|
evilweasel posted:Because we have a full explanation without a "cultural consideration", and the "cultural consideration" is obvious garbage (americans are dumb and violent). We do not need cultural explanations to understand why it works and cultural explanations are frequently simply the authors biases cloaked in pseudoscientific terms. You don't get to simply declare a major ongoing debate (nature vs nurture) to be pseudoscience and dismiss the whole thing. Or at least, you can, but it doesn't carry any more weight than, say, climate denial. The idea that we are hard-coded to perform certain actions in response to certain emotional states is extraordinary for any subject above the age of two. Humans are not robots who are genetically programmed to act a certain way when they view news reports (whose presentation is also genetically hard-coded) of events that took place thousands of miles away as they view their magic light boxes (whose creation was also genetically hard-coded). Or if you're going for the full no-free-will-we-are-all-slaves-to-our-meatware then that's not a very interesting point. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:23 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:18 |
|
dusty posted:As an international viewer may I say that my impression of the US response over the last decade involved freaking the fuck out, stockpiling duct tape and politicians terrifying the populace with coloured threat warning systems warning of immenent attack for years. Fuck yourself. Fucking dipshit slogans don't mean a goddman thing. Post some data at least.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:19 |
|
FCKGW posted:Got this on my Facebook feed jut now I'm pretty proud of those folk offering to pay higher taxes in return for better mental health services. Good on them.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:19 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Do you think that Americans pre-9/11 would just have accepted that the government needed to listen in on phone calls without probable cause (or paper trails) or that we should be holding prisoners for decades without trial? Those are two very solid shifts in public sentiment caused entirely by the overreaction to 9/11. You don't actually have a consistent coherent point that makes sense, and it's showing here. This is the post you originally made this perticular line of argument about : http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...4#post414465424 The particular point I made that you appear to object to is "unfortunately Americans do not scare any more or less easier than anyone else, bad comprehension of risk is a universal human trait, and the US does not go bonkers after every terrorist event: it "went bonkers" exactly once" Now, the things you're saying in response aren't actually making any coherent point. The best thing I can construct is you think the United States is in a non-ending state of bonkersness since 9/11 but you do not specifically object to the other two. Is that correct? Paul MaudDib posted:You don't get to simply declare a major ongoing debate (nature vs nurture) to be pseudoscience and dismiss the whole thing. Or at least, you can, but it doesn't carry any more weight than, say, climate denial. evilweasel fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:23 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:21 |
|
If anyone surprises you by not blaming Obama when it's totally within their personality to blame Obama, it's because they realize there's a good chance it's some domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorist: 33% Middle Eastern terrorist: 33% North Korea: 11% False Flag: 11% Fat Acceptance terrorist group: 11% Hallucination: 1%
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:21 |
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:If you're going to outright deny that America has a particular zeitgeist around terrorism and security, I am inclined to ask you where the pod you were evidently very recently birthed from is located, any why you were not briefed more thoroughly for your mission. Okay. How do we know for a fact that this is a consequence of Americans having a unique national culture as the original post in contention said? How do we separate out the influence of political elite culture and the internal cultures of American institutions and their ability to shape the reaction to events? How do we know for sure that the differences between the responses to September 11th and Anders Brevik's murders are primarily cultural and the differences between the events are largely irrelevant? Or are you using a generalized position revolving around "cultural factors are important to most things people do", "Americans reacted in a particular way to September 11th", and "The two things are probably connected"? In that case, I have to wonder why you're not making the abstract nature of it more clear, but I certainly don't disagree with it.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:21 |
|
evilweasel posted:Compared to the empirically tested universal cognitive flaws that have been demonstrated and tested, For someone accusing his opponents of pseudoscientific crap, you'd think there'd be more citations in your posts in this thread. Or is this "I know I'm right I don't need to cite" or "your argument is so bad I needn't construct a good response, but just say bad things about it"?
