Drive Yourself Sane with John Bolton

[peptoabysmal]

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.

Just for the sake of picking nits:
Penaeus plebejus is eastern king prawn.
Jumbo shrimp is Penaeus monodon.

Gramatically a "known unknown" is incorrect, however since you are considering the statement as boolean logic between two states "known" and "unknown":
There is no operator between known and unknown (well now there is), so we don't really know the logic intended. You are considering just the possibility of known OR unknown. How about known AND unknown or any other of 32 possible permutations for a 2 input logic gate? Can two opposite states work in conjunction to produce more than two states? It's how the computer I'm typing on right now works.

 

[kimiko]

RandFan I had prepared a response point for point, but realized there was a more fundamental question. Would you call an unnamed variable, or a hypothesized variable, an unknown unknown?

And I agree with Upchurch when he said, "Having a legitimate concept in no way disqualifies a term for doublethink-hood." 'Unknown known' is a valid concept, but the phrasing is what makes it doublethink.

 

[Mephisto]

I kind of see your point, Upchurch, but I think you're looking too deeply into the words and seeing a contradiction.

What do you expect when using to words that contradict each other. What I'm interested in is how you can look beyond the contradiction of the two words to see a third (less clear) distinction.

If that rule can be used with known and unknown, then it can be applied equally to other contradicting words with the same success. Therefore, dusk could be light-dark, dawn could be dark-light, and noontime would be light-light.

Getting caught in a sprinkle of rain would be dry-wet, getting caught in a hurricane would be wet-wet and walking about in dry weather is dry-dry.

Do these distinctions really need to be made? Apparently for some people who can't gauge to what degree they don't know something they haven't thought about.

 

[Mephisto]

Hey Randfan, I think you should read this.

Thank you, Orwell,

I found THIS to be particularly interesting:
__________

"In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself."
_________

Of course, it's not that anyone in the Bush administration does this.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan I had prepared a response point for point, but realized there was a more fundamental question. Would you call an unnamed variable, or a hypothesized variable, an unknown unknown?

And I agree with Upchurch when he said, "Having a legitimate concept in no way disqualifies a term for doublethink-hood." 'Unknown known' is a valid concept, but the phrasing is what makes it doublethink.

I'm willing to concede that the phrasing is clumsy and certainly fails to convey the message intended (assuming as I do that there was the message I assume he intended).

Thanks RandFan.

 

[Skeptic]

What do you expect when using to words that contradict each other.

(Sigh)

There are amusing (well, sort of) booklets which have illustrations of allegedly contradictory expressions, like "jumbo shrimp", "military intelligence", "open secret", "original copy", etc. They are known as oxymorons, of course. But they are used nevertheless, because they designate something that is different than the combined literal meaning of each word.

Tell me, Mephisto: when the waiter says he will serve you jumbo shrimp, or a collegue tells you that it is an open secret that so-and-so in the office is having an affair with the boss, do you consider that proof of Orwellian brainwashing intentions? If not, why do you see such sinister, evil intentions behind the expression "known unknown"?

(Except for the fact that it was an expression used by Darth Vader, I mean Donald Rumsfeld, which therefore by definition just has to have some secret evil brainwashing Orwellian conspiracy-planning purpose behind it, of course.)

 

[Skeptic]

I'm willing to concede that the phrasing is clumsy and certainly fails to convey the message intended (assuming as I do that there was the message I assume he intended).

I dunno about that. Bush and his top aides are not exactly known for verbal brilliancy, but even Bush's malapropisms (sp?) usually DO make the meaning of what he TRIES to say clear. Same here: it's pretty clear what "known unknown" is meant to signify.

Compare that to the alleged brilliant communicator, J. F. Kerry, which could talk for hours, each sentence shining with brilliant expressions, without managing to get across a damn thing about what his opinion is. Did anybody figure out by now whether he was FOR or AGAINST the invasion of Iraq?

 

[Mephisto]

There are amusing (well, sort of) booklets which have illustrations of allegedly contradictory expressions, like "jumbo shrimp", "military intelligence", "open secret", "original copy", etc. They are known as oxymorons, of course. But they are used nevertheless, because they designate something that is different than the combined literal meaning of each word.

Tell me, Mephisto: when the waiter says he will serve you jumbo shrimp, or a collegue tells you that it is an open secret that so-and-so in the office is having an affair with the boss, do you consider that proof of Orwellian brainwashing intentions? If not, why do you see such sinister, evil intentions behind the expression "known unknown"?

