Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids

[Ziggy]

On 25 Apr 2007 10:25:55 GMT, [email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Ziggy) writes:
>|>
>|> So, Alan, which bit are you denying?
>
>Well, let me answer ....

Well, you can if you like - not sure why Alan can't answer for himself.

>|> [A] That a helmet could conceivably save your life?
>
>No, I am not denying that.
>
>|> or that the number of occasions where that could happen are so small that ...
>
>The evidence does seem to support that, so yes.
>
>Now, over to you. Which bit are you denying?
>
> That a helmet could conceivably cause your death?

No, there are many ways in which a helmet could cause you death. Ranging from
immediatly by causing your head to present a bigger target thus causing an
collision where there would otherwise have been none to long term by affecting
your health by putting you off cycling and thus reducing the amount of exercise
you get.

>That, as far as we can tell from the statistics, [A] and are
>equally likely?

I would think that B is actually more likely than A.

>|> If you are incapable of arguing a point with honesty, there's not a great deal
>|> of point in arguing it at all - unless, of course, you are a politician.
>
>Precisely. We are at least agreed on something.

Good. Now can you point out anything dishonest or weaseling in my responses
above?

(Interestingly, the second question you asked is actually the very sort of
question that Peter could legitimately object to because a direct, honest answer
would be 'yes I deny that', which would indicate to most people the exact
opposite to what was meant.)

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Ziggy) writes:
|> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:22:53 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
|> wrote:
|>
|> Avoid setting off people's bulshit detectors by being honest and up front and
|> moving on to the more important points.

Yes, please do. Let's see YOUR response to MY previous posting.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Ziggy]

On 25 Apr 2007 11:02:16 GMT, [email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Ziggy) writes:
>|> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:22:53 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
>|> wrote:
>|>
>|> Avoid setting off people's bulshit detectors by being honest and up front and
>|> moving on to the more important points.
>
>Yes, please do. Let's see YOUR response to MY previous posting.

According to my listing I responded to your previous post - the one where you
asked me questions 19 minutes before you made this post.

Of course there is the possibility that there is something amiss with you ISP,
or your newsreader (or perhaps you did not fetch the latest news before making
this post?) so you can look at the responses in your own time and come back with
your opinions in due course.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Questions like "Could a helmet save your life?" are not to discover
>> information, they are asked purely to confirm prejudices. If you answer
>
> Perhaps the better answer, then, is along the lines of "Yes, that would
> be quite plausible in cases of hypothermia", or "Yes, an unvented helmet
> will block UV rays which on bald people might otherwise cause sunburn
> and lead to skin cancer".
>
> The intention in this case would be to cause the questioner to refine
> their question and give you an opportunity to expand further

Though /some/ people will see that as "weaseling". If the point was to
confirm prejudices, rather than seek enlightenment, the above intention
will not bear fruit. Experience sadly confirms that to be the case.

> "No, I meant could a helmet save your life in an accident with a car?"
> => "It's very unlikely. They're not designed to protect against that
> much force"
>
> "No, I meant could a helmet save your life if you fell off your bike?"
> => "Scientists can't say yet. We're still learning about the causes of
> brain injuries: although it's possible that they might soak up some of
> the impact, it's also possible that by making the head bigger they
> contribute to rotational impacts, which we now think may be worse. The
> data we do have suggests no net safety benefit where they've been
> introduced."

Or: "so they improve my chances of survival, so I'll go on wearing one,
so stop your nonsense about UV". You can only win if the questioner
wants to give you a sporting chance, which they often don't.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ziggy wrote:

>> Of course Ziggy would answer the question "When did you stop beating
>> your wife" with "I haven't" and then try to qualify it with anything
>> that might possibly be construed as beating was either accidental or
>> consensual ;-)
>
> That would rather depend on whether I ever had. I've said over and over again
> that honesty is the best policy.

This "depending whether you ever had" can quite simply be taken as
"weaseling" because you *didn't answer the question*, honestly or
otherwise. Of course, the question is specifically designed to make you
look bad, so it isn't in your interests to give a straightforward,
simple answer of "I haven't". So instead you say it rather depends.
How come that's okay for you, but "weaseling" if it's someone else?

Another fine illustration that all the "weaseling" here is coming from
the questioner.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[MJ Ray]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Calling helmet-wearers 'woefully uninformed' and much worse is not
> > merely questioning their decision. I think it's more ridiculing.
>
> The problem is you generally have people who /are/ woefully uninformed
> and it's difficult to point that out to them without feelings being hurt.

Firstly, what evidence is there that people are generally woefully
uninformed? Little seems to appear in these threads apart from a
few anecdotes. It looks like prejudice masquerading as fact.

Secondly, is it safe to move from that to assuming that a particular
helmet-wearer is woefully uninformed and insisting that they justify
themselves to avoid anti-helmet-zealots sighing and head-shaking and
making pejorative references to 'lids' and generally ridiculing?

There will still be people who are informed of the pros and cons of
helmet-wearing and decide that that particular form of protection is
worthwhile for them. Accept it.

Many helmet-wearers will be there arguing against Mandatory Helmet Laws
unless the anti-MHLers have offended them so badly they no longer care.
It may be interesting to find out how many helmet-wearers would stop
as a protest if a MHL process was started. Maybe they'd take a pledge
and help refute the use-means-MHL-is-OK assumption of some politicians?

Keep rolling,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Nick Maclaren <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] (Ziggy) writes:
>>[A] That a helmet could conceivably save your life?
>No, I am not denying that.

If you missed the previous discussion you may be unaware of the context
here. "Ziggy" [1] imagined, for some reason, that there existed people who
supposed that this was not conceivable under any circumstances. He then
argued vigorously with those nonexistent people. This is where this
desperate struggle to misinterpret what people write to make them one of
those nonexistent people comes from.

[1] Who, I infer from thread trees recently, follows up to every article
of mine like a performing monkey dancing to the organ.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Potmos, May.

 

[Ziggy]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:04:12 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ziggy wrote:
>
>>> Of course Ziggy would answer the question "When did you stop beating
>>> your wife" with "I haven't" and then try to qualify it with anything
>>> that might possibly be construed as beating was either accidental or
>>> consensual ;-)
>>
>> That would rather depend on whether I ever had. I've said over and over again
>> that honesty is the best policy.
>
>This "depending whether you ever had" can quite simply be taken as
>"weaseling" because you *didn't answer the question*,

Erm, Peter, I wasn't asked the question. Tony made a typically stupid assertion
about how I would answer (without considering whether or not the question made
sense and then snidely assumed that it did).

So I wasn't even attempting to answer it.

I was pointing out that the actual answer would depend upon whether I ever *had*
beaten my wife.

Assuming I hadn't - and the question was asked seriously, the response would be
honest and straightforward.

"I have never beaten my wife therefore your question is nonsensical".

> So instead you say it rather depends.
>How come that's okay for you, but "weaseling" if it's someone else?

Well, of course the nature of a putative answer depends upon the relevant facts.

It seems to be you and TR who want to answer questions without bothering about
minor inconveniences such as the truth of the answers ;-)

>Another fine illustration that all the "weaseling" here is coming from
>the questioner.

In as much as the question that Tony hypothasised could be considered weaseling,
you are quite correct.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ziggy wrote:

>> The reason for not getting a straight answer is that the "weaseling"
>> isn't in the answer, it's in the *question*.
>
> That in itself is weaseling.

No it isn't. The question is basically dishonest in its intent and if
you answer it the way you propose then it will confirm prejudices and
any extra caveats will be ignored..

> You are yet again trying to distract attention from a question that you
> (incorrectly in my opinion) feel that answering honestly would damage your case.

No, I'm trying to focus all the attention possible onto the question
because that demonstrates it is basically dishonest in its intent. It
is a question asked to confirm a prejudice, and if it is answered as you
would answer it the prejudice will be confrmed and you will have
achieved nothing for your stated cause.

> Yes, there are weasel questions, ones that make unwarranted assumptions or force
> the answerer to essentialy say something he or she does not believe is true.
>
> But this isn't one of those questions. It's perfectly straight forward:
>
> Q: Can a helmet under any circumstances save your life?
> A: Yes.

It /is/ one of those questions, because the climate in the UK in which
helmets are viewed is one with a lot of extra baggage, and that baggage
/will/ be heaped onto that answer which means that "yes" will mean a
great deal more than "yes". It will mean "then obviously we should make
sure people wear them. If only one life is saved..." etc. etc. That
/is/ the rhetoric of the people pushing these things. You can't just
say "yes" and have it taken as the way you want it taken. It doesn't
happen that way. We've seen it not happen that way for years. Have you
never read Angela Lee's output?

> You can then go on to explain how the number of cases where this could happen is
> vanishingly small, how you would be more likely to save yourself from head
> injury if you wore one whilst walking, whatever.

That's all tuned out. You've answered the question the Right Way,
anything else you say is "weaseling" or can easily be disputed. You're
playing right into the hands you want to tie. Have you never read
Angela Lee's output?

> Avoid setting off people's bulshit detectors by being honest and up front and
> moving on to the more important points.

But you've utterly failed, because "yes, but..." actually comes across
as "he's admitted they help, and then the ******** detector cut off the
rest, and since even the anti-helmet guy says they help then it's pretty
clear we should all be wearing them!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ziggy wrote:

> You can't win in an argument that is in some way controlled by the other side
> and where the other side has a fixed agenda and is prepared to be dishonest.

Exactly! And in choosing to answer questions that are used by the other
side precisely *to* control the argument, you're sunk.

> You'd have anticipate your opponent:
>
> "There's microscopically small chance, yes".

To which the obvious reply is to disagree with the magnitude of effect,
but note that even the self-confessed "anti helmet" camp thinks they at
least do some good.

You have *not* won the argument that way, you've played straight into
their hands, because you've implicitly admitted some worth and then the
balance of observing opinion is easily swung towards the 88% Magic
Number by anyone playing the Think of The Children cards in an even
halfway effective manner.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ziggy]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:59:37 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Daniel Barlow wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Questions like "Could a helmet save your life?" are not to discover
>>> information, they are asked purely to confirm prejudices. If you answer
>>
>> Perhaps the better answer, then, is along the lines of "Yes, that would
>> be quite plausible in cases of hypothermia", or "Yes, an unvented helmet
>> will block UV rays which on bald people might otherwise cause sunburn
>> and lead to skin cancer".
>>
>> The intention in this case would be to cause the questioner to refine
>> their question and give you an opportunity to expand further
>
>Though /some/ people will see that as "weaseling". If the point was to
>confirm prejudices, rather than seek enlightenment, the above intention
>will not bear fruit. Experience sadly confirms that to be the case.
>
>> "No, I meant could a helmet save your life in an accident with a car?"
>> => "It's very unlikely. They're not designed to protect against that
>> much force"
>>
>> "No, I meant could a helmet save your life if you fell off your bike?"
>> => "Scientists can't say yet. We're still learning about the causes of
>> brain injuries: although it's possible that they might soak up some of
>> the impact, it's also possible that by making the head bigger they
>> contribute to rotational impacts, which we now think may be worse. The
>> data we do have suggests no net safety benefit where they've been
>> introduced."
>
>Or: "so they improve my chances of survival, so I'll go on wearing one,
>so stop your nonsense about UV". You can only win if the questioner
>wants to give you a sporting chance, which they often don't.

Which is a perfect example of why a load of old flannel such as was suggested
above is almost certain to be completely counter-productive.

A large chunk of the audience would simply assume you are being a total pratt,
and you'd lose some more because they couldn't understand you.

So much better to say something simple and honest.

"Yes, it could but only in such a minute fraction of cases that other factors
involved outweigh any possible advantage".

Then your questioner *will* look foolish if s/he simply says: "oh, that's a yes
so I'll keep wearing one".

They will need to ask further questions such as "how minute a number of cases"
or "what other factors".

Then you can get some information across to someone who is receptive because
they are actually interested in the answer.

 

[Ziggy]

On 25 Apr 2007 13:06:49 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Nick Maclaren <[email protected]>:
>>[email protected] (Ziggy) writes:
>>>[A] That a helmet could conceivably save your life?
>>No, I am not denying that.
>
>If you missed the previous discussion you may be unaware of the context
>here. "Ziggy" [1] imagined, for some reason, that there existed people who
>supposed that this was not conceivable under any circumstances. He then
>argued vigorously with those nonexistent people. This is where this
>desperate struggle to misinterpret what people write to make them one of
>those nonexistent people comes from.

This is a complete fabrication.

DD continued to assert that I was arguing based upon something that no one had
said.

When I eventually provided references and message timings that *proved* beyond
any doubt that he was lying, he promptly shut up and, despite having kept the
thread going for days with the false accusations, suddenly decided to add me to
his kill file.

>[1] Who, I infer from thread trees recently, follows up to every article
>of mine like a performing monkey dancing to the organ.

Only the ones where you either make a fool of yourself through lack of
knowledge, creating straw man arguments or dishonestly misrepresenting what
other posters have said.

Sadly, that does provide quite a lot of scope :-(

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ziggy wrote:

> Yes, of course a helmet can save your life, but did you know that you would be
> more likely to save yourself from head injury if you wore it only when coming
> down stairs?

To which the clear response is that "it can save my life on the bike
then, so I'll keep wearing it".

Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalising animal. People will
do all sorts of fantastic mental gymnastics to justify their existing
behaviour.

> If you refuse to admit even the possibility of a hemet saving your life you are
> immediately antagonising your helmet wearing audience because you are telling
> them that they have been wasting time and money on what is basically a fashion
> accessory to not benefit whatsoever. i.e. they have been acting very foolishly.

But if they've worn it to save their lives then that is entirely correct.

That there are cases it /can/ conceivably save a life is irrelevant:
there have been cases where not wearing seatbelts have allowed people to
survive a crash, though it really /is/ stupid to say "not wearing a
seatbelt can save your life" to someone about to be in crash...

In terms of the actual likliehood of them being better off in a lid in a
notional future random crash the best available answer is "no effect at
all". That is therefore the simplest most honest thing to say

> Far better to be honest and admit that a helmet could theoretically save your
> life and move straight on to all the reasons why that bald fact is actually very
> misleading.

But it doesn't work. I've seen it not work time and time again. Many
people will have their prejudices confirmed and then switch off. It's
what happens, it's what people do.

You cannot have people give up their helmet /and/ think they've been
really smart to wear one all along. They're basically contradictory things.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ziggy wrote:

> Erm, Peter, I wasn't asked the question. Tony made a typically stupid assertion
> about how I would answer (without considering whether or not the question made
> sense and then snidely assumed that it did).
>
> So I wasn't even attempting to answer it.
>
> I was pointing out that the actual answer would depend upon whether I ever *had*
> beaten my wife.
>
> Assuming I hadn't - and the question was asked seriously, the response would be
> honest and straightforward.
>
> "I have never beaten my wife therefore your question is nonsensical".

To which the obvious reply to the questioner with the agenda is "just
answer the question as asked and stop weaseling!".

You really are winning awards on Not Getting It here...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[_]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:06:29 +0000 (UTC), MJ Ray wrote:

> Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> Calling helmet-wearers 'woefully uninformed' and much worse is not
>>> merely questioning their decision. I think it's more ridiculing.
>>
>> The problem is you generally have people who /are/ woefully uninformed
>> and it's difficult to point that out to them without feelings being hurt.
>
> Firstly, what evidence is there that people are generally woefully
> uninformed?

