What do they know

The Cap enjoys the seaside very much, as you can imagine. This pic immediately below was taken at the Aberdeen shoreline, where I visited on 13-14th June 2011. It held a certain strange fascination for me. I looked down on these barnacles, waiting for the water to wash up on them.

They would live, reproduce and die, oblivious to the world around them, or the complexity of the heavens above, or that someone was looking down on them.

Their lives are so simple compared to mine. “Would I trade places with them if given the chance?” I wondered.

My thoughts were interrupted by a splash of water against my feet.

I retreated. I walked and looked around. What a view.

And I thought of my life in the same way I looked upon the lowly barnacle. And then I thought, “There is so much up there that I don’t know about, so much I will never know about.”

I was motivated to publish this by Leonard Susskind, a renowned physicist who probes the deeper nature of reality.  He’s been called the bad boy of physics. In essence he was recently said that reality may forever be beyond the reach of our understanding. See Scientific American 2011-06-22. In a sense there’s nothing new in that. But somehow that sobering thought resonated with my experience of the barnacles. They too were limited in  ‘understanding’ the reality around them.

What do they know – is also to ask ‘what do we know’.

A few more

…to the one I love.

Suicide sticks

The following has been deep in my ‘substrata’ for months. It went deep because a colleague with an IQ of 147, opts to smoke cigarettes. Besides the IQ the person is exceptional in other ways. Quite unexpectedly this morning as I got the computer I launched spontaneously on this that I write now. I know that is the best way to let my thoughts connect with my finger tips.  You know this is coming from the heart. President Obama is given my attention later. And there’s a surprise.

If you’re a smoker and you’re sure that it is your choice to smoke cigarettes or use tobacco products, and you know all the ‘yarn’ about the dangers of smoking, kindly move on – you’re just one of the millions of the most ignorant, stupid and delusional people on this earth. If you got this far, you’re expecting this to be another lecture on the hazards of smoking. Move on now – the quicker the ignorant, stupid and delusional kill themselves the better for the human race! I think we all can agree on that one – even if you know you don’t fit my categorisation of you.

Someone reading this just thought “But lots of very intelligent people – doctors, judges, world leaders – who smoke tobacco products, surely they’re not stupid”. To which I would reply, “Stupidity and intelligence are quite often good bed fellows”. In fact my definition of stupidity includes being intelligent enough to know and assess risks (in general or specific) and in the face of high risk either rationalise persistent actions, ignore or ‘cover’ the risky behaviour. Well – yes, that covers ‘ignorance’ as an ‘attitude’ as well. Yes – President Obama falls into my definition. Doctors don’t really need to tell President Obama to stop smoking – get real – he knows the risks!

Here’s the surprise!! No lecture on the risk of tobacco products! That’s it! It would be a waste of my time and yours. It’ll become more obvious as to why soon.

I now simply give you my conclusions that there are two main kinds of stupid people on this earth

1. The first type is the one who doesn’t know of the risks, doesn’t have the wherewithal to assess the risk and merely follows the ‘herd’ blindly – over the proverbial cliff. But mind you this group is often exposed to some information on the risks, so they rather present as not knowing. In other words they lie to themselves.
2. The second type as I’ve mentioned above is the seemingly intelligent who knows of, or has the mental wherewithal to assess the risk but opts not to assess the risk, or having identified the thing precipitating the risk, does nothing to reduce of avoid it and is simply not bothered.

One way or the other I think anyone in the above groups eventually comes to a knowledge that they are killing themselves slowly.

But what if you’re a smoker and you genuinely do not fall into the above two groups of stupid people. Then there is some small hope for you. You’re not stupid – but you indulge in an act of stupidity. Yes – you know your actions (or inactions) do not fit. You worry – even silently to yourself – that you need to stop. That’s good but there is a risk that you move into and out of group 2 above.

I have no friends or close acquaintances who are smokers. Those smokers who would be inclined to closely associate with me would have a very hard time. Why? Because nearly every time I meet them I’d nag them to stop smoking. And the other thing of course is that the Cap has a slow tolerance of stupid people. Eventually those who smoke and attempt to seek my companionship will find that they avoid me. You see I’m easier to avoid than a cigarette!! In the toss up between me and a cigarette – I lose. I don’t believe that one of a pair of true friends would sit silently and allow the other to kill themselves, in such a stupid way.

