Randomness thread, part two.

[boost]

No, it's not. Even if somehow you are bulding a bomb without the intent to detonate it, it may still explode during construction, putting other people at risk. And there always exists the risk of accidental detonation.

If you were bulding a bomb in a bomb-proof room, and you are an expert, and you have suitable methods of storing it, safe methods of transport, and a suitable place to detonate it safely, without any criminal intent whatsoever, well maybe then it's passive. Maybe. Good luck ticking all those boxes.

Well, so you agree, at least theoretically it is a passive act.

But yeah, it was a poor example to make and didn't really help move the conversation along.

[OngBonga]

In fairness, the term "passive act" is a loose term that can mean different things to us both. Walking round with a huge knife could be seen as a passive act. Chefs need knives, maybe it's a chef going to work.

Like the gun people mojo linked us... walking round with guns, well there's no aggression there, so it's passive, right? But it's a weapon, and clearly visible, so it can be seen as passive-aggressive. Or maybe it's outright aggression being painted as a passive act, maybe they just want to look tough.

I guess my phrase "passive act" isn't definitive enough to make the point I was trying to make. I suppose "intent" is a better word, and that intent needs to be proveable. Is wearing a mask in public obviously criminal intent? It's only obviously criminal intent if the act is itself a crime. I might want to wear a mask because I like dressing up in fancy dress, and it's a cool mask.

If wearing a mask in public is illegal, are we going to relax the law on 31st October so kids can dress up as witches and devils? So adults can go to fancy dress parties? Can I go to a fancy dress party on the 23rd March? Must I put the mask on when I get there?

The act of wearing a mask, in itself, does not demonstrate criminal intent.

When it comes to bomb making, it's reasonable for the law to assume criminal intent, not least because bombmaking is very illegal, but also because it's not very easy to think of a non-criminal use for a bomb. Only the military and security personnel, and perhaps scientists, might have reason to build a bomb without criminal intent, and have the expertise to do so safely.

This is what I mean by "passive act"... an act which can reasonably argued to be non-criminal in intent. It's not the best use of the word "passive", but it's the word that sprung to mind at the time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Like the gun people mojo linked us...

[OngBonga]

it wasn't me.gif

*poop

It's definitely true that weed affects short term memory!

[OngBonga]

I'll admit, I'm touched that you still read all my posts, even though I admitted to trolling you.

[MadMojoMonkey]

*poop

It's definitely true that weed affects short term memory!

In a room full of stoned people:

Q: How do you stump a stoner?

*all eyes on you. Intent focus. They will not be stumped*

A: What were you just talking about?

*all stoners realize they have no clue, and laugh at your insight.*

[OngBonga]

How you actually stump a stoner...

Q: What were you thinking about two minutes ago?

A: um

Q: What are you thinking about now?

A: King skins.

*produce king skins.

[wufwugy]

Are you perturbed by me having left the team, or do you think I'm making lousy points?

That being asked, I've certainly moved center on certain issues, and left on others. I'm interested in an accurate perception of reality, not rooting or fighting for a team.

Now a question about what's happened to your social-political compass: I'd thought of you as the guy who'd cheer for the guy who satirizes religious demands on secular society by winning a judgement that forces the DMV to issue him a license with a photo of him wearing a pasta strainer on his head. What happened?

I'm happy to see you've evolved. I don't mean it in that on some things your opinion appears to align more with mine, but I mean it in that evolving opinion is a sign of robust intelligence and consistent use of trial and error. In the long run, it isn't the opinion that matters, but it's how the opinion was created that matters.

On the topic of political identification, my values have never changed. It's only my view on how to achieve those values that have changed. The irony for this is that it's because of my leftist college education that I've moved right. I don't care much for the narrative I'm being taught; I care for the facts, and even the most lefty education can't hide the facts.

