Chile Forum

Well, me wee youngling, I was working on it, thought I had a feeling....but I think it's gas. Damned onions.

Watch those chorrillanas there!

Mmmmmm, chorrillana. I remember the first time I had that dish, when Carolina & I were dating. Can never have too much onion on it. Impossible. It's like "too much garlic" or "efficient bureaucrat" - contradiction in terms.

John Hyre

carica wrote:... Where do you think feelings come from, your heart? ...

Liver?.. or nose?.. or?.. We need an anatomist, right?..

JHyre wrote:... thought I had a feeling ...

I feel I have a thought.

JHyre wrote:Second, the beauty of the written word is that we can check what people actually said. Go back and read my posts to Puelche. NOWHERE do I assert explicitly or implicitly that Puelche is a liberal. NOWHERE. It's like the "Right to Abortion" in the US Constitution - much as you might wish it were so, it is simply not in there. My ASSumption exists in one place only: Laura's mind. Don't take my word for it, read the posts. Laura, when you throw mud at somebody, it either sticks to them or it sticks to you. Once again, you are the one left wearing the wet-dirt pie, delivered by your own hand. You are consistent, I’ll grant you that. If you ever wonder why you are getting “hateful” responses from me, look no further than your own actions.


John Hyre, Back to Mercenary Work

A few quotes from your prior posts JHyre...yes, it's cloudy and I'm wasting time I know...but I agree about the beauty of the written word but it appears you believe that the press tend to be liberal.

Contrast that treatment with how the press (and liberals in general, sort of redundant, I know) ...

the adoring press (i.e. Democrats)

A few pointers, from a guy who, unlike university leftists and press pinkos,

Then your anti-journalists remarks in this thread:

Let’s examine how journalists, present company emphatically included, “argue”.

Now, I know this is hard for you. Journalists are used to asking questions, not answering them

Lawyers have court stenographers to keep them honest (“I said WHAT?). Journalists? They set their own record.

Laura posts that silly old John just jumped right on in and assumed Puelche to be a liberal.

NOWHERE do I assert explicitly or implicitly that Puelche is a liberal. NOWHERE.

As to facts and feelings, facts often come from nothing more that a feeling. I noticed many years ago back in the US that the CPI showed and the US reported low inflation yet I had a feeling that my cart of groceries were more expensive every week. It turned out I wasn't wrong. The US government since 2000 used the core inflation number also known as CPI ex-food and energy(excluding food and energy at a time when they were both rising rapidly). How very clever, with the stroke of a pen, they were able to conjure up a whole new set of "facts" and figures. And the many ordinary people paying grocery bills and skyrocketing fuel bills can't argue with the facts of course-they only had "feelings" and thoughts. They thought "this just doesn't seem right-doesn't smell right-yet I see the "facts".

"The CPI includes the whole basket of goods and services, while the Core CPI excludes more volatile items like food and energy"

From Wikipedia:

Core inflation is a measure of inflation which excludes certain items that face volatile price movements e.g. food products and energy.

The preferred measure by the Federal Reserve of core inflation in the United States is the core Personal consumption expenditures price index. This is based on chained dollars.

Since February 2000, the Federal Reserve Board’s semiannual monetary policy reports to Congress have described the Board’s outlook for inflation in terms of the PCE. Prior to that, the inflation outlook was presented in terms of the CPI. In explaining its preference for the PCE, the Board stated: The chain-type price index for PCE draws extensively on data from the consumer price index but, while not entirely free of measurement problems, has several advantages relative to the CPI. The PCE chain-type index is constructed from a formula that reflects the changing composition of spending and thereby avoids some of the upward bias associated with the fixed-weight nature of the CPI. In addition, the weights are based on a more comprehensive measure of expenditures. Finally, historical data used in the PCE price index can be revised to account for newly available information and for improvements in measurement techniques, including those that affect source data from the CPI; the result is a more consistent series over time. —Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Feb. 17, 2000

Previously the Federal Reserve had used the United States Consumer Price Index as its preferred measure of inflation. The CPI is still used for many purposes, for example, for indexing social security. The equivalent of the CPI is also commonly used by central banks of other countries when measuring inflation. The CPI is presented monthly in the US by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This index tends to change more on a month to month basis than does "core inflation". This is because core inflation eliminates products that can have temporary price shocks (i.e. energy, food products). Core inflation is thus intended to be an indicator and predictor of underlying long-term inflation.