(Except for the fact that it was an expression used by Darth Vader, I mean Donald Rumsfeld, which therefore by definition just has to have some secret evil brainwashing Orwellian conspiracy-planning purpose behind it, of course.)

I'm well aware of oxymorons and the morons that use them without question. They are sometimes necessary (in spite of the humor they often bring). It was pointed out earlier that Shrimp was the name of the small crustacean BEFORE it was an adjective for small. Military Intelligence, while often raising a smirk, is simply intelligence data gathered by the military. I've never heard the term open-secret, but that is definitely one I would have questioned.

For the record, it was Upchurch who made the George Orwell reference, I only questioned the grammar, so no, I don't see "Orwellian brainwashing intentions" or sinister, evil intentions behind the expression "known unknown"? I only see someone (Rumsfeld) who is using inconcise language to make a vague statement, presumably for his own future benefit.

 

[Mephisto]

I'm willing to concede that the phrasing is clumsy and certainly fails to convey the message intended (assuming as I do that there was the message I assume he intended).

Thank you. That was all I was saying, the phrasing is clumsy and inconcise. Now, please keep in mind, as I have, that particular type of phrasing and combine it with the furor over the word, "fixed" in the Downing St. memo - here is an administration intentionally using inconcise language claiming the use of "fixed" in the memo means something which it clearly did not.

Having dealt with government scientists, engineers and physicists for years as a technical writer in the defense industry, I always had to be aware that tech-lingo. inconcise grammar and regional slang didn't make it into technical documents. There were always arguments and excuses regarding this phrase or that statement, but as I was hired to make the documents understandable to everyone (not JUST engineers, scientists or physicists) phrases like unknown-known, unknown-unknown or known-unknown just wouldn't have made the cut.

 

[fishbob]

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.

Then why the hell didn't he just say that? I think Upchurch is correct in that Rums was trying to imply knowledge where none exists? Instead of saying 'I don't know', he says 'I know that I don't have that answer'. Both mean the same, but which one is better communication?

 

[President Bush]

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

The phrases "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" seem to go beyond what can be observed and appear more interminate than verifiable descriptions.

When our inferences - involving degress of probability - become more important than our verifiable decriptions (and our descriptions, in turn, more important than the non-verbal experience from which we abstract these "things") we can end up identifying our words with our experience of process and with those processes themselves.

As if weather existed apart from temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure...

We may look for "the" unconscious rather than considering out-of-awareness processes. We may act without an awareness and, perhaps, concern for the consequences of our actions. I believe that demon made an excellent point concerning this.

Indeed, with our language structure we sometimes create static isolated elements out of the dynamic interrelated processes found on non-verbal levals. Seems a short step to then project upon the world around us those static elements as if they existed out there.

 

[rdtjr]

Wow, I am suprised this discussion has gone on this long. Do people really not get RandFan's explanations or are they just being deliberately obtuse?

Rumsfeld probably used these terms because they are used in military planning sessions. Since Sun Tzu used the same concepts himself this should hardly be suprising. I don't know why I am going to rehash some of this but I'll try to offer some more examples.

First Kimiko and Peptoabysmal, you need to realize that the term "known unknown" is not meant to be bolean logic... it is short-hand for a more complex statement. Such as: "things we know about, but the value for which is unknown." Really, I think you guys are being a little obtuse on this.

Anyway using military examples that others have tried before:

Known Knowns: Things which we know about and for which we have a value.
- Enemy troop strengths
- Enemy unit names, sizes, locations
- Vehicle and weapons used by particular units
- Means of communications
- General weather conditions given the time of year

Known unknowns: Things which we know about for which we don't have a known value or for which we have a range of values.
- Determination of the average troop's will to stay and fight
- If we plan a fast striking campaign with little stopping we know fatigue will be an issue after x hours: how long will our own troops fight effectively after fatigue sets in?
- We know that some of the local populations may become guerilla fighters, how many?
- The weather on specific days

Unknown unknowns: Things for which we have unkown values because we don't even know to ask about them. Could also call these true unknowns. We simply don't have enough data to even formulate a question.

The purpose of pre-battle intelligence, research, and planning is to illuminate as many "unknown unknowns" as possible and move them into the "known uknowns" category and to move as many "known unknowns" into the "known knowns" category.

Please don't get confused by semantics and short-hand (or be deliberately obtuse just to be contrary). These are actually fairly old concepts that draw directly from Sun Tzu (and I believe might actually be used in some translations, I have three so I lose track).