[boost]

Ong, great post re: passive acts. Too often discussion turns to argument (and ultimate deteriorate into insults and mutual frustration) when the parties have a fundamental, albeit often minor, disagreement on foundations that are requisite for all participants to actually be conversing on the same topic. A big stumbling block is that often no one even realizes that everyone is having their own conversation which may or may not be tangential to that of the others, but can hardly lead to a gain in insight much less any sort of resolution. To make things even harder, once one or all parties do catch a wiff of misconception, people tend to have a reliable aversion to getting down to the nitty gritty. I suppose for some the tedium is a turn off, while other times by the time the problem is spotted attitudes have been soured by the commonly combative atmosphere leading up to the nitty gritty.

Anyways, you make good points regarding wearing masks in public. In general it can be easy to over value the negative potentialities while undervaluing or ignoring the boon that something like irreverent whimsy can be to society.

[boost]

Wuf,

Yeah man, idk, it's tough though-- it ends up being an unending balancing act. I think there's an enviable level of comfort in ascribing to a set of ideas dictated by an entity greater than one's self. "I'm a liberal." "I'm a nihilist." "I'm a Janeist." Labels such as these are useful thought shortcuts that allow you to come to conclusions without having to go into deep critical thought every time you're asked "Paper or plastic?"

However, if these shortcuts are allowed to run, not as an app but instead as your operating system, then you can find yourself a slave to an identifier which, disturbingly, due to the fluidity of these terms, can leave you expressing an identity deeply antithetical to the values that lead you to take up the short cut in the first place.

With this stuff in mind, I was bouncing around google and found this cool article that touches on these themes http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/...e-matters.html

[OngBonga]

I think the point about this clown craze is the law is already well placed to deal with people who are either carrying a weapon, approaching people aggressively, threatening violence, causing distress etc. Making it illegal to wear a mask is uneccesary, that will only serve to criminalise those who had no criminal intent in the first place, while those who did were already breaking the law and can already be arrested for their behaviour.

If they did bring in a ban on masks in public, it would have me thinking that this whole craze was set in motion by the powers that be for the sole purpose of bringing in such a law.

Currently, I favour the theory that it's a marketing campaign for the new It film, that's gotten out of hand.

[Savy]

When people are doing illegal shit wearing clown masks like stabbing people the idea that the mask is the problem seems a bit alien to me.

[Keith]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...butted-9021750

[boost]

Very well put Ong.

Have you ever read about the people who paint their faces in ways that break up their features in a way that counters facial recognition algorithms?

It's both a way to opt out and a protest to the employment of these identifying/tracking systems that are now in many public spaces.

It is certainly an interesting collision of individual rights and what is at least ostensibly the common good.

[JKDS]

The mask thing was to help catch criminals, and deter the choice of wearing a mask during a crime. Most of these US laws came about to deal with certain white hooded people...

[wufwugy]

However, if these shortcuts are allowed to run, not as an app but instead as your operating system, then you can find yourself a slave to an identifier which, disturbingly, due to the fluidity of these terms, can leave you expressing an identity deeply antithetical to the values that lead you to take up the short cut in the first place.

Indeed. Perhaps personal values should be the operating system and heuristics should be among the apps.

[a500lbgorilla]

https://www.facebook.com/HipHopVines...5003391364226/

[MadMojoMonkey]

Jumping at shadows, IMO.

Afraid of a mask?

What about respiration mask?
Like the white kind with the elastic bands that you sometimes see people wearing?

Do you need a license to perform a play in a public space? special dispensation for Hallowe'en?

Does face paint count? At what point does a woman wearing makeup become a "mask?"

[Poopadoop]

makeup.jpg

I'd be scared.

[aubreymcfate]

I find that ascribing to an ideology and abstract concepts rather than actually dealing with the tangible reality at hand (which is always more complex and counter-intuitive than the concept would lead you to believe) generates mirror images.. Which is to say that the most rabid SJW person is just a reflection of the most rabid "alt-right" person, etc. "If we behave like those on the other side, then we are the other side. Instead of changing the world, all we'll achieve is a reflection of the one we want to destroy." We also tend to approach problem-solving in a paradigm of duality too: problem --> solution (i.e. gun control will solve gun violence, etc), as though causality unfolds in a linear way when in fact we live in a world of incredibly complex nonlinear systems.

also, boost, #22584 is so spot on, i was actually ruminating about that phenomenon the other day, the idea of people involved in an argument that are not actually communicating but are just running a script. In my experience, the people who want to avoid getting into the "nitty gritty" seem to see it as a kind of defeat to even have a high-resolution conversation with the person they've branded as an "enemy" due to privilege or whatever.

