Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
Locked
12
12
Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
 
|
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Game_theorists_hope_to_solve_worlds_crises_999.html The extent to which some model authors trust their own models is very frightening. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:17 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
There *has* to be some joke here around auto-rhetoric asphyxiation... -- R ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
Oh, c'mon Robert. Don't leave us hanging...
;-] On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
All models are wrong; models are designed to be wrong. They couldnt possibly do any good if they weren;t wrong.
It's just that some models are wronger than others.
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
Quoting Nicholas Thompson circa 09-12-02 09:48 AM:
> All models are wrong; models are designed to be wrong. They couldnt possibly do any good if they weren;t wrong. > > It's just that some models are wronger than others. Oh, the situation is a lot worse than that. It's not that some models are more wrong than others. It's that models are rhetorical devices. When you meet a person who really _believes_ her own rhetoric to the extent that they are convicted, committed, and unwaveringly confident in their own rhetoric ... well, then you KNOW you've got a certifiable WACKO on your hands. Following their consulting would be like following Jim Jones to Guyana ... like following Marshall Applewhite to Rancho Santa Fe. At least with your run-of-the-mill televangelist, you get the sense that they're just hucksters trying to get others to believe rhetoric they, themselves, don't believe. I'll take a snake-oil salesman over a True Believer any day! -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
Well, speaking of models being wrong, check this out:
The reason the East Anglia data matter is that computer models have
been erected upon them, which have been incorporated into governmental
and U.N. reports, which in turn have become the basis for actual and
proposed government policies. So all this amounts to a prelude: the
important questions domestically are whether the Senate approves the
cap and trade bill next year and what happens with the EPA's efforts to
regulate carbon dioxide. Internationally, the question centers on the
fate of the Copenhagen summit.
This is from the recent CBS news article about the growing "Climategate" fiasco: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/taking_liberties/entry5860171.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColLowerPromoArea;morenews In the spirit of full disclosure: the data that all of my models use is always impeccably verifiable (as are all of the bugs in the code). --Doug On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> It's not that some models > are more wrong than others. It's that models are rhetorical devices. > When you meet a person who really _believes_ her own rhetoric to the > extent that they are convicted, committed, and unwaveringly confident in > their own rhetoric ... well, then you KNOW you've got a certifiable > WACKO on your hands. Following their consulting would be like following > Jim Jones to Guyana ... I think that in these circles if game theory makes propaganda more compelling that is all that matters. Why describe something when you can influence it? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
Lots of strong words and sentiments.
Glen, do you distinguish between perceptions/[perspectives, models and scientific theories? Do you think of people who believe enough in quantum theory, general relativity, biological evolution, even Newtonian dynamics to act on it as certifiably WACKO? That's not to say that these theories won't ever be revised, overturned, etc. But to call people who act on what those theories predict WACKO seems extreme. What about the model you have in your head as you cross the street? That model included cars coming at you. Not acting on that model seems more WACKO than acting on it? I think it would be useful to refine your statement a bit. Waiting for the light to change at a busy intersection (because of your model of how traffic lights, traffic, etc. work--which is not always the way it is but which works often enough and which may include drunk drivers and cases in which cars run red lights) seems more sane than following Jim Jones to Guyana. -- Russ On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
So, I live in a pre keplerian village. On a hill in the middle of the village is a monastery where lives a monk who rings a bell at sunrise every day. A model explanation circulates around the village that the sun is attached to the Monk's bellrope and that it is his ringing the bell that raises the sun. Many people in the village take this model to be "true" (wetftm) and conduct their lives in accordance with it. Are they WACKO?
