gevron

This was originally posted on Talk Climate Change in 2008. It is no longer available online, so I am posting it here.

Parliament Fans of the British Television Series “Yes Minister” will be familiar with the trials of Government Minister Jim Hacker at the hands of dastardly civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby, frequently demonstrating the futility of promoting progress in a government bureaucracy. A typical exchange between the confounded Hacker and slippery Sir Humphrey plays out as follows:

Hacker: When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the civil service is over-manned and feather-bedded, or not? Yes or no? Straight answer.

Sir Humphrey: Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn’t very much in it one way or the other… As far as one can see, at this stage.

(see a clip from Yes Minster at the bottom of this post)

The program provides a fascinating insight into the process of top level government – which many politicians have described as shockingly realistic.

This weekend, in a script that looks made for Hacker and Appleby, similar goings on have been observed within the real halls of power at Whitehall following an announcement by the National Audit Office (NAO) claiming that Britain’s carbon emissions may be 12% higher than officially stated.

As Jim Hacker once said, “The Prime Minister doesn’t want the truth, he wants something he can tell Parliament!” And so it seems that the British Government have been using two separate systems for measuring Co2 output. The 40 page NAO report claims that "There are two different bases on which the government reports emissions: that required for the UN, and the environmental accounts prepared for the Office of National Statistics … [which are] more comprehensive as they include aviation and shipping emissions.”

Consequently the environment minister, Phil Woolas was able to proudly announce last week that "UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 16.4% since 1990. We remain on course to nearly double our Kyoto Protocol target over the 2008-12 period."

Happily, Sir Humphrey is usually able to help his minister out of a tight spot, saving him from humiliation with his mastery of bamboozlement. Explaining that a Government’s position is “the best explanation of past events that cannot be disproved by available facts”, Sir Humphry would surely have approved of the complex explanation of the British Government’s current climate change policy, which reads, “The UK has a Kyoto target of 12.5% reduction in all greenhouse gases by 2012, an EU target of reducing 20-30% of CO2, three domestic goals ranging between 20-60% of CO2 and is in the process of drafting a new climate change bill.”

Any last words of advice from Sir Humphrey?

“Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do no appreciate the significance of significant."

Republican senator Judd Gregg wrote a memo on obstruction tactics for the health care reform bill. This memo interests me due to the tactics detailed rather than any political stance.

As The Daily Show clip summed it up:

Obstruction in parliament (in this case the US Senate):
1. Points of order without cause
2. Unlimited amendments
3. Send the bill back to committee

A story on this:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/02/judd-greggs-one-stop-obstruction-manual-for-health-care-debate/

The memo itself:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/37/files/2009/12/MinorityRightsWithLetter.pdf

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

The following is a very good article on how diamonds were made what they are today by advertising alone. Eighty years ago, only a few pounds of diamonds were sold globally every year.

Today, diamonds are an inseparable part of the courtship ritual, women self-worth image, and whether some women would even give men a chance.

This article tells the story of how they did it, and are still at it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Rinat, a member of the debate mailing list, brought the motion to my attention. While it is not necessarily my opinion I thought it would be interesting to try and defend it.

As I am defining the debate, I chose to limit myself to only 2 arguments.

Please follow the rules on structure I stated in my previous post, and feel free to support or oppose this motion openly, with no limitation on when.

To subscribe to the debate mailing list, visit this page:
http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate

---

My case:

The gay marriage movement in the past decade caused a strong counter-movement to appear against gay rights. For example, already back in 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed -- during a democratic administration -- which rejected gay marriage, and was supported by 68% of Americans.

We believe Americans are sensible people who mostly support gay rights, but also fear for the erosion of one of the most important aspects of American society -- the traditional family unit, and the marriage which makes it happen, as well as other reasons such as what it might mean financially for the nation.

While it is understandable some gays want to declare their love with marriage, gay rights should over-shadow gay marriage, and as the institution of marriage has deep traditional roots, what they consider an attack on it makes people resent all gays for trying to change it. Further, other options for starting a family are available to gays, such as civil unions.

We will argue that:

1. Foundational limitations from society are not what the movement is about.

2. By pursuing this, the movement causes a public de-legitimization of gay rights.

Arguments:

1. Foundational limitations from society:

(a) The gay movement has always been about "fighting the man", seeking freedom, and abolishing limitation. This shaped their development since the very beginning, and is an integral part of homosexual society today.

(b) By fighting for gay marriage, the movement basically says that it wants to rejoin the establishment, and take on the limitations embeded in it. For example; monogamous relations between two partners, a man and a woman. While gays can choose to be monogamous, they don't have to, and the homosexual society accepts them no matter how they choose construct a family, with how many members, and of what gender.

(c) This choice is limiting and goes against both what gays want from the lifestyle, as well as what the movement has always been about.

2. Public de-legitimization of gay rights:

(a) By supporting gay marriage, a controversial topic, a society that is relatively pro-gay opposes the movement as a whole. Society thus opposes gays rather than just gay marriage.

(b) Marriage is a tradition embedded in human society for thousands of years, literally biblical. While people are accepting of gays, by infringing on marriage which they hold sacred, the gay movement causes their position to be ridiculed, right along with their stance on gay rights.

(c) As people associate gay marriage with the general fight for gay rights, it makes people who would normally support gay rights, strike at them. Thus hurting gays everywhere, and de-legitimizing their position with the public.

For these reasons and more, we ask you to carry the motion!

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

We tried formal debate, and it was too slow, not making use of the life email can bring to a discussion. We tried informal debate and it was too noisy, leaving organization behind and dwelving into the chaos of what email can devolve discussion into.

This time, the idea is to try what we will refer to as semi-formal. Where we will still put forth arguments in an organized fashion, but we able to discuss them openly.

Also, I am introducing a format by which participants will write emails, so that we can all easily follow thier meaning, and start getting better at writing our arguments.

Who goes first?

RULES
=====

PROPOSITIONS
------------
Anyone can send in a debate proposition.

1. Write 1-3 paragraphs covering:
- The problem.
- Why it is a problem.
- Your proposed solution.

2. List (flag) your arguments by name.

3. Write a minimum of 2 arguments and a maximum of 4, in support of your proposition. Give them names and announce them both at the list above, as well as when you discuss them. Give any argument no more than 2 paragraphs.

4. List between one and three reasons, or proofs, as to why each of your arguments is true. Spend no more than 1 paragraph on each such proof.

RESPONSES:
----------
Responses can come as follows:

1. Rebuttal: Pick ONE argument put forth by the proposition in any email you may send in, and logically explain why it's untrue, irrelevant, etc. Try and limit this to 2 or 3 paragraphs.

