Mistakes were Made

[Gus]

Thanks Snidely for suggesting the book... it is very interesting.
Though....

Well, one day my sister and I were sitting in the living room of my parents
and I happened to mention something about the neighbor's house. I mentioned
how I liked the green color they had painted it. She said, it's red. I
said no, it's green. (Would have swore on a Bible in a court of law it was
green.)

After a moment, I get up and look through the curtains so I can show her
it's green.... It was red.

So how am I supposed to live with that? Know I can be wrong about something
I thought I knew was 100% right? TBH, most people do not seem to be
disturbed by this. And most our memories *do* seem to be right. But....

Fuck, that was disturbing when I looked out the window and saw my neighbors
house was NOT green.... btw, not many people here curse. Actually, I think
I have seen around zero curse words (though maybe my memory may not be
totally accurate).

This is a very civil group of netizens!

[Greg Goss]

"Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:

>Fuck, that was disturbing when I looked out the window and saw my neighbors
>house was NOT green....

Ask me sometime about the final play of the 1994 Grey Cup (Canada's
football championship). I was there, watching. The final play was a
very distinctive and memorable one, but it no longer shows in the
history books. The CFL.ca website hosts a video clip of an entirely
different final play.

So a previous time about ten years ago when I went looking at this
discrepancy, the play that I saw in Vancouver in 1994 "really"
happened in Calgary in 2000. But now when I look at it, it's not
THERE, either.

The play was a "fake" field goal attempt by that team's specialized
field goal kicker, who instead ran the ball over the goal line. Both
games "now" end with that specialized field goal kicker kicking a
field goal. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I hate continuity errors. It makes me think that Yahweh is a lousy
director.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Gus]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:b1o06k...@mid.individual.net...

Yawheh, Mywheh, or the Highweh?

Is the whole thing an Illusion?

There is also this crap that if someone asks someone in a pre-trial-- did
you see the white car stop at the red light? (And the car was actually blue
and the stoplight was actually a stop sign) In the trial. the person will
talk about the white car and the red stoplight with absolute certainty.

We are doomed as a species! Unless we can somehow bluff our way through
this thing.

[Heather]

We weren't always like this. Nowadays we are a bunch of old fuddy
duddies. I miss the good old days when certain of our most interesting
posters said "fuck" a lot. Not that I miss the swearing, I miss the
posters.


--
Heather

[Gus]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:b1o06k...@mid.individual.net...

> Ask me sometime about the final play of the 1994 Grey Cup (Canada's
> football championship). I was there, watching. The final play was a
> very distinctive and memorable one, but it no longer shows in the
> history books. The CFL.ca website hosts a video clip of an entirely
> different final play.
>
> So a previous time about ten years ago when I went looking at this
> discrepancy, the play that I saw in Vancouver in 1994 "really"
> happened in Calgary in 2000. But now when I look at it, it's not
> THERE, either.
>
> The play was a "fake" field goal attempt by that team's specialized
> field goal kicker, who instead ran the ball over the goal line. Both
> games "now" end with that specialized field goal kicker kicking a
> field goal. Nothing to see here. Move along.
>
> I hate continuity errors. It makes me think that Yahweh is a lousy
> director.
> --

I don't think many people want to know just how fallible their memory is.
It is kinda disturbing to think things you remember with certainty, may not
be the way you remember. And that is also for true for people you know and
trust. If you don't believe all your memories are real, how can you
function in society?

[Recently, my older brother was in town and mentioned to me then later my
sister about how at night our dad would turn off the car lights at night on
the old country road at the hill just before we got to our grandparents
farmhouse. He was certain of it. Even asked my dad about it when my sister
and I looked at him like he was crazy. No one remembers my dad ever doing
such a thing. (I think he got it from a movie, maybe Garp. And he somehow
incorporated it into the four hour road trip to our grandparents.)]

