Drive Yourself Sane with John Bolton

[Mephisto]

If you say so . . .

Less unknown than an unknown unknown. The remainder of Sec. Rumsfeld's statement is "But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

Like or dislike Rumsfeld, RandFan is absolutely correct that the statement is rational and correct. Indeed, they are words by which a wise person lives.

Doesn't that statement strike you as just a bit redundant? A "known unknown" is really just a speculation, an unknown unknown is simply that, unknown. Can there really be an unknown known?

These are NOT the words by which a wise man lives, they are the words of a political weasel seeking to obscure his scent or his tracks in case his words come back to haunt him. Only conservatives can make sense out of the B.S. these people spread, and only a conservative would clap at these statements:
__________

As your President, it seems like to make sense to me to say, if we treat you this way, you treat us -- that's what fair trade is all about.
-- He's right. It seems like to make sense to him. University Park, Pennsylvania, Jun. 14, 2005

One of the main jobs we have here in Washington is to protect our country. You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks reminded us that we are at war.
-- So we were at war before September 11, and all the deaths and horror on that day were just a reminder? Wow. Washington, D.C., Jun. 8, 2005

Do you realize we've got 250 million years of coal?
-- We do? Washington, D.C., Jun. 8, 2005

For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy and violent. Our journey from national independence to equal injustice included the enslavement of millions, and a four-year civil war.
-- And injustice for all... Riga, Latvia, May 7, 2005

Congresswoman Melissa Hart, thank you for being here. ...Melissa happens to be a board of this community college system.
-- At least he didn't say she's a "broad of this community college system", although that would have been immensely more entertaining, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Mar. 7, 2005

There's all kinds of ways to serve our country. We've got those wearing the uniform serving our country, whether it be abroad or here at home. But you can serve your country, as well, by feeding the hungry, or finding shelter for the homeless, or helping a low-income person fill out a tax reform.
-- Granted, this is a mistake that anyone could make, but it's Dubya after all, Westfield, New Jersey, Mar. 4, 2005
_________

These AREN'T the words by which wise people live; they're words uttered by a moron. The conservative spin doctors find them particularly attractive because (in many cases) no one knows what the Hell he was talking about and they can later gloss them over or, tell us what he meant (as the need arises).

Now, would you call the depth of Bush's stupidity a known known (because he's at least as articulate as a third grade student) or an unknown known (because they're always afraid of what will come out of his gaping pie-hole), or a known unknown (because no one knows what the f*ck he's talking about)?

 

[RandFan]

"How unknown is a known unknown if unknown knowns know known knowns?"

Hmmmm, but is there absence of evidence of known unknows if there is not evidence of absence of known knowns?

That is the question.

{sigh}

Known: Troop strength of enemy.

known unknown: How much resistance the enemy will offer. This is a famous known unknown.

Unknown unknown: Any surprises the enemy has. It could be a secret weapon, it could be a new tactic, (see history, see sun Tzu and many other military commanders and engagements.

Unknown unknown: Any number of surprises not thought of. You CAN'T prepare for every unknown variable. It is possible to prepare for many known unknowns. You can prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Known known: The best AND worst case scenario.

known unknown: A scenario you hadn't even thought of.

Example: In the past your opponent has used A, B, and C tactics.

In battle your opponent uses D tactics. You have never seen "D" tactics, it catches you completely by surprise.

Let's use 9/11 as an example. There was a time when we understood pretty well the psychology of hijackers. Airlines and the police planned for the attacks they took into account the knowns and unknowns.

known: The history of hijacking.

known unknowns: How many hijackers would be used in the next incident. What weapons would be used. The motivation for the hijacking, politics, greed, something else. All of these things you can prepare for. All of these things are known unknowns.

unknown unknowns: That the planes would be used as weapons themselves. We have now altered our strategy to take this into account. It is no longer an unkown unknown.

Yes, there were people who had sounded alarms and gave warnings but this was not a part of the collective consciousness of the law enforcement community. It IS now.

THIS IS NOT WEASLY DOUBLE SPEAK!

This IS the reasoning, it is logical, it is used by business people, military planners, and anyone who has to plan strategy and tactics dealing with known and unknown quantities and variables. It is logical, it is reasonable and Rumsfeld was perfectly correct in using it.

Read a book sometime will you. I recommend Sun Tzu. Take a course in logic. STOP THINKING WITH YOUR BIAS! For Christ's sake learn something. It's rather sad and pathetic that you can't figure something that is so simple and obvious.

 

[Cleon]

This IS the reasoning, it is logical, it is used by business people,

I really wouldn't use that as a basis of judgement of "logical." Remember, business people are the ones who invented the concept of double-speak, meaningless words, etc. Dilbert's popular for a reason, y'know.