Anyone may respond to a rebuttal, using the same rules. If the rebuttal puts forth more than one argument, pick only one. Limit yourself to 3 paragraphs for your entire email.

2. Counter-argument: If you believe the proposition is wrong, and would like to oppose, send in an email by the same rules as when proposing, as described above. Only instead of starting with describing the solution, discuss why there is a problem with the original proposition's solution.

FURTHER DISCUSSION:
-------------------
You may send in another proposition email on the same subject, discussing new arguments and proofs to support the case of the original proposition. Follow the same rules, but don't repeat unless you go deeper into a point they did not cover yet.

Gadi.

I went with a couple of girlfriends to a Jazz club this past Wednesday. I was positively surprised by the jam session and had a lot of fun. One thing jumped at me though; the snapping of fingers.

Many types of music engage the audience, and the music is not the only factor in how successful this engagement is. In fact, the audience, or mob, plays a significant role in how entranced it is. Further, everyone reacts differently, moving with the music -- or dancing, if you like.

Jazz is special in that regard, aside to being a very moving type of tune, there is the finger snap. The finger snap is a social institute; it's how Jazz fans "dance" as well as participate in the making of the music. One moment everyone around me started snapping fingers in unison, and by the time they stopped, they were completely entranced with the music. Hypnotized, if you like.

In Jazz, unlike other types of music, the trace is assisted and bi-directional in source.

Due to popular misuse, hypnosis is a dirty word for many. For the purposes of this post when I use the word hypnosis, consider it a stage of awareness on a scale of falling asleep to ultra sensitive. A classic example to illustrate this: has it ever happened to you that you drove for a while and suddenly "woke up", and noticed how time flies? Or did you ever stand in line, and time seemed to slow down to a crawl? These are referred to as "trance states" in hypnosis.

Here is a counter-example some may find more acceptable. The Five Colors Theory, better known as The Cooper Color Code or "The Combat Mindset", introduced by Marine Colonel Jeff Cooper, speaks of four (or five) states of awareness, or readiness for combat. These range from White (oblivious) to Red, or Black (FIGHT!).

In this particular show, the male singer was also a comedian, and enjoyed telling jokes. While the audience loved him for it, the club owner (and one of the players on stage) kept warning him off of it, and asked him to keep in control of these evil urges.

It was obvious that there is history between them, they like each other, and that the singer may have over-done it in the past, but I think there was more to it. Whenever the singer told a joke, the audience laughed. There is nothing wrong with spicing up a show with humour, is there? Thing is, the mood also changed. Suddenly people were no longer focused on the stage and became more aware of their environment. Further, I suspect the band on stage didn't like it at all for other reasons -- perhaps it broke their groove.

This type of rapid change in trace state, or awareness, is referred to by hypnotists as a break state. Hypnotists would often break state between sessions by tackling the patient with an unexpected processing intensive question, such as "how many blades does the air fan have?" To which the patient would get confused for a few seconds, getting stuck for a bit between "?!" and answering.

Letting a patient go home, drive or in general leaving the care of the hypnotist without breaking state is considered unethical and dangerous.

I describe a similar break state situation from a recent lecture I gave, here, where the audience was very engaged with what I had to say, until BOOM!... An unexpected interrupt happened, exit(); break state.

While I enjoyed the Jazz jam session, I was quite excited about making this observation. With the risk of invoking Godwin, I couldn't but wonder what Hitler would have done with this information in his efforts of propaganda.

The way music manipulates us and how that works is a subject for another post which I hope to get time to write in the next few days.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I was rather excited about Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan at West point, as it was very well constructed, and backed its claims by proofs of ethos, logos and pathos. I was considering building an argument map for it, when a friend asked me what an argument map is!

Looking online, I found a free Java service called bCisive Online from AusThink which lets you visually construct an argument map, and set about to making it happen.

I only worked on the first seven minutes of the 35 minutes speech, but it is rather interesting.

You can view the partial argument map, here:
http://gadievron.bcisiveonline.com/spaces/c5304ac938405caba473978338bf0ab017b10014/

I was rather happy with the service, and was impressed that it allowed for multi-user work, and switching control between users. Although it did take me some time to get used to it. I also would have liked to draw arrows myself, to indicate the flow of the argument and what proof supports which claim, in what order.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

A friend of mine, Moran, recently wrote this Hebrew article, analyzing how medical diagnosis is done in House, how medical students can use House to learn, and pointing out how things actually work.

Jumping over steps, skipping processes and other issues are some of the points she illuminates are wrong with how things are done in House, while demonstrating actual medical procedure.

Another friend of mine, avgboojie, replied in a comment that she believes Moran is looking at House from the wrong perspective. House is a super-hero, capable of anything -- a genius. As a genius he uses intuition more than critical analysis, and it is exactly that genius which allows him to skip steps and still reach the right conclusions.

I am simplifying and thus likely misrepresent their opinions, but you get the idea.

The fact of the matter is, House is a super human. He is indeed capable of things no human should be able to do, and in the vast majority of episodes, solves the case. But House does make mistakes.

I am unsure if genius is just about intuition and I personally believe genius has a lot to do with laziness. But what is intuition, and why should it be preferred over practiced reasoning?

It shouldn't, the two are different and essential parts of our ability to cope with the world.

Logic allows us to examine an issue, break it to pieces, and construct a theory on a subject matter. It often dispels misconception and dissipates weak arguments. It is quantitative and given enough information and time, is the best option for decision making.

However, daily life requires numerous decisions from us that we lack the capacity to perform consciously whether we like it or not. But is relying on our instinct, or gut feeling, advisable?

Even when we would be wrong, listening to our instincts is critical. We often encounter situations where something "feels" wrong, but we don't know why. Or we may not be able to articulate our objections, but we know what's being presented simply isn't right.

At such junctures it is quite acceptable for us to say "this feels wrong," or "I would have to explore this further and get back to you." It took me years to be able to feel right about saying "I don't always need to have a reason for what I feel." Reconstructing a reason for why we do something in retrospect is what we are likely to revert to when confronted with such an occurrence, until we learn these words.

Further, our stomach is one of the best indicators for when we are being manipulated and not noticing it -- when something is indeed wrong and our critical processes are not doing the job.

But can we rely on it?

Our instincts can reach conclusions at the speed of light, considering multiple variables we can't even begin to consider. When facing the need to make a quick decision (rather than being manipulated to make one), our instincts are our best friends.

In fact, even in situations where we have time to think, listening to our instincts to guide us is a good start.

The trick is, to remember that first impressions can be very wrong indeed, as our information may have been limited, or our experience (or whatever you believe helps make instincts work) was not suitable to handle the situation.

