Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" is probably the common joke/phrase you were going for.

There is a lot to be said for twisting numbers to mean what you want.

33% for, 33% against, and 33% neutral can be used as:

"Look, only 1/3rd of the people voting want this!"

"Look, only 1/3rd of the people are against this!"

"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not in favor of this!"

"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not against this!"

"Look, Ice Cream!"

Also depends on what you ask , recently we had the following situation crop up :

True that!

15 years of management and process improvement has taught me that.

 Smacks wrote:
But I think they would still want you to present them one at a time, and give the prosecution a chance to respond. It's not that it is illegitimate to present multiple arguments, but it might be a waste of time where one will suffice. In the court analogy, If you can show that an accused person has an ironclad alibi, then you could probably get the case dismissed on the strength of that alone, without having to go to trial at all.

True, but often it’s rare to find a single, absolute argument that completely settles the matter. More typically it is a range of evidence from a range of sources that makes the truth clear. To return to the courtroom analogy, an alibi might be strong but there is always a chance it was falsified, a possibility that becomes quite likely when you consider the state’s evidence that DNA was found on the victim. But if we also add in that no motive was established, and the physical inability of the accused to kill the victim in the way in which it was done, then in combination those things might form a sufficient argument.

You make a good point about presenting each element separately, and I guess that’s one of the reasons that courts have strict processes, to help isolate and explore each piece of evidence in turn. But on the internet that isn’t always practical. I mean, I guess you can ask someone that you’ll give each point in turn, moving from piece to piece after each has been discussed sufficiently, but good luck with that

But again, I do agree that just dropping piles of ‘evidence’ with no summary or overall summary is bad form. I just think that if each bit of evidence is summarised, and they are used to form an overall argument, well then that’s probably closer to internet debate at it’s best, not at it’s worst.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think this is something worth keeping in mind, but it's a bad idea to take it to extremes. Some people really are just horrible people and there's no point in trying to understand things from their perspective. All you can do is attempt to mitigate the damage they want to cause.

I agree. Thankfully, all of those people hold positions that are contrary to mine, isn't that a lucky coincidence?

 LordofHats wrote:
I like the sentiment, but then I read some posts in the Oregon Standoff Thread (or even the classic Bundy Standoff thread) and remember that yes. Sometimes the other side really is just dumb.

I think Sebster has the nail. Politics is lowest common denominator rules, and I don't really see how that will ever change. The other side is dumb. So is the other other side. So much of what goes on in daily discourse in the US is just stupid political grand standing with little if any substance behind it. Who was the guy that said "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter?" Not a nice sentiment, but there was substance to it.

The thing that always makes me suspicious of quotes like that is that it's clear the author and everyone who repeats the quote, considers themselves to be "above average". It's just one more variation on "agreeing with me makes you a smart person!".

IME, most people (including me) have a craving to feel like they're smarter than someone else, even if that's a very low bar to jump. The issue they choose to get excited about, and the stance they're taking, barely matters--what's important is to be sufficiently passionate about it, and never compromising or showing weakness in the face of the "enemy". If you do that, you'll be rewarded with a sweet, soothing certainty that you're one of the good guys in a world gone mad. You gain certainty in your own mind, in exchange for making the outside world feel scary and stupid.

 Elemental wrote:


The thing that always makes me suspicious of quotes like that is that it's clear the author and everyone who repeats the quote, considers themselves to be "above average". It's just one more variation on "agreeing with me makes you a smart person!".

I looked it up and it was Winston Churchill, which makes sense cause he's always struck me as kind of a dick

And well, I have a link to adorable bunnies in my sig for being a jerk (they're seriously adorable though, click it )

 Elemental wrote:
The thing that always makes me suspicious of quotes like that is that it's clear the author and everyone who repeats the quote, considers themselves to be "above average". It's just one more variation on "agreeing with me makes you a smart person!".

