Ouija politics: Difference between revisions

Ouija politics (view source)

Revision as of 22:55, 14 November 2021

290 bytes added , 14 November 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,853

edits

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 The same is true for the putative group’s agenda and its catalogue of values: unless someone has published manifesto, members of the group will not share identical beliefs. It may be that no single individual holds exactly the set of core beliefs you ascribed to the group.
-Given that most of us struggle to hold values internally consistent with our own other views, let alone with those of other randoms apparently part of the same in-group, this shouldn’t be a surprise. But: it feels like a quibble: “yes, yes, I realise not all football fans are cultural Philistines, but ''you know what I mean''”.
+Given that most of us struggle to hold views that are internally consistent with our ''own'' values, let alone with those of other randoms in our in-group, this shouldn’t be a surprise. But it feels like a quibble: “yes, yes, I realise not all football fans are cultural Philistines, but ''you know what I mean''”.
-As with all narratives, we label things to filter out the [[noise]] of irrelevant [[diversity]] to help render a meaningful [[signal]] of germane commonality.
+As with all narratives, we assign labels to help us filter out the [[noise]] so we can pick up a meaningful [[signal]] of germane commonality.
-The signal is often a phantom. In the same way that, in a group of 1000 people no individual will necessarily conform to the group’s average for height, weight, hand-size, inside seam, waist ''and'' chest measurement: the more dimensions you measure, the less likely that golden mean becomes.<ref>Hence [[A. P. Herbert]]’s magical essay on the [[reasonable man]] in {{casenote|Fardell|Potts}} refers.</ref>
+The sixty-four thousand-dollar question: ''is one person’s signal another person’s noise?''
-Hence your struggle to mount an intellectual assault: your argument deconstructs the general average of a group to which no single member necessarily subscribes. Your intricate syllogisms resonate in the abstract; in the particular they snatch at thin air.
+For the signal is often a phantom; the “average” a a spectre. A group of 1000 will necessarily have an average height, weight, hand-size, inside seam, waist ''and'' chest measurement — it is trivial to measure — but it is not necessarily try that any over will conform exactly to the average. The more dimensions you measure, the less likely that golden mean becomes.<ref>Hence [[A. P. Herbert]]’s magical essay on the [[reasonable man]] in {{casenote|Fardell|Potts}} refers.</ref>
-The converse is also true. What each of us thinks of our common labels — our respective articulations of the necessary and sufficient conditions for group membership — ''differ''. We think each other know what we mean, but we ''don’t''.
+Hence your struggle to mount an intellectual assault: your argument deconstructs the general average of a group to which no single member necessarily subscribes. Worse, you will typically attribute auxiliary qualities to your received group than are actually possessed by any actual members of the group. Your intricate syllogisms resonate in the abstract; in the particular they snatch at thin air.
+The converse is also true. What each of us thinks of our common labels — our respective articulations of the necessary and sufficient conditions for group membership — ''differ''. We think each other know what we mean, ''but we don’t''.
 Hence, atheists and Christians shout themselves hoarse, rather enjoying the experience, making perfect sense to themselves and none at all to each other.