I worked to develop my critical thinking and therefore for a long time gave much less credence to my instincts. Today, I feel much more comfortable with listening to that gut feeling, and following through on it.

One of my favorite quotes is from Constantin Stanislavsky, father of Method Acting:
"Our subconscious power cannot function without its own engineer--our conscious technique."

Or in the famous words of an anonymous statistics teacher:
"You can't have an instinct about pink elephants until you know something of pink elephants."

Some of us are more comfortable with logic while others are amazingly intuitive and don't even know how to think critically. That is quite alright, although I am a strong believer that one of the ways people develop is by working on what they are weaker at, while taking the edges of what they are naturally able with.

Most of us are not geniuses, but the ability to skip steps and look at how things connect is in all of us. The human mind is built to look for patterns, real and imagined, whether we try to or not. We just need to listen to ourselves while remembering that we may be wrong. We also need to try and keep an open mind when new information is presented, rather than stick to our guns just because it's more comfortable.

Two schools of thought which explore instinct and where it comes from are Cognitive Science and New Age.

For a good treatise on instincts and how to use them, I recommend you check out Blink (by Malcolm Gladwell, the other book is on magic).

For New Age, you'd have to Google, although you'll have to go through 999 useless sites for every one useful information source. That is the way of Fad of the Month religions.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Be it political communication, dirty tricks, strategy for survival, organizational psychology, manipulation, rhetoric, creating change or managing campaigns, what are good resources for learning political thinking?

After writing a list of resources on propaganda, I'd like to share the best of the coolest resources I found over the years on politics, this time from the world of television and the written word. A reading list of a sort on political writing, as I can't find any such list of worth online.

There are numerous shows, books and resources out there ranging from political theory and diaries to political savvy and office politics. But finding the good references takes a while -- I found each of these months or years apart from each other. Which is why choosing what to list here was a no-brainer.

What is your favorite reference on the subject? Or a situation you encountered which you found fascinating? Leave a comment and let me know! :)

I will update this list as new resources are discovered, but mostly add comments to indicate new findings.

Resources:

1. Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister

This is truly one of the best British comedies of all time (voted so by the public, and declared so by Margaret Thatcher) and aside to being funny, it is also illuminating of politics.

Watching the show, you learn about how government works, get introduced to various topics which are still on the agenda, realize some of the reasons why government is so slow (civil service pushing for status quo, politicians pushing to stay in office).

But MOST importantly, you learn politics. You observe the machinations of power and how things get done (or more likely are stopped from getting done) by various tricks and manipulations of Sir Humphrey Appleby, one of the protagonists.

This is one of my favorite shows of all time and the study guide for debate teams world-wide. It is definitely worth your time. I'd recommend giving it four episodes to get used to the humour.

2. Thank You for Smoking (2005)

Thank You for Smoking is a fun movie to watch, even more than usual political satire. Right from the offset it sets the mood and the happy-go-lucky feeling doesn't leave you for the whole day. It follows the Tobacco industry's chief lobbyist, Nick Naylor, and how he makes the world go-round.

By believing that everything is dependent on perspective, and that everything is an opinion (rhetorical thought) the hero takes us for a spin in the Washington lobbying world and the quest to make cigarettes successful, as viewed by the original book's author.

Definitely worth a watch, no matter what genre you are usually into. You will be enlightened.

3. Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition

Not strictly politics, but what is political communication if not modern day rhetoric?

This course from TTC - The Teaching Company (video and audio are available) is a short introduction to rhetoric and argumentation, and the best course I ever heard, viewed or attended. This is both due to the wonderful lecturing skills of professor David Zarefsky, as well as due to the material being taught (including good structure, detailed notes and various examples from history).

I listened to it while driving. There are 24 lectures, 30 minutes each.

There are any number of books and courses on rhetoric, but if you don't have much time, and you want quality, get this one!

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4294

If you are interested in other books on argumentation, check out this list by my friend Stephen (Steve) Llano, whom I begged to create it:
http://progymna.blogspot.com/2009/10/argumentation-books-i-cant-do-without.html

4. Microcosmographia Academica (Greek: "A Study of a Tiny Academic World")

This tiny book of 26 pages is nothing if not funny and illuminating. It is not widely known, but has a cult following of people who introduce the next generation to the book when the time for their initiation into academic politics arrives.

It was written by F. M. Cornford in 1908 to reflect on politics in Cambridge, but holds true outside of academia. So push through the inside jokes, and learn how politics works. It is also named as one of the muses for the writers of Yes Minister.

Download in PDF:
http://www.archive.org/details/MICROCOSMOGRAPHIA-ACADEMICA

5. Orwell conference videos

Extremely good videos on political manipulation and propaganda, from the 60 years later conference in Orwell's honour ("THERE YOU GO AGAIN: Orwell Comes to America" or what Orwell didn't know), can be found here along with my reviews:
http://gevron.livejournal.com/25314.html

6. The Prince (Italian: Il Principe) by Niccolò Machiavelli

A lot has been said about the book by this Italian figure from history, and many misconceptions abound.

The Prince is a book about how things happen, change is introduced, and power is held. It is the advocate of Real Politik, meaning, the end justifies the means. But not in the horrible modern-day meaning.

Rather, Machiavelli discusses strategy. How to achieve goals by planning ahead and responding accordingly. The book is filled with historical examples to illustrate his ideas, and is a good read.

Download:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1232

7. George Orwell

George Orwell's political satire is not about big brother, that is just a theme in his wonderful book 1984, which isn't about big brother, either.

His books are about language. Political language. Animal Farm is very short and fun, and 1984 is beyond words -- except for his.

His short essay Politics and the English Language can be found here:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

8. Henry Kissinger

Kissinger speaks of history as someone who was there. You may dislike his politics and you may disagree with his choices, but he explains them like no other can. He illustrates political moves and why they were taken, contrasting them with other choices and historical examples.

I just started reading one of his books -- Diplomacy, and so far I am not disappointed.

9. Reframing:

- George Lakoff is an american cognitive linguist who introduced the world to The Political Mind. He often writes and speaks of how words matter, and how issues can be reframed for political victories.

Any book by him is good. His most famous is: "Don't Think of an Elephant"

Here is a good interview with him:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4142569

And a lecture on the politics of language:
http://fora.tv/2009/08/03/Politics_of_Language_George_Lakoff

- Frank Luntz (republican pollster) is a wordsmith and the person behind many victories by the Republican party, and is the person who came up with "death tax". He claims he learned his craft by reading Orwell's 1984.

