entry vectors for last night's rumour (rumours and epidemiology are a good fit).
So while people who know me (and the other person) will bark with laughter (the standard reaction so far, never better exemplified than in Jen), people who don't will be left with this idea that fails all the tests of logic.
Indeed, it's the sheer stupidity that really galls me. Especially because I have no idea where my textbooks are and so had to go to Wikipedia to get the following definition of a formal proof, and I generally hate Wiki (though this was a good page, by normal, not just Wiki standards).
SO:
A typical proof consists of axioms, rules of inference, and theorems. An axiom is a sentence that may be asserted in a proof at any time. A theorem is any sentence that can be proved in the system. A rule of inference allows a theorem to be proved from one or more previously established theorems and/or axioms. Most formal systems have either a rich set of rules of inference but few or no axioms; or a rich set of axioms but few rules of inference.
Now, this rumour fails on all of these properties. Let's be brutal here. Although I still have great eyes and nice hair and skin and a pleasant speaking voice, I am a broad-arsed middle-aged woman who is seriously stumpy. What makes me attractive is my blazing sense of being mostly right, most of the time. That surety, that sense of moral and logical focus is compelling (as evidenced by the minor wibbles of my friends whenever I express insecurity on anything). It's a family trait that I have in spades and on its good side it can be a very appealing thing. The downside of course is that I piss people off, but I choose to live with that.
However, you cannot possess a sense of moral certainty while doing something selfishly cruel and hurtful. It's hard enough to maintain a position when you are doing something that you know to be right and for the good of the many when you know that it will hurt the feelings of a few. So by being the sort of person who would have an affair, I would stop being attractive enough to be the sort of person anyone would want to have an affair with.
Then you hit soundness of the system. In a sound system you might have:
All humans require oxygen to survive.
Pete is a human.
Pete requires oxygen to survive.
Each of these statements is true in itself, and they flow logically within the system, without any false inferences. For an example of false inferences, try this simple change:
All humans require oxygen to survive.
Fido requires oxygen to survive.
Fido is a human.
This is a common flaw in argument where two true axioms are used to create a false inference through a false understanding of the system's rules. It's also where people tend to screw up in those Mensa tests you read in the paper ... not to mention some of the journalism, but that's another rant.
The argument presented seems to be Miss D is female, person X is male, therefore they must be getting it on. But if fails fundamental tests such as are we ever in the same place at the same time without hordes of other people? Is either of us an improvement on the partners we currently have? Are either of us in the least the other's type? In every case, no.
In terms of the completeness, it's a complete failure, too, because after the most basic axioms such as I am a human and female, every axiom required to build this argument would fail the test of reality.
So, obviously I do want to slap the person who is spreading this (and if I find you, rest assured that I will), but the bigger problem for me is the crushing dramatic irony.
Note that dramatic irony is not the same as irony. If I say that I am so very tall, I am being ironic (and also sarcastic in all likelihood).
Dramatic irony comes about when you spend a sizable portion of the week writing to another friend about how they may be, through no malice or anything other than a slight tendency to emotive responses, exaggerating the evidence behind their feelings of persecution in the SCA and how there is a general tendency to pleasantness and thoughtfulness in the group -- while any alien observing the system as a whole would be waiting for me to hit Saturday night and suddenly realise that though my earlier statements were mostly true for most people, they were no longer able to be believed for each member of the group as a whole. Because clearly some people are on crack.
And this is frustrating as hell, because I want to be able to help this friend who is in a very unhappy place, and I do believe her when she says she has felt persecuted, and I know that she copped a lot of crap from a handful of people in particular. And I also believe the people around her when they say that a lot of the things she has incorporated into that sense of attack were nothing to do with her at all.
But last night, once recovered from the initial sense of WTF??!, I wondered, who the hell would spread that? And another good friend asked "Who have you pissed off that much?" And I realised that without once touching the world of rationality in which I live, this person had still managed to affect me and annoy me and aggravate me into an emotive response.
So I was left with more sympathy for my persecuted friend, which is what I am trying to focus on far more than my urge to hunt and slap some nameless fuckwit.
