"At the equivalent point in his premiership Gordon Brown swept Labour to 44% — a 13% lead over the Tories. “By the year end we were at 27%,” Bartram recalls."
Yes, and something which happened exactly nine years ago today may have had a little something to do with that.
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
"Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906."
I found out the other day where he gets "glass paradigm" from. William Gibson, Hinterlands (Burning Chrome 1993 p.91) "Dozens of new schools of physics have sprung up in Saint Olga's wake, ever more bizarre and more elegant heresies, each one hoping to shoulder its way to the inside track. One by one, they all fall down. In the whispering quiet of Heaven's nights, you imagine you can hear the paradigms shatter, shards of theory tinkling into brilliant dust as the lifework of some corporate think tank is reduced to the tersest historical footnote, and all in the time it takes your damaged traveler to mutter some fragment in the dark."
I don't know whether this is intelligent or dumb plagiarism, but I am guessing the latter and that he thinks a paradigm is literally a thing made of glass.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
No-one believes them when they tell the truth.
"There is a wolf" was the truth.
But it is not the moral of the story. And what is the truth about Brexit? Clue, no-one knows. But a lot of people are crying wolf.
But it is not the moral of the story. And what is the truth about Brexit? Clue, no-one knows. But a lot of people are crying wolf.
But they are not necessarily lying. To be [even more] pedantic that was the premise of Aesop's tale, as you pointed out. Maybe we need another parable.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
Or actually a low probability of one. The consequences of being eaten are serious enough that the precautionary principle should apply
LOL.
I highly recommend Andy Stirling's writing on the precautionary principle. It actually has a lot of elements of 'crying wolf' if practiced in its hard form, with the same long term negative impacts (the principle being protected gets discounted and devalued). He recommends a soft precautionary principle.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
No-one believes them when they tell the truth.
"There is a wolf" was the truth.
One of the greatest lessons I was ever taught was judging when to give up and admit defeat on a certain point, especially a minor point. Not that I always remember it, but somehow this seemed an apt moment to bring it up.
@e_casalicchio: I'm hearing there's a "strong chance" Diane Abbott is going to get Shadow Home Secretary in Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle.
As well as her current jobs or instead of them?
Shame, I was hoping she would get Education, and then could spend every TV interview defending her choice of private schooling, whilst telling everyone else they need to go to a comprehensive.
It would be about as ironic as her having the health portfolio.
But it is not the moral of the story. And what is the truth about Brexit? Clue, no-one knows. But a lot of people are crying wolf.
And a lot of people are saying 'Look, there's no wolf!', when the prediction was that the wolf would appear some time in the next couple of years.
LOL.
This reminds me of when I was in Geneva at the negotiations drafting the Chemical Weapons Convention. I made the error of saying in an intervention that "there are many ways to skin a cat." Of course, as this was a working group without simultaneous interpretation, I had to explain myself. For the next several months, every delegate for whom English was not the mother tongue seemed to bend over backwards to use another cat metaphor or simile.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
I LOVE PB sometimes. Post of the day.
Absolutely, and we had the Treaty of Amiens quoted as a reference earlier this afternoon. PB must stand as the most erudite generalist website (save from TSE's historical ramblings obviously).
But it is not the moral of the story. And what is the truth about Brexit? Clue, no-one knows. But a lot of people are crying wolf.
But they are not necessarily lying. To be [even more] pedantic that was the premise of Aesop's tale, as you pointed out. Maybe we need another parable.
There is indeed a difference between lying and being wrong. To be a liar one needs to know that the facts are different. If someone cries wolf believing it to be true, then they are not a liar (though the boy in the fable was a liar, economic forecasters may have been incorrect in good faith).
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
But it is not the moral of the story. And what is the truth about Brexit? Clue, no-one knows. But a lot of people are crying wolf.
But they are not necessarily lying. To be [even more] pedantic that was the premise of Aesop's tale, as you pointed out. Maybe we need another parable.
granted. Perhaps in this context Chicken Little, Henny Penny, or Cassandra (depending on personal your credence in the prophecies) would be more apt.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
Or actually a low probability of one. The consequences of being eaten are serious enough that the precautionary principle should apply
LOL.
I highly recommend Andy Stirling's writing on the precautionary principle. It actually has a lot of elements of 'crying wolf' if practiced in its hard form, with the same long term negative impacts (the principle being protected gets discounted and devalued). He recommends a soft precautionary principle.
