A TED Talk by James Geary, about metaphor and it's impact on thought and decision making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cU56SWXHFw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cU56SWXHFw)
Interesting. The part which struck me was about subjects being more likely to suggest interventionist strategies when exposed to WWII metaphors, than those exposed to Vietnam or neutral conflict metaphors. It made me curious about how a group of people more used to critical thinking would respond to a similar test.
I mean - I expect most people would look at that talk and say "well.... that doesn't really apply to me". Except that it probably does. Or would you be more likely to see through it in your own fields of expertise, while remaining as vulnerable as everybody else in others?
Quote from: FP on January 03, 2010, 02:07:32 AM
Interesting. The part which struck me was about subjects being more likely to suggest interventionist strategies when exposed to WWII metaphors, than those exposed to Vietnam or neutral conflict metaphors. It made me curious about how a group of people more used to critical thinking would respond to a similar test.
I mean - I expect most people would look at that talk and say "well.... that doesn't really apply to me". Except that it probably does. Or would you be more likely to see through it in your own fields of expertise, while remaining as vulnerable as everybody else in others?
Yeah, that was the best part of the lecture.
I don't know if it's possible to be on guard all the time. Even if you're well acquainted with critical thinking, it might just mean that you take things more lightly even as you participate in them.
Much of what we talk about is filler. Conversation often isn't about content so much as flow. So long as what is said is of no consequence to either participant (or agreed upon), the flow can proceed.
You
could correct the barrage of flawed and problematic metaphors presented to you by the news on a daily basis, but you probably won't.
Why? Because the distinction doesn't matter.
With the news, I tend to poke at those things as much as possible.
Latest I read about is some talk about "Al Qaeda on an Island" or something, a metaphorical island, signifying it's a separate faction in AQ. Related with that plane incident, IIRC. Makes me wonder cause since AQ is this decentralized network of semi-independent cells, why suddenly now point out this incident was caused by a particular cell within AQ and making up a new name for it (even referring to it as an acronym), somehow setting it apart, while before everything was done by AQ the big Bin Laden-faced conspiracy as one thing to destroy the West, while whatever they did was done by cells just as well.
Maybe I completely missed the point, all I remember is reading a few lines seemingly setting apart some faction of AQ from the rest and I wondered why, and why now. But I saw it in more than one article of some mainstream newspaper.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 03, 2010, 06:37:08 PM
With the news, I tend to poke at those things as much as possible.
Latest I read about is some talk about "Al Qaeda on an Island" or something, a metaphorical island, signifying it's a separate faction in AQ. Related with that plane incident, IIRC. Makes me wonder cause since AQ is this decentralized network of semi-independent cells, why suddenly now point out this incident was caused by a particular cell within AQ and making up a new name for it (even referring to it as an acronym), somehow setting it apart, while before everything was done by AQ the big Bin Laden-faced conspiracy as one thing to destroy the West, while whatever they did was done by cells just as well.
Maybe I completely missed the point, all I remember is reading a few lines seemingly setting apart some faction of AQ from the rest and I wondered why, and why now. But I saw it in more than one article of some mainstream newspaper.
there is no conspiracy, this is just reporters coming across the cell-network idea and not quite getting it.
its not at all as i describe it, its more like a complicated mesh of interest-thresholds and avoidance of concepts that do not fit with relevant people's reality tunnel. and probably alot of other things.
If liberals are all socialists, and AQ are all pinko commies, then obviously the left-wing biased media is part of the conspiracy.