So if people think their memories are sacrosanct, how are you supposed to
ever point out someone they are wrong? The book (and my experience) say the
person refuses even irrefutable evidence. And will just dig in deeper that
they are right. Like Reagan saying "My heart and my best intentions still
tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."

People consider admitting mistakes weak. And people that bring up problems
as being negative. Generally, in the US the most optimistic person wins
office, not the best qualified. How can you admit when your memory is
wrong, when it feels so certain?

Knowing memory is fallible and can be easily manipulated, is discouraging.
You talk to the average person and they don't know that or want to, and even
if they have heard it they refuse to believe it. Our court system in the US
trusts eyewitness testimony, pretty much more than anything. Maybe part of
why people often hold onto certain religious beliefs, even when it's pointed
out some of them don't make much sense, is they cannot admit being wrong--
not publicly. It seems we are hard-wired to always believe we are right.
The only thing that overrides that is a mob, or at least a large mass of
people, or an act of god.

[Snidely]

Here's some more research along those lines, or at least reminiscent of
the book's premise:

<http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html>
or tinned as
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130610113012.htm>


A little off-topic, we sort of Rush in to the following corollary
(actually, this study uses sports ... and I don't know who Rushes in
sports prognostications):
<http://wsunews.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=36440&PageID=&ReferrerCode=uggc%3A%2F%2Fjfharjf%2Ejfh%2Erqh%2Fcntrf%2Ffrnepu%2Enfc%3FCntrVQ%3D%26Xrljbeqf%3Dchaqvgf>
or
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130528143718.htm>


/dps "feel better yet?"

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

[Snidely]

On Thursday or thereabouts, Snidely declared ...

Ha! That first link had an intriguing bit in the sidebar, leading to

<quote>
Loftus studies memory, but in an unconventional way. “I don’t study
when people forget,” she says. “I study when people remember things
that didn’t happen. I study false memories.” It’s an issue that comes
up often in courts, which highly value witness testimony. In a survey
of 300 cases of wrongful conviction, where a person was later
exonerated of a crime, three-quarters of them had been incarcerated due
to faulty human memory.
</quote>
The Earl says find this at
<http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/the-fiction-of-memory-elizabeth-loftus-at-tedglobal-2013.html>

which is the intro ... with a click-for-more.

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:12:53 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:

>
> I don't think many people want to know just how fallible their memory is.

It annoyed the heck out of me that after reading the "sweet little lies" thread, I couldn't recall who sang that. It didn't help that "Sweet dreams are made of this" and "Would you lie to me?" are sung by another one of my favorite female singers.

I had to Google "Sweet little lies".. And I think it is on a CD of mine.
HELP ME!

[Gus]

"Snidely" <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mn.6d637dd62abacd81.127094@snitoo...

> Here's some more research along those lines, or at least reminiscent of
> the book's premise:
>
> <http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html>
> or tinned as
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130610113012.htm>

And there's the whole "Fundamental Attribution Error". How have humans
survived as a species? Maybe it is a God? Or whatever it was leaping Sam
Beckett.

[Gus]

"Snidely" <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:mn.703f7dd68911c238.127094@snitoo...

> <quote>
> Loftus studies memory, but in an unconventional way. “I don’t study when
> people forget,” she says. “I study when people remember things that didn’t
> happen. I study false memories.” It’s an issue that comes up often in
> courts, which highly value witness testimony. In a survey of 300 cases of
> wrongful conviction, where a person was later exonerated of a crime,
> three-quarters of them had been incarcerated due to faulty human memory.
> </quote>
> The Earl says find this at
> <http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/the-fiction-of-memory-elizabeth-loftus-at-tedglobal-2013.html>

I thought I had heard of this before...
http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html

[Gus]

"Snidely" <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:mn.6d637dd62abacd81.127094@snitoo...