Funnily enough I was thinking that as I wrote it. When villagers have turned out several times to find no wolf, even if the belief in the threat of one was reasonable, they will end up discounting the threat. Particularly if there is a cost to dealing with threats that never transpire. For example they have to give up work to look for the wolf.
This reminds me of when I was in Geneva at the negotiations drafting the Chemical Weapons Convention. I made the error of saying in an intervention that "there are many ways to skin a cat." Of course, as this was a working group without simultaneous interpretation, I had to explain myself. For the next several months, every delegate for whom English was not the mother tongue seemed to bend over backwards to use another cat metaphor or simile.
I was in a rather fraught meeting with a venture capitalist once, when he used that phrase. It took me a few seconds to realise that I was the cat.
This reminds me of when I was in Geneva at the negotiations drafting the Chemical Weapons Convention. I made the error of saying in an intervention that "there are many ways to skin a cat." Of course, as this was a working group without simultaneous interpretation, I had to explain myself. For the next several months, every delegate for whom English was not the mother tongue seemed to bend over backwards to use another cat metaphor or simile.
I was in a rather fraught meeting with a venture capitalist once, when he used that phrase. It took me a few seconds to realise that I was the cat.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
I LOVE PB sometimes. Post of the day.
Absolutely, and we had the Treaty of Amiens quoted as a reference earlier this afternoon. PB must stand as the most erudite generalist website (save from TSE's historical ramblings obviously).
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
Or actually a low probability of one. The consequences of being eaten are serious enough that the precautionary principle should apply
LOL.
I highly recommend Andy Stirling's writing on the precautionary principle. It actually has a lot of elements of 'crying wolf' if practiced in its hard form, with the same long term negative impacts (the principle being protected gets discounted and devalued). He recommends a soft precautionary principle.
Funnily enough I was thinking that as I wrote it. When villagers have turned out several times to find no wolf, even if the belief in the threat of one was reasonable, they will end up discounting the threat. Particularly if there is a cost to dealing with threats that never transpire. For example they have to give up work to look for the wolf.
This must be a big issue for terrorism threats.
This is a huge field of research. Perceptions of risk are molded by multiple factors at each of four fundamental levels (brain architecture and chemistry, heuristics used in processing complex data, personality, and social pressures). Issues such as how understood the threat is how immediate it is, the personal pain involved (it is a very long list) all factor in.
The net result of this is that people are actually pretty tolerant of the precautionary principle in relation to terrorism, and very much less so in relation to global warming in particular and environmental issues in general.
This reminds me of when I was in Geneva at the negotiations drafting the Chemical Weapons Convention. I made the error of saying in an intervention that "there are many ways to skin a cat." Of course, as this was a working group without simultaneous interpretation, I had to explain myself. For the next several months, every delegate for whom English was not the mother tongue seemed to bend over backwards to use another cat metaphor or simile.
I was in a rather fraught meeting with a venture capitalist once, when he used that phrase. It took me a few seconds to realise that I was the cat.
2.5 M under mandatory evacuation orders in advance of Matthew. Some of the updated forecasts look apocalyptic. If it really turns out it is the worst Hurricane to hit Florida since 1851 (a) Florida is a swing state (b ) expect Trumps comments on Climate Change to be aired widely again.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
Or actually a low probability of one. The consequences of being eaten are serious enough that the precautionary principle should apply
LOL.
I highly recommend Andy Stirling's writing on the precautionary principle. It actually has a lot of elements of 'crying wolf' if practiced in its hard form, with the same long term negative impacts (the principle being protected gets discounted and devalued). He recommends a soft precautionary principle.
Funnily enough I was thinking that as I wrote it. When villagers have turned out several times to find no wolf, even if the belief in the threat of one was reasonable, they will end up discounting the threat. Particularly if there is a cost to dealing with threats that never transpire. For example they have to give up work to look for the wolf.
This must be a big issue for terrorism threats.
It wasn't in my day. We just looked at all the actual information. Seemed to work OK. Of course we had to dress it up as "intelligence" rather than "information" when passing it to politicians otherwise how else could we afford our bar bills.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
Or actually a low probability of one. The consequences of being eaten are serious enough that the precautionary principle should apply
LOL.
I highly recommend Andy Stirling's writing on the precautionary principle. It actually has a lot of elements of 'crying wolf' if practiced in its hard form, with the same long term negative impacts (the principle being protected gets discounted and devalued). He recommends a soft precautionary principle.
