OT: NYT article on, among other things, the limits of our ability to acknowledge what we don’t know

[jpinpb]

[quote=desmond]This is a perfect example of what the article is about. The Pigg board has been in turmoil over the political hijacking in recent weeks, yet the Sarah Palin point by e-dropper, was he not capable of realizing what he was doing?[/quote]

I think e-dropper realized it, which is why he/she said, Again, in mentioning Ms. Palin, I’m not attempting to sway the direction of this thread to one that is political. I think the subject matter of the NYT article is strong enough to stand on its own, and hope that other Piggs will weigh in with their thoughts and opinions on it.

We don’t want it to be politics. It was a preface used as an example and no one’s intending to be about politics. (God, let’s not go there)

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – nice Star Trek exchange!

I wish you wouldn’t have picked Palin as an example. I agree w/the example, but I can see this turning to politics. I hope not. I got the point, which was anosognosia.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of what the article is about. The Pigg board has been in turmoil over the political hijacking in recent weeks, yet the Sarah Palin point by e-dropper, was he not capable of realizing what he was doing?[/quote]

My using Ms. Palin as an example of someone seemingly afflicted with anosognia does not constitute a political threadjack. I did not go into her political philosophies at all; I simply held her up as an example of someone who, despite evidence to the contrary, appears to have no doubts as to possessing a base of knowledge that is requisite in the job she is seeking.

In addition, I took special pains, in the original and in subsequent posts, to stress that I was not attempting to “threadjack” or turn the discussion to one of politics. The subject of the article is a fascinating one, and I was hoping for more discussion of its content. Speaking of which, the article is not about people not realizing what they are doing. Simplistically put, it’s about people not knowing what they are doing – and there is a difference. Many times, people get into situations that, in reality, they do not have the skills or knowledge to handle. The problem lies in them not having any idea that they can’t handle it. They have a particular set of skills typically based in concrete-type thinking, that do not allow any sort of comprehensive analysis of the problem and the appropriateness of solutions. Individuals with anosognosia will simply handle that problem like they handle all problems. They do not realize that what they are doing may be tantamount to pouring gasoline on a fire. When the situation is resolved despite their actions, that is confirmation (to them, and often others) that they are skilled and intelligent, instead of simply lucky. Not all that unusual in the everyday world.

However, when the situation implodes, the anosognosic still does not question why. At that point, he will shift the blame onto something or someone else. It’s not an evasive move; he really believes it. It comes down to the fact that, not only doesn’t he know the things necessary to perform the tasks of his job successfully, he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know them. There’s a very distinct gap there. Whether it’s behavioral, chemical, combination of both, or something else, I haven’t a clue. But I’m glad that someone’s taking it seriously and studying it.

Sorry, but I think it’s apparent from my earlier posts that I realized what I was doing, and took pains to let my fellow Piggs know my intentions. If someone reads those posts, and interprets them as a threadjack, or uses them as an excuse to get into a political pissing match, I can’t help them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – nice Star Trek exchange!

I wish you wouldn’t have picked Palin as an example. I agree w/the example, but I can see this turning to politics. I hope not. I got the point, which was anosognosia.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of what the article is about. The Pigg board has been in turmoil over the political hijacking in recent weeks, yet the Sarah Palin point by e-dropper, was he not capable of realizing what he was doing?[/quote]

My using Ms. Palin as an example of someone seemingly afflicted with anosognia does not constitute a political threadjack. I did not go into her political philosophies at all; I simply held her up as an example of someone who, despite evidence to the contrary, appears to have no doubts as to possessing a base of knowledge that is requisite in the job she is seeking.