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:22 |
|
Can we get back to posting information about this as it unfolds, rather than arguing about whether unique cultural flaws peculiar to America caused it? There's a lot of information to sift through right now and this thread was doing a fine job of it earlier in the day.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:24 |
|
menino posted:Fuck yourself. Fucking dipshit slogans don't mean a goddman thing. Post some data at least. Thanks for your insightful contribution you chucklefuck. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=keep+calm+and+carry+on edit/ fixed link ![]() dusty fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:35 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:26 |
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. How do we know for a fact that this is a consequence of Americans having a unique national culture as the original post in contention said? How do we separate out the influence of political elite culture and the internal cultures of American institutions and their ability to shape the reaction to events? How do we know for sure that the differences between the responses to September 11th and Anders Brevik's murders are primarily cultural and the differences between the events are largely irrelevant? Or are you using a generalized position revolving around "cultural factors are important to most things people do", "Americans reacted in a particular way to September 11th", and "The two things are probably connected"? In that case, I have to wonder why you're not making the abstract nature of it more clear, but I certainly don't disagree with it. More the latter. I'm not asserting any particular defining traits or tendencies beyond that particular post, because that's not my point- EW is outright saying that an extraordinarily complex and situationally-dependent event is completely reducible to objective, universal human reactions, which strikes me and others as an extraordinary claim that EW sees little reason to substantiate.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:27 |
|
dusty posted:Thanks for your insightful contribution you chucklefuck. Try talking about Keep Calm and Carry On whenever it snows in Britain.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:27 |
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Can we get back to posting information about this as it unfolds, rather than arguing about whether unique cultural flaws peculiar to America caused it? There's a lot of information to sift through right now and this thread was doing a fine job of it earlier in the day. I posted a good summary up the page.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:27 |
|
dusty posted:Thanks for your insightful contribution you chucklefuck. How about you realize that those posters were never used, you dipshit.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:28 |
|
dusty posted:Thanks for your insightful contribution you chucklefuck. Again, fuck yourself. You want to make a smarmy non argument, you post actual data, not a link to a Keep Calm and Carry On generator site.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:28 |
|
The bombing happened in a so called "bomb free" zone. If all marathon runners had bombs this wouldn't have happened
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:28 |
|
dusty posted:Thanks for your insightful contribution you chucklefuck. Man, this entire line of conversation isn't really helpful, is it? I mean, response time to tragedy isn't exactly a competition. It's just something people should try to get better at. Why are you being so adversarial about this?
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:31 |
|
Zeitgueist posted:For someone accusing his opponents of pseudoscientific crap, you'd think there'd be more citations in your posts in this thread. This is a discussion forum, not a research paper. If you are ignorant on the subject and want links to resources I'm happy to provide them but when discussing well-known and well-understood areas of scientific knowledge it is not necessary to litter the page with citations like a particularly ugly wikipedia page unless someone actually asks for the link. If you don't want to order the book (which you should), and don't understand or believe in any of the concepts I've cited you can merely ask and I would be happy to help you out. Ambrose Burnside posted:More the latter. I'm not asserting any particular defining traits or tendencies beyond that particular post, because that's not my point- EW is outright saying that an extraordinarily complex and situationally-dependent event is completely reducible to objective, universal human reactions, which strikes me and others as an extraordinary claim that EW sees little reason to substantiate. For the particular thing I'm discussing - why people systemically overweight the risk of terrorism compared to other risks - it is. People systematically misweigh things by the examples they can think of and prefer risks they believe they are 'in control' of as opposed to 'random' risks they can't do anything about. evilweasel fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:34 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:31 |
|
dusty posted:Thanks for your insightful contribution you chucklefuck. As an aside: "It had only limited distribution with no public display, and thus was little known." It has no historical significance and if you are using it in the modern context it is a bit of merchandise tat and a hideously overplayed meme.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:32 |