The Bush administration may be the most brilliant dunderheads of the last 100 years... but this is really a silly thing to pick on. It's actually very clear logically and internally consistent from a historic military perspective.

The key to doublethink is that it is not internally consistent... "knowns" change when it is convenient to change them. For example, the weather yesterday in a military planning sense is certainly a known known, it useless information for planning, but we know there was weather it we know what it was. In doublethink yesterday's weather can change at anytime if it is convenient to think so. It was clear and sunny here yesterday. But, if the gov't claims that severe weather destroyed something local... well then we must have had severe weather. And if they claim tomorrow that yesterday's weather was warm, clear, and beautiful contributing to a terrific strawberry harvest... well it must have been warm, clear, and beautiful. Never mind that yesterday they said something else. It is no longer convenient to believe that thunderstorms destroyed something. It is only convenient to believe what it is convenient to believe at any given moment.

 

[Upchurch]

Just for the sake of picking nits:
Penaeus plebejus is eastern king prawn.
Jumbo shrimp is Penaeus monodon.

You have failed me, Google!!!

Originally posted by Mephisto
For the record, it was Upchurch who made the George Orwell reference,

Actually, I was responding to RandFan's comment that the term(s) were not double speak. Technically, you are correct that I was the first to make direct reference to George Orwell since "double speak" is a common merger of "doublethink" and "newspeak", but I wasn't the first to bring it up.

Going back to peopto:

Gramatically a "known unknown" is incorrect, however since you are considering the statement as boolean logic between two states "known" and "unknown":

The Orwellian Big Brother thinking was based on a boolean model with no shades of grey (even though one of the points of the books is that there are shades of grey). You have LOVE/HATE, WAR/PEACE, Big Brother is GOOD/the ENEMY is BAD, etc. The whole nature of doublethink is linked to dicotomy.

 

[RandFan]

Wow, I am suprised this discussion has gone on this long. Do people really not get RandFan's explanations or are they just being deliberately obtuse?

My thanks. At least some people get it. I was reasonably certain that it was Sun Tzu who originally used the concept. I even used military planning in one of my examples. I remember one of my professors discussing it at the University and I remember I thought it was BS when I first heard it but once explained it made perfect sense.

Going back through the entire thread I don't think I was ever more clear in explaning a concept than I had ever been before. I think some people simply make up their minds and then set out to prove something wrong and don't take the time to listen to the arguments being made.

One thing I found particularly odd with this debate was that my words were ignored. They were not quoted and picked apart as is customary. Instead people were by and large simply non-responsive. Damn that is frustrating when you make an argument and people simply tell you that you are wrong. Oh, I suppose I have done the same.

In the end I stand by Rumsfelds words but in truth they failed him, not because he did anything wrong but because the audiance was unable to understand and chose to mock the words rather than try to figure out what he had said. And what he said was a perfectly legitimate and logical concept.

Sun Tzu would have been proud.

 

[Mephisto]

Thank you, President Bush!

I couldn't have said it better myself . . . and for the record, I think your posts and the accompanying photos are absolutely hilarious!

 

[Snide]

Consider the statement: "Take the right right."

What does that mean?

Where you find two right turns, take the one that is to the right of the other?

Turn at the correct right-hand turn?

Utilize the correct liberty?

Take the conservative punch from a non-southpaw? (Northpaw??)

I'm being silly to prove a point. "Known known" (and all of the other combinations) uses the same word twice but assigns it two different meanings.

"Known unknown" means of course "recognized area in which we lack knowledge."

It's an important concept to understand, but there are better ways to say it when addressing crowds, unless you are trying to be obscure.

So if I'm coach Tice of the Vikings, and I identified the Packers' three different defensive set-ups, but I did not identify any patterns of when they use any of them, and therefore my Vikings got their hides kicked because of this lack of knowledge, I might try to impress the public by at least talking about the "known unknowns."

That was fun...

edited to add one more hypo

 

[Mephisto]

And WHY did Rumsfeld's words fail him?

In the end I stand by Rumsfelds words but in truth they failed him, not because he did anything wrong but because the audiance was unable to understand and chose to mock the words rather than try to figure out what he had said. And what he said was a perfectly legitimate and logical concept.