As to other reactions: J rolled his eyes and smiled exasperatedly.
Mr X replied: "It would never work, you're a night person and I'm a morning person."
All of this stems out of last night, when J and I went to a party. It was Spyder and Gordy's farewell party, which was both sad and good. Sad because Spyd won't be just down the road, good because she is going to live in a great house in a great part of Victoria and have the life she and Gordy and AJ want to be living, while still being within an eight-hour drive at J speeds.
And it's not as though we see her and Gordy all the time anyway, what with them having a toddler and us having too much work, it's just that we could ...
So it was good luck in the end that I'd procrastinated for so long about buying my flights to Tassie, because I wouldn't have been able to go. (Although I felt very bad, NotElf! Hope that it was all great!)
However, no sooner had I started chatting to folk than two old pals told me of an astonishing rumour (which other people had heard, but no bugger could tell me where it had come from, you're all crap!) Apparently I'm meant to be having an affair with someone who shall remain nameless because he's a pretty decent person and I'm more interested in talking about the abstracts here.
While I was very happy to see that my friends are in fact my friends and all treated it as the least likely thing they had ever heard (which, if I was naming names, you, gentle reader would be doing, too), I was still annoyed that there is someone out there who thought this plausible.
And they've been putting it about because there were at least two entry vectors for last night's rumour (rumours and epidemiology are a good fit).
So while people who know me (and the other person) will bark with laughter (the standard reaction so far, never better exemplified than in Jen), people who don't will be left with this idea that fails all the tests of logic.
Indeed, it's the sheer stupidity that really galls me. Especially because I have no idea where my textbooks are and so had to go to Wikipedia to get the following definition of a formal proof, and I generally hate Wiki (though this was a good page, by normal, not just Wiki standards).
SO:
A typical proof consists of axioms, rules of inference, and theorems. An axiom is a sentence that may be asserted in a proof at any time. A theorem is any sentence that can be proved in the system. A rule of inference allows a theorem to be proved from one or more previously established theorems and/or axioms. Most formal systems have either a rich set of rules of inference but few or no axioms; or a rich set of axioms but few rules of inference.
Consistency, soundness, and completeness
Among the valuable properties that formal systems can have are:
- Consistency, which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another.
- Soundness, which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise. If a system is sound and its axioms are true then its theorems are also guaranteed to be true.
- Completeness, which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system.
Now, this rumour fails on all of these properties. Let's be brutal here. Although I still have great eyes and nice hair and skin and a pleasant speaking voice, I am a broad-arsed middle-aged woman who is seriously stumpy. What makes me attractive is my blazing sense of being mostly right, most of the time. That surety, that sense of moral and logical focus is compelling (as evidenced by the minor wibbles of my friends whenever I express insecurity on anything). It's a family trait that I have in spades and on its good side it can be a very appealing thing. The downside of course is that I piss people off, but I choose to live with that.
However, you cannot possess a sense of moral certainty while doing something selfishly cruel and hurtful. It's hard enough to maintain a position when you are doing something that you know to be right and for the good of the many when you know that it will hurt the feelings of a few. So by being the sort of person who would have an affair, I would stop being attractive enough to be the sort of person anyone would want to have an affair with.
Then you hit soundness of the system. In a sound system you might have:
All humans require oxygen to survive.
Pete is a human.
Pete requires oxygen to survive.
Each of these statements is true in itself, and they flow logically within the system, without any false inferences. For an example of false inferences, try this simple change:
All humans require oxygen to survive.
Fido requires oxygen to survive.
Fido is a human.
This is a common flaw in argument where two true axioms are used to create a false inference through a false understanding of the system's rules. It's also where people tend to screw up in those Mensa tests you read in the paper ... not to mention some of the journalism, but that's another rant.
The argument presented seems to be Miss D is female, person X is male, therefore they must be getting it on. But if fails fundamental tests such as are we ever in the same place at the same time without hordes of other people? Is either of us an improvement on the partners we currently have? Are either of us in the least the other's type? In every case, no.
In terms of the completeness, it's a complete failure, too, because after the most basic axioms such as I am a human and female, every axiom required to build this argument would fail the test of reality.