I don't know if that's true, I'm quite happy to agree with it, repeat it, and also admit that it applies to me too. There are things I'm not knowledgeable enough about to be able to make an informed decision on. For example, there has been talk here in the UK, for some time, about having a referendum on the Euro. I'm not an economist, I honestly have no idea if it would be right for Britain to switch to the Euro, and I'd bet 99.9% of voters are in the same boat. That kind of thing should be left to experts and annalists to make recommendations on IMO, not mob rule.

To be fair, however, anyone repeating the quote probably is above average. You might be surprised just how bad the average is. There are huge swathes of people who are shockingly ignorant, and aren't interested in ever remedying that. A word like democracy might not even be in their vocabulary.

Churchill also said that democracy was a terrible form of government whose only advantage was that all the others that had been tried were worse.

 Smacks wrote:
To be fair, however, anyone repeating the quote probably is above average. You might be surprised just how bad the average is. There are huge swathes of people who are shockingly ignorant, and aren't interested in ever remedying that. A word like democracy might not even be in their vocabulary.

Got a source for that assertion, or are you just taking it as given that the "average person" is stupider than me or you in every possible way by which intelligence might be measured? And are you entirely sure that nobody who bumped into you when you were having a bad day or working outside your comfort zone now thinks of that meeting as their go-to proof of how humankind is irredeemably dumb?

But in any case, regardless of how I compare to the "average person", and even if I was clearly superior, I find it entirely unhelpful and toxic to congratulate myself on being better than them.

 Elemental wrote:

But in any case, regardless of how I compare to the "average person", and even if I was clearly superior, I find it entirely unhelpful and toxic to congratulate myself on being better than them.

But it's useful to be aware of the limitations of others. I know a lot of brilliant people that are clearly frustrated or even angry that the people around them do not understand things as quickly or do not see multiple angles as clearly as they do. Learning what other people can or cannot do is useful.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think this is something worth keeping in mind, but it's a bad idea to take it to extremes. Some people really are just horrible people and there's no point in trying to understand things from their perspective. All you can do is attempt to mitigate the damage they want to cause.

Bolding mine.

This sounds suspiciously close to declaring some people ideological tainted. What worries me is that the follow up 'attempt to mitigate the damage they want to cause'. Mitigate how?

 Kojiro wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I think this is something worth keeping in mind, but it's a bad idea to take it to extremes. Some people really are just horrible people and there's no point in trying to understand things from their perspective. All you can do is attempt to mitigate the damage they want to cause.

Bolding mine.

This sounds suspiciously close to declaring some people ideological tainted. What worries me is that the follow up 'attempt to mitigate the damage they want to cause'. Mitigate how?

Ehh... on reading this further, I think you're on to something Kojiro. Personally, I think that it's extremely difficult to look at a contemporary person's ideology, as it's happening and fully "understand" their view. That said, as a history major and someone who reads a boat load of history books, I think that there IS a value in looking to the past and attempting to learn and understand the perspective of a monster like Hitler or Stalin, no matter how much it sickens us or how much we disagree with it. Obviously, that ideology and those ideas, despite being so horribly wrong, were what led to their actions.


From this perspective, I see what Peregrine is trying to say... Certain politically active people are currently campaigning, and espousing views that to some, are eerily reminiscent of some of humanity's worst leaders. The mitigation comes in when others stand up and say, "No, that is absolutely not right, and it's not how we're going to do things"

 Elemental wrote:
Got a source for that assertion, or are you just taking it as given that the "average person" is stupider than me or you in every possible way by which intelligence might be measured? And are you entirely sure that nobody who bumped into you when you were having a bad day or working outside your comfort zone now thinks of that meeting as their go-to proof of how humankind is irredeemably dumb?

I wasn't talking about people I "bumped into" and made a snap judgement about. There are people who I know well, that have zero interest in learning things. Intelligence doesn't even enter into it. If someone doesn't even have the desire to inform themselves about things, then what hope do they have of making an informed decision as a voter?