Just asking.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Quoting Russ Abbott circa 09-12-02 01:18 PM:
> Glen, do you distinguish between perceptions/[perspectives, models and > scientific theories? Yes. I laid out many of the differences recently in the thread about models vs. rhetoric. > Do you think of people who believe enough in quantum > theory, general relativity, biological evolution, even Newtonian dynamics to > act on it as certifiably WACKO? You're playing a shell game. I did not say "believe ENOUGH", thereby implying that they do NOT believe somewhat. If someone leaves room for reasonable doubt, then they're not a wacko, no. And, since you list scientific theories, I can say that no scientist can be called a scientist if they don't doubt the theories they act upon. Doubt is necessary. If you never doubt the truth of your pet belief, then yes, you are a wacko. > That's not to say that these theories won't > ever be revised, overturned, etc. But to call people who act on what those > theories predict WACKO seems extreme. I didn't say that. I even used a long-winded phrase to make it clear. I said: "... to the extent that they are convicted, committed, and unwaveringly confident in their own rhetoric ..." You don't need to be a wacko to act on your beliefs. But if you are absolutely CERTAIN, with no doubt at all, that your beliefs are true and nothing anyone around you says will ever shake your unwavering confidence, then yes, you are a wacko. > What about the model you have in your head as you cross the street? That > model included cars coming at you. Not acting on that model seems more WACKO > than acting on it? Again, because I don't want you to miss my point, I'll say that I'm not talking about reasonable people who doubt their beliefs from time to time. If you unwaveringly believe and are totally convinced of your model of how cars, streets, and street crossings work, then yes you are a wacko. Even if you're model happens to BE true, you're still a wacko because all sane people doubt themselves periodically. But if you act on a belief that it's a very very very good idea to look both ways before crossing because you MIGHT get hit, then no, that's not the beliefs of a wacko. It's very easy to doubt that you might get hit by a car. So, if you doubt yourself, you're not a wacko. > I think it would be useful to refine your statement a bit. Waiting for the > light to change at a busy intersection (because of your model of how traffic > lights, traffic, etc. work--which is not always the way it is but which > works often enough and which may include drunk drivers and cases in which > cars run red lights) seems more sane than following Jim Jones to Guyana. Again, you're playing a rhetorical shell game. I didn't say anything about crossing the street or acting on a reasonable belief in your models. I explicitly (and took great pains to be explicit) that if you are convinced and unwaveringly confident in your model, then you're a wacko. I won't take advice from anyone who is so utterly convinced of their own beliefs that no amount of data or rhetoric could ever change those beliefs. Such people ARE the equivalent of Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Quoting Nicholas Thompson circa 09-12-02 01:32 PM:
> So, I live in a pre keplerian village. On a hill in the middle of > the village is a monastery where lives a monk who rings a bell at > sunrise every day. A model explanation circulates around the village > that the sun is attached to the Monk's bellrope and that it is his > ringing the bell that raises the sun. Many people in the village > take this model to be "true" (wetftm) and conduct their lives in > accordance with it. Are they WACKO? Just because they act as if they believe it doesn't mean they are convicted to the belief. In any distribution of people who act as if they believe something, you'll find that some are true believers, some have doubts, and some just act that way because it's socially the easiest/best thing to do. Those that were true believers were wacko. Those that sometimes doubted the belief were sane. Those that just did it because everyone else did it were also sane (though perhaps weak-minded). -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
FWIW
"Doubt is the antidote to fanaticism" but I don't recall who wrote it in the NYT. So I guess fanatic = wacko. Robert C glen e. p. ropella wrote: Quoting Russ Abbott circa 09-12-02 01:18 PM: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
Quoting Robert J. Cordingley circa 09-12-02 02:54 PM:
> "Doubt is the antidote to fanaticism" but I don't recall who wrote it in > the NYT. So I guess fanatic = wacko. I'd say that a fanatic is a specific type of wacko, an enthusiastic wacko that continually advocates for their pet beliefs. A wacko might be totally convinced that their pet belief is true but might not be very _enthused_ about that belief. Perhaps their commitment to the pet belief leads them to continual states of paranoia, depression, or isolation. Then they're not a fanatic; but they're still wacko. So doubt is the antidote to many types of wacko, not just fanaticism. It's also reasonable that a person can be a wacko without being totally convinced, convicted, committed to some belief. The most fun example would be the impredicative wacko (a wacko who is wacko because they're not wacko). In my insistence that doubt and skepticism are the only fundamental beliefs worth holding, you might be tempted to label me an impredicative wacko. But since I believe doubt and skepticism are _incomplete_ truths, I don't really qualify. OK. I'll stop, now. Sorry. ;-) -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
Glen,
You wrote: > Just because they act as if they believe it doesn't mean they are > convicted to the belief. Glen, I LIKED THIS. I particularly liked it, though, because of the odd usage of convicted (for convinced). Was that a sllip of the fingers, or perhaps you are starting a new meme? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 12/2/2009 3:04:04 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Game theorists hope to solve world's crises > > Quoting Nicholas Thompson circa 09-12-02 01:32 PM: > > So, I live in a pre keplerian village. On a hill in the middle of > > the village is a monastery where lives a monk who rings a bell at > > sunrise every day. A model explanation circulates around the village > > that the sun is attached to the Monk's bellrope and that it is his > > ringing the bell that raises the sun. Many people in the village > > take this model to be "true" (wetftm) and conduct their lives in > > accordance with it. Are they WACKO? > > Just because they act as if they believe it doesn't mean they are > convicted to the belief. > > In any distribution of people who act as if they believe something, > you'll find that some are true believers, some have doubts, and some > just act that way because it's socially the easiest/best thing to do. > > Those that were true believers were wacko. Those that sometimes doubted > the belief were sane. Those that just did it because everyone else did > it were also sane (though perhaps weak-minded). > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
And then, there are the anti-wacko wackos.