So it’s a funny old world – innit? A fag is a smoker’s best friend. Fags provide comfort and death – I don’t.

I refuse to accept that I’m mad.

This might bring a chuckle to a few, however there is a recurrent theme in my life that I wanted to document. The situation has come up a few times in the last week – where I’m made to feel ‘I mad’. This is how it goes:

1. Person A will say ‘X is the case’.
2. I will record very carefully - write down verbatim what they say - because I have audiographic memory for long enough to so (only takes a few seconds really)
3. I’ll show Person A that ‘X is not the case’ either because there is no tangible evidence, or because they reasoning is entirely wrong against any basic standard. When I say basic, I mean a thing cannot be the same and it’s opposite at the same time e.g. one cannot be dead and alive at the same time (in the normal course of everyday events).
4. Person A will then assert that:
   1. They never said ‘X was the case’.
   2. They didn’t mean it like ‘that’ i.e. the way I took it.
5. Person A will then introduce new conditions that weren’t present or declared in the original proposition – so as to bolster their own position that ‘X was the case’.
6. I would point out what they did – in excruciating detail.
7. Person A may take offence of some kind, and in least-case scenario will not show it or try to cover it. In worse case scenario they would use foul language so as to attempt to bully me out of what they actually said. It never works.

In another set of scenarios I’m dealing with in the background the following is happening:

1. They ask for “X”
2. I say the extent of “X” is unreasonable – and list why with evidence and reasoning – the main issue is potential loss of earnings.
3. They respond by indicating that it’s something to do with me not booking holidays.
4. Clearly it isn’t, because the issue is potential loss of earnings if I make myself available  to them, over a certain period and therefore lose opportunity of work. How on earth holidays could have anything to do with the matter me escapes me – and of course this means I’m ‘mad’ – if I don’t understand stupid logic!?
5. So I respond with detailed questions and set the context very clear – so that an average 10 year old can understand.
6. They respond after several weeks delay with the same references to holiday – totally oblivious to my detailed questions – I mean as if I didn’t even ask, even though the questions are quite clearly visible in the email thread.

You might think that the above is the result of a bunch of fools down on a god-forsaken Rock. Actually the responses come from lawyers in very high powered organisation in this country – people who are paid shitloads of money to be of a certain exceptional calibre (one might expect).

Some may be thinking, “Why does he persist?”. The answer is that I am not certain. Sometimes I think that I’m on a journey – one of discovery, perhaps. I don’t know exactly why I’m on it or where it leads, but there is something in my soul that will not allow me to rest. At times I tend to loathe being part of this race – the human race. They are so monumentally stupid – and I seem to bear physical and other resemblance to them. However, I’m so different. I’ve often said that I’m from another world – and at times I wishfully wonder if my journey is meant to get me back ‘home’. How did I become lost here – will probably unfold at some point in the future. When others try to insult me that "You’re from another planet!!” – I actually agree with them. Mad I am not!

Inefficient thinking

People (in general – and yes there are numerous exceptions) know how to use household appliances, iron their clothes, make a sandwich etc – nothing surprising there. Some might know how to use a computer, fix a car, or a bicycle. Others may know how to build computers, programme computers, design circuit boards etc etc.. you get the drift – basically people have various levels of skill.

But here’s the thing – and I see it on and off this blog repeatedly and nauseatingly – people seem unable to use their brains to maximal capacity. First I must ask, “Do people know how to use their own brains (minds if you wish)?”. No – I'm not talking about lower level of skill in using the ‘head’ as in adding up some figures, remembering a few facts, or being merely creative. I’m talking about the integrity of processes behind all that. I’m talking about the core processes. For those in IT – I’m talking ‘kernel’ as against OS (by analogy of course).