In other words, the main indicator of inflation(used only since 2000) doesn't include food and energy that impact people directly every day.

Long explanation( sorry about that) but I wanted to get those "facts" in there.

Laura,

OK, first the less pleasant part:

I have oft stated that the US press tends to be very liberal. That is not the same as assuming that Puelche is liberal, which is why I have never stated such a thing. More specifically, I am quite aware that a generalization (MOST members of the press are liberal) cannot be applied as an absolute (ALL members of the press are liberal) or necessary applied to a specific situation (a particular journalist is liberal). A generalization leads to a probability in a specific case (this journalist is probably liberal) that requires some extra facts to confirm or contradict the application of the trend (let’s read his articles and see if he is liberal). In short, my belief (easily backed) that journalists are liberal in general is not at all the same as assuming that Puelche is liberal. I have never said or implied the latter, for two very good reasons:
1) I do not and did not believe Puelche to be a liberal (though he is not exactly a doctrinaire conservative). His posts do not indicate that he is a liberal. A good example would be his writing in re Pinochet – very much not the liberal story line, the opposite in fact; and
2) Even had I “assumed” him to be a liberal, it was not relevant to the dialogue between us in this chain and I would not have brought it up unless he hit me as “one of those danged conservatives” etc. He took a swipe at my profession and painted my form of argumentation in a negative light. I returned the favor by taking a swipe at his profession and his style of arguing. Whether or not he is a liberal was irrelevant which is why I did not bring it up or mention it, much less assume it. Re-read the post - I do not hit journalists for being liberal, but for how they write & argue. Liberalism, of journalists or otherwise, was neither relevant nor mentioned.

In short, the false assumption was made by you, in conveniently assuming that my view of journalists being liberal in general applied to El Puelche in particular. I did no such thing. A simple reading of what I wrote suffices to dispel the accusation that you were so quick to….assume and worked so hard to imply. Your argument only shows that I think journalists are liberal and that P is a journalist – it does not show that I assumed him to be a liberal. When arguing, I’d normally be inclined to forgive your poor & misplaced assumption. Given that your clear object was to cast me in a negative light, I am understandably not feeling very forgiving where your own false assumption is concerned. I will thank you to not put words in my mouth or non-existent assumptions in my writing. Argue the facts and spare me the character assassination….unless you are practicing to be a modern journalist!


OK, now for the more fun part:

The “logic” vs. “feeling” discussion has been taken grossly out of context. My issue with “feelings” is that people tend to express & "back" opinions based on nothing more than “I feel this” because it takes much less effort than actually providing facts & arguments, aka "analysis" or "logic"(loosely using the latter word). To give you your due, one of your prior posts is the only “contra” post that makes any honest attempt to address the facts and arguments that I presented. Everyone else pretty much asserts their opinion and sidesteps the facts & arguments I have presented – or mischaracterizes what I have presented. A sign (an imperfect sign, but a guide none-the-less) of a confident and/or well-thought-out position is the ability to hit the other side’s strongest points (part of what I would call “intellectual honesty”), as opposed to avoiding or deliberately mis-stating them. In presenting points from the Honduran constitution, you are addressing the subject matter head-on. Pity more people didn't follow suit.