 

[Upchurch]

THIS IS NOT WEASLY DOUBLE SPEAK!

Weasly or not, logical or not, rational or not, one portion of it does fit the Orwellian definition of doublespeak. (Well, Orwell used the term doublethink, but whatever.)

A "known unknown" is still simply an "unknown". If we are aware that an opponent will ...oppose us, but we are not aware by what means, that is simply an unknown. Putting the adjective "known" in front of it is a classic doublethink technique to give the impression of knowledge where there is none.

 

[RandFan]

Re: If you say so . . .

Doesn't that statement strike you as just a bit redundant?

NO! There are things that I know that I don't know. I can prepare for known unknowns. If I were a basketball coach, I could prepare for many known unknowns.

Let me ask you some questions Mephisto. Let's pretend that you have studied the Los Angeles Lakers basketball highlight films. You learn all of the strategies that they have used to date. Now,

1. Do you know when and which of their many strategies they will use in a game. This is a known unknown. You simply don't know which or when the Lakers will use any of their many strategies so you plan for them all, correct?
   
2. What if they use a strategy that you have never seen before? THIS is a known unknown. You can't prepare for what you don't know.[/list=1] Now do you get it?
   
   

   A "known unknown" is really just a speculation, an unknown is simply that, unknown. Can there really be an unknown known?

   Sorry, you got that wrong, it's "known unknown", and yes, it is perfectly logical and sound reasoning. No it's not JUST speculation because you can plan for known unknowns. You can't plan for unknown unknowns.
   
   Logical, reasonable and a well understood concept by those like myself who use logic in practical applications. For instance, I'm a programmer. When I write my programs I don't know exactly the people will use the software. I try and prepare for all possibilities even possibilities that are very unlikely. I don't know if someone is going to use the software in such an unlikely way but I must prepare for it. I can't think of everything however and there are times when people use the software in ways that I didn't anticipate. This is an unknown unknown.
   
   It is the unknown unknowns that sometimes keep me up at night and sometimes cause the program to fail. While I can plan for the known unknowns I cannot plan for the unknown unknowns. Are you getting this?

 

[RandFan]

A "known unknown" is still simply an "unknown".

No, I can prepare for known unknowns. I don't know if my opponent is going to use tactic A or B tomorrow so I prepare for both. I can't prepare for tactic C if I never had any knowledge of it. THAT is an unkown unknown.

 

[RandFan]

I really wouldn't use that as a basis of judgement of "logical." Remember, business people are the ones who invented the concept of double-speak, meaningless words, etc. Dilbert's popular for a reason, y'know.

I have no problem with using it. I get your point but businesses that succeed, and many do, do so because they are good at strategizing and factoring known unknowns. No one can factor for unknown unknowns.

 

[Upchurch]

No, I can prepare for known unknowns. I don't know if my opponent is going to use tactic A or B tomorrow so I prepare for both.

If you know it will either be A or B, it is not an unknown, but rather knowledge of the posibilities.

But that wasn't my point.

I was pointing out that "known unknown" is, by definition, doublethink because it implies the opposite of what it really means. You'll notice that I didn't say it was illogical or unreasonable. I'm not attacking the concept as unsound. I'm just saying that is doublethink.

 

[RandFan]

If you know it will either be A or B, it is not an unknown, but rather knowledge of the posibilities.

Ok, then will it be a or b, do you know? Please pick one or the other.

I was pointing out that "known unknown" is, by definition, doublethink because it implies the opposite of what it really means. You'll notice that I didn't say it was illogical or unreasonable. I'm not attacking the concept as unsound. I'm just saying that is doublethink.

Could you define "doublethink"?

ETA, I went back and read your post. No, I don't think this is doublethink at all.

 

[RandFan]

There is practical value in separating known unknowns and unknown unknowns. When analyzing performance we can determine the effectiveness of both planning and execution if we separate the known knowns from the known unknowns.

If performance did not reach expectations was it due to failure to adequately prepare for all *known unknowns or was it due to an unknown unknown.

Assuming those who protect airlines didn't know about using planes for weapons then the preparation and planning was appropriate. If such a methodology was known then the planning wasn't appropriate, correct?

Both are logical conclusions depending on what was and was not known.

*examples above.

 

[RandFan]

If you know it will either be A or B, it is not an unknown, but rather knowledge of the posibilities.

Sorry, I'm still thinking here.

It COULD be a or b or something else. A and B are known factors. I don't know if the opponent is going to use A or B or something else. So I plan for the known unkowns, A and B and hope there is no unknown unkowns.

Is anyone out there getting this?

 

[Upchurch]

Ok, then will it be a or b, do you know? Please pick one or the other.

what you described is a "knowledge of the possibilities." What you are asking now is something all together different.

Could you define "doublethink"?