In addition, I took special pains, in the original and in subsequent posts, to stress that I was not attempting to “threadjack” or turn the discussion to one of politics. The subject of the article is a fascinating one, and I was hoping for more discussion of its content. Speaking of which, the article is not about people not realizing what they are doing. Simplistically put, it’s about people not knowing what they are doing – and there is a difference. Many times, people get into situations that, in reality, they do not have the skills or knowledge to handle. The problem lies in them not having any idea that they can’t handle it. They have a particular set of skills typically based in concrete-type thinking, that do not allow any sort of comprehensive analysis of the problem and the appropriateness of solutions. Individuals with anosognosia will simply handle that problem like they handle all problems. They do not realize that what they are doing may be tantamount to pouring gasoline on a fire. When the situation is resolved despite their actions, that is confirmation (to them, and often others) that they are skilled and intelligent, instead of simply lucky. Not all that unusual in the everyday world.

However, when the situation implodes, the anosognosic still does not question why. At that point, he will shift the blame onto something or someone else. It’s not an evasive move; he really believes it. It comes down to the fact that, not only doesn’t he know the things necessary to perform the tasks of his job successfully, he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know them. There’s a very distinct gap there. Whether it’s behavioral, chemical, combination of both, or something else, I haven’t a clue. But I’m glad that someone’s taking it seriously and studying it.

Sorry, but I think it’s apparent from my earlier posts that I realized what I was doing, and took pains to let my fellow Piggs know my intentions. If someone reads those posts, and interprets them as a threadjack, or uses them as an excuse to get into a political pissing match, I can’t help them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – nice Star Trek exchange!

I wish you wouldn’t have picked Palin as an example. I agree w/the example, but I can see this turning to politics. I hope not. I got the point, which was anosognosia.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of what the article is about. The Pigg board has been in turmoil over the political hijacking in recent weeks, yet the Sarah Palin point by e-dropper, was he not capable of realizing what he was doing?[/quote]

My using Ms. Palin as an example of someone seemingly afflicted with anosognia does not constitute a political threadjack. I did not go into her political philosophies at all; I simply held her up as an example of someone who, despite evidence to the contrary, appears to have no doubts as to possessing a base of knowledge that is requisite in the job she is seeking.

In addition, I took special pains, in the original and in subsequent posts, to stress that I was not attempting to “threadjack” or turn the discussion to one of politics. The subject of the article is a fascinating one, and I was hoping for more discussion of its content. Speaking of which, the article is not about people not realizing what they are doing. Simplistically put, it’s about people not knowing what they are doing – and there is a difference. Many times, people get into situations that, in reality, they do not have the skills or knowledge to handle. The problem lies in them not having any idea that they can’t handle it. They have a particular set of skills typically based in concrete-type thinking, that do not allow any sort of comprehensive analysis of the problem and the appropriateness of solutions. Individuals with anosognosia will simply handle that problem like they handle all problems. They do not realize that what they are doing may be tantamount to pouring gasoline on a fire. When the situation is resolved despite their actions, that is confirmation (to them, and often others) that they are skilled and intelligent, instead of simply lucky. Not all that unusual in the everyday world.

However, when the situation implodes, the anosognosic still does not question why. At that point, he will shift the blame onto something or someone else. It’s not an evasive move; he really believes it. It comes down to the fact that, not only doesn’t he know the things necessary to perform the tasks of his job successfully, he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know them. There’s a very distinct gap there. Whether it’s behavioral, chemical, combination of both, or something else, I haven’t a clue. But I’m glad that someone’s taking it seriously and studying it.

Sorry, but I think it’s apparent from my earlier posts that I realized what I was doing, and took pains to let my fellow Piggs know my intentions. If someone reads those posts, and interprets them as a threadjack, or uses them as an excuse to get into a political pissing match, I can’t help them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – nice Star Trek exchange!

I wish you wouldn’t have picked Palin as an example. I agree w/the example, but I can see this turning to politics. I hope not. I got the point, which was anosognosia.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of what the article is about. The Pigg board has been in turmoil over the political hijacking in recent weeks, yet the Sarah Palin point by e-dropper, was he not capable of realizing what he was doing?[/quote]

My using Ms. Palin as an example of someone seemingly afflicted with anosognia does not constitute a political threadjack. I did not go into her political philosophies at all; I simply held her up as an example of someone who, despite evidence to the contrary, appears to have no doubts as to possessing a base of knowledge that is requisite in the job she is seeking.

