zeytoun

Ahhhh.

Helmet Head

Right. The entire context above is WHILE RIDING and considering what is and is not relevant TO MY RIDING.

But, like I said hours ago, just because I usually don't notice what others are wearing, sometimes I do.
And just because striping is irrelevant to me, and I don't pay attention to it (in order to decide where to ride) sometime I do notice it.
Particularly if I'm slowing down or stopped for a light and there isn't much stuff to pay attention to at the moment.

Helmet Head

While I don't have any specific memories of it, it seems to me I've noticed dashed sections that appear to be much less than 100' all over San Diego.

joejack951

UT = University of Texas. I kept getting confused myself when I'd see "UT" and automatically think "Utah." I've seen it more often referred to as the "UT study" than the "university of Texas study" so for search purposes I've tried to be consistent.

Helmet Head

Thanks for straightening that out!

natelutkjohn

You have got to be kidding me man - you take yourself WAY too seriously

Helmet Head

No, I'm not kidding. And it has nothing to do with. It's inherent in all forums like this between all people.

Think of some house that you know with a front yard that has a living object with bark and needles on it.
You now have a concept of that living object in your mind.
Now, with words, consider trying to convey that concept to others.
You can write "tree", but what does that convey to others?
You can write "pine tree", and that helps, but it's still not conveying the particulate concept you have in mind with much accuracy.
And that's with respect to something physical.

With abstract concepts it's arguably even more difficult.

It's important to keep those two points of possible error due to translation in mind whether writing or reading.
It's less of an issue when talking to someone on the phone, because there you can hear changes in tone, and it's easier to stop someone when something is misunderstood, to ask for clarification. When in person it's even better, because we can see each other facial expressions and body language. In this forum we have none of that. So it's very easy to misunderstand, to grasp a concept that was not conveyed, or convey a concept that you did not have in mind.

We have to work together to minimize the impact of those translation errors.

zeytoun

Ok, some kind of dog/porcupine hybrid....

That's easy
It's a

Porcupog!!!

(or a dogupine)

Helmet Head

Earlier, for context:


Thank you. You make my point. There are many possible meanings to the same exact words, depending on context.

Actually, you make an additional point too.
That second point of translation is not only a place where interpretation error can occur, but intentional misinterpretion, as Pete has illustrated here, can occur there too.

Also, the first point of translation can also be used disingenuously, by intentionally using ambiguous language, and then insisting on different interpretations of those same words later.

I try to reduce the chances of this happening by using precise language, referring to references like the vehicular cycling article at Wikipedia and meaning/clarification threads I've created here, but it is practically impossible to avoid using language that can be inadvertently or intentionally misinterpreted. Some people, like Pete and Chipcom, like to childlishly take advantage of this to discredit others.

joejack951

Because HH isn't a part of the "cool" group? Your guess is as good as mine. I have no problems figuring out what anybody on this forum means after asking a few questions, allowing them to clarify, and assuming good faith in what they are saying. You seem to have more issues with what Serge says than anyone else on the forum. Why is that?

Are you taking your discussion of bike lane stripes with HH seriously or are you just poking fun? If you are just poking fun, you are being childish and HH's comment is justified.

chipcom 

The only feedback loop I see at the moment is me asking a question and you not answering. Once again, if you don't notice something, how can you decide if it is relevant or not?

chipcom 

So you just decided to chime in just to call him a name. Nice, Mr. Respect and Honesty.

Helmet Head

Many possible reasons, including:

1. absurd number of posts I have (more chance for errors).
2. controversy of my positions - in particular challenging the value of "sacred cow" of facility advocates
3. lack of tact on my part
4. lack of willingness to really try to understand what I'm saying due to all of the above
5. lack of my ability to write clearly
6. relative complexity of the concepts I'm trying to convey as compared to others
7. folks having fun playing sophistic games with me
8. lack of assuming good faith
9. I'm an engineer and tend to think/like write like one

In support of reasons 2, 4, 7, 8 above is the fact that my alleged need to have to "constantly clarify, re-clarify and re-re-clarify" happens to be only for folks who have exhibited animosity towards me. Folks like JoeJack, Galen, Daily Commute, Mr. Forester, noisebeam and others seems to have very little trouble understanding exactly what I mean without any need for clarification. The UT (Utah/University of Texas) miscommunciation between JJ and myself today was a rare exception. If they can understand what I mean, why can't you???

Pete,

An ad hominem attack is an attempt to discredit someone's argument by discrediting their character instead of the argument.

Accusing me of "having to constantly clarify, re-clarify and re-re-clarify" is not an ad hominem attack.
Similarly, accusing you of childlishly taking advantage of the fact that words can be easily misinterpreted to discredit others is not an ad hominem attack.
Both are statements about what the other honestly believes to be true about the other's behavior on this forum.

HH

chipcom 

So how do you know there is a pink flamingo or a fountain if you didn't notice it? Come on, JJ, just because HH has a problem with being observant doesn't mean you have to follow his lead. You can admit that you notice lots of 'irrelevant' things on your route, I promise, he won't bite you.

The point is simple, but you both seem scared to death to accept it - you can't determine relevancy if you don't notice something in the first place. If you can, please explain how you do it. Tarot cards maybe?

chipcom 

You seem to have a lot of memory problems today. You been smoking dope?

joejack951

I can answer it, but it's just my opinion so I figured I'd go to the source. You tend to prey on foolish statements (I've seen you post in the MTB forum) or in the case of HH, what you perceive to be or intentionally misinterpret as foolish statements. I can't figure out if it's the former of the latter with HH but I'm leaning towards the latter if for no other reason than I don't see the foolishness in his statements whereas I have seen it in others that you've jumped on.

You missed this comment by Chip:

"I am serious. You mean to tell me that things about your commute route, 'relevant' or not, don't stick in your mind? That goofy looking tree, that house with the pink flamingo out front, the home with the blue lawn, the cherry trees in that park that look so beautiful in the spring, the place where the paint has been worn off the fog line for the last year, the car that passes you every morning with the garfield doll hangning on the side window, etc. etc. etc? If not, I'd have to question your frequency in commuting too."

Apparently, if I don't notice what kind of yard ornaments I pass on my way to work, I must not really commute too often. He's confusing the act of seeing something somewhere in my field of view with actually taking notice of something.

chipcom 

Isn't this special. He can recall a honk, something else he claims to ignore, clear back from March, yet can't remember some bike lane stripes, that he claims are far from the norm, on his own commute route. The self-pwning grows with every post!

joejack951

I do notice lots of irrelevant things on my commute but they are far outnumbered by the number of relevant things I see on my commute. I've never claimed otherwise. I will claim that while something might be in my field of view, my mind will often filter it out if it's not relevant and thus I won't actually take notice of it. If you see a car inching towards the road from a driveway passing behind by a mailbox with a house number on it, which of the following will you remember afterwards:

1. the make and model of the car
2. whether the driver was male/female (neglecting hotties driving convertibles in sports bras)
3. that a car was inching towards the road from a dirveway
4. the house number on the mailbox

Helmet Head

The question cannot be answered without clarifying the meaning of "notice" and "decide if it is relevant" with respect to conscious and subconscious processing in the mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "notice", but I try to remember to use the verb "notice" to refer only to the processing of the conscious mind: in particular, to mean "pay attention consciously". I think I'm pretty consistent with that usage in this forum. For example, that's what I mean when I say I like to use lane positioning to get motorists to "notice" me: I mean I'm trying to snap them out of "auto pilot" and get their conscious minds to pay attention to me.

Now, "decide if it is relevant" has meaning both consciously and subconsciously. I can decide while sitting at my desk that something, in general, is relevant or not. Those are concepts I integrate into my mind. Once that is accomplished, while riding, my subconscious mind can "decide if it is relevant'" based on various criteria, including concepts I have integrated into my mind while sitting at my desk.

With that in mind, I can answer your question.

You can decide if something is relevant or not without noticing it by:

a) consciously deciding it is not relevant in general while at your desk, and having that concept integrated into your mind
b) in real-time, having your subconscious mind decide a specific instance of that something is not relevant, perhaps because of concepts integrated via (a), and, so, not alerting your conscious mind to it, thus you (consciously) don't "notice" it.

Edit: This is an example of something probably the contrarians will claim requires "clarifiation", etc., while those who have no animosity for me will probably have little trouble understanding it.

chipcom 

Yeah, I am a big meanie for tearing apart your wacky and often contradictory words that call into question your credibility to be giving anyone direction concerning cycling. It was just a big ruse when I called Pete for posting your pic (not to mention the other times I have come to your defense)...just to throw everyone off the scent. You are a freakin looney toon sometimes, HH.

LittleBigMan

Well, the attributes of a child, of course. Which is what you are, correct?

Helmet Head

Fair enough.

No one can do that. If you think you can, you're fooling yourself, and probably paying attention to stuff that you should not be paying attention to, like whether the bike lane stripe is dashed or solid.

Helmet Head

Thank you for that, by the way.

Gotta go. I'm outta here for a few days. Be careful out there!

chipcom 

This takes the cake. Only you can take such a simple concept and twist it into something overcomplicated and totally wacky. IF YOU DON'T NOTICE IT, YOUR MIND CANNOT PROCESS WHETHER IT IS RELEVANT OR NOT!

Your superhuman attempts to dodge this issue limits the logical conclusions to:
a. you are lying about your commute route
b. you are lying about commuting at all
c. you were lying about not noticing the lane stripes because you could not bring yourself to admit to Pete or anyone else that they might be correct in their own observations.

Knowing you as I do, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that 3 is probably the case. Perhaps if you were just honest once in a while, rather than trying to spin your posts to fit your vc dogma, you might be taken a little more seriously and not have your words picked apart at every turn.

Helmet Head

I think i would notice it too. Maybe you would and I wouldn't. Maybe I would and you wouldn't. Maybe we both would. Maybe we both wouldn't.

The real stinker is that if you don't notice it, you have no idea that you didn't notice it. That's the eerie thing about inattentional blindness: when what you didn't notice is brought to your attention.

In the gorilla/basketball study many participants refused to believe that the gorilla was there, and beleive that they were duped with a different tape. They couldn't accept that they simply did not notice it.

But walk into a room with lots of stuff that you've never been in, or haven't been in for a long time. Spend a few seconds in the room looking at everything, then quickly walk out. Now try to list everything you noticed in that room on a piece of paper. Now walk back in and spend more time looking at everything, noting all the stuff you didn't notice. You'll be amazed at what you missed.

This is a more effective test when you're in the room and you don't know you will be asked to list everything, so it's better to ask someone else to go sit in the room and you'll tell them why later. After 5 minutes, ask them to come out and come up with a list.

In scientific tests they set up fake interviews with people, and the room with lots of stuff is allegedly the waiting room. The interview turns out to be a videotaped session where they are asked to recall everything they noticed in the cluttered waiting room. Many participants can hardly recall anything.