But I’ve had academic types attempt to explain to me how one can only be “prejudiced” in the racial sense of the word and not against, say green jello.

But I still am strongly prejudiced against green jello, and a writer who persistently puts out exaggerated and misapplied scandalized information to achieve a goal, is still spreading “agit-prop”.

Of course, if a word, like “imperialism” can be shifted in meaning to be convenient for the user, more power to you, Max.

I was asking Drew to consider the implications of his own argument about anonymous sources. I never cared that they were anonymous, nor that Drew is anonymous. However, Drew seemed to care. Therefore, I simply suggested that if we are to dismiss one side for being anonymous, then we dismiss the other side too. It’s called being fair and balanced. However, I now gather that Drew would like me to take credit for his argument about anonymity, and I wish to be modest and reject it.

We all know what agit-prop means. Unfortunately Drew’s definition is so generous and decontextualized, like his idea of what mercenary means, that by his definition a good Christmas carol is also “agit-prop” as is a warning label on bottle of aspirin. When it’s that broad, it’s useless.

Finally, I suspect a similar word play is occurring with “intellectual imperialism.” This should have Marc rolling with laughter, as it did with me — it credits me with such vast influence and power, such immense control, such an ability to exploit resources, the capacity to knock out all competitors that…well, it’s best just to end with laughter here and call it a day. I get enough doublethink from the media as it is.

I’m really glad you joined the fray. I’m a “knock down, drag out” kind of impassioned discussion personality. Then I’m a “knock a few back and talk about life” kind of guy.

Personally, I think your writing is probably factual, but I don’t think it’s necessarily truthful. I’m not saying it’s your fault either, I just think that your sources are using you to accomplish their goals, and you don’t have the ability to realize that while your shot-group is tight, it’s not on target. Ironically, a lot of your criticism is similar to the criticism levelled against SF when it was first embodied.

My end goal is closer to Max Forte’s than (apparently) yours. I’d like to see the US Military as we know it dismantled, with most of their non-core processes delegated to DoS and other non-military entities. I see HTS as a way to help this along, just a little bit, and incidentally re-integrate academia into the processes, which I think will speed it along some more. The military-civilian divide is too large, and has been going on for too long, imo.

Contrary to Max, though, I don’t see war as necessarily evil. In fact, I’m certain that we disagree on what “imperialism” is. I would assert that his version of Anthropology is “intellectual imperialism”.

Marc, I am going to have to wander over and check out you new CD.

No worries – we share a love of arguing (GRIN).

“How ’bout we view the sources as akin to entities in the quantum/sub-atomic world that can’t be seen but whose presence is a mathematical certainty (think of the read out from a particle collider).”

I’ve thought about that, but I really don’t think it can apply. “Mathematical certainty”, at least in this case, implies a population that is so high that macro-level effects can be probabilistically stated which just can’t be done with 30 (or 300 or 3000; we’re talking 3 x 10^20th +). Given the small number of people working in the HTS, we’d be better off just taking a census than trying to use a probability model (wry grin).

On the talking to proteins thing, well, most forms of genetic engineering actually don’t “talk” with the gene sequences they want to use; they just cut them out and transplant them, sometimes quite forcefully (take a look at gene guns – they’re pretty cool!).

Let me just get back to the “[anonymous] sources” for a minute, ’cause I think that is a real sticking point for all of us. I’m thinking that I’ll write an article on this but, hey, I blog as a way of writing and tossing out ideas to be shot down (grin).

Okay, basically, there are three major types of logic that can be used: deductive, inductive and abductive. Deductive relies on a model that is well understood and concerns “truth” validated against the model. Inductive relies on a less well understood collection of models and, rather than dealing with “truth” deals with “probability”. The two mathematical languages involved are predicate logic and probability theory respectively.

Abductive logic deals with “plausibility”, but assigns no mathematical “value” to any statement coming out of it (BTW, most rhetoric uses abductive logic for its organization, but applies other types for its justification).

All three logics use “data”, but what qualifies as “data” varies as does the applicability of a datum for use in each of the other logics. Generally, deductive logic requires that “data” conform to pre-defined (in the model) characteristics, and uses crisp sets (another mathematical language or, at least, dialect!) to define what is what (i.e. a datum either is or is not a member of X). Inductive logic is similar, but tends to use either fuzzy sets or Bayesian sets; the key requirement is being able to (partly) quantify the value of a datum (i.e. a datum is a partial member of X). Abductive logic uses sets that are so fuzzy, they are almost unrecognizable – i.e. a datum may be a member of X, nobody has proven otherwise.

Back to anonymous sources… In a typical case of an anonymous poster in an online community, after a while you can get a rough “feel” for what they know and what they don’t; their posting history gives you enough “data” to shift them from abductive to indictive. The same is true in fairly long ethnographies and in anonymized (i.e. fake names, code names, etc.) journalistic sources that show up in story after story – you can get a “feel” for them.

But sources that are anonymous but not anonymized? That’s a real problem because you can’t start putting the comments in mental “piles”, so it’s really hard to shift them from abductive to inductive.

Back to the talking issue … One of the key things about humans is that we have a tendency to say things based on biases, agendas, etc., and that’s one of the key things other people try to get a handle on when evaluating what someone else says. Again, once you have enough data, you can get a rough idea of people’s biases and that helps you to assign probabilities to what they say. We just can’t do that with totally anonymous sources (not anonymized), so we are back at abductive logic and only dealing with what is plausible.

Damn, I’m just going to write this up over the next few days and get you folks to take a whack at it. As if I didn’t already have enough on my plate (GRIN).

All great comments and critique.

Marc…Don’t know if I’m going back to the CIC gig in the UK. I’m waiting to hear on a gig in Chile.

Some thoughts here.