> Here's some more research along those lines, or at least reminiscent of
> the book's premise:
>
> <http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html>
> or tinned as
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130610113012.htm>

I got my attributions mixed up. I meant "self-serving bias"... I once
wrote a paper in college long time ago "Healthy Illusions"

Self-serving bias is "individuals attributing their successes to internal or
personal factors. but attributing their failures to external or situational
factors." Which can protect self-image and self-esteem... Thing is that
people with low self esteem have lower self-serving bias, but are more
realistic about life. But also more depressed.

"Emotions can influence feelings of self-esteem, which in turn alters the
need to protect one's self-identity. Individuals with higher self-esteem are
thought to have more to protect in their self-image, and therefore exhibit
the self-serving bias more often than those individuals with lower
self-esteem.[1] In a study, participants who were induced to feel the
emotions of guilt or revulsion were less likely to make self-serving
attributions for success and less likely to make self-protecting
attributions for failure

Clinically depressed patients tend to show less of a self-serving bias than
individuals in the general population.[9] In a study exploring the effects
of mood on the self-serving bias, the moods of participants were manipulated
to be either positive or negative. Negative mood participants were less
likely to attribute successful outcomes to the self than positive mood
participants, attributing success to external factors.[28] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 10, 11:42 pm, "Gus" <G...@Overton.Com> wrote:

> So how am I supposed to live with that?  Know I can be wrong about something
> I thought I knew was 100% right? TBH, most people do not seem to be
> disturbed by this.  And most our memories *do* seem to be right.  But....

Maybe you aren't actually from this reality. Maybe you originated in
a reality where the house WAS red, and slipped to one identical except
that that house is now green. Maybe it happens all the time and we
just don't notice.

[Gus]

"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6c28f72-fc80-4909...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

---

actually, I think they painted it and I forgot.

[Greg Goss]

Niven's "On a Foggy Night"

An early Niven story hypothesized that the blurriness of stuff when it
seems foggy out isn't caused by disruption of the light path through
the fog, but rather because of uncertainty of which version of the
building's placement you're seeing, under such conditions.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

But fog doesn't make things blurry, it makes them less distinct. The
contrast of edges decreases, but the sharpness of the edge does not.

Xho

[Greg Goss]

That's not how I perceive it.

[Gus]

"Snidely" <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mn.6d637dd62abacd81.127094@snitoo...

> A little off-topic, we sort of Rush in to the following corollary
> (actually, this study uses sports ... and I don't know who Rushes in
> sports prognostications):
> <http://wsunews.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=36440&PageID=&ReferrerCode=uggc%3A%2F%2Fjfharjf%2Ejfh%2Erqh%2Fcntrf%2Ffrnepu%2Enfc%3FCntrVQ%3D%26Xrljbeqf%3Dchaqvgf>

So what if you are not confident? I'm not confident about many things, so
maybe I should keep my mouth shut and not say anything than to profer a
hesistant opinion or prognostician? I would not make a good witness at a
trial.... Maybe this why no one takes me serious? (see, I just noticed
that last sentence is even questioning. Tannen might say "woman" speak.)

[Gus]

"Snidely" <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mn.6d637dd62abacd81.127094@snitoo...

> Here's some more research along those lines, or at least reminiscent of
> the book's premise:
>
> <http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html>
> or tinned as
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130610113012.htm>

I'm reading the Chapter Law and Disorder. More disturbing things.
Prosecutors often go with their heart and not science once they have
"decided" on who did it. And once you pegged as the perp, it's about
impossible to convince prosecutors otherwise.

"Texas prosecutor Michael McDougal said that the fact that the DNA found in
the young rape-murder victim did not match Roy Criner, the man convicted of
the crime; did not mean Criner was innocent. 'It means the sperm found in
her was not his,' he said. 'It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, doesn't
mean he didn't kill her.'"

In Philadelphia, DA Bruce Castor was asked by reporters what scientific
basis he had for rejecting a DNA test that exonerated a man who had been in
prison for 20 years. He replied, "I have no scientific basis. I know
because I trust my detective and my tape-recorded confession."

-p150, Mistakes were Made (Tavris and Aronson, 2007)


Joe Buckley, President of the Reid School (that teached the Reid method of
interrogation many police department use), when asked whether he was
concerned some innocent people might confess in response to his techniques,
"No, because we don't interrogate innocent people."

-p143, Mistakes were Made (Tavris and Aronson, 2007)

[S. Checker]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Niven's "On a Foggy Night"
>
> An early Niven story hypothesized that the blurriness of stuff when it
> seems foggy out isn't caused by disruption of the light path through
> the fog, but rather because of uncertainty of which version of the
> building's placement you're seeing, under such conditions.

I loved his handwave: "I thought the water made things blurry." "Water
is transparent, remember?"

I do think of that story on foggy nights. Luckily they are rare around
here.
--
They used dogs. They used probes. They used cardio plate crossoffs.
They used teepers. They used bribery. They used stick tites. They
used intimidation. They used torment. They used torture. They used
finks. They used cops. They used search and seizure. They used
fallaron. They used betterment incentives. They used finger prints.
They used the bertillion system. They used cunning. They used guile.
They used treachery. They used Raoul-Mitgong but he wasn't much help.
They used applied physics. They used techniques of criminology. And
what the hell, they caught him.
-- Harlan Ellison, "Repent, Harlequin, said the Tick-Tock Man"

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

Whom are you going to believe, me and Feynman, or Heinlein and your own
lying eyes?

Xho

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 06/17/2013 07:35 AM, Gus wrote:

> "Texas prosecutor Michael McDougal said that the fact that the DNA found in
> the young rape-murder victim did not match Roy Criner, the man convicted of
> the crime; did not mean Criner was innocent. 'It means the sperm found in
> her was not his,' he said. 'It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, doesn't
> mean he didn't kill her.'"

Which is true. Someone can be raped by two people. Or have consensual
sex with one person and be raped by a different person. Maybe other
facts of the case could rule that out, but DNA won't.

Xho

[Snidely]

Just this Monday, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt explained that ...

But wouldn't you expect that DNA from both penetrators to be present?
Heck, don't they in some cases find rapist's DNA on the clothes [he]
ripped off of the victim? What is your theory for not finding the
accused person's DNA despite alleged violent contact and penetration?

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

[bill van]

In article <mn.8d4a7dd6631652ca.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just this Monday, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt explained that ...
> > On 06/17/2013 07:35 AM, Gus wrote:
> >
> >> "Texas prosecutor Michael McDougal said that the fact that the DNA found
> >> in
> >> the young rape-murder victim did not match Roy Criner, the man convicted
> >> of
> >> the crime; did not mean Criner was innocent. 'It means the sperm found in
> >> her was not his,' he said. 'It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, doesn't
> >> mean he didn't kill her.'"
> >
> > Which is true. Someone can be raped by two people. Or have consensual sex
> > with one person and be raped by a different person. Maybe other facts of
> > the
> > case could rule that out, but DNA won't.
>
> But wouldn't you expect that DNA from both penetrators to be present?
> Heck, don't they in some cases find rapist's DNA on the clothes [he]
> ripped off of the victim? What is your theory for not finding the
> accused person's DNA despite alleged violent contact and penetration?
>

What's a condom, Alex?

bill

[Snidely]

On Monday or thereabouts, bill van declared ...

Well, I suppose, especially if the rapist had planned ahead and also
disposed of it effectively.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Snidely]

On Monday, Snidely queried:

And also removed all of his skin cells from the exterior skin of the
victim (say, with a washrag) and from the clothes of the victim. Or
have they stopped checking for hairs since the introduction of rape
kits at hospitals?

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

[Gus]

"Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kpoh8v$f1a$2...@dont-email.me...