So, obviously I do want to slap the person who is spreading this (and if I find you, rest assured that I will), but the bigger problem for me is the crushing dramatic irony.
Note that dramatic irony is not the same as irony. If I say that I am so very tall, I am being ironic (and also sarcastic in all likelihood).
Dramatic irony comes about when you spend a sizable portion of the week writing to another friend about how they may be, through no malice or anything other than a slight tendency to emotive responses, exaggerating the evidence behind their feelings of persecution in the SCA and how there is a general tendency to pleasantness and thoughtfulness in the group -- while any alien observing the system as a whole would be waiting for me to hit Saturday night and suddenly realise that though my earlier statements were mostly true for most people, they were no longer able to be believed for each member of the group as a whole. Because clearly some people are on crack.
And this is frustrating as hell, because I want to be able to help this friend who is in a very unhappy place, and I do believe her when she says she has felt persecuted, and I know that she copped a lot of crap from a handful of people in particular. And I also believe the people around her when they say that a lot of the things she has incorporated into that sense of attack were nothing to do with her at all.
But last night, once recovered from the initial sense of WTF??!, I wondered, who the hell would spread that? And another good friend asked "Who have you pissed off that much?" And I realised that without once touching the world of rationality in which I live, this person had still managed to affect me and annoy me and aggravate me into an emotive response.
So I was left with more sympathy for my persecuted friend, which is what I am trying to focus on far more than my urge to hunt and slap some nameless fuckwit.
As to other reactions: J rolled his eyes and smiled exasperatedly.
Mr X replied: "It would never work, you're a night person and I'm a morning person."
Labels: World of the bizarre
posted by Miss D at 12:52 am
16 Comments:
Ah the joy of logical fallacies. The negative premise is an oldie but a goodie though a scary amount of people don't spot the flaw in subtle arguments. I swear they don't teach critical analysis or logic in schools anymore.
My favourite fallacy is correlation implies causation, especially if mixed with a good helping of confirmation bias (or other cognitive bias, there are so many to choose from - check out the Wiki list). Watch people go from sane to conspiracy theory loon in 0.2 seconds!
Not so much while we've been over here, but back when we were in ChCh, Stellar_Muddle and I had the constantly circulating rumour, over several years, that I was either having an affair with, or, indeed, going out with a certain dance fanatic. Some people, those on the periphery, indeed did not even realise Stellar_Muddle and I were an item (Something to do with her stealthy corridor camouflage abilities).
Being people of dubious moral fibre, rather than find the source and quash the rumour, the three of us instead circulated the counter-rumour that a hot threesome was going on, and waited for chinese whispers to permutate that. Kaos does that to people.
Of course, said dance fanatic and I had concluded that there was no way we should ever, ever get involved, as my disorganisation and her perfectionism would lead to nagging of nuclear proportion.
You are bad. But funny.
J was no help. He was all: "You're mostly upset because of what this says of other people's opinions of your taste."
To which I replied, "Everyone knows I like slim hips, cheekbones, and a bit thick. So you're my perfect man!"
Also there is not enough room in a bed for both of your egos :P
What I don't get is how this type of rumour can start? What on earth are these people smoking?
I don't get it!
Now that I've stopped laughing for a bit (that was the funniest thing since Myth Busters blew up a cement truck), there is an alternative explanation which follows the other Ant Queen life principle of "Never attribute to malice what can be better explained by stupidity or ignorance".
We could have just sheer naivety involved here. Many rumours start because someone naive overhears a comment out of context, then repeats it among people who insert their own context (and this is indeed the basis for many theatrical comedies).
What else do we live for except to make sport for our neighbours and laugh at them in turn.
I laughed like a drain.
You should too.
And it's very possible the folks responsible for this gem don't care a fig for logically constructed arguments.
It has all the best elements of a truly crap rumour.
It has no basis in reality, it has caused intrigue and outrage and, well, the less said about the vision it conjures to mind, the better.
And it's a damn side more innocuous than the trash I've heard about myself in the recent past.
Enjoy SCA celebredom, there'll be paparazzi poking through your garbage next!