Humans function with both analysis and feelings. Used in tandem, both can often help discern the true state of facts. Too much reliance on analysis (or “logic”, if you will), and one tends to focus on the trees and miss the forest. Feelings or intuition are often a distilled version of past analysis. They can serve as the “Cliff Notes” of what we have previously learned. In situations where we do not have time for analysis (analysis takes lots of time and effort), a “gut feel” must suffice and usually does suffice if the underlying analytical homework was complete and honest. Analysis, unlike feelings, takes effort. For example, really learning about the Honduran situation, or about what is happening with inflation/CPI numbers takes a lot of time. Using your CPI example, you had a feeling (“Hey, I’m paying more”) that was later confirmed by analysis (“The CPI was changed in the following manner”) and backed by a lot of prior analysis (“What the heck is the CPI and what does it mean”). Without the use of the mind to analyze and think, feelings tend to be hard to understand or prove or disprove….after all, your “feelings” are not always right, are they? Mine certainly aren’t! So feelings work in a pinch or when shooting from the hip. But analysis helps form future feelings and “check” present & past feelings. For example, I may be “in Luuuuuuuv” with such&such, but a sober analysis of who (s)he is more likely to avoid feeling-induced heartbreak – what are his values? What’s his family like? How does he act through other, less love-struck eyes (Ojos en amor nunca ven)? What does he do when he thinks no one is looking? Etc, etc, etc. People who have spent more time thinking about what sort of person they’d like to be with tend to develop feelings in accord with the thoughts & analysis and are more likely to think it through, check it out, analyze it when the feelings do kick in. And we know what happens to so many people who simply follow their feelings where love is concerned....DANGER, WIll Robinson, DANGER! Analysis and feeling are yin & yang, which is why Rune quite correctly reversed my sentence (I think I feel/I feel I think) to complete the equation. To reiterate my prior point: I think there has been a lot of feeling for most who have responded to me, and very little thought or analysis. This is a common trend, because “equally valid” feelings take no effort to know or express, while thought really does take quite a lot of effort. We need both aspects of our humanity to sort fact from fiction…..and given our limitations, there should always be a certain humility in viewing any facts. But not so much humility that we choose to shrug our shoulders and view things as simply unknowable (Puelche’s approach, in my view). Some things (e.g. Honduras) we can know quite a lot about (even if never 100%) and should try to know them. Others things (where do we go when we die?) are not so susceptible to factual analysis (Talk to any dead people lately?), and our knowledge will be limited to what we “feel”, with no way to verify that feeling or faith, at least not in this world.

I think your CPI example a good one. I do not assert that feelings have no role. Rather, I assert that feelings unchecked & unguided by analysis or logic are fairly worthless when discussing facts that we can discover (e.g. Honduras). Given how easy feelings come (well, you just “feel” them!) and how much effort analysis takes (you know what I mean, judging from the volume of arguments you’ve posted directly on Honduran Constitution), it’s all too easy to simply rely on the feeling side of things, which is what I think (feel!) most responses directed at me have done. When we are dealing with situation where facts are not plentiful (what’s death like?), feeling is close to all we’ve got – which is why few people can really “know” what happens when we kick off. But on more mundane (literally) matters, analysis has a strong role. And overall, that analysis has been pretty light on the “con” side.

I hope to make time tomorrow to address your view of Honduran constitution. For today….too much effort!


John Hyre - had a "feeling" that Castro, Chavez & Obama agreeing on something was a Bad Thing, now applying analysis to check that "feeling".

JHyre wrote:Analysis and feeling are yin & yang, which is why Rune quite correctly reversed my sentence (I think I feel/I feel I think) to complete the equation.

Bullshit!..

If only I were this forum reader, I wouldn't even listen to the incompetent words of some 'humans/analysis/feelings experts', (like "Rune"). They do not understand what 'feeling' is, or what 'mind' is, hence, they speak such words. These "Runes", and their like, in fact, do not have a clue as to how the human mind works.

JHyre wrote:Humans function with both analysis and feelings. Used in tandem, both can often help discern the true state of facts.

~~~ Riding bicycle with two seats.. to the "University of Higher Knowledge 2"!

Rune,

I'm almost speechless, a rare thing. I stick by my view of feelings and thought/analysis. But I'm also far from an expert on such things. Take it seriously at your own risk. Do not try to eat the waffle iron, especially when hot. And be wary of this "Rune" person.

John Hyre

PS: My institution of higher learning would serve LOTS of Kool-Aid.

JHyre wrote:I stick by my view of feelings and thought/analysis.

leaving no traces
on a piece of blue paper..
the fish in the sky!

Feelings, thought, analysis?..


P.S. bird: n. 1 two-legged feathered winged vertebrate, egg-laying and usu. able to fly.

"The Other White Meat"?

Way over my head. Does not compute. I do know where my ignorance starts - and DO NOT burst my bubble on that!

John Hyre, cross-eyed from failure to compute

JHyre wrote:Do not try to eat the waffle iron, especially when hot.

If only I were this forum reader, I would never take anything stated by those who recommend others "not to eat the waffle iron" seriously. Look, if today they suggest "waffle iron" as fit for the purpose of eating, then tomorrow they would certainly state that "hot irons fly", and would advise other forum posters to measure their absolute speed, as a due course of action.

Further, I'd advise those who now speculate about "waffle iron" suitability for other posters' menu to visit their doctor. Just in case.