His book:
"Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear"

You can listen to both Lakoff and Luntz together on the videos linked to above, from the Orwell conference.

- Steven Pinker is a respected cognitive researcher who is also known as a critic of George Lakoff. He also wrote about The Political Mind, and is very interesting.

Here is a short video from him on political rhetoric:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS4xVcko9qw

10. Fun to watch:

- House of Cards: British political mini-series which demonstrates real politik and political thinking, although is not completely in touch with reality. It blew my mind.

- Wag the Dog (1997): An American movie which is a lot of fun to watch, and demonstrates the mind-set of politics and spin, but much like House of Cards, is not very much in touch with reality.

11. Edward L. Bernays on propaganda and public relations

Far be it from me to convince you to read "The Father of PR" Bernays' works when Malcolm Gladwell does a much better job at it than me:
http://www.gladwell.com/1998/1998_07_06_a_spin.htm

Bernay's books:

Take Your Place At The Peace Table: "a guide to strategy -- a blueprint for action."
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015030659117;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=1

Propaganda
http://www.archive.org/details/Propaganda_600

Crystallizing Public Opinion
http://alternative-x.com/store/truth_books/Bernays%20-%20Crystallizing%20Public%20Opinion.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22623693/crystallizing-public-opinion-edward-bernays

12. Saul Alinsky

I haven't yet had the time to check out his work on organizing communities and on radicalism, but according to this article at The Washington Post by Peter Slevin, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama certainly have:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

His books Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals definitely seem interesting.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

The Last Psychiatrist posted a very good new blog where he discusses how the news media creates fake credibility by, for example, having someone report from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, with a lot of background noise. I have some other theories to present which may complement his, and some examples to illustrate them.



As he mentions, background microphone noise is easy to solve, and the information shared with us they already have in the studio. Then why do it? The setting of reporting "on the ground" gives us viewers a feeling that the report is more credible, when in fact it is quite possible the reporter is reading Yahoo! for the latest stock information, just as easy as we can.

The Last Psychiatrist, thank you for the post. My own experience shows me other aspects of this same phenomenon. The "on the ground" factor is not necessarily about credibility. It may just as well be about interest in the form of audience engagement.

In our daily jobs we don't often do anything very exciting, and if we read about something happening RIGHT NOW and the battle story behind it, we are a part of it and gain a feeling of importance.

In the internet security and network operations fields I noticed that people get very excited when stories from the front lines are shared with them. They get the feeling that they are in the front lines themselves -- a borrowed feeling of importance -- and that they get the information before anyone else; increasing the information's value, and therefore their own.

More anecdotal, aside to engagement techies often value real raw data, where in most places, public data is pre-chewed, seen before, and inaccurate (news vs. opinion). By providing raw data from the front lines, we feel that we have the truth of the matter and then believe in the whole -- after checking into just a small part of it ourselves.

One example for this is the blog called the SANS Internet Story Center (ISC) Diary, where very good people indeed (and good friends), share their experiences from the field and treat their readers as a part of the larger community which sends in data. Even when their posts have no relation to anything happening right now, it feels like they do.

Another example is whenever I share a battle story of my own, so that people are informed of new threats, the types of responses I get are pathos rather than logos based. This proved very successful when I built SecuriTeam blogs during 2006-7 and brought it up from 80 unique readers a month, to 15 thousand unique readers a month.

Share real experiences (and obviously, as much real data as possible), and your users will be more engaged with your writing and visit your blog more often.

As half a joke, there is a also a political communication reason for the background noise. In one of the best TV shows ever written, Yes Minister, the (now Prime Minister) has his first TV interview. When he finds out he has nothing new to say, he is instructed to wear a loud suit, the background is a screaming yellow, etc. Just to distract people that he actually has nothing new to share.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Australia's ABC Media Watch is a short show which audits the local media, looking over editors' shoulders and forcing them to a higher journalistic standard. It is very interesting to watch how the media manipulates us.

Gross exaggerations, advertisements sold as news, misrepresentations of events, rhetorical word-plays and ethical misconduct are some of what you can expect to be shown as you get familiar with the show, which will research and verify these, as well as follow up in the future.

The concept is similar to Comedy Central's The Daily Show, only it concentrates less on satire and acts more as an investigative journalism show. Caught in the act, media sources respond and post retractions.

I want to thank Drazen Drazic who sent me a link to one of Media Watch's episodes, which carries information on placebo drugs:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1607394.htm

You can also subscribe to it on iTunes.

One of the media's purposes in a democracy is to monitor the government's actions, but who holds the media to any standards? Israel, the United States and other countries could certainly benefit from such an example of media accountability.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I encountered some brilliant and interesting texts this week, some of which I'd like to share with you.

"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main

This is older text by David Brin, a great science fiction author who is also one of my favorite people to discuss issues of privacy with. He compares Star Wars to Star Trek, but in a fashion I haven't seen before, and peels the onion of the creators' agenda.

While looking at several themes, he tries to reason which of these future worlds he would prefer to live in. Reading the text I felt like saying "let it go, just enjoy watching," and indeed, he says he does. Then he tears them apart.

He explores the Hero model as shown by Campbell and how, while successful and speaking directly to our subconscious, inherently trains us to look for the super human as a leader, and how in Star Wars we get to choose between perfectly good or perfectly evil elites. While in Star Trek our heroes are every day humans who are only, say, 10 times better than the rest of us.

Almost called it as a TL;DR. I'm glad I stuck with the text.

The Spin Myth
http://www.gladwell.com/1998/1998_07_06_a_spin.htm

Malcolm Gladwell writes well and on interesting subjects. Yet he also often writes in TL;DR fashion. I stuck with this one and it was one of my better decisions this week.

Exploring propaganda giant Edward Bernays and marketing giant Lester Wunderman, he intertwines fascinating anecdotes with detailing their view of the world and how they got things done when changing the world around them, selling their products.

This is a must read for anyone interested in marketing or psychology in any form.

Here is the first paragraph:

"On Easter Sunday, 1929, the legendary public-relations man Edward L. Bernays rounded up ten carefully chosen women, put cigarettes in their hands, and sent them down Fifth Avenue in what was billed as the Torches of Freedom march. The marchers were given detailed instructions, including when and how their cigarettes should be lit. Spokeswomen were enlisted to describe the protest as an advance for feminism. Photographers were hired to take pictures. It was an entirely contrived event that nonetheless looked so "real" that the next day it made front-page headlines across the country, prompting a debate over whether women should be allowed to smoke as freely as men, and--some historians believe--forever changing the social context of cigarettes. What Bernays never told anyone was that he was working for the American Tobacco Company."