You know, I always tell Kas that so long as she does the dishes and ironing, she can stay.
me thinks the lady protests too much
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Daniel - methinks your testicles are at my elbow height.
Wenchi - well yes, exactly. If I'd gone off and found a wife you would all find it very believable and my mum would be thrilled.
Spyd - it's just sad because I keep trying to believe that people are basically sensible and ... you're laughing like a drain again, aren't you? Sheesh!
Ant - this was a theory Meaghan expounded, someone has heard me say "Oh for fuck's sake, X!" in a moment of mild exasperation and got it all arse about. But in that case, I'm really having a massive affair with the more annoying parts of the Laurel Council ... let us not talk about sundry politicians.
Phil - accurate if not kind! But pretty funny! As to the stupidity, step away from the crack pipe, people. It's not good for you.jamesp
It's a crying shame this has wasted a moment of your time. Really, it wasn't worth a microsecond.
But I understand the point. Like many of us, you have at least some touching belief in the good qualities and general improvability of the human race, for all our faults.
Which is why it is so f%$^&@ annoying when some very very stupid individual, only recently emerged from the primeval ooze, demonstrates just how far we have yet to go.
And by very very stupid, I mean:
"Guys, let's circulate a really unpleasant, hostile and risibly unlikely rumour about this long-standing couple. He's a DUKE (you know, someone who wins Crowns by battering people with a stick), and she, if properly motivated, will happily rip your limbs off and jump up and down on your chest until you expire. But luckily for us, they've always played nice. So far."
On the whole, I go with Ant's theory of stupidity or ignorance over outright malevolence. But sheesh!
When you told me about it, my immediate reaction was to wonder if the person who started it had met either of you. Ever. As it is, I think it's likely more being done out of stupidity then maliciousness, but even stupidity can be frustrating/infuriating and hurtful.
Once, at an SCA event, I was congratulated on the secret wedding I'd supposedly had several months before. When I told them man the rumour he heard was not true - that not only was I not married to the man but that I'd never had a romantic relationship with him of any kind at any time - he politely but quite firmly insisted that I was mistaken. He told me quite emphatically that I HAD married my king secretly at Estrella War that year we reigned and since it was several months later he felt confident it was time the truth was out. *sigh*
While it is possible that the person who started the rumor about you did so maliciously, I agree with some of the above posters that it's far more likely that the real culprit here is misunderstanding or sheer stupidity. Probably the latter. ;)
Hang in there, and don't let the bastards get you down.
just proves there is no logic in rumour. Now, if you were living in a reasonably small country town as I am, where in certain circles rumour is rife this is perfectly normal and apparently happens to everyone.
Luckily, we live out of town and the only creatures we can have affairs with are sheep or chickens..neither excite or delight for they smell.
Sorry Miss D, but I'm still at the laughing uncontrollably stage. And I have only heard your side....
I generally go with weekend_viking's tactic. Confirm and embellish. I am esp fond of this when you hear a rumour from some stranger, about you, only they are so far down the food chain that they don't even realise they are talking to said subject of rumour.
Still giggling.
Rumours come and go, most often doing more harm to the perpetrator than the people who are gossiped about. People know and respect you (I'd say, 'know and love you', but that might start a rumour ;-))I mean, it's not as though you are some mysterious stranger about whom what is being said might be plausible.
Do you realise that you are now entitled - almost obliged, really, - to greet people by saying "Hello! How are you? What have I been up to lately?"
~ Celsa
I recall establishing some time ago that Laurels don't know how to spread rumours (or at least you, Acacia, Stanzia and Drakey don't). I, on the other hand, do.
Knowledge being power, and power being a corrupting influence, I tend not to do so for fear I will turn into a ravening monster. But for you, I'll make an exception. So if you need a counter-rumour started that high-lights the utter ridiculousness of the original rumour, let me know.
Something like, say:
Not only are you having an affair with X, but J. is having an affair with him behind your back. No one knows how to tell you that X is only using you so he and J can be closer, but in the meantime, you've gotten pregnant but you're secretly going to have the baby and then X's partner is going to claim it as hers.
Or something like that.
Blod
Post a Comment
<< Home