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. How do we know for a fact that this is a consequence of Americans having a unique national culture as the original post in contention said? How do we separate out the influence of political elite culture and the internal cultures of American institutions and their ability to shape the reaction to events? "Elite political culture" and "internal culture of influential institutions" are precisely the kinds of cultural factors we're talking about, but it's not a one-way street. Those factors are both a reflection of and an influence on broader social factors. The idea that it's because Americans are genetically predisposed to be barbarians or something is just evilweasel's strawman. quote:
It's pretty much impossible to pin down an exact number, you can't really do an experiment to determine that Americans were 25% scaredycats and 75% genetically predisposed to overreact to watching skyscrapers burn down on TV. But social context is incredibly important in how we react, going right back to the Milgram experiments (where desire to please an authority figure overrode basic morality). If you think you're gonna get looked at funny for arguing that we should "kill all the sandniggers", you are less likely to act on that belief and probably less likely to have it in the first place. If you have authority figures like media or talking heads telling you that's acceptable, or displaying those beliefs, then that makes you more likely to view those as acceptable beliefs. It's a bit more specific than just "culture influences everything". Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:38 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:32 |
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:More the latter. I'm not asserting any particular defining traits or tendencies beyond that particular post, because that's not my point- EW is outright saying that an extraordinarily complex and situationally-dependent event is completely reducible to objective, universal human reactions, which strikes me and others as an extraordinary claim that EW sees little reason to substantiate. I guess we probably should cut this short, but I'm pretty sure that he's saying that the specific reasons being given were stupid and then followed up with some stuff that probably overextended his argument. I can sympathize, because the original post was pretty dumb. I don't know, it seems like you're talking past each other because of this split and that's exacerbating the differences. But I could always be wrong. EDIT: Paul MaudDib posted:*snip* Yeah, I don't actually disagree with the generalized form, but I wasn't sure if there was a more specific argument being made.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:32 |
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:More the latter. I'm not asserting any particular defining traits or tendencies beyond that particular post, because that's not my point- EW is outright saying that an extraordinarily complex and situationally-dependent event is completely reducible to objective, universal human reactions, which strikes me and others as an extraordinary claim that EW sees little reason to substantiate. No, he's not categorically ruling out the influence of culture, he was responding to a specific assertion made by another poster: zoux posted:Unfortunately, terrorism is so effective against Americans because we are easy to scare, cannot comprehend risk in any meaningful way, and go completely bonkers after every terrorist event. If this was done by an Islamic terrorist (which I have no evidence or inkling of) you can bet the US will go mad with bloodlust and demand we invade some country, and the right and left-hawks will whip these people into a frenzy.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:33 |
|
Cabbit posted:Man, this entire line of conversation isn't really helpful, is it? I mean, response time to tragedy isn't exactly a competition. It's just something people should try to get better at. Why are you being so adversarial about this? Well in all honesty I was not perfectly civil in my response. Content: @BuzzFeedAndrew is reporting that the Red Cross is OK for short term blood donations. https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/...955169333235712 E: Also reports that death toll is at 3 menino fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:37 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:34 |
|
evilweasel posted:This is a discussion forum, not a research paper. If you are ignorant on the subject and want links to resources I'm happy to provide them but when discussing well-known and well-understood areas of scientific knowledge it is not necessary to litter the page with citations like a particularly ugly wikipedia page unless someone actually asks for the link. If you don't want to order the book (which you should), and don't understand or believe in any of the concepts I've cited you can merely ask and I would be happy to help you out. This is a discussion forum, not a "what I say goes" type of thing, unless you're probating people. If another poster calls you out on making an extraordinary claim, I'm fairly surprised to see the response is 'why should I have to' To clarify, I'm referring to: Ambrose Burnside posted:More the latter. I'm not asserting any particular defining traits or tendencies beyond that particular post, because that's not my point- EW is outright saying that an extraordinarily complex and situationally-dependent event is completely reducible to objective, universal human reactions, which strikes me and others as an extraordinary claim that EW sees little reason to substantiate. You've made several sweeping claims and appeals to common sense, trashed the posts of people disagreeing with you, and your response when called on this is "this isn't a research paper". I understand if this thread isn't the place to talk about this, we can always start a new one.