Funnily enough I was thinking that as I wrote it. When villagers have turned out several times to find no wolf, even if the belief in the threat of one was reasonable, they will end up discounting the threat. Particularly if there is a cost to dealing with threats that never transpire. For example they have to give up work to look for the wolf.
This must be a big issue for terrorism threats.
This is a huge field of research. Perceptions of risk are molded by multiple factors at each of four fundamental levels (brain architecture and chemistry, heuristics used in processing complex data, personality, and social pressures). Issues such as how understood the threat is how immediate it is, the personal pain involved (it is a very long list) all factor in.
The net result of this is that people are actually pretty tolerant of the precautionary principle in relation to terrorism, and very much less so in relation to global warming in particular and environmental issues in general.
Thanks, that's fascinating. Bringing it back to the subject, I assume Brexit is more like global warming in terms of people's risk perceptions than it is like terrorism.
2.5 M under mandatory evacuation orders in advance of Matthew. Some of the updated forecasts look apocalyptic. If it really turns out it is the worst Hurricane to hit Florida since 1851 (a) Florida is a swing state (b ) expect Trumps comments on Climate Change to be aired widely again.
It may swing the election, if it hits a predominantly Repub or Dem area
Indeed. If trump wins, it means a 25-30% chance event happened. Doesn't mean Nate Silver was wrong
If Trump wins I'll eat my cigars. His chances are not 25-30% but close to 1.5%.
When he loses the second debate he should bet 10$ million on Pence for President then resign the nomination. Pence would beat Hillary easily since he's not Trump, and Trump will get 100$ million in cash from the betting markets and say that his strategic genius lead to Hillary's defeat.
Trump comes out a winner of sorts, Hillary loses.
And everyone is happy that neither Trump nor Hillary becomes President.
Polling was done on would you vote Dem/Rep if Hillary/Trump dropped out. In both cases voting intention plummeted if either pulled out
2.5 M under mandatory evacuation orders in advance of Matthew. Some of the updated forecasts look apocalyptic. If it really turns out it is the worst Hurricane to hit Florida since 1851 (a) Florida is a swing state (b ) expect Trumps comments on Climate Change to be aired widely again.
it might be a decent size hurricane but they have been few and far between in recent years. They would be best to avoid the project fear doom approach
Indeed. If trump wins, it means a 25-30% chance event happened. Doesn't mean Nate Silver was wrong
If Trump wins I'll eat my cigars. His chances are not 25-30% but close to 1.5%.
When he loses the second debate he should bet 10$ million on Pence for President then resign the nomination. Pence would beat Hillary easily since he's not Trump, and Trump will get 100$ million in cash from the betting markets and say that his strategic genius lead to Hillary's defeat.
Trump comes out a winner of sorts, Hillary loses.
And everyone is happy that neither Trump nor Hillary becomes President.
Polling was done on would you vote Dem/Rep if Hillary/Trump dropped out. In both cases voting intention plummeted if either pulled out
2.5 M under mandatory evacuation orders in advance of Matthew. Some of the updated forecasts look apocalyptic. If it really turns out it is the worst Hurricane to hit Florida since 1851 (a) Florida is a swing state (b ) expect Trumps comments on Climate Change to be aired widely again.
It may swing the election, if it hits a predominantly Repub or Dem area
What will swing the election is what happens afterwards and whether the state ie establishment are deemed to be negligent as they were when it got a bit damp in New Orleans.
2.5 M under mandatory evacuation orders in advance of Matthew. Some of the updated forecasts look apocalyptic. If it really turns out it is the worst Hurricane to hit Florida since 1851 (a) Florida is a swing state (b ) expect Trumps comments on Climate Change to be aired widely again.
It may swing the election, if it hits a predominantly Repub or Dem area
What will swing the election is what happens afterwards and whether the state ie establishment are deemed to be negligent as they were when it got a bit damp in New Orleans.
It's a democrat in charge this time, Obama will do a great job like he did in New Jersey
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
Or actually a low probability of one. The consequences of being eaten are serious enough that the precautionary principle should apply
LOL.
I highly recommend Andy Stirling's writing on the precautionary principle. It actually has a lot of elements of 'crying wolf' if practiced in its hard form, with the same long term negative impacts (the principle being protected gets discounted and devalued). He recommends a soft precautionary principle.
Funnily enough I was thinking that as I wrote it. When villagers have turned out several times to find no wolf, even if the belief in the threat of one was reasonable, they will end up discounting the threat. Particularly if there is a cost to dealing with threats that never transpire. For example they have to give up work to look for the wolf.