The assailant might also use a condom.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/22/nyregion/rapists-and-condoms-is-use-a-cavalier-act-or-a-way-to-avoid-disease-and-arrest.html

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 06/17/2013 10:34 PM, Snidely wrote:
> Just this Monday, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt explained that ...
>> On 06/17/2013 07:35 AM, Gus wrote:
>>
>>> "Texas prosecutor Michael McDougal said that the fact that the DNA
>>> found in
>>> the young rape-murder victim did not match Roy Criner, the man
>>> convicted of
>>> the crime; did not mean Criner was innocent. 'It means the sperm
>>> found in
>>> her was not his,' he said. 'It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, doesn't
>>> mean he didn't kill her.'"
>>
>> Which is true. Someone can be raped by two people. Or have
>> consensual sex with one person and be raped by a different person.
>> Maybe other facts of the case could rule that out, but DNA won't.
>
> But wouldn't you expect that DNA from both penetrators to be present?
> Heck, don't they in some cases find rapist's DNA on the clothes [he]
> ripped off of the victim?

I would expect in some cases they do. If you do a PCR based method and
crank up the cycle number, you might find the DNA of the father in law
of the UPS driver who delivers the Zappos to the house of the guy who
stocks the shelves at the Walmart where the victim shops.

> What is your theory for not finding the
> accused person's DNA despite alleged violent contact and penetration?

What do you call a dog with no legs?

Xho

[Snidely]

After serious thinking Xho Jingleheimerschmidt wrote :

> On 06/17/2013 10:34 PM, Snidely wrote:
>> Just this Monday, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt explained that ...
>>> On 06/17/2013 07:35 AM, Gus wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Texas prosecutor Michael McDougal said that the fact that the DNA
>>>> found in
>>>> the young rape-murder victim did not match Roy Criner, the man
>>>> convicted of
>>>> the crime; did not mean Criner was innocent. 'It means the sperm
>>>> found in
>>>> her was not his,' he said. 'It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, doesn't
>>>> mean he didn't kill her.'"
>>>
>>> Which is true. Someone can be raped by two people. Or have
>>> consensual sex with one person and be raped by a different person.
>>> Maybe other facts of the case could rule that out, but DNA won't.
>>
>> But wouldn't you expect that DNA from both penetrators to be present?
>> Heck, don't they in some cases find rapist's DNA on the clothes [he]
>> ripped off of the victim?
>
> I would expect in some cases they do. If you do a PCR based method and crank
> up the cycle number, you might find the DNA of the father in law of the UPS
> driver who delivers the Zappos to the house of the guy who stocks the shelves
> at the Walmart where the victim shops.

And if you do that, and still don't find DNA of the accused?

>
>> What is your theory for not finding the
>> accused person's DNA despite alleged violent contact and penetration?
>
> What do you call a dog with no legs?

I don't understand your question.

[Snidely]

Snidely submitted this idea :

Or rather, I understand your question ... I don't understand its
relevance, which suggests I don't understand why you are asking it.

/dps "And that wasn't the answer on the next line, was it?"

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

Then hopefully you have some pretty good evidence of a different nature.

>
>>
>>> What is your theory for not finding the
>>> accused person's DNA despite alleged violent contact and penetration?
>>
>> What do you call a dog with no legs?
>
> I don't understand your question.

The canonical answer is "You can call him anything you want, he isn't
going to come."

I hope I don't have to explain further, because I am painfully bashful.

Xho

[Greg Goss]

Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 06/18/2013 10:28 PM, Snidely wrote:
>> After serious thinking Xho Jingleheimerschmidt wrote :

>>> What do you call a dog with no legs?
>>
>> I don't understand your question.
>
>The canonical answer is "You can call him anything you want, he isn't
>going to come."

A related riddle is "Why do we bother to give cats names?"

[bill van]

In article <b2f1he...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 06/18/2013 10:28 PM, Snidely wrote:
> >> After serious thinking Xho Jingleheimerschmidt wrote :
>
> >>> What do you call a dog with no legs?
> >>
> >> I don't understand your question.
> >
> >The canonical answer is "You can call him anything you want, he isn't
> >going to come."
>
> A related riddle is "Why do we bother to give cats names?"