N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 12/2/2009 4:35:01 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Game theorists hope to solve world's crises > > Quoting Robert J. Cordingley circa 09-12-02 02:54 PM: > > "Doubt is the antidote to fanaticism" but I don't recall who wrote it in > > the NYT. So I guess fanatic = wacko. > > I'd say that a fanatic is a specific type of wacko, an enthusiastic > wacko that continually advocates for their pet beliefs. A wacko might > be totally convinced that their pet belief is true but might not be very > _enthused_ about that belief. Perhaps their commitment to the pet > belief leads them to continual states of paranoia, depression, or > isolation. Then they're not a fanatic; but they're still wacko. So > doubt is the antidote to many types of wacko, not just fanaticism. > > It's also reasonable that a person can be a wacko without being totally > convinced, convicted, committed to some belief. The most fun example > would be the impredicative wacko (a wacko who is wacko because they're > not wacko). In my insistence that doubt and skepticism are the only > fundamental beliefs worth holding, you might be tempted to label me an > impredicative wacko. But since I believe doubt and skepticism are > _incomplete_ truths, I don't really qualify. > > OK. I'll stop, now. Sorry. ;-) > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
I guess it becomes almost tautological. Someone is wacko if they are "absolutely CERTAIN, with no doubt at all, that your beliefs are true and nothing anyone around you says will ever shake your unwavering confidence."
Wacko becomes more or less synonymous with mental rigidity. I'm not sure I would use the term "wacko" for that. I would include in the category of wackos people whose beliefs vary from moment to moment for no apparent reason. But if we just focus on mental rigidity, that would presumably include most people of faith--by which I mean people who believe things that by definition are immune to evidential analysis. So anyone who hold a belief "on faith" is wacko according to your perspective. Some people, though, seem to be perfectly rational about most things in the world but still hold some things by faith. What about them? Does the fact that someone believes something by faith disqualify everything they say? Presumably not. In asking that question I'm asking whether you would be willing to use as a consultant someone who has faith in something. The tricky part here is that you use someone as a consultant when the material about which the person is being consulted is too complex for you to understand. So you have to take that person's word for it. You are not really equipped to determine whether his advice is correct -- or you wouldn't need him as a consultant. So does that mean that every sincerely religious person disqualified in your view from being acceptable as a consultant? But then what about atheists? Are they disqualified also because they believe that religious propositions are false? But since these propositions are immune from evidential analysis that belief too is on faith. One could argue that they don't believe religious propositions are false, only that they are meaningless. Is that better? Probably not good enough. They would have to say simply that they do not understand the religious propositions. Then they would not be holding a belief on faith. Another aspect of the issue of mental rigidity: how rigid is rigid? Is there really anyone who is totally immune from having his beliefs changed? I would suspect not. So there are probably not very many people in the world about whom on can be sure that absolutely nothing with ever change their beliefs. So where does that leave us? The category of wackos becomes vanishingly small. I suspect that most of the people who followed Jim Jones to Guyana might have changed their minds if given enough of an opportunity. As I recall, some tried to resist at the end. What does one say about them? -- Russ On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Quoting Nicholas Thompson circa 09-12-02 04:06 PM:
> Glen, I LIKED THIS. I particularly liked it, though, because of the odd > usage of convicted (for convinced). Was that a sllip of the fingers, or > perhaps you are starting a new meme? Thanks. I do it to highlight how stupid it is to put yourself in a mental _jail_ ... to make yourself a mental convict by being convinced of any one thing or another. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> And then, there are the anti-wacko wackos. > And then, there are the pretending-to-be-a-true-believer-to-pick-up-loyal-follower-wackos. Like half the Senate or that nice man on the 700 club. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Quoting Russ Abbott circa 09-12-02 04:14 PM:
> I guess it becomes almost tautological. Someone is wacko if they are > "absolutely CERTAIN, with no doubt at all, that your beliefs are true and > nothing anyone around you says will ever shake your unwavering confidence." > > Wacko becomes more or less synonymous with mental rigidity. I'm not sure I > would use the term "wacko" for that. I would include in the category of > wackos people whose beliefs vary from moment to moment for no apparent > reason. No. It's not about mental rigidity. It's about certainty. One can be rigid in their skepticism, for example. But a skeptic is, almost by definition, not a wacko. Arrogance and hubris are examples of putting just a little bit too much stock in one's own beliefs. Wackos put _complete_ stock in their own beliefs. Rigidity is orthogonal to the degree to which you believe your own rhetoric. > But if we just focus on mental rigidity, that