This must be a big issue for terrorism threats.
This is a huge field of research. Perceptions of risk are molded by multiple factors at each of four fundamental levels (brain architecture and chemistry, heuristics used in processing complex data, personality, and social pressures). Issues such as how understood the threat is how immediate it is, the personal pain involved (it is a very long list) all factor in.
The net result of this is that people are actually pretty tolerant of the precautionary principle in relation to terrorism, and very much less so in relation to global warming in particular and environmental issues in general.
Thanks, that's fascinating. Bringing it back to the subject, I assume Brexit is more like global warming in terms of people's risk perceptions than it is like terrorism.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
No-one believes them when they tell the truth.
"There is a wolf" was the truth.
I didn't realise it was a true story?
Ive got a wolf sitting on my lap at the moment (well its DNA is identical to a wolf but its a different race called a spaniel so I'm allowed to have it at home.
Racism is allowed and institutionalise in ways that would have made Dr Verwoed salivate if you are Canus lupus.
Indeed. If trump wins, it means a 25-30% chance event happened. Doesn't mean Nate Silver was wrong
If Trump wins I'll eat my cigars. His chances are not 25-30% but close to 1.5%.
When he loses the second debate he should bet 10$ million on Pence for President then resign the nomination. Pence would beat Hillary easily since he's not Trump, and Trump will get 100$ million in cash from the betting markets and say that his strategic genius lead to Hillary's defeat.
Trump comes out a winner of sorts, Hillary loses.
And everyone is happy that neither Trump nor Hillary becomes President.
Polling was done on would you vote Dem/Rep if Hillary/Trump dropped out. In both cases voting intention plummeted if either pulled out
But it is not the moral of the story. And what is the truth about Brexit? Clue, no-one knows. But a lot of people are crying wolf.
And a lot of people are saying 'Look, there's no wolf!', when the prediction was that the wolf would appear some time in the next couple of years.
LOL.
This reminds me of when I was in Geneva at the negotiations drafting the Chemical Weapons Convention. I made the error of saying in an intervention that "there are many ways to skin a cat." Of course, as this was a working group without simultaneous interpretation, I had to explain myself. For the next several months, every delegate for whom English was not the mother tongue seemed to bend over backwards to use another cat metaphor or simile.
When in the USA with my then USA citizen girlfriend we were at a party of her fellow students one evening.
They were discussing a fellow female student who had decided to go to Alaska. They reckoned she was into hairy bearded men and would enjoy the ratio to much laughter. I interjected that she might be out of luck as most of them would probably prefer the sheep.
No laughter, silence, tumbleweed.....
There are actually sheep in Alaska and men do go there sheep hunting, but alas the 'Flossie is that you' double meaning hasnt crossed the atlantic where things are a littie more puritanical.
Its funny. I've never had much real issue with using the F word as in saying if a car breaks down 'It's F***ed. However I still find that use of it in its original and proper meaning, to describe the act of sexual union ie a F***, quite shocking.
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
No-one believes them when they tell the truth.
"There is a wolf" was the truth.
I didn't realise it was a true story?
Ive got a wolf sitting on my lap at the moment (well its DNA is identical to a wolf but its a different race called a spaniel so I'm allowed to have it at home.
Racism is allowed and institutionalise in ways that would have made Dr Verwoed salivate if you are Canus lupus.
2.5 M under mandatory evacuation orders in advance of Matthew. Some of the updated forecasts look apocalyptic. If it really turns out it is the worst Hurricane to hit Florida since 1851 (a) Florida is a swing state (b ) expect Trumps comments on Climate Change to be aired widely again.
We are all going to wake up .....emerge dripping from a shower* and be back in May 2016 on election morning. Here we realise that the Ed Stone issued some kind of sonic mind bending Ray distorting the time continuum resulting in Labour actually winning by a landslide. Ms Abbott becomes Prime Minister as Corbyn retires taking up a junior managerial position in a marmalade production factory while the right wing electorate imploded and turned into a pile of dust.
Well it's about as sensible as what's happening now.
* individual and ladies only showers are available.
Its funny. I've never had much real issue with using the F word as in saying if a car breaks down 'It's F***ed. However I still find that use of it in its original and proper meaning, to describe the act of sexual union ie a F***, quite shocking.
This is a huge field of research. Perceptions of risk are molded by multiple factors at each of four fundamental levels (brain architecture and chemistry, heuristics used in processing complex data, personality, and social pressures). Issues such as how understood the threat is how immediate it is, the personal pain involved (it is a very long list) all factor in.
The net result of this is that people are actually pretty tolerant of the precautionary principle in relation to terrorism, and very much less so in relation to global warming in particular and environmental issues in general.
Thanks, that's fascinating. Bringing it back to the subject, I assume Brexit is more like global warming in terms of people's risk perceptions than it is like terrorism.
I've not seen specific data on this, but it would make sense. The pain (particularly for the dispossessed) is fairly well understood (if uncertain), has been chosen rather than imposed, is more likely to affect others than oneself, and is unlikely to be too great.
2.5 M under mandatory evacuation orders in advance of Matthew. Some of the updated forecasts look apocalyptic. If it really turns out it is the worst Hurricane to hit Florida since 1851 (a) Florida is a swing state (b ) expect Trumps comments on Climate Change to be aired widely again.
That hurricane is going to hit Trump's Mar A Lago twice according to the new forecasts. One on Friday and one after it does a swirl in the atlantic and comes back again to Florida.
Hurricane Matthew is God's way of telling Trump to resign, how many times the same hurricane hits you twice ?
Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.
When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked. Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.
Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!
People forget the point of the parable.
Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.
Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.
You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.
But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:
"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".
Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.
As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.
No-one believes them when they tell the truth.
"There is a wolf" was the truth.
I didn't realise it was a true story?
Ive got a wolf sitting on my lap at the moment (well its DNA is identical to a wolf but its a different race called a spaniel so I'm allowed to have it at home.
Racism is allowed and institutionalise in ways that would have made Dr Verwoed salivate if you are Canus lupus.
A subspecies is basically scientific term for a race - there is no real scientific meaning and s lot of arguments over whether subspecies should exist at all.
Dogs and Wolfs breed and produce viable fertile young and their DNA is no more divergent than mine is from a Japanese person.
The dangerous dogs act is a totally racist bit of legislation as are the laws making it illegal to have a wolf (or any dog that is not at least three generations removed from a wolf) without a special dangerous animals licence.
Herself has just come home. She has been shopping, including a visit to Waitrose. When did it become OK to add salt to chocolate, will someone please tell me?
Reminds me of those 'end of politics' articles that abounded when John Major won in 1992.
Or, even worse, the end of history. I was vociferous against the idiocy of Fukuyama when he published in 1992, and remain so with a degree of smug self-satisfaction to this day.
Don't concern yourself on that score. As long as Jezza is safe then Shadow is as good as it gets. Still the pay increase might help with her private school fees.
Herself has just come home. She has been shopping, including a visit to Waitrose. When did it become OK to add salt to chocolate, will someone please tell me?
"Asia Americans strongly oppose Muslims from entering the U.S (page 28) Asian Americans oppose an anti-Muslim ban by more than a 3-1 margin and all national origin groups are more likely to oppose than favor such a ban "
Knowing religious tensions in asia between muslims and non-muslims I think the above is definitely incorrect.
"Asia Americans strongly oppose Muslims from entering the U.S (page 28) Asian Americans oppose an anti-Muslim ban by more than a 3-1 margin and all national origin groups are more likely to oppose than favor such a ban "
Knowing religious tensions in asia between muslims and non-muslims I think the above is definitely incorrect.
"Asian-American" means people of East Asian background; Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Not cultures that have had much friction with Islam, and the whole talk of religious/racial immigration screening brings back memories of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of the Japanese-Americans in WW2.
Comments
I found out the other day where he gets "glass paradigm" from. William Gibson, Hinterlands (Burning Chrome 1993 p.91) "Dozens of new schools of physics have sprung up in Saint Olga's wake, ever more bizarre and more elegant heresies, each one hoping to shoulder its way to the inside track. One by one, they all fall down. In the whispering quiet of Heaven's nights, you imagine you can hear the paradigms shatter, shards of theory tinkling into brilliant dust as the lifework of some corporate think tank is reduced to the tersest historical footnote, and all in the time it takes your damaged traveler to mutter some fragment in the dark."
I don't know whether this is intelligent or dumb plagiarism, but I am guessing the latter and that he thinks a paradigm is literally a thing made of glass.
Congrats on another Spectator article, incidentally.
LOL.
I highly recommend Andy Stirling's writing on the precautionary principle. It actually has a lot of elements of 'crying wolf' if practiced in its hard form, with the same long term negative impacts (the principle being protected gets discounted and devalued). He recommends a soft precautionary principle.
I first heard the term on the "new" Battlestar Galactica. Think it was Gaetta.