Does cognitive training work? (For Whom? For What?)
http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2009/02/25/does-cognitive-training-work-for-whom-for-what/

Dr. Pascale Michelon decided to take two recent news articles titled with contradictory scientific claims: "cognitive training works!" and "cognitive training doesn't work!" and tries to understand what's up.

By analyzing the actual content of the articles, Michelon first defines how the subject should be explored. What does "works" refer to? Uses basic logic to try and figure out what type of answers such research could provide, and under what circumstances: Do the experiments try and improve cognitive function or stop deterioration due to disease? Do they actually claim success, and if so, in improving what type of cognitive functions? Did the experiment results actually state any of these conclusions?

Then, Michelon goes over the results and rhetorically constructs an argument as to what the state of affairs really is, and by what definitions can we make a decision as to what works, how, for what, and when.

Beautifully written article -- rhetorically -- using nothing but logos.

Pseudomathematics
Sam Hughes writes:"Pseudoscience is something I don't really have the social skills to fight head on. I'm not a practical, working research scientist. "But that's obviously nonsensical" isn't a sufficient counterargument for, say, homeopaths.

...
...

So yes: there's junk science. But it's not often you run into actual junk mathematics. Here's the thing about junk mathematics. Science is up for debate. With a law, a theory, a paper, a data source or a single datum, you can dispute the author, the source, the motivation, the politics, the data gathering methods and the spelling. You can fight over this stuff. That which is "true" is what stays standing after the fight is over. That's how science works. Science is what fits the universe better than anything else, all brute force statistical manipulation and personal biases removed.

Mathematics? Not so much."</blockquote>A fun quick read, highly recommended.

Underground Psychology
http://www.slate.com/id/2235474/

Tom Vanderbilt titled this text "Researchers have been spying on us on the subway. Here's what they've learned", and indeed, the science of watching people and measuring their response to varied social situations is not only interesting, but fun.

This article is a summary of interesting research, or nice anecdotes, from the world of social psychology. It puts them all in a very readable text, ready for your consumption.

Well,
That's it, maybe I will collect some more reading material for you next week.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Tags: change, cognition, cognitive training, david brin, george lucas, good texts, malcolm gladwell, marketing, math, propaganda, pseudo-science, rhetorical analysis, social psychology, star trek, star wars

Spin of the day goes to the Telegraph, with a story on the a so-called imminent crash of the market. Credit goes to The Last Psychiatrist for spotting it.

The Telegraph wrote of how a new Soc Gen report warns of an imminent crash of the market, when in fact it is just one of three case studies discussed, and more-over, the crash being the very unlikely worst--case scenario.

A look at the actual report shows something a little different: Soc Gen outlines 3 possibilities-- Bear, Central, and Bull scenarios, each detailed with unnecessarily complex graphics.

They don't think the "Worst Case Scenario," will happen, they are just describing it. Their actual belief is stabilization in 2009, and recovery in 2 or 3 years.

...It's bad enough that the story is misleading, and that it provides no useful news. What makes it dangerous is that it is misleading precisely to draw readers; and by becoming popular it then causes things to happen.

Newspapers are not objective informational resources, they are blogs. The sooner you internalize that comparison, the sooner you will be free.

Thanks to Imri for pointing this story out.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Last week I was one of the multitudes spreading the shocking and horrendous news of a man being completely aware during his 20+ years in a coma.

While one can never be 100% sure, this news is now being debunked as a hoax, or a myth if you like.

As a friend told me: "I did warn you about The Daily Mail."

You can read more about debunking this nonsense and watch the videos for yourself, here:
http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2009/11/25/coma-man-hoax/

I completely fell for this likely scam. It was so out there, made me connect with the story emotionally, pandered to my skepticism of some parts of modern medicine, and had the authority of a large news paper. Whatever the reason, I'd been had and unwittingly helped spread the myth.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Among the files released to the public by the ClimateGate hacker there is a very interesting find called Rules of The Game.

“Changing attitudes towards climate change is not like selling a particular brand of soap – it’s like convincing someone to use soap in the first place.”

Some folks claim it is a document instructing folks on how to mind control others, that is not the case. It's a friendly-looking short document outlining principles drawn from different fields on how to communicate about climate change persuasively.

I have seen entire books: from conservatives on how to talk to liberals, from liberals on how to talk to conservatives, atheists, creationists, and many others.

The classic of such strategic communication comes from the father of public relations, Edward L. Bernays, in his book Take Your Place At The Peace Table: "a guide to strategy -- a blueprint for action." You can find an online version of the book, here.

Some of the principles in The Rules of The Game may seem less than ethical, but are nothing any sales person, politician, marketing expert or PR person wouldn't practice daily. In fact, they spend years studying and then mastering these very principles.

Someone in the UK decided a communication strategy is in order, and instead of spiting useless rhetoric tried to be professional about how to approach convincing the public. Much like any advertisement on TV or a politician with a plan, they decided on a message and launched a PR campaign, including but not limited to instructing people on how to effectively communicate with others on the subject.

From the introduction:

The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it.

These principles were created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy, an evidence-based strategy aiming to change public attitudes towards climate change in the UK....

There is plenty of evidence relating to attitudes towards and behaviour on climate change, general environmental behaviour change and the whole issue of sustainable development communication...

The document gathers tidbits on how to communicate your point well, appealing mainly to emotion. From the first guideline, "Blowing Away Myths":

...Recent surveys show that people without children may care more about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of little use for a change in climate measured in years.

...Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution. Don’t attack or criticise home or family.

It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.

...Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do.

The document can be found online, where it was originally released in 2005 on Futerra's web site, before it made the news with ClimateGate:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

Other documents on similar subjects from Futerra:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking

Other interesting resources:

1. A video from MIT, with Solitaire Townsend, about the rules, here:

"Join C2E2 and CERES for a riveting discussion with Solitaire Townsend, managing director and co-founder of Futerra, a communications consultancy in the united Kingdom, who is one of the UK’s leading specialists on the development and delivery of climate change communication strategies."




2. I'd strongly recommend people read 1984 by Orwell, as well as check out the very valuable videos from the conference "What Orwell Didn't Know: 60 years later", which I link to and review, here:
http://gevron.livejournal.com/25314.html

3. Other books by Bernays:

Propaganda
http://www.archive.org/details/Propaganda_600

Crystallizing Public Opinion
http://alternative-x.com/store/truth_books/Bernays%20-%20Crystallizing%20Public%20Opinion.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22623693/crystallizing-public-opinion-edward-bernays

4. "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky isn't available online due to copyright, but you can access these resources:

Excerpt from the book:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

Canadian documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#

5. Video lecture by Chomsky on Language and Politics:
http://fora.tv/2009/10/06/Noam_Chomsky_Philosophies_of_Language_and_Politics

6. Also, check out the BBC documentary The Century of the Self (2002).

"This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." - Adam Curtis

First episode, with links to the other three, here:





Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Story here:

A controversial Scottish brewery has launched what it described as the world's strongest beer - with a 32% alcohol content.