Ours perks up her ears when her name is mentioned, and she comes when
called, about nine of out ten times. In any case, cats serve as
companions, and become part of the family. So I think I can safely
dismiss the thinking behind your question.

bill

[Greg Goss]

The cat I had in the eighties learned about fifteen words or phrases,
including her name. The cat I had in the sixties didn't get a lot of
English training and I don't remember how trainable she was.

The cat I had in the nineties/2Ks and the two I have now were rescue
cats, introduced to language much later, and none of the three of them
seem to "get" the idea of language or names, or command responses.
They will back off from "doing wrong" at the right tone of voice and
display guilt symptoms (90% of the time for no apparent reason), but
don't seem to understand the concept of language beyond tone of voice.

A documentary show on TV in the eighties claimed that a large-brained
dog can learn 600 words or so, and a well-trained cat about fifty.
From my experience, these sound about right, but at least for the
cats, the training must start young.

[BillTurlock]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:43:27 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 06/18/2013 10:28 PM, Snidely wrote:
>>> After serious thinking Xho Jingleheimerschmidt wrote :
>
>>>> What do you call a dog with no legs?
>>>
>>> I don't understand your question.
>>
>>The canonical answer is "You can call him anything you want, he isn't
>>going to come."

I'd just call him "Matt"

[Mac]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:29:58 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>A documentary show on TV in the eighties claimed that a large-brained
>dog can learn 600 words or so, and a well-trained cat about fifty.
>From my experience, these sound about right, but at least for the
>cats, the training must start young.

A Jack Russel of my acquaintance appeared to know about 600 ways of
saying "ball," and serially trailned her humans to avoid using them
unless they wanted to throw the thing. Then. Right then. Until she
was tired.

[Mac]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:56:22 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

OutGoss not the the Goss.

[Tim Wright]

We had a yellow lab like that.

--
Chickens: Tasty animals you eat before they are born and after they are
dead.
Tim W

[Hactar]

In article <18v4s8l3nh6of0d8m...@4ax.com>,

I appear to have trained one of my cats not to walk on the keyboard. The
other, since she's deaf and pretty stubborn, pays it no heed.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al

[Snidely]

Tim Wright used his keyboard to write :

> On 6/19/2013 10:57 PM, Mac wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:29:58 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A documentary show on TV in the eighties claimed that a large-brained
>>> dog can learn 600 words or so, and a well-trained cat about fifty.
>>>From my experience, these sound about right, but at least for the
>>> cats, the training must start young.
>>
>> A Jack Russel of my acquaintance appeared to know about 600 ways of
>> saying "ball," and serially trailned her humans to avoid using them
>> unless they wanted to throw the thing. Then. Right then. Until she
>> was tired.
>>
> We had a yellow lab like that.

No, a yellow lab is not like a "Jack Russell. Now. Right Now."
Bigger teeth, half the energy.

[Lesmond]

He's called "Cigarette". You take him out for a drag. But I have no idea
how this applies here.

--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.

[Lesmond]

Every cat I have ever had comes when called, unless they're just twitching,
sound asleep.

They know food might possibly be involved.

[Tim Wright]

On 6/20/2013 12:36 AM, Snidely wrote:
> Tim Wright used his keyboard to write :
>> On 6/19/2013 10:57 PM, Mac wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:29:58 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A documentary show on TV in the eighties claimed that a large-brained
>>>> dog can learn 600 words or so, and a well-trained cat about fifty.
>>>> From my experience, these sound about right, but at least for the
>>>> cats, the training must start young.
>>>
>>> A Jack Russel of my acquaintance appeared to know about 600 ways of
>>> saying "ball," and serially trailned her humans to avoid using them
>>> unless they wanted to throw the thing. Then. Right then. Until she
>>> was tired.
>>>
>> We had a yellow lab like that.
>
> No, a yellow lab is not like a "Jack Russell. Now. Right Now." Bigger
> teeth, half the energy.
>

No, he could be quite insistent. He was happiest when we'd take him to
the park and hit the tennis ball with a racket so he'd have to run
further to get it. Not only could we not say "ball" we couldn't say
"ride" or "treat" without him going nuts with anticipation.

[Gus]

"Snidely" <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mn.6d637dd62abacd81.127094@snitoo...

Ok, I finished the book. Now what?

I found the last couple chapters kinda meh. Especially, the chapter on
marriage and dissonance. That felt like a chapter from a different book.
Though it was interesting how they pointed out all the things my ex did
wrong. It was like they wrote that chapter knowing her ;)... The rest of
the book was excellent. I think the chapter on law was the most
interesting, and enlightening. I've not had many dealings with the law. I
still can't believe proscecutors are allowed, and even encouraged, to lie
when questioning a person during an investigation. They aren't allowed to
do that in a trial.

[Gus]

"We're not doomed to our initial prejudices: Once a person becomes aware
of her biases, she is more able to engage rational thought processes to
overcome the affect heuristic and dispel her inaccurate conclusions."

"Why You Hate Cyclists: Partly because of jerks like me. But it's mostly
your own illogical mind."
http://tinyurl.com/9fq8rc4

"I'm an asshole cyclist. I'm that jerk weaving in and out of traffic,
going the wrong way down a one-way street, and making a left on red. I'm
truly a menace on the road.

But it's not because I'm on a bike-I'm an asshole on the road no matter
what. I'm also a stereotypical Jersey driver, someone who treats speed
limits as speed minimums and curses those who disagree. And I'm just as
bad as a pedestrian, another jaywalking smartphone zombie oblivious to
the world beyond my glowing screen. If I'm moving, I'm an accident
waiting to happen.
Biking is my primary means of transportation, so when someone defames
cyclists, I feel particularly bad. The fact is, unlike me, most
bicyclists are courteous, safe, law-abiding citizens who are quite
willing and able to share the road. The Bicycle Coalition of Greater
Philadelphia studied rider habits on some of Philly's busier streets,
using some rough metrics to measure the assholishness of bikers:
counting the number of times they rode on sidewalks or went the wrong
way on one-way streets. The citywide averages in 2010 were 13 percent
for sidewalks and 1 percent for one-way streets at 12 locations where
cyclists were observed, decreasing from 24 percent and 3 percent in
2006. There is no reason to believe that Philly has particularly
respectful bicyclists-we're not a city known for respectfulness, and our
disdain for traffic laws is nationally renowned. Perhaps the simplest
answer is also the right one: Cyclists are getting less aggressive.

A recent study by researchers at Rutgers and Virginia Tech supports that
hypothesis. Data from nine major North American cities showed that,
despite the total number of bike trips tripling between 1977 and 2009,
fatalities per 10 million bike trips fell by 65 percent. While a number
of factors contribute to lower accident rates, including increased
helmet usage and more bike lanes, less aggressive bicyclists probably
helped, too.

Despite such statistics, lots of drivers assume all people on bikes are
assholes like me. In doing so, these motorists are making an inductive
fallacy, not unlike saying, "Of course he beat me at basketball-he's
Asian like Jeremy Lin and Yao Ming." Now, you might be thinking to
yourself that you've seen more than one or two suicidal cyclists in your
day-that these roaches on two wheels are an infestation that's
practically begging to be squished underfoot (and by "foot" you mean "my
Yukon Denali").

First off-wow, that is disturbingly violent. Second, your estimate of
the number of asshole cyclists and the degree of their assholery is
skewed by what behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman call the
affect heuristic, which is a fancy way of saying that people make
judgments by consulting their emotions instead of logic.