would presumably include most > people of faith--by which I mean people who believe things that by > definition are immune to evidential analysis. So anyone who hold a belief > "on faith" is wacko according to your perspective. No. Only people who are _certain_ about their faith are wackos. If they never doubt their belief, then they're wackos. Many of the people of faith I know doubt themselves on a regular basis. This means they're sane. > So does that mean that every sincerely > religious person disqualified in your view from being acceptable as a > consultant? No. Only people who never doubt their own opinions are disqualified. Anyone, including the most radical weirdos I've ever met are qualified consultants as long as they caveat their opinions with something like: "On the other hand ..." or "Of course I could be wrong ...". > But then what about atheists? Are they disqualified also because they > believe that religious propositions are false? Atheists who never doubt themselves are disqualified. For example, I would never take advice from Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers on metaphysical issues. They're clearly unqualified to render opinions on the subject. Why? Because they never express doubt of their own opinions. On the other hand, I may well take advice from, say, a priest on quantum physics, as long as he caveats his opinions with "Of course, I could be wrong." Even if I didn't take the advice, I'd at least listen to him. > But since these propositions > are immune from evidential analysis that belief too is on faith. One could > argue that they don't believe religious propositions are false, only that > they are meaningless. Is that better? Probably not good enough. They would > have to say simply that they do not understand the religious propositions. > Then they would not be holding a belief on faith. Again, you're playing a shell game with the words. If an atheist claims that metaphysical propositions are meaningless, and she is CERTAIN that she is right, then she's a wacko. If, however, she admits that they might have some meaning she just doesn't understand, then she's not a wacko. > Another aspect of the issue of mental rigidity: how rigid is rigid? Is there > really anyone who is totally immune from having his beliefs changed? I > would suspect not. So there are probably not very many people in the world > about whom on can be sure that absolutely nothing with ever change their > beliefs. So where does that leave us? That leaves your focus on rigidity at a dead end. But I'm not talking about rigidity. I'm talking about certainty. I actually know people whose minds change on a regular basis. One time I meet them, they're a new ager fixated... CERTAIN ... that yoga will save your life. The next time I meet them they're in a snake cult or speaking in tongues CERTAIN that they now have access to the truth. Well, these people are wackos even though they're not very rigid. > The category of wackos becomes vanishingly small. I suspect that most of > the people who followed Jim Jones to Guyana might have changed their minds > if given enough of an opportunity. As I recall, some tried to resist at the > end. What does one say about them? No. The category of wackos is actually very large. I am surprised almost every day by new wackos. Wackos who think they KNOW how to proceed in Afghanistan. Wackos who are CERTAIN that a public healthcare option is an instance of socialism and wackos who are certain that if we don't "reform" healthcare we're all gonna suffer some horrible end. Wackos who are certain that anthropogenic global warming is true and wackos who are certain it's a hoax. I have family members who are certain that Latinos are lazier than whites and blacks are genetically more athletic than other races. And they'll claim this even after I point out that they don't even know what a "gene" is! I call "wacko". [grin] Of course, there's a question as to whether or not someone is a wacko about everything. E.g. Perhaps I can trust Richard Dawkins to give me a humbly justified opinion, including caveats about, say, the theory of evolution. But I can't trust him to give me a humbly justified opinion about, say, whether God is a unit or a panoply. Perhaps. But, in general, good skeptics exhibit their skepticism on a wide range of issues, not just a few. So, I'd tend to avoid Dawkins' advice on anything because of his fanaticism regarding metaphysics. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Game theorists hope to solve world's crises
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
I also liked Glen's use of "Convicted" as the (active/past?) form of
"Conviction". It invoked the appropriate image of _jail_ as Glen
pointed out while alluding (alliteratively?) to Convinced.
My wife is the master (mistress?) of deliberate, well-crafted malapropisms such as this. She uses them unabashedly and without comment... it is up to the rest of us to "catch up". Perhaps the best (at least the first I encountered decades ago when we met) was her use of the term "excuse closet" where "excuse clause" would be more conventional... invoking the wonderful multiple reference to all the things one might stuff into a "junk closet", to "hiding behind a closet full of excuses", to having a whole pantry (closet) well stocked with excuses. Is there a better term than simply "malapropism"? "deliberate malapropism" captures a little more, but it is the "mal" that I object to... it is more that the "propism" is hijacked or co-opted in a deliberate and clever fashion. Carry on! - Steve Quoting Nicholas Thompson circa 09-12-02 04:06 PM: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |