Prompted by the thread in the other forum and by the advert for shampoo that I just saw on TV, I thought it might be fun to post anything we read or hear that uses language to prevent thought or, as in the two examples I'm about to give, sounds meaningful while communicating nothing.

From the advert I just saw


"...prevents up to one hundred per cent of dandruff."


terrific except that this encompasses every possible percentage including zero.

The other example, which I may have mentioned before, is from a weather forecast I heard in Miami years ago.

"There is a thirty per cent chance of rain in the downtown area at two O'clock this afternoon."

Incredibly specific, but if it doesn't rain were they right or wrong?

Oh how I wish I had tape-recorded this, but it's recorded only in my memory. On Radio Station KBOL in Boulder, Colorado, on a sunny calm afternoon in 1979 ..... "and the chance of probability for tomorrow is fifty percent."

Sure enough! Next day it was about the same.

quote:

and the chance of probability for tomorrow is fifty percent.

I'd like to think that the probability of tomorrow, George Bush notwithstanding, is just a bit higher than 50%.

quote:

From the advert I just saw


"...prevents up to one hundred per cent of dandruff."


terrific except that this encompasses every possible percentage including zero.

The other example, which I may have mentioned before, is from a weather forecast I heard in Miami years ago.

"There is a thirty per cent chance of rain in the downtown area at two O'clock this afternoon."

Incredibly specific, but if it doesn't rain were they right or wrong?

While these are good examples of "communicating nothing," they surely did foster thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
While these are good examples of "communicating nothing," they surely did foster thought.

Which simply means that, in my specific case, they failed in their objective. But for the many people who buy the shampoo they succeeded in giving the impression that it is a highly effective product without actually saying so. Not everyone thinks about words as much as we do.

My favourites, and I'll watch out for some examples, are the pseudo-sciemtific claims made for various "medical" products such as anti-aging creams, pro-biotic joghurts, weight loss products.

Examples of the last one are invariably accompanied by the phrase "Works only as part of a calorie controlled diet" in very small print on the bottom of the screen. Of course there is never any mention of the fact that the calorie controlled diet on its own works just as well whether or not the product being advertised is included.

I also thought there were some good examples in the link that zmj posted in another thread about weasel words. The "examples in business" and the "generalizations using weasel words," I think, are good examples, too, Bob.

Euphemisim, arguably a synonym for weasel word, also is a good example of language precluding thought; eg,

undocumented for illegal

campaign contribution for bribery (defended as "free speech")

load shedding for rolling blackout or power outage

faith for gullibility or credulity

earmark or subsidy for pork

gaming for organized gambling

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:

"There is a thirty per cent chance of rain in the downtown area at two O'clock this afternoon."

Incredibly specific, but if it doesn't rain were they right or wrong?

You assign the score of .3 if it rains, and .7 if it doesn't rain. Over the course of a year, you keep track of the total score. You can compare this number to a baseline of .5, that is guessing 50% chance of rain every day. So if the newscaster does better than 365 * .5 = 182.5. they are doing the minimum. Now really, you should keep track of the number of days it rains. If it rains on 20% of the days, then take the baseline to be 20% on every day, which is .2 * .2 * 365 + .8 * .8 * 365 = 248.2, which is a much better score than 182.5.

You can do even better by splitting the year into seasons or months, since a smaller period of time allows you to have a better judge, but be careful not to finely chop the year, Nov 20 of last year is just about equally import to whether or not it will rain this Nov 20 as Nov 19 and Nov 21 of last year are. With a statistical analysis, you could split a specific cities climate into "seasons", which accurately describe the rain that city receives.

This of course only cares about data from the past years. The current year's trend, as well as radar data and all that fancy meteorological equipment improve these probabilities further.

Finally, the rain forecast is probably right most of the time, but you only remember the few days where you cancel plans due to inclement weather and it doesn't rain, you will specifically remember being angry. Also, it there is a very small chance of rain, and there is a freak thunderstorm, you will remember this. Remembering the rare events as occurring more often than they actually do is called a "selection bias".

After all of this, we have only analyzed a "boolean" event of RAIN or NOT RAIN. Once you add thunderstorms and scattered showers, the whole thing becomes much more complicated.

Perhaps, Sean, you should go into meteorology.

Excellent concise exposition.

quote:

Remembering the rare events as occurring more often than they actually do is called a "selection bias".

People tend to greatly overestimate the likelihood of very rare events, and underestimate the likelihood of common ones.

quote:

People tend to greatly overestimate the likelihood of very rare events, and underestimate the likelihood of common ones.

So true! Most people think they stand a good chance of winning the lottery and a very small chance of dying of smoking. I believe the odds of the latter are around a million times GREATER than those of the former.

Rich you are propbably right about those odds, the lottery is a regressive tax upon the ignorant and arithmetically challenged

What I can't understand is the logic behind the idea that almost everywhere organized gambling is now ok but prostitution and drugs aren't

The U.S. Drug Policy only seems to be illogical.

Actually it's very logical and very successful. Follow the money.

The U.S.A. at this moment has 2,268,722 citizens locked up in prisons, thousands of them incarcrerted for Drug Policy violations.

A vast number of people in the Law Enfecement, "Justice," and Prison Industries are reaping vast profits === their respective cut from the $25,000 cost (to taxpayers) for the maintenance of each and every one of those prisoners.

Here is a source for information.

jerry thank you for that link. Yes, the limbo state of Mary Jane is certainly pertinent to this thread. I haven't tried it myself, but lately I find Hawaii to be brewing some excellent barley-hop beverages

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Perhaps, Sean, you should go into meteorology.

The same analysis can be applied to almost any field, particularly medicine. Large scale double blind drug trials are judged by a statistical analysis. Both the "large scale" and the "double blind" are necessary for the statistics to work, since small samples aren't typically representative of the population.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
A vast number of people in the Law Enfecement, "Justice," and Prison Industries are reaping vast profits === their respective cut from the $25,000 cost (to taxpayers) for the maintenance of each and every one of those prisoners.

Here is a source for information.

I can't find that number you cite anywhere on that page. I'm very skeptical about the $25,000 cost to taxpayers. Does this mean law enforcement charges $25,000 more than necessary for each prisoner? Does this include policeman and lawyers cost? If the average cost to put a drug user in prison is actually $25,000, that is very high. However, it seems unlikely that those you say are making money are actually influencing public policy at a national level.

Of course, I think the whole thing is absurd. None of the arguments for the illegality of marijuana are convincing, and the arguments for legalization seem to be fairly strong.

This, although already several years old, might help. I do appreciate your interest in this vitally important topic, Seanahan.

One of the tactics in use by the Pro-Prohibition folks is to keep this topic TABOO .... nice people just don't talk about it. This
perpetuates the "Us vs Them" arrangement to maintain the status quo.
On this World Clock page see the Prison Population figure. At this moment it's 2,268,787 ...

Here's more about the cost of incarceration.

........ ..... ... .. . . Casualties of the Corrupt Drug War . . .. ... ..... ........

Oh well ..... everybody makes mistakes.

An exploration of the information published by the Drug Enforcement Administration reveals many examples of language used for the prevention of thought. Examples can easily be found through Google. To say that the use of one drug compels its user to consume other drugs insults the common sense of anyone willing to think about it. Many decades ago Harry Anslinger told the Congress that if a Negro smokes a marijuana cigarette it makes him think he's just as good as a white person. Lawmakers have stated that to permit scientific research on marijuana will send the wrong message to the children.

One more link and I'll stop .... The most dangerous "drug" is PROHIBITION.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry thomas,

quote:

Originally posted by Seanahan:

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Perhaps, Sean, you should go into meteorology.

The same analysis can be applied to almost any field, particularly medicine. Large scale double blind drug trials are judged by a statistical analysis. Both the "large scale" and the "double blind" are necessary for the statistics to work, since small samples aren't typically representative of the population.

I wouldn't dispute the mathematics or the validity of the technique for a moment. As a former mathematician I realise it makes perfect sense. But the bottom line is that when I listen to the weather forecast the maths is utterly irrelevent to me. All I want to know is whether to take a brolly or not. From that point of view a weather forecast that sounds so totally specific while imparting so little actual information to me is pretty uselss.

quote:

Both the "large scale" and the "double blind" are necessary for the statistics to work, since small samples aren't typically representative of the population.

You are correct of course. What I often see, though, are complaints about research not being acceptable because the sample size isn't large enough. The person critiquing the study doesn't realize that the question isn't size, but representativeness of the population. I remind them of the election polls, with relatively very few respondents, that are usually spot on with predictions.

quote:

All I want to know is whether to take a brolly or not.

Love that word brolly!

quote:

The U.S. Drug Policy only seems to be illogical.

I don't know what the US policy is but assume it's the same as the UK's. Which is that certain drugs are legal and almost uncontrolled (most patent medicines and over the counter medicines); some are legal and controlled (alcohol, tobacco); some are illegal and highly controlled.

My issue is with the criteria for selection, which at best seem arbitrary.

So far as prostitution is concerned, I am quite unequivocal in my belief. Prostitution should be legalised and controlled by the Law, thus taking it out of the control of the criminal elements that presently control this massive and hugely profitable industry.

In England prostitution itself is perfectly legal - but just about everything connected with it is illegal. It is thus illegal to run a brothel, advertise for prostitution services or solicit. And for a prostitute's customers, it is illegal to kerb-crawl. But that actual act - the Law gives it its blessing.

quote:

Love that word brolly!

I tend to call mine a "gamp".

I was watching a re-run of an episode of Frasier the other day, and Daphne refers to an umbrella as a bumbershoot, and gives the impression that it's a British colloquial term. In fact, it's pretty much unknown over here; it's actuallya late 19th century American word; see Michael Quinion at World Wide Words.