Thanks, that just made my day.

...and in other news, a strange cylindrical object appears to have crash-landed in Horsell common, UK.

You can ask whether the information has predictive value.

The brain is an elaborate goal-setting mechanism coupled to a prediction engine. If the schizophrenic can use his extra information in some way that allows them to predict future actions or consequences, then we can say that the extra information is likely to be real.

We do this all the time; for example, predicting that we will get run over if we step off the curb, based on information from our visible inputs about cars in the street.

It's very easy to "get inside someone else's mind". If we step off the curb and someone says "watch out", we're effectively making use of their neural inputs as an adjunct to our own. Simply painting a picture in someone's mind through stories or college lectures is a form of mind sharing.

Set up an experiment using schizophrenics as "sensor" - telling us what the voices are saying and/or what the people are doing - and see if that information has any predictive value. For example, ESP tests with information (card reading) hidden from the test subject.

If the information is completely disjoint from our own universe and has no predictive value, it's indistinguishable from made-up fantasies.

Actually, I'm a big fan of cogent, reasoned responses (to my posts) that put forth a contrary position. They are so rare that I sometimes post a "thank you" in response.

Just saying "this doesn't track with my experience" ("I've taken 200+ cab rides in my life and not once encountered a bad experience", yeah, right), or "you're wrong about that", or "how dare you say the emperor has no clothes" doesn't quite cut it.

So tell me: instead of insinuating that there are logical fallacies in my argument, what exactly *are* the logical fallacies in my argument?

Lots of groups!

Here's a list:

The National Smoker’s Alliance
The 50 Cent Party
Center For Consumer Freedom
Al Gore’s Penguin Army
Microsoft
Save Our Species Alliance
Working Families For Wal-Mart
The Big Ten Network
Comcast
GOP

(NB: The companies listed come from an article titled: "Ten Horrible Examples Of Astroturfing")

Fellow readers, beware of astroturf comments.

We know that the big companies hire agencies to send fake letters of support to government agencies, letters purported to come from everyday people in support of whatever the big company wants to do at the time.

We also know that the big companies hire agencies to send fake letters of support from politicians that support whatever the big company wants to do at the time. We know that political campaigns do the same thing.

I've been interested in ghostwriting/astroturfing for awhile now. It seems reasonable that if a company has enough money to mount a fake grassroots campaign, then some of that money would be put towards shaping public opinion on public boards.

Especially a highly popular board frequented by all the smart people in the country.

Looking at one previous article about network access I can't help but get the impression that people are reaching around backwards to make their point. The plight of all those poor, twisted arguments brings a tear to my eye.

Really - watch the commentary on these articles and see if any of the arguments seem weak or contrived.

We may be infested with astroturfers.

Are you saying people would actually lose money if their bank went under? That there's no FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) or other safeguards? Are you saying that the federal reserve wouldn't overnight a truckload of cash if there was a run on the bank?

Are you saying that banks can do a slip-shod job, have no repercussions, and this is a *good* thing?

Just as GM can lose business by making a faulty ignition switch, banks should lose business when they lose the public trust.

Banks SHOULD lose business if they screw up.

The theory behind "not naming banks" is that if named, people would leave the bank and go to another one.

Why are banks allowed to do this? This completely negates the "vote with your wallet" power that the public should have.

Whether it's a bug or feature is certainly a fair argument.

To my mind, if you can't predict when the key will pop out then it's a bug.

Also, it appears to have killed 38 people.

Avionics engineers (and I am one, retired) would say "what's your point?"

Automobiles have obvious life-threatening failure modes, duh, and probably should be held to a high standard of safety, derp, just like they are in physical aspects such as crash-worthyness, *Timmer*!

Oh, I see. You're arguing that it's OK to have shitty software because, well, everyone does!.

I keep looking for astroturfers on this forum. Is this one obvious, or are there more perfect examples I haven't found?

Round one of "devil's advocate", now it's my turn.

Suppose you're a sysadmin for the NSA and you discover they are committing a felony. Should you then report it to the relevant authorities?

Robert Cialdini.

My bad - should have included it.

Here's a free PDF version.

I just want to mention that I agree with your points overall.

The article was dashed off in a hurry, and on reflection pretty-much everything you mentioned occurred to me after the fact. In particular, I glossed over lots of nuanced specifics for brevity. The examples were only meant to tack down the idea in the reader's mind.

Nothing so simply put can be taken at face value. I hope the parent realizes "what I meant" and will use his judgement to take a more nuanced action.

I know just how you feel!

One way around this problem is to round down to the next significance level and reduce it to a yes/no assessment.

For example, instead of reporting the actual significance, say "p<.05" and instead of citing the correlation as a number, say "we therefore reject the null hypothesis".

Works a peach, required in most journals, and reduces the workload of the reviewers.

Scheduling playdates for your son is a recipe for bitterness and disappointment. Without feedback or direction for what the proper behaviour is, the end result will be ridicule and ostracism. Over and over. And this will continue into his adult life.

Since your son has no "feel" for interaction, the best you can get is an "intellectual appreciation" for correct behaviour. He has to learn the skill that everyone else will pick up naturally.

The first half is to get him to want to learn. You do this by rewards and other incentives, as outlined by any of a number of teaching methods. Sit down with him at regular scheduled intervals, be sure to show appreciation when he does things correctly, and show disappointment when he screws up. When he screws up, do the disappointment thing *quickly* and move on. Promise him a big reward at the end of a semester of these if he does well, and follow up on it (take him to an arcade, get him a specific toy, take him snorkeling in Hanauma bay, whatever.) Little rewards at intervals is good too (take him out for ice cream, his special time with his dad &c).

Make him want to change.

The second half is being able to recognize his behaviour *yourself* and communicate to him instantly. I cannot describe how incredibly difficult this is, you have to be alert for specific patterns and people are just not wired to do this. People go through their daily lives on autopilot, and don't normally evaluate what they're hearing/seeing/doing on a continual basis. It's s a difficult skill that needs to be developed through discovery and practice.

The problem with therapists is that the feedback isn't immediate. The therapist might be able to analyze and correct and connect with your son, but your son will tend to forget outside the session. Like I said, most people are on autopilot and changing the autopilot programming is hard.

When you get the ability to recognize his behaviour, simply say "ding!" when you see it.

It's immediate feedback, and when he hears it he should stop to consider what he's doing and change his behaviour. That's all it takes.

Be very clear that saying "ding!" doesn't mean you're angry with him or that he should stop or that he's being punished. It's simply a signal, and it's not meant to get him to stop, it's meant to get him to *think*. Also be very clear that he can ask you why you said it, and that there's no penalty for doing this.

Start with small, obvious behaviours such as repetitive habits or sentence construction, then slowly work into tactical advice (always look someone in the eye, always ask how they are doing, always remember their name), then into strategic advice ("never lie to a friend", "never tell something told to you in confidence"), then into planning advice (see what other people do and imitate them, dress like them, try to act like them).

Get a copy of "How to Make Friends and Influence People" (Dale Carnegie) and use it as a syllabus for what to teach. Also check out "Influence, the science of persuasion" as a guide for what to watch out for (so that others don't take advantage of him).

Best of luck to you.