If you really want to talk assertions and sources, then perhaps you could do me the courtesy of setting your goalposts within the realms of reality: " Every possible way by which intelligence might be measured" would be a big ask even if we had every scientific mind on the planet working around the clock. It's a field of exploration that humanity, as a whole, has barely scratched the surface of. It is well beyond the scope of anything I would agree I asserted, or could possibly prove. I think you are putting words in my mouth.

My assertions are:
1. "There are people who bring the averages down". This isn't exactly a bold claim, it's just an intrinsic part of how averages work.
2. "You might be shocked, by just how low the averages are". I guess this also implies that you might not, so all the possibilities are kind of covered here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Churchill also said that democracy was a terrible form of government whose only advantage was that all the others that had been tried were worse.

Churchill also said he couldn't understand why anyone had a problem with using poison gas on uncivilised tribes. And didn't believe any wrong had been done to the American Indians or Australian Aboriginals, as they had simply been replaced by a superior race.

Churchill said a lot of things, is the point. He had a great turn phrase and in places showed some amazing insight, but in a lot of ways he was actually a complete dick, even by the standards of the time. So him saying something shouldn't actually give it an any authority just because he said it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
But in any case, regardless of how I compare to the "average person", and even if I was clearly superior, I find it entirely unhelpful and toxic to congratulate myself on being better than them.

I agree it is toxic to just assume you're smarter than another person, and probably worse still to consider yourself smarter than some vague notion of 'average'. But that doesn’t mean we should start pretending that other people always have a view that’s well thought and based on facts.

Larry Summers is a great economist, and he once started a research paper with the sentence ‘There are idiots, look around’. He was talking about false assumptions in EMH, but still, it works perfectly in this situation and so many others. Lots of people, either through lack of intellect, laziness, or because they’re caught up in a very derpy ideology, will believe some fething stupid stuff. I mean, seriously, look around.

The answer then, is to assess other people’s arguments based on their strengths, but work as hard you can to keep your opinion of your own ideas and intelligence in check.

Churchill was a good point man in a war. Not necessarily as a strategist, but as a booster and emotional leader. He was, in many ways, a necessary evil. Not unlike that friend you hung with in college only because he could get you weed.

 Polonius wrote:
Churchill was a good point man in a war. Not necessarily as a strategist, but as a booster and emotional leader. He was, in many ways, a necessary evil. Not unlike that friend you hung with in college only because he could get you weed.

 Polonius wrote:
Churchill was a good point man in a war. Not necessarily as a strategist, but as a booster and emotional leader. He was, in many ways, a necessary evil. Not unlike that friend you hung with in college only because he could get you weed.

Churchill was a lot of things. I think calling him a booster and emotional leader is probably reducing him to his more famous wartime speeches, and not giving enough credit to the rest of his leadership. I mean sure, he meddled in military matters in ways that were almost always negative, but in strategy and positioning he was excellent. He’s the guy who figured out that while Britain couldn’t hope to re-engage on the continent by itself, continued British resistance meant strangling German supplies, which in turn would mean open war on all ships on the seas, and therefore US entry in to the war inevitable.

Now, maybe that would have happened anyway. But maybe not. The French blundered from ceasefire, to pacification, and into occupation because they didn’t understand that opening peace talks with Germany was a thin end of the wedge. Maybe a different British leader would have also understand that, I don’t know. But Churchill got it, and deserves a lot of credit.

But on the other side his military meddling got men killed, and he was an amazing kind of racist, even by the standards of the time.

 sebster wrote:
But on the other side his military meddling got men killed, and he was an amazing kind of racist, even by the standards of the time.

Personally, I think that Churchill more than many leaders of the day better understood "getting men killed"... He was, afterall the man who was principle in the Gallipoli tragedy. It was so bad, it basically forced him out of government for a good while, till after people's memory's subsided, and eventually he was made PM.

It was that failure at Gallipoli which, I think made him a "better" decision maker on the whole during WW2.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


It was that failure at Gallipoli which, I think made him a "better" decision maker on the whole during WW2.