Doublethink, from George Orwell himself:

the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 176-177)

ETA, I went back and read your post. No, I don't think this is doublethink at all.

Why? Aren't "known" and "unknown" contradictory ideas that are being held simultaneously and accepting both of them, in this case?

 

[RandFan]

Why? Aren't "known" and "unknown" contradictory ideas that are being held simultaneously and accepting both of them, in this case?

No more than Jumbo shrip is doublethink, one quantifies the other. Shrimp come in different sizes. Jumbo shrimp conveys information that you and I understand. It might be oxymoronic but it is not doublethink.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry, I'm still thinking here.

It COULD be a or b or something else. A and B are known factors. I don't know if the opponent is going to use A or B or something else. So I plan for the known unkowns, A and B and hope there is no unknown unkowns.

Is anyone out there getting this?

I entirely understand what you are saying. However, Rumsfeld's terminology is poor, redundant ("known known"?), and doublethink. I'm confused by your insistance upon it.

To be honest, and I mean this in the most constructivly critical manner possible, it seems to me you are more reacting in defence of Rumsfeld than acting out of any genuine belief that "known known" and "known unknown" are good and proper uses of the English language.

 

[RandFan]

what you described is a "knowledge of the possibilities." What you are asking now is something all together different.

I stated clearly that I don't know what my opponent will do. Whether it is A or B is an unkown.

Let's try this.

Having watched my opponent in hundreds of matches I determine that he uses one of two strategies, A or B.

My opponent uses strategy B less than 1% of the time. Should I invest the time and effort to plan for and practice to defend against B?

 

[RandFan]

I entirely understand what you are saying. However, Rumsfeld's terminology is poor, redundant ("known known"?), and doublethink. I'm confused by your insistance upon it.

To be honest, and I mean this in the most constructivly critical manner possible, it seems to me you are more reacting in defence of Rumsfeld than acting out of any genuine belief that "known known" and "known unknown" are good and proper uses of the English language.

I have to deal in known knowns and known unkowns all of the time and they give me fits. It is the unkown unkowns that I worry about. I'm pretty good at planning for the known knowns.

But you are correct to a degree.

I attacked John Kerry for using the term "sensative war" because it was oxymoronic. I will agree that Rumsfelds usage of the term clearly hurts his case more than it helps but only because it is not understood. And NO, it is clearly not doublethink. The two words are not contradictiory nor are they meant to convey the holding of two different ideas.

 

[Upchurch]

No more than Jumbo shrip is doublethink, one quantifies the other. Shrimp come in different sizes. Jumbo shrimp conveys information that you and I understand. It might be oxymoronic but it is not doublethink.

In this case, "shrimp" does not specifically mean "a small thing", but rather Penaeus plebejus. So, when you are saying "jumbo shrimp", you are not saying "a really big small thing", but "a really big Penaeus plebejus".

However, for "known unknown", you are using two contradictory forms of the same concept. To know that you don't know something does not give you any particular insight into that something, thus it remains an unknown.

To use an analogy, adding a negative one is identical to simply subtracting one. i.e.:

x + (-1) = x - 1

Likewise, a known unknown is simply unknown.

 

[Manny]

Aren't "known" and "unknown" contradictory ideas that are being held simultaneously and accepting both of them, in this case?

Not really, the way Sec. Rumsfeld constructs it (and he uses this formulation often). Think of it this way: A known known is question to which you have a correct answer. A known unknown is a question to which you do not have an answer. And an unknown unknown is where you don't even know enough to ask the question.

Take Mercury's shifting perihelion. To people before Newton, it was an unknown unknown -- certainly to a geocentrist it was an unknown unknown. There came a time after Newton when it was apparent that Mercury's orbit shifted more than predicted by Newton's model but no one had no clue why -- a known unknown. Along comes Einstein. Match up general relativity's predictions with the orbit and BAM! we've got a known known.

 

[RandFan]

My opponent uses strategy B less than 1% of the time. Should I invest the time and effort to plan for and practice to defend against B?

One more question, should I prepare for a strategy that he has never used before?

 

[RandFan]

In this case, "shrimp" does not specifically mean "a small thing", but rather Penaeus plebejus. So, when you are saying "jumbo shrimp", you are not saying "a really big small thing", but "a really big Penaeus plebejus".

Yes I am, shrimp are really small compared to wales. So they are really big small things.

There are two types of unknowns. Those that I know and those I don't. I know the strategies of my opponent. I don't know which he is going to use.

To use an analogy, adding a negative one is identical to simply subtracting one. i.e.:

x + (-1) = x - 1

Likewise, a known unknown is simply unknown.

But this is not how I am using "unknown". I'm not using it as a negative. I'm seperating the known unknowns from the unknown unknowns.

Answer my questions about my match tomorrow with my opponent.