Is there actually a law being proposed to ban masks or something? or is this a hypothetical convo. I may have missed it while reading the posts.

i might be on this dude's podcast in the near future so if i don't sound like a complete moron i'll share it here.

[aubreymcfate]

"That is how the loving ideas of Jesus Christ became the sinister cliches of Christianity. That is why virtually every revolution in history has failed: the oppressed, as soon as they seize power, turn into the oppressors, resorting to totalitarian tactics to "protect the revolution." That is why minorities seeking the abolition of prejudice become intolerant, minorities seeking peace become militant, minorities seeking equality become self-righteous, and minorities seeking liberation become hostile (a tight asshole being the first symptom of self-repression)." - Tom Robbins

[Savy]

Is this a proper podcast that people listen to or "hey girl come round and do my podcast".

If the first what's it about.

[aubreymcfate]

Is this a proper podcast that people listen to or "hey girl come round and do my podcast".

If the first what's it about.

If it was the latter I wouldn't accept it, lol. It's not a huge podcast but it's totally proper, has an audience and exposure and all that. I met Duncan Trussell last weekend and watched the debate with him and his friends, one of them being this dude, so it was a legitimate context to meet him in. And we had a great conversation. Really sweet guy.

I have no idea what we'll talk about. Will possibly use psychedelics/consciousness as a launching pad because we were talking about that (coincidentally I was talking about how some people turn psychedelics into an ideology that verges on dogma). But it seems like he just talks to a range of interesting people in different fields. I think the idea is that it's about "being human" so it has a broad scope. I have a bunch of shit I could blab endlessly about anyway.

[Savy]

I had to google who that was but I can now only assume you're going on Rogans podcast. I should really put some effort into finding some good podcasts now I'm commuting fairly regularly. The ones I listen to currently are too general & depend on the guests too much.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...butted-9021750

They mentioned people dressing up as batman and shit going round fighting the clowns on Have I Got News For You. Pretty funny. If people are hitting you when you jump out that's just part of the risk.

[JKDS]

I haven't fact checked for currentness, but anti mask laws exist and are in many jurisdictions.

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

The answer to mmm's questions come from reading the statutes

[aubreymcfate]

Lol no, not Rogan. I would describe that as a way bigger podcast. That would be amazing but I haven't done anything to warrant being on his podcast.

[a500lbgorilla]

I find that ascribing to an ideology and abstract concepts rather than actually dealing with the tangible reality at hand (which is always more complex and counter-intuitive than the concept would lead you to believe) generates mirror images.

My

We also tend to approach problem-solving in a paradigm of duality too: problem --> solution (i.e. gun control will solve gun violence, etc), as though causality unfolds in a linear way when in fact we live in a world of incredibly complex

god

[a500lbgorilla]

i was actually ruminating about that phenomenon the other day, the idea of people involved in an argument that are not actually communicating but are just running a script. In my experience, the people who want to avoid getting into the "nitty gritty" seem to see it as a kind of defeat to even have a high-resolution conversation with the person they've branded as an "enemy" due to privilege or whatever.

I run scripts most of the time and I see others running them on me. Just the fun of being alive, imo. The further fun is noticing how they queue off their scripts and seeing how I queue off mine.

[a500lbgorilla]

"That is how the loving ideas of Jesus Christ became the sinister cliches of Christianity. That is why virtually every revolution in history has failed: the oppressed, as soon as they seize power, turn into the oppressors, resorting to totalitarian tactics to "protect the revolution." That is why minorities seeking the abolition of prejudice become intolerant, minorities seeking peace become militant, minorities seeking equality become self-righteous, and minorities seeking liberation become hostile (a tight asshole being the first symptom of self-repression)." - Tom Robbins

FFS

[a500lbgorilla]

whatever

here are some monkeys

https://imgur.com/0BefAIL

and some dogs

http://i.imgur.com/CajRELV.gifv

[boost]

Jumping at shadows, IMO.

Afraid of a mask?

What about respiration mask?
Like the white kind with the elastic bands that you sometimes see people wearing?

Do you need a license to perform a play in a public space? special dispensation for Hallowe'en?

Does face paint count? At what point does a woman wearing makeup become a "mask?"

You should realize that all law is an encroachment on freedoms, and good law minimizes that encroachment as much as possible, while not failing to deliver the intended disincentive. Maybe anti-mask laws cannot have their encroachments on freedom adequately mitigated, or maybe anti-mask laws create enough good to compensate for the sadness they bring to the impromptu public theater troupes.

This seems to be where the discussion is. Everyone agrees there are situations, rare as they are, where masks can be used to aid bad people in doing bad things, and on the other hand there are more common and legitimate reasons to where masks. Further, in the case of anti-mask legislation, a line will need to be drawn, and it will almost surely be an arbitrary delineation.

What does a series of statements, masked by a gratuitous use of rhetorical question marks, add to the current state of the discussion?

[wufwugy]

On the Robbins quote, the cycle of oppressed turning to oppressor can be broken. A way to do it is the ideology of individual liberty. The oppressor believes his way is right for all and the oppressed-turned-oppressor also believes his way is right for all. The advocate of individual liberty does not believe his way is right for all but believes in all having the right to individual liberty.

[Savy]

Everyone agrees there are situations, rare as they are, where masks can be used to aid bad people in doing bad things,.

Yeah but the following logic of banning masks as that would stop the bad things is just false. The masks aren't the problem. So fucking about with them isn't the solution. If you're going to rob a shop for example (of which there is a law against) do you decide not to do that because there is a law saying don't wear a mask? Of course not.

It's akin to banning cars to solve the problem of drunk drivers.

If you can think of better examples of banning masks being a good solution then please do post some.

[Savy]

On the Robbins quote, the cycle of oppressed turning to oppressor can be broken. A way to do it is the ideology of individual liberty. The oppressor believes his way is right for all and the oppressed-turned-oppressor also believes his way is right for all. The advocate of individual liberty does not believe his way is right for all but believes in all having the right to individual liberty.

Yeah but who has no views which result in restrictions of liberty for groups of people. Even if you do have a group of people who believe all of that what do you do when someone starts pushing other ideologies on people?

The whole you do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else logic as great as it sounds breaks down pretty quickly.

[boost]

Yeah but the following logic of banning masks as that would stop the bad things is just false. The masks aren't the problem. So fucking about with them isn't the solution. If you're going to rob a shop for example (of which there is a law against) do you decide not to do that because there is a law saying don't wear a mask? Of course not.

It's akin to banning cars to solve the problem of drunk drivers.

If you can think of better examples then please do.

You're insisting that crimes (at least those in which masks are sometimes used) are committed or not committed with no credence being given to the ease with which the crime can be committed. I think this is a false premise. Just as a deterrent, like a vault, can be expected to weed out less determined would-be-robbers, removing tools from the robbery tool kit should dissuade some number of potential robbers. Whether those numbers are sufficient to justify anti-mask laws, I'm not sure.

[wufwugy]

Yeah but who has no views which result in restrictions of liberty for groups of people. Even if you do have a group of people who believe all of that what do you do when someone starts pushing other ideologies on people?

The whole you do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else logic as great as it sounds breaks down pretty quickly.

Stop people from initiating infringement of liberty on other people.

The US government already does this by constitution on many issues. More can be done. A lot more.

[Savy]

You're insisting that crimes (at least those in which masks are sometimes used) are committed or not committed with no credence being given to the ease with which the crime can be committed. I think this is a false premise. Just as a deterrent, like a vault, can be expected to weed out less determined would-be-robbers, removing tools from the robbery tool kit should dissuade some number of potential robbers. Whether those numbers are sufficient to justify anti-mask laws, I'm not sure.

If you're talking about restricting the access to masks then maybe that would act as more of a barrier but I (and I assume we) was talking about wearing masks in public being the restriction which I don't think would result in any real effect on the crimes happening and that's not even factoring in the negative payoffs of loss of freedom of the people. If we are talking about removing the availability of masks then the problem with that is that make shift masks aren't very hard to make & I assume these are what are usually worn when masks are used to commit crimes rather than more Halloween related masks.