RandFan,

I appreciate the time you took in explaining everything, the concept wasn't completely lost on me, and I was aware of what you were trying to "teach" me, but as I've said over and over again, it just wasn't concise English. I've heard several people say that the comment did make sense, but only after you tear it apart to perceive the original intent. Language shouldn't be MORE confusing (especially when you're a government official making comments with the press nearby), it should CLARIFY what your intent is.

My biggest problem with Rumsfeld's comment is that (since he's an apparently intelligent man) the construction of his statement was unclear. The very fact that this thread has gone on for so long is evidence of that fact. Being the suspicious type, I immediately wondered WHY Rumsfeld was making such an ambiguous statement.

As many members here have pointed out, the statement could have been clarified by simply saying, "I DON'T KNOW," instead of splitting hairs by saying that it's an "known, unknown."

You are 100% correct in saying that Rumsfeld's words failed him. Why? Because they were inconcise and left too much open to question.

(edited to add) Rumsfeld is in good company though, I've even mocked the band Pink Floyd for singing, "We don't need no education." A statement that indicated that they DID need some educaton, as that is a double-negative and incorrect English.

 

[Snide]

Going back through the entire thread I don't think I was ever more clear in explaning a concept than I had ever been before. I think some people simply make up their minds and then set out to prove something wrong and don't take the time to listen to the arguments being made.

I only skimmed the thread, but I don't think the concept was misunderstood. What was criticized was the necessarily confusing use of the same word and assigning it two different contexts. It's not that "Known known" is a difficult concept to understand. It's that it requires further explanation to be understood, such as my "right right" example. It is quite different from an oxymoron.

That said, I wouldn't have used the quote to make fun of the guy, unless 1) he is one of the only guys to have ever used the term, and 2) he did not provide further explanation.

 

[Snide]

Re: And WHY did Rumsfeld's words fail him?

RandFan,

I appreciate the time you took in explaining everything, the concept wasn't completely lost on me, and I was aware of what you were trying to "teach" me, but as I've said over and over again, it just wasn't concise English. I've heard several people say that the comment did make sense, but only after you tear it apart to perceive the original intent. Language shouldn't be MORE confusing (especially when you're a government official making comments with the press nearby), it should CLARIFY what your intent is.

My biggest problem with Rumsfeld's comment is that (since he's an apparently intelligent man) the construction of his statement was unclear. The very fact that this thread has gone on for so long is evidence of that fact. Being the suspicious type, I immediately wondered WHY Rumsfeld was making such an ambiguous statement.

As many members here have pointed out, the statement could have been clarified by simply saying, "I DON'T KNOW," instead of splitting hairs by saying that it's an "known, unknown."

You are 100% correct in saying that Rumsfeld's words failed him. Why? Because they were inconcise and left too much open to question.

(edited to add) Rumsfeld is in good company though, I've even mocked the band Pink Floyd for singing, "We don't need no education." A statement that indicated that they DID need some educaton, as that is a double-negative and incorrect English.

My known unknown is why you were able to say this same point better than I. But didn't I sound smarter by calling it a known unknown?

 

[rdtjr]

Oy. Snide, again this is short hand as I explained above. Consider it an abbreviated sentence i.e. "Things we know about and for which we have a known values." Or "Things which are known to us, but for which the values are unknown or undetermined."

This is standard planning lingo (even used by businesses who follow Sun Tzu) and the concepts and short-hand should not be hard to understand. It makes perfect logical sense exactly Rumsfeld said it, just because you don't like the guy doesn't make the words any less logical or internally consistent. I can tell you that any western or eastern military planner (and probably a lot of business planners) knew exactly what he meant.

Master Sun tells us:

- It is critical to know yourself. Know your strengths and weaknesses. Know how to conceal your weaknesses from your enemy and employ your strengths against him.

- It is critical to know your enemy. Know your enemy as you know yourself. Know where his is strong and where he is weak. Attack your enemy where he is weak and avoid him where he is strong.

- Know the weather.

- Know the land.

- Know what you know. (Known knowns)

- Know what you don't know. (Known unknowns)

- Know what you can't know. (Unknown unknowns?)

Etc.

He goes on a lot about intelligence and using it to reveal your enemy's weaknesses and strengths, gauging the weather terrain and using it to your strength or to nullify an opponents strength, marching divided and fighting united etc. But a lot of his teachings are simply about having the most knowledge you can about any given situation and then using that knowledge, or knowing about the things of which you are ignorant or can't know, and realizing when you simply have no way of knowing... and how to avoid that particular kind of danger.

This is old stuff guys. You can keep getting hung-up on semantical word games, but it just makes you look a little silly.