This reminds me of when I was in Geneva at the negotiations drafting the Chemical Weapons Convention. I made the error of saying in an intervention that "there are many ways to skin a cat." Of course, as this was a working group without simultaneous interpretation, I had to explain myself. For the next several months, every delegate for whom English was not the mother tongue seemed to bend over backwards to use another cat metaphor or simile.
Dr. Prasannan, really? I heard it bloody ages ago.
I am not sure that previous line necessarily reflects well upon me. Ahem.
Just as an aside, did anyone buy the XCOM 2 console version [came out a few days ago]?
granted. Perhaps in this context Chicken Little, Henny Penny, or Cassandra (depending on personal your credence in the prophecies) would be more apt.
This must be a big issue for terrorism threats.
Gadi Schwartz Verified account
@GadiNBC
Then this guy starts trying to say the Nazi's didn't intentionally gas 6 million Jews, another man agrees. I ask if they are together. "No"
They could have had a game of football in the middle of the conference hall and then sang silent night.
Without, I think:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pity fuck
I always thought 'mercy fuck' more euphonic.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mercy fuck
The net result of this is that people are actually pretty tolerant of the precautionary principle in relation to terrorism, and very much less so in relation to global warming in particular and environmental issues in general.
Clnton 38 .. Trump 43
http://www.wthr.com/article/exclusive-wthrhpi-poll-clinton-trump-presidential-race-tightens
My state betting is now looking rather conservative in it's nature.
For debate watchers - the 'Neutral' Town Hall crowd is being selected by Gallup.
Racism is allowed and institutionalise in ways that would have made Dr Verwoed salivate if you are Canus lupus.
So why are they picking the audience? Makes no sense.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162887/gallup-2012-presidential-election-polling-review.aspx
Wrong.
The only poll conducted was one last week with Trump losing to Hillary by 10 nationally but Pence being down by 1 against Hillary 47/46.
The only polling that has ever being done proves that both Hillary's and Trump's replacements would do far better than them.
However if Trump implodes then Indiana, Georgia and South Carolina come into the mix.
They were discussing a fellow female student who had decided to go to Alaska. They reckoned she was into hairy bearded men and would enjoy the ratio to much laughter. I interjected that she might be out of luck as most of them would probably prefer the sheep.
No laughter, silence, tumbleweed.....
There are actually sheep in Alaska and men do go there sheep hunting, but alas the 'Flossie is that you' double meaning hasnt crossed the atlantic where things are a littie more puritanical.
Baaaa.
F***ing appalling.
We are all going to wake up .....emerge dripping from a shower* and be back in May 2016 on election morning. Here we realise that the Ed Stone issued some kind of sonic mind bending Ray distorting the time continuum resulting in Labour actually winning by a landslide. Ms Abbott becomes Prime Minister as Corbyn retires taking up a junior managerial position in a marmalade production factory while the right wing electorate imploded and turned into a pile of dust.
Well it's about as sensible as what's happening now.
* individual and ladies only showers are available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWRxPDhd3d0
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/784077950085898241
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/784077589497409536
Diane.Abbott.
Shadow.. Home... Secretary..:.
...
One on Friday and one after it does a swirl in the atlantic and comes back again to Florida.
Hurricane Matthew is God's way of telling Trump to resign, how many times the same hurricane hits you twice ?
Dogs and Wolfs breed and produce viable fertile young and their DNA is no more divergent than mine is from a Japanese person.
The dangerous dogs act is a totally racist bit of legislation as are the laws making it illegal to have a wolf (or any dog that is not at least three generations removed from a wolf) without a special dangerous animals licence.
Clinton 55 .. Trump 14
http://naasurvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/NAAS2016-Oct5-report.pdf
Abbott ousts Burnham! Crikey!
Rudd and Abbott must be the worst Home and Shadow Home pairing since... er...
Edited extra bit: weren't two recent Aussie PMs called Rudd and Abbott?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wait I think it's crap:
"Asia Americans strongly oppose Muslims from entering the U.S (page 28)
Asian Americans oppose an anti-Muslim ban by more than a 3-1 margin and all national origin groups are more likely to oppose than favor such a ban "
Knowing religious tensions in asia between muslims and non-muslims I think the above is definitely incorrect.
How you manage to type with a spaniel on your lap is beyond me. I struggle with a smallish and rather elderly cat.
Is this a new reshuffle, or is he still finishing the one he started in March?
JackW may like to read this, or not