It's something of an irony really. The campaign seemed to give Churchill a much better perspective than he had previously from a strategic stand point. It also gave rise to Australian and New Zealand nationalism (plus all the dead Irishmen was a major call to arms for the Irish War of Independence), which were big in ending the Empire Churchill desperately wanted to restore to glory

 Kojiro wrote:
This sounds suspiciously close to declaring some people ideological tainted.

Depends on what you mean by "ideologically tainted". If you mean "so out of touch with reality and/or morality that they have nothing of value to offer to society" then yes, they're tainted.

What worries me is that the follow up 'attempt to mitigate the damage they want to cause'. Mitigate how?

Depends on what they're doing. In some cases mitigation might mean giving up on the person with the horrifyingly wrong position and focusing on explaining to other people why that position is wrong. In other cases it might mean sending the person to prison asap so that, even if there is no chance of rehabilitating them and making them a useful member of society, they will at least be unable to hurt anyone.

 sebster wrote:
Churchill was a lot of things. I think calling him a booster and emotional leader is probably reducing him to his more famous wartime speeches, and not giving enough credit to the rest of his leadership. I mean sure, he meddled in military matters in ways that were almost always negative, but in strategy and positioning he was excellent. He’s the guy who figured out that while Britain couldn’t hope to re-engage on the continent by itself, continued British resistance meant strangling German supplies, which in turn would mean open war on all ships on the seas, and therefore US entry in to the war inevitable.

Now, maybe that would have happened anyway. But maybe not. The French blundered from ceasefire, to pacification, and into occupation because they didn’t understand that opening peace talks with Germany was a thin end of the wedge. Maybe a different British leader would have also understand that, I don’t know. But Churchill got it, and deserves a lot of credit.

But on the other side his military meddling got men killed, and he was an amazing kind of racist, even by the standards of the time.

I could have been clearer. I think you are correct in that Churchill had a grasp for grand strategy: how to fight and win wars of national peril. Operational strategy was not, as shown at Gallipoli and Norway, a strong suit.

The purpose of Gallipoli was to allow the RN to penetrate the Dardanelles, put pressure on Turkey to pull out of the war, and thereby allow Czarist Russia to resume agricultural exports via the Black Sea into the Med, important for their economy. This was not unrealistic strategy.

Gallipoli would have worked if the operation had been carried out quickly, but it wasn't. So in this case I think Churchill's original strategic concept was quite good but the operational execution was ballsed up in various ways, which wasn't entirely Churchill's fault but someone had to carry the can.

The only positive result of the Norway campaign in WW2 was that serious losses were inflicted on the Kriegsmarine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Gallipoli would have worked if the operation had been carried out quickly, but it wasn't. So in this case I think Churchill's original strategic concept was quite good but the operational execution was ballsed up in various ways, which wasn't entirely Churchill's fault but someone had to carry the can.

I believe he commented on that himself, quoting Napoleon... something along the lines of "you can't win wars without taking risks". I think he was referring to the commanders being too timid in launching the attack, but it's often misinterpreted as a rather insensitive comment along the lines of Oh well! You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs". Hopefully, that isn't how he intended it.

 Smacks wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Gallipoli would have worked if the operation had been carried out quickly, but it wasn't. So in this case I think Churchill's original strategic concept was quite good but the operational execution was ballsed up in various ways, which wasn't entirely Churchill's fault but someone had to carry the can.

I believe he commented on that himself, quoting Napoleon... something along the lines of "you can't win wars without taking risks". I think he was referring to the commanders being too timid in launching the attack, but it's often misinterpreted as a rather insensitive comment along the lines of Oh well! You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs". Hopefully, that isn't how he intended it.

This kinda confuses me as I've heard just the opposite. If you take too many risks they tend to fail and sometimes horribly. I've often heard if you want to stay alive in a war you often don't take risks. In games I've played (admittedly they're just games) taking risks can have massive negative consequences. It's usually best to play it safe. Xcom is one big example to this. If you play greedy often and make a bunch of careless moves it tends to kill at least a guy and sometimes more if you move in to save the one team member. I suppose I'd say taking risks can matter with the size of the risk involved and what you have to gain from it as opposed to what you could lose for it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, I think that Churchill more than many leaders of the day better understood "getting men killed"... He was, afterall the man who was principle in the Gallipoli tragedy.