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:35 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's pretty much impossible to pin down an exact number, you can't really do an experiment to determine that Americans were 25% scaredycats and 75% genetically predisposed to overreact to watching skyscrapers burn down on TV. But social context is incredibly important in how we react, going right back to the Milgram experiments. If you think you're gonna get looked at funny for arguing that we should "kill all the sandniggers", you are less likely to act on that belief and probably less likely to have it in the first place. If you have authority figures like media or talking heads telling you that's acceptable, or displaying those beliefs, then that makes you more likely to view those as acceptable beliefs. It's really not, because we have a specific comparison we can make: the Oklahoma City bombing. A high-casualty domestic terrorism event carried out in the name of extreme right-wing political beliefs. You keep ignoring the OK bombing because it torpedoes this entire point. Zeitgueist posted:This is a discussion forum, not a "what I say goes" type of thing, unless you're probating people. If another poster calls you out on making an extraordinary claim, I'm fairly surprised to see the response is "why should I have to" If someone needs a point substantiated I'm happy to do so (and, like I said, I've already linked the best book on the subject by someone who won a nobel prize on the subject). If you need more on a point you are free to ask for support on that point. But that's not what you're doing: you're generically whining that there are insufficient citations in general. evilweasel fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:38 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:36 |
|
Zeitgueist posted:This is a discussion forum, not a "what I say goes" type of thing, unless you're probating people. If another poster calls you out on making an extraordinary claim, I'm fairly surprised to see the response is 'why should I have to' Please do. So nothing new yet?
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:37 |
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Can we get back to posting information about this as it unfolds, rather than arguing about whether unique cultural flaws peculiar to America caused it? There's a lot of information to sift through right now and this thread was doing a fine job of it earlier in the day. Sadly it doesn't seem like there's any new information to speak of.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:41 |
|
evilweasel posted:If someone needs a point substantiated I'm happy to do so (and, like I said, I've already linked the best book on the subject by someone who won a nobel prize on the subject). If you need more on a point you are free to ask for support on that point. But that's not what you're doing: you're generically whining that there are insufficient citations in general. No I believe I'm specifically asking for you to provide something to address Ambrose's point. How much clearer do I need to make that? I even quoted it in my post. Again: quote:an extraordinarily complex and situationally-dependent event is completely reducible to objective, universal human reactions Is that specific enough? I don't know that 'read this entire book that is not online' is a really good cite. Would you care to transcribe the relevant paragraphs?
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:41 |
|
SirKibbles posted:Please do. So nothing new yet? There's supposed to be another press conference soon but to be honest it's going to be several days at this point before there's much real info now. Hopefully the casualty numbers are now static and all that really matters is the investigation, but that's not really the sort of thing they should be releasing details on as soon as they have them.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:41 |
|
evilweasel posted:It's really not, because we have a specific comparison we can make: the Oklahoma City bombing. A high-casualty domestic terrorism event carried out in the name of extreme right-wing political beliefs. You keep ignoring the OK bombing because it torpedoes this entire point. There's a lot more to why America didn't flip a shit about Oklahoma City than just the fact that it was a lone-wolf attack. It was a white Christian dude instead of a racial and religious minority, there wasn't a desire by elites to use it as justification for a war and police-state measures, and 9/11 hadn't shifted our cultural reactions towards terrorism (all cultural factors). Compare that to something like Fort Hood, which really did make people flip their shit and be super bigoted towards Muslims and Arabs despite being a comparable (but smaller) lone-wolf-style event. There's nothing genetic that cues us to overreact to terrorism by Muslims, there's nothing genetic that changed on 9/11. What did shift were the social factors regarding terrorism in general (but by Muslims in particular). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:56 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:47 |
|
WSJ has reported they found five undetonated bombs, for a total of 7: https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/...959961623334913 The death toll is at 3, expected to climb higher. https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/...957956754436096 Both from the Buzzfeed guy.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:47 |
|