In addition, I took special pains, in the original and in subsequent posts, to stress that I was not attempting to “threadjack” or turn the discussion to one of politics. The subject of the article is a fascinating one, and I was hoping for more discussion of its content. Speaking of which, the article is not about people not realizing what they are doing. Simplistically put, it’s about people not knowing what they are doing – and there is a difference. Many times, people get into situations that, in reality, they do not have the skills or knowledge to handle. The problem lies in them not having any idea that they can’t handle it. They have a particular set of skills typically based in concrete-type thinking, that do not allow any sort of comprehensive analysis of the problem and the appropriateness of solutions. Individuals with anosognosia will simply handle that problem like they handle all problems. They do not realize that what they are doing may be tantamount to pouring gasoline on a fire. When the situation is resolved despite their actions, that is confirmation (to them, and often others) that they are skilled and intelligent, instead of simply lucky. Not all that unusual in the everyday world.

However, when the situation implodes, the anosognosic still does not question why. At that point, he will shift the blame onto something or someone else. It’s not an evasive move; he really believes it. It comes down to the fact that, not only doesn’t he know the things necessary to perform the tasks of his job successfully, he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know them. There’s a very distinct gap there. Whether it’s behavioral, chemical, combination of both, or something else, I haven’t a clue. But I’m glad that someone’s taking it seriously and studying it.

Sorry, but I think it’s apparent from my earlier posts that I realized what I was doing, and took pains to let my fellow Piggs know my intentions. If someone reads those posts, and interprets them as a threadjack, or uses them as an excuse to get into a political pissing match, I can’t help them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – nice Star Trek exchange!

I wish you wouldn’t have picked Palin as an example. I agree w/the example, but I can see this turning to politics. I hope not. I got the point, which was anosognosia.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of what the article is about. The Pigg board has been in turmoil over the political hijacking in recent weeks, yet the Sarah Palin point by e-dropper, was he not capable of realizing what he was doing?[/quote]

My using Ms. Palin as an example of someone seemingly afflicted with anosognia does not constitute a political threadjack. I did not go into her political philosophies at all; I simply held her up as an example of someone who, despite evidence to the contrary, appears to have no doubts as to possessing a base of knowledge that is requisite in the job she is seeking.

In addition, I took special pains, in the original and in subsequent posts, to stress that I was not attempting to “threadjack” or turn the discussion to one of politics. The subject of the article is a fascinating one, and I was hoping for more discussion of its content. Speaking of which, the article is not about people not realizing what they are doing. Simplistically put, it’s about people not knowing what they are doing – and there is a difference. Many times, people get into situations that, in reality, they do not have the skills or knowledge to handle. The problem lies in them not having any idea that they can’t handle it. They have a particular set of skills typically based in concrete-type thinking, that do not allow any sort of comprehensive analysis of the problem and the appropriateness of solutions. Individuals with anosognosia will simply handle that problem like they handle all problems. They do not realize that what they are doing may be tantamount to pouring gasoline on a fire. When the situation is resolved despite their actions, that is confirmation (to them, and often others) that they are skilled and intelligent, instead of simply lucky. Not all that unusual in the everyday world.

However, when the situation implodes, the anosognosic still does not question why. At that point, he will shift the blame onto something or someone else. It’s not an evasive move; he really believes it. It comes down to the fact that, not only doesn’t he know the things necessary to perform the tasks of his job successfully, he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know them. There’s a very distinct gap there. Whether it’s behavioral, chemical, combination of both, or something else, I haven’t a clue. But I’m glad that someone’s taking it seriously and studying it.

Sorry, but I think it’s apparent from my earlier posts that I realized what I was doing, and took pains to let my fellow Piggs know my intentions. If someone reads those posts, and interprets them as a threadjack, or uses them as an excuse to get into a political pissing match, I can’t help them.

[desmond]

E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.

[desmond]

E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.

[desmond]

E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.

[desmond]

E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.

[desmond]

E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[Author]

Posts