(12-25-2017, 11:49 AM)Wallfire Wrote: @ old wood runner wrote
P.S. - a liberal acquaintance of mine posted the alleged Intelligence reports on Facebook one day, insinuating that those reports were the smoking guns proving everything. I read them. Closely. Combed through them with a fine toothed comb. They did NOT say anything of the sort that he was insinuating - I could not find a single reference to his claims. Either I don't know how to read an intel report, or he don't. I know which way I'm betting on that, but there again I could be wrong - but ain't no one been tossed in the tank for it yet, and it's been long enough that someone should have, by now, if he read 'em right.
Its called "Confirmation Bias", and its very dangerous when trying to find the truth. The reason is that so very very often the truth is not what we want it to be.
What the report had in it was a lot of hedge-words and issue skirting, which is not unusual in that sort of Presidential briefing and policy-setting report. The Russians were mentioned, but in a peripheral way, with a lot of "could haves" and "may haves", and those only in the context of a social media cyber campaign - what would be called here an "advertising campaign" if it were American Liberals doing the same thing. There was nothing at all pointing to any actual collusion between the Trump camp and the Russians. A more down to earth real-world cognate would be if the media suddenly started speculating that I take Russian money for political favors and vacation in a dacha on the Black Sea because I own a Suzuki 4x4 built by the Japanese but patterned after an old Russian battle-wagon design. It was those kind of connections that my opponent was trying to point to as "proof positive" of collusion.
Now, I suppose the confirmation bias could be strong in that one, because the word "Russians" was mentioned in the report, and it's a sort of leap of logic to make the connections, but if one wants to see it bad enough, then the connections can be made, however tenuous and convoluted to get there.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’