Got an email from someone saying that HTS has modified their website a wee bit. Blue is gone, no more contact names listed.

My comment should have read kill/supression chain (not change)…Sorry for the other typo’s.

Please know I did not mean to insult anyone here. I really love arguing, critique. It’s one of the best stimulants around.

How ’bout we view the sources as akin to entities in the quantum/sub-atomic world that can’t be seen but whose presence is a mathematical certainty (think of the read out from a particle collider).

If I remember correctly, many proteins are information processors. To manipulate proteins/genes, you’ve got to “talk” to them in their language(AGTC). Not communicating properly with them means no genetic engineeering. Perhaps they are not talking back yet–their are planning their revolt.

The cognitive sciences are beginning to give us a measure of predictability in human behavior. We are replicable creatures in most ways. Perhaps we can’t apply “hard” analysis to ourselves because we do not want to. Our uniqueness is hyped too much (my own view).

Sources are not all SOF. Social scientists in the mix too. I’m aware of the bias. More than a few SOF folks want to see the program stay in the open.

Pravda and Cryptome are read by US intel elements as part of their sweeps. Fine places to ensure info gets to the right audience. Plus, NYT/WAPO would never publish this series not only ’cause of “sources” but it’s too controversial, I think.

Don’t agree that pieces are agit-prop. Agitation, most definitely. The comments of the sources and the style are designed to agitate and motivate for change. I don’t think the propaganda portion applys. I’m not fabricating stories to agitiate/motivate. For example: Fondacaro-McFate-Rotkoff are the TRADOC version of the Axis of Evil.

“Still, I’m wondering about Max’s comment on “anonymity”, which is somehow good for a source, but not good when someone is pointing out simple logic flaws.”

Honestly, I can’t remember who first pulled out the anonymity – it may have been me; I know I certainly raised it as a major issue with how you treat anonymous comments – i.e. what types of logic can be applied to them. That also spills over into your comment on logical flaws.

It can be a real pain to weigh anonymous comments; even those on logic . Think about some of the characters who use anonymity to “pose” on boards. Eventually, they will usually get caught out as being unreliable since you can start to see holes in their stories – stuff that just doesn’t add up. The converse is true as well for people who aren’t posing; eventually what they say adds up and you can go “Yup, they know their Sierra”.

But how about in journalistic articles or on blog comments? They usually don’t post enough for you to get a handle on them. And, at least with blog comments, this is made even worse by the fact that most people who post comments on them tend to do so when they are emotionally driven, which distorts their presentation of self making it harder to judge them.

Journalistic sources are probably worse than blog comments, at least in the sense of trying to get a handle on them. For one thing, it is pretty rare to find any identifying handle on them like you have with blog comments so, often, it is impossible to assign even a holder to “sources” (similar to a blog handle). That just increases the uncertainty and, when that happens, you have to change what logic you use to evaluate things.

As a side note, I am seriously thinking about writing up an article on data, logic, etc….

“Marc knows who I am, and while I may be a “blood-soaked imperial mercenary murderer”, I am not even close to being a sock puppet. Unless you’re talking about one of those really fancy stockings that need a garter belt to hold up, and then, mmmm, maybe we can talk.”

Definitely not a sock puppet (GRIN). I won’t touch that garter belt comment with a 20′ pole…

And, on a totally different note, I thought I’d let you know that our new CD is out (http://ottawabachchoir.ca/eng/media/recordings/jesumeinefreude.htm) and it is really amazing! After all, even “blood soaked, Imperial mercenary murders” (:rolleyes!) need relaxation (GRIN).

Cheers!

Marc

Unfortunately, it is often necessary to lean on facts to make the information match your goals, at times. If not discard facts altogether.

I just figured Max needed a little help with that term…. ;^)

In response to John’s assertion that “everyone believes that HTS should be moved to SOF and CA” I restate the assertion that nearly everything that SOF touches becomes “theirs” and they do not share. At all. The info gathered by the new and improved HTS, as configured under SOCOM, would then become “super-de-dooper-ty” secret, and would no longer be available to the lowly BCTs and Bn Task Forces which the program was originally developed to serve. Added to this, the new SOCOM-driven HTS teams would operate at will in the BCT and Bn TF areas, interfering and pre-empting conventional ops, eventually resulting in conventional troops fratriciding an HTT.

Which would give idealogues and pseudo-journalists, like Max and John, even more to misunderstand, misinterpret and rant about. (Which would be good for them, imo.)

I would suggest that criticism from SOF/CA -experienced individuals be looked at with a somewhat jaundiced eye: They have an in-group bias that is very, very strong. As well as a history of not playing well with others (most of which is created by the Big Army, btw)

On sock puppets: Max, I merely pointed out the more obvious places in one of Mr. Stanton’s thinly veiled agit-prop pieces (and yes, I’m still using that phrase correctly, both literally and figuratively) where Mr. Occam’s razor should’ve been applied initially to point out that there was, indeed, a much simpler and less conspiracy-theory dependent explanation for many of the phenomena that he points out.

In Mr. Stanton’s defense, his articles on HTS ARE becoming more in line with being factual as opposed to being tin-foil hat material.

Still, I’m wondering about Max’s comment on “anonymity”, which is somehow good for a source, but not good when someone is pointing out simple logic flaws. Marc knows who I am, and while I may be a “blood-soaked imperial mercenary murderer”, I am not even close to being a sock puppet. Unless you’re talking about one of those really fancy stockings that need a garter belt to hold up, and then, mmmm, maybe we can talk.

BTW, Max, I’ve been reading your blog, and am reminded of the Demosthenes/Locke strategy of the Wiggins children in the Orson Scott Card series on “Ender”. You are truly the master of insinuation, projection and strategic communications. Bravo! I admire your skill.