At some point on this blog you may see Jumbie or I taking issue with a certain thing. It’s usually the conclusions formed that cause much debate or dissection. How do people come to conclusions? What reasoning processes exist ‘in the head’? How good are those processes? ‘Good’, of course, meaning how well the mind can sift through competing issues, separate non-issues and battle with unconscious biases that would sway the proper application of logical rules.

Each person holds himself to be ‘good’. You hardly hear anyone saying genuinely “I’m so stupid, that it’s not worth listening to what I say”. But the reality is that each of those people, holding themselves to be good at thinking, actually isn’t as good as they may think. And who am I to stand in judgement you may wonder cynically. It’s not about me – it’s about each person looking at the way the other person’s mind comes to ‘their truth’ and how those ‘truths’ are pressed or passed to others.

What are the rules of logic? What is poor logical reasoning? How many people know about these things. Does Captain Walker know more than others about it? Sure – thing. And I say so not because I wish to boast about it – but because it is a matter of fact that when I refer people to the fallacies of logic – there are usually two kinds of responses:

1. Self-defence – or rather psychological defence i.e. a response that protects the perceived integrity of ‘self’.
2. Silence.

By now, if you got this far – you’d be expected to think “What the F* is he on about?” Yep – at least one thing is clear to me – I know myself. And knowing myself – I know that I don’t just teach. I think and I stimulate others to think.

And what about inefficient thinking? Is the above inefficient? I knew you’d get there. It isn’t. The above was only to ensure that some exceptional person would appreciate that on occasion I deal with obstacles first. And the biggest obstacles to efficient thinking are the mind itself and it’s emotions. The mind driven by emotions often does two main things:

1. Bends the rules of logic (whether known or not).
2. At the speed of light, turn inferences formed as a result of bent logic into fact.

And what about logic? The mathematical aspects of logical representation are not easy for most people. The easier route to learning about logic is to learn about logical fallacies. No you don’t have to do this. But for those who really want to extract some real truth out of the world and who wish to make their thinking more efficient the following resources may be of some assistance:

• Logical Fallacies – an encyclopaedia of errors of reasoning
• The Nizkor Project – 42 logical fallacies dissected – very readable and with good examples

Too often in my work (which is always ‘classified’), I see people accepting premises based on fragile evidence and reasoning. A group of premises may stack up to form conclusions. Now, if we accept premises that are not well based in evidence or reasoning, then the conclusions we form are like a ‘house of cards’ – it may look good but would fall if only slightly shaken. [Note the ‘if’ word]. In fact it takes only one bad premise to be shaken and the whole thing could come crashing down. So my policy is sound reasoning, sound logic and sound evidence. It might sound ‘simple’ but really when you get to decision-making, there are so many competing factors that come into the fold. It’s amazing how people start introducing criteria that are of no relevance. They then usually say things like ‘I’m just saying…”. And I often respond seemingly rudely to them – but very politely: “If it isn’t of relevance to the decision-making criteria then it ought not to be said” – and that’s a fact. But it’s amazing to see how people feel slighted by facts.

For those wondering why I’ve written the above – I’ve written it for me primarily, with a small degree of hope (because I don’t live on hope) that it may help at least one other person out there. Why primarily for me? Because I need to ensure that I can easily find these thoughts and references in the future.

Captain Walker's Seven Pillars of Apology:

1. The apology must be objectively perceived (i.e. to the majority of observers or the intended recipient) as genuine and sincere, taking into account all verbal and non-verbal cues of the person offering the apology


2. There must be unqualified admission of wrongdoing.


3. Clarity and specificity about what the wrongdoing was.


4. Unqualified acceptance of personal responsibility for the wrongdoing or acceptance of wrongdoing on behalf of an entity which the individual represents.


5. Declaration and acknowledgement of the 'principles' that were offended.


6. Specific acknowledgement of any individuals or entities who are known to be offended, or likely to be offended.


7. An indelible committment not to err in the same way in the future.

The above foundations I suggest are acceptable to most 'right-thinking' people. Anything less than the sum total of the above is mere lip-service.

An apology obviously has to be appropriate to the precise wrongdoing. In other words if one apologises on a matter that was not centrally at issue, then the apology is worthless.