Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The neuroscience of poor grammar and spelling...

Unread post by Maat »

AngellDust wrote:I was just reading a book that mentioned the two pathways used in reading: the ventral stream and the dorsal stream. Apparently, most of the time we use the ventral stream, which a more efficient, breeze-through-the-content method of reading. However, when faced with challenging words, complicated prose, bad handwriting, or faulty grammar, we switch to the dorsal stream. The dorsal stream is more intensive and enhances cognition of the words being read. A few blurbs from a Wired.com article on the topic:

The Ventral Stream:
Stanislas Dehaene, a neuroscientist at the College de France in Paris, has helped illuminate the neural anatomy of reading. It turns out that the literate brain contains two distinct pathways for making sense of words, which are activated in different contexts. One pathway is known as the ventral route, and it’s direct and efficient, accounting for the vast majority of our reading. The process goes like this: We see a group of letters, convert those letters into a word, and then directly grasp the word’s semantic meaning. According to Dehaene, this ventral pathway is turned on by “routinized, familiar passages” of prose, and relies on a bit of cortex known as visual word form area (VWFA). When you are a reading a straightforward sentence, or a paragraph full of tropes and cliches, you’re almost certainly relying on this ventral neural highway. As a result, the act of reading seems effortless and easy. We don’t have to think about the words on the page.
The Dorsal Stream:
The second reading pathway – it’s known as the dorsal stream – is turned on whenever we’re forced to pay conscious attention to a sentence, perhaps because of an obscure word, or an awkward subclause, or bad handwriting. (In his experiments, Dehaene activates this pathway in a variety of ways, such as rotating the letters or filling the prose with errant punctuation.) Although scientists had previously assumed that the dorsal route ceased to be active once we became literate, Deheane’s research demonstrates that even fluent adults are still forced to occasionally make sense of texts. We’re suddenly conscious of the words on the page; the automatic act has lost its automaticity.
In the past I thought, like many here, that the poor writing consistently delivered by the shilly visitors was intended to make their words appear less polished and their accounts more common-mannered. Could it be that psy-operatives practice poor grammar and spelling to induce use of this dorsal stream and make their writings stand out from the page and the valid content across this forum? Maybe the Nico Haupt entity's gibberish was more sly than crazy. :wacko: :lol:
Aha, excellent find AngellDust! That is actually a perfect example of how scientific dogma becomes institutionalized — or, 'the anatomy of academic scatology' from its well-funded inception to official adoption in 'educational' curricula as 'fact'.

Firstly, as we can easily recall from our own experience, anything requiring extra effort to read will either bore or annoy, and having to pay greater conscious attention doesn't necessarily increase comprehension either. In applied reality, poorly written text simply brings the writer's credibility, literacy, intelligence, motives etc. into question; the content is then either devalued, left unread and/or dismissed accordingly. It's "dorsal" all right, as it definitely 'raises my hackles' :P
Of course, I do hope the perps believe that method will work for them, though ;)

Now, if any still wonder why we are such sticklers for critically examining the source, consider the author of that cited 'work', "neuroscientist" Stanislas Dehaene: http://www.unicog.org/main/pages.php?pa ... as_Dehaene
The links to his curriculum vitae there are defunct, but who needs that when you're reviewed & promoted by major perp media like Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, the Age etc. (It reminded me of the Benjamin Franklin quote, "The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense.")

Well, according to Wiki, he's a professor at the Collège de France, author, and director (since 1989) of INSERM Unit 562, "Cognitive Neuroimaging" — also known for his work on numerical cognition...and has plenty of perp "awards" too of course.

INSERM, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (National Institute of Health and Medical Research) is "a French biomedical and public health research institution"...
Created in 1964, the INSERM is a public institution with a scientific and technical vocation under the dual auspices of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Research. It was created as a successor to the French National Institute of Health.

INSERM consists of 339 research units, run by 6500 permanent staff members. Eighty percent of INSERM research units are embedded in research hospitals of French universities.
I also find this animated Matrix-style page for his book promotion weirdly ironic (another instance of popularized image association):

Image

A Brave New World déjà vu? <_<
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: The neuroscience of poor grammar and spelling...