Um, they are wearing helmets?

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:06:29 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be MJ Ray
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Many helmet-wearers will be there arguing against Mandatory Helmet Laws
>unless the anti-MHLers have offended them so badly they no longer care.
>It may be interesting to find out how many helmet-wearers would stop
>as a protest if a MHL process was started.

It was started a long time ago. The road "safety" lobby have a long
term strategy that they work to. A study of car seat belts is
instructive.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Peter Clinch]

MJ Ray wrote:

> Firstly, what evidence is there that people are generally woefully
> uninformed?

There is a general perception in the UK that helmets are a clearly Good
Thing that improve the safety of cyclists. If you do not belive that
then go and ask 100 random people if they feel it to be true.

> Little seems to appear in these threads apart from a
> few anecdotes. It looks like prejudice masquerading as fact.

"These threads" are not very representative.

> Secondly, is it safe to move from that to assuming that a particular
> helmet-wearer is woefully uninformed and insisting that they justify
> themselves to avoid anti-helmet-zealots sighing and head-shaking and
> making pejorative references to 'lids' and generally ridiculing?

Well no, but I don't see that happening. I see people deciding its
happening because they're not looking very carefully, but I don't see it
as actually happeneing.

> There will still be people who are informed of the pros and cons of
> helmet-wearing and decide that that particular form of protection is
> worthwhile for them. Accept it.

I do. Do you have real evidence that says I don't? The more common
case where I don't accept it is is where people /think/ they are well
informed but are very clearly not. Usually spotted by proclaiming that
it's been proved helmets prevent 88% of brain injuries, for example.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Ziggy) writes:
|>
|> Good. Now can you point out anything dishonest or weaseling in my responses
|> above?

No. You answered the questions clearly and definitely.

|> (Interestingly, the second question you asked is actually the very sort of
|> question that Peter could legitimately object to because a direct, honest answer
|> would be 'yes I deny that', which would indicate to most people the exact
|> opposite to what was meant.)

I was copying your style


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ziggy wrote:

> Which is a perfect example of why a load of old flannel such as was suggested
> above is almost certain to be completely counter-productive.

Yet you go on (and on and on, and then on some more) insisting that
"Yes, but [some old flannel] will really help. The old flannel will go,
you'll be left with the "Yes".

> So much better to say something simple and honest.
>
> "Yes, it could but only in such a minute fraction of cases that other factors
> involved outweigh any possible advantage".
>
> Then your questioner *will* look foolish if s/he simply says: "oh, that's a yes
> so I'll keep wearing one".

But you're clearly weaseling with a load of old flannel, so whether or
not its foolish is less important than the way it's taken, which IME is
"Yes".

> They will need to ask further questions such as "how minute a number of cases"
> or "what other factors".

No they won't, they'll stop at "Yes", or possibly add "if one life is
saved, thats worth it, and it might be mine".

> Then you can get some information across to someone who is receptive because
> they are actually interested in the answer.

If they are interested in the answer they'll have asked an intelligent
question to start with. They haven't, they're seeking to confirm their
prejudices.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ziggy]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:15:47 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ziggy wrote:
>
>>> The reason for not getting a straight answer is that the "weaseling"
>>> isn't in the answer, it's in the *question*.
>>
>> That in itself is weaseling.
>
>No it isn't.

Yes it is.

> The question is basically dishonest

No it isn't - it's a very straightforward yes or no question.

Either a helmet can, in some circumstances, save your life or it can't.

What's so difficult about that?

The problem is that you are so terrified that someone will insist on taking the
'yes' of a 'yes but' answer in isolation that you weasel in response.

The point, I think is, that that sort of a person is so close minded that they
will take *whatever* you say as 'yes, definitely' and are not worth considering.

Better to ignore them and make a credible, non weasleling response that might
actually persude someone more open minded.