I'm sure he had a very good understanding of ‘getting men killed’. I’m not sure what his understanding of it means, though, when he kept fething doing it.

It was so bad, it basically forced him out of government for a good while, till after people's memory's subsided, and eventually he was made PM.

The irony being that Churchill directly interfered in Narvik, including giving direct operational orders that turned out to be disastrous. Now Narvik might have failed anyway, and also some of the blame should have gone to senior British admiralty who should have told Churchill to get out or they’d resign. But the fact remains Churchill’s interference was a massive detriment to the operation, but the failure of the operation propelled him in to the Prime Ministership.

It was that failure at Gallipoli which, I think made him a "better" decision maker on the whole during WW2.

On a grand, national scale I think Churchill was an extremely insightful man and a great leader. He understood politics, especially politics of the extreme. But when it came to military matters, I think he was pretty consistently terrible throughout his political life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
I could have been clearer. I think you are correct in that Churchill had a grasp for grand strategy: how to fight and win wars of national peril. Operational strategy was not, as shown at Gallipoli and Norway, a strong suit.

All agreed then


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's something of an irony really. The campaign seemed to give Churchill a much better perspective than he had previously from a strategic stand point. It also gave rise to Australian and New Zealand nationalism (plus all the dead Irishmen was a major call to arms for the Irish War of Independence), which were big in ending the Empire Churchill desperately wanted to restore to glory

I hadn't thought of it that way. That's quite lovely, really

I just have to say, by the way, that the Australian understanding of Gallipoli is hopelessly nationalistic and woefully misinformed. Hardly any Australians have any idea how small the ANZAC forces were, and how our casualties weren't actually higher than other nations. Funnily enough, the major complaint of the Australians in the campaign was ANZAC Cove not being used for any major offensives. And it’s even weirder how Australians will talk with absolute conviction how it made Australia as a nation - except that before Gallipoli we were a democratic, egalitarian nation tied closely to the Commonwealth, and afterwards we were a democratic, egalitarian nation tied closely to the Commonwealth. The country that really got made in Gallipoli was Turkey. But no-one talks about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
This kinda confuses me as I've heard just the opposite. If you take too many risks they tend to fail and sometimes horribly. I've often heard if you want to stay alive in a war you often don't take risks. In games I've played (admittedly they're just games) taking risks can have massive negative consequences. It's usually best to play it safe. Xcom is one big example to this. If you play greedy often and make a bunch of careless moves it tends to kill at least a guy and sometimes more if you move in to save the one team member. I suppose I'd say taking risks can matter with the size of the risk involved and what you have to gain from it as opposed to what you could lose for it.

It’s a balance between too little and too much risk. But the important thing to remember is the psychology of war – unlike a game there’s no load over button so mistakes are permanent, and more importantly these are real men’s lives. So the temptation is to be too timid, advance too slowly or wait for clear orders from above. That kind of timid approach will often lose, and get more men killed, ironically.

Attacking aggressively, before the enemy can prepare and organise, and then acting even quicker to adapt to the successes and failures of your attack, to keep the enemy off balance and in a reactive, passive or even chaotic state, well that’s how it’s done best. But that brings with it a lot of risk, because to act that aggressively you’re often acting with complete information.