Unread post by fbenario »

Maat wrote:[1]Firstly, as we can easily recall from our own experience, anything requiring extra effort to read will either bore or annoy, and having to pay greater conscious attention doesn't necessarily increase comprehension either.
...
[2](It reminded me of the Benjamin Franklin quote, "The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense.")
On 1 above: I'm not sure about that when dealing with literature. I actually quite enjoy struggling with Wm. Faulkner's language, trying not to let my head sink beneath his adjectival quicksand. I also like trying to figure out the meaning of others, like Flannery O'Connor, Wm. Golding, Thomas Mann, James Joyce, et.al.

On 2 above: Oh my goodness what a great quote. Sounds like Mencken - Democracy is the common people knowing what they want and getting it good and hard. Democracy is jackasses voting for jackals.
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: The neuroscience of poor grammar and spelling...

Unread post by Maat »

fbenario wrote:
Maat wrote:[1] Firstly, as we can easily recall from our own experience, anything requiring extra effort to read will either bore or annoy, and having to pay greater conscious attention doesn't necessarily increase comprehension either.
...
[2] (It reminded me of the Benjamin Franklin quote, "The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense.")
On 1 above: I'm not sure about that when dealing with literature. I actually quite enjoy struggling with Wm. Faulkner's language, trying not to let my head sink beneath his adjectival quicksand. I also like trying to figure out the meaning of others, like Flannery O'Connor, Wm. Golding, Thomas Mann, James Joyce, et.al.

On 2 above: Oh my goodness what a great quote. Sounds like Mencken - Democracy is the common people knowing what they want and getting it good and hard. Democracy is jackasses voting for jackals.
Ah well, I was of course referring to the speculation raised by AngellDust in this context. So that was my general analogy for anything requiring extra effort to read due to strained syntax, verbosity, incoherence and especially illogical or unintelligible concepts, a la Nico Haupt. The 'pompous poo-peddler from Phuket' is another prime example of that with his superficially "well written" but equally illogical nonsense.

That is not to say well known (culturally approved) authors' attempts to convey their sincerely held ideas and concepts are not worthy of the challenge to read — although I personally found many of them pretentious and grossly overrated (but I'm not much into fiction anyway). And Hemingway bored me to death (in the afternoon) :P

However, it is ironic how many people can be fooled (indoctrinated) into believing something is truly profound just because it's unintelligible to them. I see it a lot among wannabe poets' responses to their fellow aspirants' incomprehensible abstractions, i.e. can't understand it, won't admit it, ergo 'it must be really good' :rolleyes:

As in poetry, so in most written expression: if what you are trying to impart honestly to a particular audience is not easy to read and understand, 'you're doing it wrong' :D

Oh yes, I'm very fond of H.L. Mencken too: "I was at the job of reading it for days and days, endlessly daunted and halted by its laborious dullness, its flatulent fatuity, its almost fabulous inconsequentiality." (On H. G. Wells' Joan and Peter) Ch. 2, "The Late Mr. Wells" [from Prejudices, First Series (1919)] :lol:

And, "The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." (1949)
AngellDust
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by AngellDust »

Maat,

I should have mentioned that I think Wired is perp porn (check out their collar bomber article for an example). I do think that jumbled sentences require the reader to stop and mentally restructure the sentence, placing it in their short-term memory for longer, which runs the risk of it getting sucked into long-term memory. It's also annoying, which can elicit a response, lending credence and/or changing the direction or focus of a thread.
Anonymouse
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:02 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Anonymouse »

Hey guys. I'm new to the forums, but anyhoo...

If you read my intro, you'd probably already know where I stand on the question of shills.

ABSOLUTELY.

Heck, if that nutty tin-pot army of L. Ron Hubbard, working from 50 + year "tech" could assemble a dedicated army of internet trolls and shills, then...well...its pretty obvious really.

Plus, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Scientology was a beta test. <_<

...actually I could rant on about that for a while, but I won't subject you all to that big ol' tangled web of crazy. :P

On a side note: I'm re-reading the NIST reports on the basis of the evidence you guys have assembled, because of the whole thing where they're relying on video footage as the primary source of evidence. Is there a thread already where that stuff is/was being discussed?
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Maat »

AngellDust wrote:Maat,

I should have mentioned that I think Wired is perp porn (check out their collar bomber article for an example). I do think that jumbled sentences require the reader to stop and mentally restructure the sentence, placing it in their short-term memory for longer, which runs the risk of it getting sucked into long-term memory. It's also annoying, which can elicit a response, lending credence and/or changing the direction or focus of a thread.
I thought that Wired.com being "perp porn" went without saying ;) but just because something that requires extra effort to decipher may be remembered longer doesn't mean it will have the presumably 'intended' effect. On the contrary, it's more likely to be noted as a signifier of stupidity, sophistry or deliberate trolling. That was my point and to dispel the apparently insidious effect (by inference) of that pseudo-scientist's bogus conclusions from artificially contrived, and therefore ultimately pointless, "experiments".