Tactical Nuclear Penguin has been unveiled by BrewDog of Fraserburgh.

BrewDog was previously branded irresponsible for an 18.2% beer called Tokyo, which it then followed with a low alcohol beer called Nanny State.

Managing director James Watt said a limited supply of Tactical Nuclear Penguin would be sold for £30 each.

So that's rather pricey, but the naming scheme and the attitude is to fall in love with.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

A few days ago a story broke where someone hacked into a global warming research institute and stole all emails from the past 10 years, proving a conspiracy.

In the vast amount of emails stolen, some emails were also found with clear-cut lies, showing how some scientists conspired to deceive in scientific research about data that did not fit their agenda of proving global warming.

I am opening the subject for debate on the debate mailing list. It is a fascinating topic covering several subjects such as 'does the end justify the means?', 'irresponsible disclosure of personal data', 'is it justifiable to break the law?' and 'civil disobedience and the hackers' role in keeping society honest'.

Here are some possible questions to get the wheels rolling:

- Is the action taken by the hacker legal, ethical, and/or moral? Was the action justifiable?

- Do you believe the harm done as a result is justified for the good (disclosure) that came out of it?

- Can this be treated as civil disobedience?

For background, check out this story
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
If URL breaks:
http://tinyurl.com/yceb9tw

Another source:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/

Join the debate mailing list, now! :)
http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate

Please state your opinions openly, and let's discuss!

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I was invited to lecture today at a conference in the army. Much like with my "I'm interested, but in you" post, I have an interesting analysis to share. This time of a WTF moment that caught me off guard.

The lecture went great, we were having a lot of fun and I made sure both the subject and the way I presented it were interesting.

The tension was peaking, people were sitting on the edge of their seats when suddenly.. BOOM!

The door banged open:

"Drill! Drill! Drill! Fire in the building! Everybody OUT!"

And there was silence.

We all literally went: "?!"

People were deeply engaged with the subject, we connected, and they were almost hypnotized. This sudden interruption was like an exit() function, breaking out and killing the program unceremoniously. Hypnotists would call this a break pattern.

While I wasn't happy about it, I was a guest and the hosts, colonels and the like, eventually stood up and we all followed in their authority's footsteps.

"Haha, I bet that never happened to you before," people kept telling me, and they were right. The story is very funny when I tell it to other people! :P

I was in a rather good, compliant mood, due to earlier events. So while many other speakers would have up and left I happily went with the nonsense and stopped my lecture for 10 minutes. It reminded me of what it's like to be in the army, allowed me to joke around with folks. And besides, getting the lecture back on track would be a very interesting challenge.

With a bit of shock therapy, a bit of humour and a lot of sudden seriousness -- followed by one more repeat joke -- we were right back on track.

In retrospect, while arguing in a situation such as this is often pointless, as the already annoying person (the announcer) has God on his side, there are ways I could have "disabled" him. He has [ridiculous] authority behind him, the feeling of importance, fear of impending doom and very easy instructions to follow, which he would zealously. But he was expecting compliance.

If I was of a mind to do it, I could try to counter him by telling him something he doesn't expect, which would break his programming.

Here's what the state-machine looks like:
To begin with, simply by replying with a negation and assurance, he might get stuck.
"Oh, that's okay. This room exempted from the drill."

Adding a reason to it, will tie it nicely:
"As I get paid and have to go in 20 minutes."

And adding authority to it may just break him completely:
"Special orders." or "By authority of Senior CO Xyz."

As an alternative or a back-up plan (as suggested by my friend Rinat), I could send him on an errand:
"This room has been exempted, please go check with Senior CO Xyz."

Of course, I might also add Xyz is in a meeting and therefore exempted him or herself.

Then again, I could also respond in the following fashion, dismissing him:
"No. This room is in the middle of a lecture. I am going soon, and you are interrupting me. Good bye."

Or, I could try and take the offensive:
"WHAT? How dare you interrupt my lecture this way?! No! Don't speak back! Leave! If you like, bring your CO over to talk to me!"

As another option, I could state my case in whatever fashion, and put it on one of the senior officers present in the room to champion me with the idiot. And if it didn't get resolved in a few seconds, ask the senior officer to take it outside.

It all depends on the situation, but compliance seemed like the best option to take, and I'd do it again. While my time should be respected, sometimes respecting The Machine (TM), the role the person in front of you is expected to play, and just going with it, is indeed the quickest route to the desired end. A confrontation could also possibly ruin my Ethos of a friendly authoritative figure with the audience, and I ended up cool.

Then again, I was shocked too and unlike in my "I'm interested, but in you" post, didn't really consider all this all when it happened. I am pleased that I am happy with my choice in retrospect.

Besides, with the army it's either go with it or fight it. There is rarely a middle ground and I did have a dinner date planned.

What would you have done?

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

How are traffic jams created, especially when there is no apparent reason for them?

That question occupies conversations between a friend and me for a while now. Yesterday I came across a blog where Japanese scientists managed to create what is known as the Shockwave effect.

When somebody slows down, or breaks, cars behind him, behind them, and behind those, need to slow down as well. This can continue in shockwave fashion for kilometers.

This has been shown to happen in real-life situations, but the Japanese scientists created an experiment which recreates it.



Here is the original New Scientist story:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13402

Here are some links to other research on traffic patterns and driving psychology:
Jerks actually reduce the risk of traffic jams

Removing Roads and Traffic Lights Speeds Urban Travel

And a very good link, to my blog, if I do say so myself:
Driving Cultures, Road Psychology and Israel

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I happened across a few short video clips on the Discovery website, showing examples of specific police interrogation techniques, and explaining them.

There are only five videos (weakest link, empathy, lie detector, deception and intimidation), but they're worth taking a look at, here:
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/real-interrogations-videos/

The video about intimidation is missing from the list, and can be found here:
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/real-interrogations-intimidation.html

It often seems to me that many techniques commonly used by police are either a result of trial and error in figuring them out, or inherited as something believed to work. As interviewing suspects is a complex process, and has never truly undergone scientific study, it is difficult to judge.

I liked that in the Lie Detector video, the investigator admits that the real value of the lie detector is the fear of it.