Zeitgueist posted:No I believe I'm specifically asking for you to provide something to address Ambrose's point. How much clearer do I need to make that? I even quoted it in my post. His description of my point is inaccurate and I responded to his point. You haven't offered anything new besides complaining so there's not really any point in responding to you repeating it. However for a general description of the factors at issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic (In short, you tend to gauge the likelihood of things by the examples you can think of, systematically overweighing rare events) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control (In short, you think you have more control than you do over chance events. This causes people to think that the odds for things they can control are better than they actually are) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias (similar effect to the above) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution (in short: people will pay more for insurance to protect against terrorism than to protect against all death, even though all death covers terrorism) Some of his papers you may be able to access: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/1...ourcetype=HWCIT The basic argument is that people are wretched at assessing relative risks of things. Utterly wretched: he goes into great detail about how people are just not naturally good with stats or probability and so our intuitive judgments about them are generally terrible. Many factors of terrorism (its newsworthiness, it being out of our control and random, and it being so vivid in our imagination) means we are going to systematically overweight the risk of dying to terrorism and fear it well out of proportion to how scared we "should" be. All of these have been demonstrated in studies and together provide a coherent and complete explanation for why people go so bonkers over terrorism but not, say, driving a car.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:53 |
|
Definitively no suspect at the hospital, per the press conference edit: And the first question at was a lunatic "false flag" deal... ![]() cymbalrush fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 16:57 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:54 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's a lot more to why America didn't flip a shit about Oklahoma City than just the fact that it was a lone-wolf attack. It was a white Christian dude instead of a racial and religious minority, there wasn't a desire by elites to use it as justification for a war and police-state measures, and 9/11 hadn't shifted our cultural reactions towards terrorism (all cultural factors). Compare that to something like Fort Hood, which really did make people flip their shit and be super bigoted towards Muslims and Arabs despite being a comparable (but smaller) lone-wolf-style event. All of these factors describe Norway's attack as well, exactly. That's why OK City is a reasonable parallel to the Norway attacks and 9/11 is not, and what pops out is that it's those factors that matter.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:55 |
|
Literally first question at the press conference is about it being a false flag attack to take away are civil liberties. Thanks, Alex Jones.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:56 |
|
menino posted:WSJ has reported they found five undetonated bombs, for a total of 7: I'm not sure how clear it is those are bombs: quote:The deviceswhich are in addition to the two that exploded near the finish line of the marathonwere discovered over the course of a frantic inspection of suspicious packages, many of them abandoned as pedestrians, runners, and others scrambled away from crowded public streets. Each had been rendered inoperative or was in the process of being rendered inoperative, the officials said. I read that more as "these 5 didn't get ruled out and we are treating as bombs" rather than "these 5 are definitely bombs".
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:56 |
|
evilweasel posted:All of these factors describe Norway's attack as well, exactly. That's why OK City is a reasonable parallel to the Norway attacks and 9/11 is not, and what pops out is that it's those factors that matter. So you think that people are genetically predisposed to overreact to Muslim terrorism, or genetically predisposed to electing leaders with an axe to grind, or that our genes suddenly mutated on 9/11 without our bodies rejecting all of our internal organs, or what? How would such a mutation even occur nation-wide at the same time? ![]() All of those things are cultural factors, not some kind of preordained response. Thank you for seeing my point. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 17:00 |
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:58 |
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Literally first question at the press conference is about it being a false flag attack to take away are civil liberties. Thanks, Alex Jones.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:58 |
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Literally first question at the press conference is about it being a false flag attack to take away are civil liberties. Thanks, Alex Jones. I liked that the reply was a simple, "no."
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:58 |
|
menino posted:WSJ has reported they found five undetonated bombs, for a total of 7: Cripes, it could have been a lot worse. The good news is [if that report is accurate or half-accurate] that means the feds have a heap of evidence to pour over - explosives obviously, but as well a ton of camera footage around those sites.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:59 |
|
cymbalrush posted:I liked that the reply was a simple, "no." Really the best way to deal with idiots.
|
# ? Apr 15, 2013 16:59 |