In applied reality, as repeatedly demonstrated on this forum, any apparent change of direction or focus of a thread by that type of shill behavior is then fully exposed for what it is. In other words, it is generally a helpful exercise which not only serves to refresh and confirm the truth of our findings or conclusions, but is then remembered for future reference in how to recognize that MO.
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Maat »

Anonymouse wrote: ...
On a side note: I'm re-reading the NIST reports on the basis of the evidence you guys have assembled, because of the whole thing where they're relying on video footage as the primary source of evidence. Is there a thread already where that stuff is/was being discussed?
Yes Ms Mouse, NIST is mentioned in just about every thread where 9/11 images are discussed :D Here are just 2 that come to mind:
CGI Collapse footage & MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

You'll also find a lot of shill poo kicked to the curb in the middle of those too, I wonder why :rolleyes:
Anonymouse
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:02 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Anonymouse »

Maat wrote:
Anonymouse wrote: ...
On a side note: I'm re-reading the NIST reports on the basis of the evidence you guys have assembled, because of the whole thing where they're relying on video footage as the primary source of evidence. Is there a thread already where that stuff is/was being discussed?
Yes Ms Mouse, NIST is mentioned in just about every thread where 9/11 images are discussed :D Here are just 2 that come to mind:
CGI Collapse footage & MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

You'll also find a lot of shill poo kicked to the curb in the middle of those too, I wonder why :rolleyes:
Thanks dude! ...and lawwwl! "shill poo" :D
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by fbenario »

88% of 'trolls' actually just morons

MOST people assumed to be internet trolls genuinely believe their hateful, demented statements, it has been claimed.

Many people who look like trolls are simply weird

Researchers at the Institute for Studies interviewed alleged ‘trolls’ and found that their postings were not deliberately antagonistic, but that they actually believed that all Youtube users are gay, the ‘EUSSR’ is a political entity and Kate McCann is a prostitute.
...
“So maybe the world is less of a hateful place than we thought, but more of a moronic one.”

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 2061330281
diagonal2
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by diagonal2 »

David Icke Debunked: http://davidickedebunked.com/

I knew there was something iffy about his books.
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Maat »

diagonal2 wrote:David Icke Debunked: http://davidickedebunked.com/

I knew there was something iffy about his books.
That is another example of the kind of disinfo garbage we don't tolerate here. If you bothered to check the source of that video you would have found it is by another disinfo clown, fundie "Christian" kook, Chris White. See what he promotes: http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/beliefs/

So this is a classic case of compounded bullshit; one lunatic "debunking" another claiming their 'brand' is the only 'true' one. :rolleyes:
diagonal2
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by diagonal2 »

Maat wrote:
diagonal2 wrote:David Icke Debunked: http://davidickedebunked.com/

I knew there was something iffy about his books.
That is another example of the kind of disinfo garbage we don't tolerate here. If you bothered to check the source of that video you would have found it is by another disinfo clown, fundie "Christian" kook, Chris White. See what he promotes: http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/beliefs/

So this is a classic case of compounded bullshit; one lunatic "debunking" another claiming their 'brand' is the only 'true' one. :rolleyes:
Not sure what to make out of this one Maat.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by brianv »

I'll tell you what it means, if I may be so bold as to interject!

We don't entertain that fucking rubbish here! Why did you come here to tell us about some idiot clown? Did you actually spend anytime familiarising yourself with the contents here before you posted that garbage?
diagonal2
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by diagonal2 »

brianv wrote:I'll tell you what it means, if I may be so bold as to interject!

We don't entertain that fucking rubbish here! Why did you come here to tell us about some idiot clown? Did you actually spend anytime familiarising yourself with the contents here before you posted that garbage?
Truth be told: No, I didn't - not completely.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by brianv »

diagonal2 wrote:
brianv wrote:I'll tell you what it means, if I may be so bold as to interject!

We don't entertain that fucking rubbish here! Why did you come here to tell us about some idiot clown? Did you actually spend anytime familiarising yourself with the contents here before you posted that garbage?
Truth be told: No, I didn't - not completely.
Truth be told: Not at all!
Post Reply