One of the studies on this subject which I find impressive, is the review of past and current techniques and strategies, why they work or fail, how they came to be, and how they can be made better. It was created as part of a government study following the controversy on torture in recent years. It's called Educing information and was performed by the Intelligence Science Board:
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

In one of my better texts to date, I also quickly reviewed the subject of torture and its efficacy, here:
http://gevron.livejournal.com/18655.html

The videos reminded me of one of the truly best video pair I have seen on the net in the last couple of years:
Law prof and cop agree: never ever ever ever ever ever ever talk to the cops about a crime, even if you're innocent.

Do note that while the advice given in the video pair is solid, not talking to the cops at all also makes you a very suspicious person.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I love the sport of debate. Debate clubs teach students about themselves as well as about the world. Helping them develop critical thinking skills as well as presentation skills. They learn to create a thesis as well as work under pressure. Most importantly, debate puts students face to face with their beliefs so that they can be torn apart and built from scratch, based on better information and a way to better assess its value.

They also teach students a scorn for emotion while claiming to teach persuasion, shooting their students in the foot.


[Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dejvicka/3951808713/, by dejvicka.]

In between entertaining thousands of people at large conferences, speaking to my friends over beer, and writing both professionally and in my blog, I worked at bettering myself. I learned how to be more in tune with my environment, to be more aware of myself and those around me, and to speak to become a better communicator. I am still a work in progress.

One bright day, I went along with a friend to audit a British Parliamentary Debate class. I was fascinated by what I saw. With some guidance on logic and argument construction, people were in a bootcamp for the mind, learning what I fought so hard to master by experience. They stepped up and had to conquer their fear of crowds, had to prepare written material and then improvise based on it.

They learned how to logically construct their arguments, make them strong, and how to present them so that they flow logically.

I like debate. I also like there is a place where logic comes first, and that well constructed arguments are rewarded. I can only come to club meetings on rare occasions and thus never truly mastered it, but I do know logical flow does not necessarily equal persuasion.

What continually disappoints me is the general scorn in debate circles for pathos -- feeling. What you or I may refer to as communication skills. Humour, interestingly enough, is always welcome.

The ability to address an audience, engage people, and move them, simply doesn't count for much. It's nice to have, and shows real class among the better debaters. But if you just get started it is completely disregarded. In fact, in some circles it is scorned completely.

Debate is a game of rhetoric where you learn argumentation, and that matters. But there is more to rhetoric than argumentation. And persuasion, however much we'd like to think otherwise, often has nothing to do with logic.

New students are told that arguing for a position they don't believe in is a good thing, as they would learn more about the subject and be able to argue it better. As well as learn more about the tricks people use to convince them of fallacies, so that they could identify them.

However, before they reach that point, just by participating in a debate, new students often take the position which they represent to heart, shaking their heads and their fists at the opposition. Be it that they convinced themselves by formulating arguments (read, actually thought of the subject), or as frequently happens, by the nature of competition they take what happens during the debate personally. Their position has changed without them even noticing.

Then a few weeks later they debate the same subject from their original point of view and change their position yet again. Thus starting to formulate how they should properly examine a subject and being more careful about what they take for proof. There are always arguments for both sides, what decides their opinion other than their view of life, and their emotions?

This very process demonstrates, if it wasn't yet clear, that we are human. Our emotions matter to us. Further, emotions, morals and judgement are a critical part of how the world runs. In fact, as George Lakoff often reminds us, brain studies demonstrate how emotions are an integral part of our reasoning process, and without them, we are incapable of decision making.

Much the same as logical fallacies can under the right circumstances be very relevant arguments, and yet we often view them as universally wrong, black and white, so do we view the subject of pathos and emotion as almost beside the point. A cheap unprofessional way to appease the populous. For people who study rhetoric, that is a contradiction in the very essence of what it is.

Aristotle formalised rhetoric as built of logos, pathos and ethos. All different and yet the same. If we follow in his footsteps, we should take the hint.

I realise teaching argumentation is the basics for debate, but is it necessary to kill the people skills for those that already have them?

Logical arguments matter, after all, logic is the basic building block argumentation. But logical arguments are rarely persuasive on their own. Connecting with people, which is an integral part of persuasion, puts them in perspective and makes them effective.

In a BBC 7 programme called The Art of Rhetoric, William Hauge speaks of when he was at university heading the debate club, and how enthusiastic people were to persuade the audience in front of them, he then says “these days, it all seems to become much more narrow-minded and professional. The debaters seem more concerned with winning competitions than impressing their peers in the House of Oxford or Cambridge Union, and I think this is regrettable. Once you start worrying about point scoring for a jury, you're thinking about how many ideas you've included, whether you've managed to rip up every single little point the other side has made.”

While I sympathise with his point, I believe that if a sport is to be competitive, some sacrifices, such as trying to make the judges happy need to be made. The problem is in what the judges are instructed to look for, which is where I strongly agree with Mr. Hauge:

“You cease to think about whether you're being interesting or boring. Whether your style is attractive or dull. You just lose the sense of perspective.”

Debate is a fun experience for me, and I'd like to think that at some point I will have enough time to master the form, so that I could get as good at it as I am in other games of rhetoric. But coming from a place where pathos is appreciated and seeing how much it counts, I can't help but feel pity for those who are stuck on just the argument.

People who teach interpersonal communication often discuss the fallacy of content, as words matter little when facial expressions are the verdict on meaning. People who teach content often discuss the fallacy of context, as it doesn't really add any new information. Both of these matter. Teaching one at the expense of the other may be a good tactic, but a loss for who we want our students to become, especially if we never go back and emphasise the other.

In conclusion I'd like to draw your attention to a very good, funny and short video clip, a highlight from an expert debate on democracy, where the speaker has fascinating pathos:

Source URL, here.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

ISOTF Critical Internet Infrastructure WG is now open to public participation.

The group holds top experts on internet technology, critical infrastructure, and internet governance, from around the globe.

Together, we discuss definitions, problems, challenges and solutions in securing and assuring the reliability of the global internet infrastructure, which is critical infrastructure for a growing number of nations, corporations and indeed, individuals -- world wide.

The group started as a closed and private forum, to discuss technical and operational risks, as other venues limited discussion of critical internet resources to politically charged subjects such ascontrol of ICANN and ARIN, thus overshadowing other important aspects.

As of November 18th 2009, the list is open for public access, to advance public awareness of the issues, and bring new talent on board.

The group is hosted by the ISOTF, but is governed by members.

Note: SCADA, network operations, and other related issues should be discussed in the appropriate forums, elsewhere. This group deals with the internet.

To subscribe:
http://isotf.org/mailman/listinfo/cii

Gadi Evron for ISOTF-CII-WG.

