The Butterfly Effect
Aug. 20th, 2002 09:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqChaos theory suggests that small changes in the base conditions can radically alter the outcome of a complex system. This is illustrated with what is called the Butterfly Effect - a butterfly flapping its wings in Asia causing a hurricane in in the Caribbean Sea six months later. It's why we can't really predict the weather very far in advance, or the outcome of other complex systems, despite having access to truly awesome computational power (and with these sorts of problems, better computers doesn't help much).
That was all just a long-winded introduction/analogy to what I really wanted to talk about.
I posted a rant over the weekend. It's the first writing I've done in a while that I've had feedback on, and all of that feedback has been positive. Total strangers have even linked to it. Which makes sense - nobody gives a rat's ass about my popcorn maker, so why comment on that. Arguing and human behavior though? Everyone has an opinion on that.
Aside from the first half where I whine about an incident that had been forgotten by all but yours truly, it was really about how not to argue - and, like a dope, I left out the most important part: If you're going to argue, do it directly and honestly. I'll be adding that to the rant shortly (you don't need to reread it, I'm just going to cut-and-paste from here).
For example, if you object to Canada's gun registry law because you think you have an inalienable right to bear arms, or you just think it's none of the government's damn business then say so. Don't say you're against it because you think it's a waste of money, or the bureaucracy is inefficient. Your just wasting everyone's time, and a convincing argument (that it could be made as efficient as the DMV, which already has your tacit approval, say) will have no effect because your real objections were hidden.
The problem is that people argue to convince others. If your against abortion because the Bible tells you so, then you end up having very short arguments with Atheists, who can simply respond with "I don't believe in God, so why should I care what the Bible says".
So they argue their point obliquely, and it takes a long long time to come to the same end - namely continued disagreement. Only now everyone's pissed off.
Pamela Klaffke has a column in the Calgary Herald, it's more-or-less about cultural trends. Yesterday's column was on Google, and how you can use it to look people up. This is hardly new - I used to grep (grep is a UNIX searching tool) for peoples names over the University of Calgary's newsgroups database. It is out in the open now, as people freely admit to looking up information on new dates and old lovers. I myself have done this with people I've lost track of over the years. The column suggested that you should try Googling yourself, just to see what comes up. So I did.
What I found was I spent a lot more time (back around 1992-1994) on USENET then I thought I had. A lot of that time was spent arguing with true-believers. I had this bizarre notion that anti-abortionists and pro-death penalty supporters were just misinformed, and if I leapt to the rescue with factual data or logic they would wake up and say "gee, I guess your right - go ahead and murder those babies".
My nickname is Quixote for a very good reason. However, if you get clocked by the windmill enough times, eventually it knocks some sense into you.
But what about the damn butterfly?
Well, I wrote about arguing. Was it controversial or likely to cause disagreement? Not unless your name is Eeyore. As I said, the response I've had has been positive. Call my rant the butterfly's wing beat.
Michael read the rant (as well as a rant by another person I know) and decided to comment and expand on it. And in the two days since, it has blossomed into quite the shit storm. The Internet is a complex system, and human emotions are more complex still. Michael's web page is the hurricane.
It's been cathartic. For me at least.
That was all just a long-winded introduction/analogy to what I really wanted to talk about.
I posted a rant over the weekend. It's the first writing I've done in a while that I've had feedback on, and all of that feedback has been positive. Total strangers have even linked to it. Which makes sense - nobody gives a rat's ass about my popcorn maker, so why comment on that. Arguing and human behavior though? Everyone has an opinion on that.
Aside from the first half where I whine about an incident that had been forgotten by all but yours truly, it was really about how not to argue - and, like a dope, I left out the most important part: If you're going to argue, do it directly and honestly. I'll be adding that to the rant shortly (you don't need to reread it, I'm just going to cut-and-paste from here).
For example, if you object to Canada's gun registry law because you think you have an inalienable right to bear arms, or you just think it's none of the government's damn business then say so. Don't say you're against it because you think it's a waste of money, or the bureaucracy is inefficient. Your just wasting everyone's time, and a convincing argument (that it could be made as efficient as the DMV, which already has your tacit approval, say) will have no effect because your real objections were hidden.
The problem is that people argue to convince others. If your against abortion because the Bible tells you so, then you end up having very short arguments with Atheists, who can simply respond with "I don't believe in God, so why should I care what the Bible says".
So they argue their point obliquely, and it takes a long long time to come to the same end - namely continued disagreement. Only now everyone's pissed off.
Pamela Klaffke has a column in the Calgary Herald, it's more-or-less about cultural trends. Yesterday's column was on Google, and how you can use it to look people up. This is hardly new - I used to grep (grep is a UNIX searching tool) for peoples names over the University of Calgary's newsgroups database. It is out in the open now, as people freely admit to looking up information on new dates and old lovers. I myself have done this with people I've lost track of over the years. The column suggested that you should try Googling yourself, just to see what comes up. So I did.
What I found was I spent a lot more time (back around 1992-1994) on USENET then I thought I had. A lot of that time was spent arguing with true-believers. I had this bizarre notion that anti-abortionists and pro-death penalty supporters were just misinformed, and if I leapt to the rescue with factual data or logic they would wake up and say "gee, I guess your right - go ahead and murder those babies".
My nickname is Quixote for a very good reason. However, if you get clocked by the windmill enough times, eventually it knocks some sense into you.
"Why are you banging your head against that wall?"Anyway, It's gratifying to know that I wasn't an ass, though I could have shown better judgment in who I debated with.
"Because it feels so good when I stop."
But what about the damn butterfly?
Well, I wrote about arguing. Was it controversial or likely to cause disagreement? Not unless your name is Eeyore. As I said, the response I've had has been positive. Call my rant the butterfly's wing beat.
Michael read the rant (as well as a rant by another person I know) and decided to comment and expand on it. And in the two days since, it has blossomed into quite the shit storm. The Internet is a complex system, and human emotions are more complex still. Michael's web page is the hurricane.
It's been cathartic. For me at least.