The affect heuristic explains how our minds take a difficult question
(one that would require rigorous logic to answer) and substitutes it for
an easier one. When our emotions get involved, we jump to pre-existing
conclusions instead of exerting the mental effort to think of a bespoke
answer. The affect heuristic helps explain why birthers still exist even
though Obama released his birth certificate-it's a powerful, negative
emotional issue about which lots of people have already made up their
minds. When it comes to cyclists, once some clown on two wheels almost
kills himself with your car, you furiously decide that bicyclists are
assholes, and that conclusion will be hard to shake regardless of
countervailing facts, stats, or arguments.

If you are a city driver, you have undoubtedly been scared half to death
by some maniac cutting across traffic like Frogger on a fixie. Such
emotionally charged events stand out in our associative memory far more
than mundane events, like a cyclist riding peacefully alongside your
vehicle. The affect heuristic is compounded by the idea of negativity
dominance-bad events stand out more than good ones. This causes you to
overestimate both the amount and the severity of upsetting events, like
almost getting some dirty hipster's blood on your windshield.

Don't believe me? Well, ask yourself, what causes more deaths: strokes
or all accidents combined? Tornadoes or asthma? Most people say
accidents and tornadoes, and most people are wrong. In Thinking, Fast
and Slow, Kahneman asks the reader these same questions before
revealing, "strokes cause almost twice as many deaths as all accidents
combined, but 80 percent of respondents judged accidental death to be
likely. Tornadoes were seen as more frequent killers than asthma,
although the latter caused 20 times more deaths." Kids careening on
bikes are our urban tornadoes-somewhat rare, upsetting events that stick
in our craw longer than they should, and seem like bigger problems than
they really are.

Moreover, bicycling as a primary means of transportation-I'm not talking
about occasional weekend riders here-is a foreign concept to many
drivers, making them more sensitive to perceived differences between
themselves and cyclists. People do this all the time, making false
connections between distinguishing characteristics like geography, race,
and religion and people's qualities as human beings. Sometimes it is
benign ("Mormons are really polite"), sometimes less so ("Republicans
hate poor people"). But in this case, it's a one-way street: Though most
Americans don't ride bikes, bikers are less likely to stereotype drivers
because most of us also drive. The "otherness" of cyclists makes them
stand out, and that helps drivers cement their negative conclusions.
This is also why sentiments like "taxi drivers are awful" and "Jersey
drivers are terrible" are common, but you don't often hear someone say
"all drivers suck." People don't like lumping themselves into whatever
group they are making negative conclusions about, so we subconsciously
seek out a distinguishing characteristic first.

Every time another bicyclist pulls some dickish stunt, the affect
heuristic kicks in to reinforce the preconceived biases. The same isn't
true in reverse: The conviction that bicyclists are erratically moving
hazards is not diminished by the repeated observance of safe and
respectful riding. Facts and logical arguments that do not conform to
the emotional conclusion are discounted or disregarded. But we're not
doomed to our initial prejudices: Once a person becomes aware of her
biases, she is more able to engage rational thought processes to
overcome the affect heuristic and dispel her inaccurate conclusions. So,
study those stats bike haters!

As the studies show, more and more commuters are trading in their
parking passes for bike locks. In light of those numbers, it's
heartening to hear that the number of fatalities per bike trip has
decreased in Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere. That suggests to me
that these new-to-biking commuters are riding less aggressively than the
old urban vanguard of bike messengers and Tour de France wannabes. If
the present trends continue, we'll see asshole bicyclists like me become
an even smaller minority of bicyclists as a whole. And some of us are
trying to get better. I've recognized that my bad behavior keeps others
from taking up riding, and keeps politicians from investing in things I
care about, like more bike lanes. So I've stopped riding on sidewalks
and try to keep my illegal lefts to a minimum. But I've been a jerk for
a real long time. So, let me say this to drivers, pedestrians, and my
fellow riders alike: I'm sorry. See, aren't cyclists the nicest, most
polite people in the whole world?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/cyclists_are_annoying_why_you_think_they_re_a_menace_on_two_wheels_.single.html