On this NASA blog you can find facts on the 2012 apocalypse hoax. With a video, frequently asked questions and answers, and other information and links.

Highly recommended. Spread the good word.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers

For my regular readers:
I like how the guy wore a friendly suit, spoke authoritatively without equivocation, and was filmed in front of a book case (probably in a library). It works.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

In this blog post The Last Psychiatrist looks at news headlines following the Ft. Hood incident, and asks us to guess by publication, which headline goes with what publication.

Political inclinations aside, it is an interesting example of how language shapes us, and how it can be used to bias our opinion one way or the other, establishing the frame for the discussion. Or if you prefer, to underline what we should look at by what the publication believes matters.

The author finds this especially important, as he believes most people only skim the headlines to begin with unless they are specifically interested.

In my experience, headlines often have little to do with what's actually written in the content, and in fact, can instigate beliefs contrary to reality which will persist for years.

One such example from my own experience relating to the 2007 Internet attacks against Estonia, what is now often referred to as "The First Internet War". A story came out when Estonia arrested one student for participating, but the title was that the Estonian student was behind the attacks, which is ridiculous, but a lingering belief.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

This is one of the few occasions where mentioning something, Twitter fashion, says it all:

"The best DARPA programme managers, I swear, are science fiction writers":
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427335.700-darpa-inventing-this-side-of-the-impossible.html

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

The subject of how to introduce oneself, and what language works for success in engaging someone, has always fascinated me. I wrote on it before, here.

I am continually impressed by the statistics gathering at OkCupid. They have a fascinating blog (which I also wrote of before).

Whether you are "in the market" or not, you may find their latest post interesting. In it they analyze language used in first messages by members of the dating site, and rank the success rates for a return email by specific words and phrases.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/09/14/online-dating-advice-exactly-what-to-say-in-a-first-message/

My friend, Oded Sharon, came up with the following hilarious pick up line, making use of all this advice:

"How's it going? Sorry to bother you. You mention you're an atheist. Awesome! Pretty much the theme of the song of my band."

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

A few days ago a Google Alert on my name let me know that I was referenced in a paper from RAND. I have high appreciation for RAND's work, so naturally I went to look.

The work by one Martin Libicki discusses cyber war and cyber deterrence. He is against the silly notion, much like I am.

I've grown so tired of repeating "these discussions the past two years in US defense circles are just ... stupid." I am happy that someone else, as articulate as Libicki, joined our side of the debate. Just because US experts are so used to deterrence as a strategy after 70 years, does not mean it fits the bill with the Internet. In fact, it is extreme folly.

I don't agree with everything Libicki says, but I do agree with him on this matter.

However...
Unlike many, I believe offensive capabilities are critical for any nation nowadays, but that thinking it would assist in defense is delusional.

Libicki's actual RAND paper can be found here:
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG877.pdf

Maybe now I can finally write a paper I want to write, on when deterrence actually does work on the Internet. There are cases where it does, but raising these before now would have muddied the water.

I also plan to be more vocal in the debate in the coming months, and pull out of the drawer some articles I wrote on the subject, for when it warms up and they can make a difference.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I was watching District 9 today when the promos were running, and a movie called 2012 was presented.

Other than being a scary end-of-the-world movie of many apocalyptic fashions, it is filled with pathos of very good special effects, impressively depicting mass-death scenes, cutting at the last second, the ethos of religious leaders and scientists saying it is for real, and the (somehow different) logos of referencing science, the Bible, etc.

I was also especially impressed by the social psychology aspects of spreading hysteria via filmed social proof.

Up to here it's just a movie, but:
1. It gives people a specific date to fear.
2. Worst of all the promo continues to claims that... "it could really happen"

I heard *some* whispers around me such as "wow, will that really happen?"

It seems like it might be a great action film with no real content -- as it should be. But it will also create yet another apocalyptic date for people to predict the end of the world on, and a following courtesy of Hollywood. How pointless. Blachs.

Once again I call upon the world to celebrate Binary Armageddon Day:
http://gevron.livejournal.com/23987.html

Gadi.

A friend sent me a Google Wave invitation today. I still haven't received it.

Back when Google launched Gmail, you could only join by receiving an invitation from a friend, or buying one on eBay.

It seems like Google added a time-wait scheme to this previous ploy.

Brilliant marketing. The bastards. :)

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

In the past week I encountered two trivial examples of inter-personal communication, where changing the language made all the difference. George Orwell and Frank Luntz would be proud, if they would consider daily life a worthy use of Newspeak.

Politicians use euphemisms to get things by us, or to reframe the debate so we see it as more positive or negative, or a different subject all together. However, there is no reason why this use of Newspeak can't be useful for effective communication as well, rather than just for the nefarious purposes of manipulation.

The first example was with a friend. He and his wife, Barak and Ilana, were taking a photograph with me. It was a funny situation where I was seating them both on my legs like they were children. When I saw the hilarious picture on Facebook the other day I commented, in jest, that it seems like the guy has a stock smile for photographs. Not that there is anything wrong with it! :)

He smartly replied that he does not have a stock smile; he has a ready smile. ;)



While I personally prefer natural smiles and to dump bad pictures, that brilliant response completely reframed the issue for me. There is no need to explain that "there is nothing wrong" with putting on a smile for a photo-shoot, especially one that would prevent us looking "funny". We also avoid countering the negative connotations of a stock smile that arise even if we add a negation, by simply not mentioning it.

It's a ready smile, and it's always there for the right occasion!



The second example was with someone who suffers from significant medical problems, but can get very little treatment due to a violent psychosomatic reaction to medicine. The doctors over the years called that person crazy, and recommened to tough it up, or maybe see a shrink.

For the person, to tough it up meant the doctors simply couldn't comprehend what going through the pain and very real physiological after-effects was like. To see a shrink suggested (pretty bluntly) that something is wrong mentally, and the person is imagining things.

In a discussion today I mentioned what psychosomatic means to doctors, and how they sometimes use it as a catch-all phrase when they don't know what the problem is, much like "severe respiratory syndrome" or "viral infection" are sometimes used as generalizations. I also mentioned how these physiological responses don't necessarily mean the person is insane. But when I started using the word Neurological rather than Psychosomatic, the person started seeing my point. The difference between the brain and the mind: no matter how many examples you may provide, the issue is too easily confused when illness is involved.

Interestingly, it was the person who came up with this word, which was comprehensible and made the situation clear, to the person and to me.

Being able to communicate well is an important skill, and like we often discuss here, it does not mean manipulation, but rather clarity from preconceptions, and indeed, disambiguation.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.