After the landings at Gallipoli, in almost all cases the commanders were far too timid. They waited for orders when clear opportunities existed, and in some cases re-interpreted their orders to be as safe and unambitious as possible. On top of a lot of other problems in the early landings, the campaign was pretty much DOA. Pretty much the only way the campaign could be won after that was if the Turkish troops shirked from the fight, and they most certainly didn’t.

 sebster wrote:
I hadn't thought of it that way. That's quite lovely, really

I just have to say, by the way, that the Australian understanding of Gallipoli is hopelessly nationalistic and woefully misinformed. Hardly any Australians have any idea how small the ANZAC forces were, and how our casualties weren't actually higher than other nations. Funnily enough, the major complaint of the Australians in the campaign was ANZAC Cove not being used for any major offensives. And it’s even weirder how Australians will talk with absolute conviction how it made Australia as a nation - except that before Gallipoli we were a democratic, egalitarian nation tied closely to the Commonwealth, and afterwards we were a democratic, egalitarian nation tied closely to the Commonwealth. The country that really got made in Gallipoli was Turkey. But no-one talks about that.

Yeah, Gallipoli basically preserved Turkey as a nation. I think that while overstated, the campaign showed the ANZACS that the British shouldn't always be blindly followed. I think the real shift in their influence was after the fall of Singapore and the Battle of the Coral Sea, when it was clear that their defense interests were more in line with the US (as Pacific homelands) than with Britain.

After the landings at Gallipoli, in almost all cases the commanders were far too timid. They waited for orders when clear opportunities existed, and in some cases re-interpreted their orders to be as safe and unambitious as possible. On top of a lot of other problems in the early landings, the campaign was pretty much DOA. Pretty much the only way the campaign could be won after that was if the Turkish troops shirked from the fight, and they most certainly didn’t.

The Turkish troops fought bravely and well. It turns out that while the Imperial troops on the frontiers were pretty disinterested, the men fighting for their homeland had a different stake. It didn't hurt that Ataturk was a generational leader.

 Polonius wrote:
Churchill was a good point man in a war. Not necessarily as a strategist, but as a booster and emotional leader. He was, in many ways, a necessary evil. Not unlike that friend you hung with in college only because he could get you weed.

I don't think I hung with any stoners at uni. Didn't need to, alcohol is legal here for 18+ and cheaper.

That said, I didn't hang with anyone I had classes with at uni. I had mates outside of uni that I hung with, but they were separate groups.

 Polonius wrote:
Yeah, Gallipoli basically preserved Turkey as a nation.

Yeah, it was a key part of the process that built modern Turkey out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. While nothing is ever certain, it’s very hard to see how Turkey could have developed had the defenders rolled over before the the Commonwealth and French forces.

I think that while overstated, the campaign showed the ANZACS that the British shouldn't always be blindly followed.

Yeah, it’s an interesting point. I don’t think it led to real questioning of our place in the Empire as part of mainstream political conversation, more that it opened it up on the fringes, and made it acceptable so that as WWII developed there was a political leadership willing to radically switch to the US, and a population that was somewhat primed to accept that change.

I think the real shift in their influence was after the fall of Singapore and the Battle of the Coral Sea, when it was clear that their defense interests were more in line with the US (as Pacific homelands) than with Britain.

Heh, I actually wrote that very thing in my post, then deleted it as I'd already written way too much in my responses to everyone. But yes, the real change was the Fall of Singapore and the Battle of the Coral Sea, at which point it was clear US interests and capabilities were much more in line with Australia.

The Turkish troops fought bravely and well. It turns out that while the Imperial troops on the frontiers were pretty disinterested, the men fighting for their homeland had a different stake. It didn't hurt that Ataturk was a generational leader.

Yeah, Ataturk was one of those kinds of guys. And the Turks fought very bravely and very well. Though I’m not sure I’d call the performance of the Commonwealth and French troops as ‘disinterested’ – there was no shortage of unbelievable bravery and ferocity across the campaign. And when you consider the supply shortages the landed forces often suffered, as well as the terrain disadvantages they suffered, it’s quite telling that casualties on both sides ended up almost on par.

I meant that ottoman forces outside of Anatolia weren't exactly world beaters. The allied forces fought as hard as anyone.

 Polonius wrote:
I meant that ottoman forces outside of Anatolia weren't exactly world beaters. The allied forces fought as hard as anyone.

Oh, Ottoman Imperial. I'm with you now

All agreed then.