I hope that makes sense, reads really badly.

Stop people from initiating infringement of liberty on other people.

The US government already does this by constitution on many issues. More can be done. A lot more.

Yeah but it's by no means black and white. Also as soon as you have a government you're somewhat infringing on peoples liberties.

[JKDS]

Creating more crimes makes it easier to prove a crime occured. It's not just about deterrence, it's an alternative case theory as well.

Before you start harping on how more crimes means less liberty, consider that the availability of an alternative crime can help a defendant in plea bargaining.

You can't get a good deal if we the facts don't support a plea to a lesser charge.

[wufwugy]

Also as soon as you have a government you're somewhat infringing on peoples liberties.

I agree.

Still, the government can infringe more or it can infringe less. The governments of the US originally infringed very little. Now they infringe a lot. A culture of people who vote for liberty would change that.

[boost]

If you're talking about restricting the access to masks then maybe that would act as more of a barrier but I (and I assume we) was talking about wearing masks in public being the restriction which I don't think happens. If we are talking about removing the availability of masks then the problem with that is that make shift masks aren't very hard to make & I assume these are what are usually worn when masks are used to commit crimes rather than more Halloween related masks.

I wasn't thinking of restricting the availability, and as you pointed out, that idea is dead from the jump. The logic of restricting people from wearing masks is that only those who sought to break the law would wear masks. This actually is the exact opposite effect of the "if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns" line of thinking. If only criminals wear masks, those which do are advertising that they are criminals in the act of committing a crime.

[boost]

I agree.

Still, the government can infringe more or it can infringe less. The governments of the US originally infringed very little. Now they infringe a lot. A culture of people who vote for liberty would change that.

I think it's only reasonable to offer this conceit, however I think it belies your position. "Very little", "a lot", "vote for liberty". I get what you're getting at, but it's all a bit vague. When ever the needle tickles your satisfaction, there will be someone else hysterical, limbs flailing about, shouting to all who will listen (and all who won't for that matter) that the infringement gauge is deep in the red.

Not so random random thought: maybe the government that exhibits a lasting trend of rolling back its infringements is like Benjamin Button in one of two ways 1) a novel idea that's fun to play around with, but ultimately fantasy, and nonsensical fantasy at that 2) doomed to shrink into non existence.

[wufwugy]

I think it's only reasonable to offer this conceit, however I think it belies your position. "Very little", "a lot", "vote for liberty". I get what you're getting at, but it's all a bit vague. When ever the needle tickles your satisfaction, there will be someone else hysterical, limbs flailing about, shouting to all who will listen (and all who won't for that matter) that the infringement gauge is deep in the red.

True, but it does seem measurable. The topic you recently discussed, Prohibition, is a good example. The law increased the infringement on liberty, and striking it down decreased infringement.

Not so random random thought: maybe the government that exhibits a lasting trend of rolling back its infringements is like Benjamin Button in one of two ways 1) a novel idea that's fun to play around with, but ultimately fantasy, and nonsensical fantasy at that 2) doomed to shrink into non existence.

The bold might very well be the case. I don't (yet) have a theory for how humans can naturally gravitate away from authoritarianism. At this point it appears that the better people have it, the more ignorant they become of where good things come from, and they sell their liberties away for comfort, entertainment, and a twisted sense of justice. By this logic, a society that successfully doesn't infringe on liberties should be expected to hit a negative feedback due to cultural naivete and decadence.

Another element I'm batting around is that there seems to be a geographic nature to what people believe. The main part of this is that as population density increases, it appears that people feel less control over their lives and desire more authority to keep things organized. Imagine living on a farm in Wyoming. If something goes wrong, it is either something you had some responsibility over and/or you have to fix it. But if you live in NYC, if something goes wrong, there are a million complex causes and a million things to blame. On the farm, it's obvious why having a government authority would just make things worse. But in the city, it isn't so obvious.

[a500lbgorilla]

Let's make things a shade more difficult



Guy does real well, the crowd has some great pot-shots, but it all kinda collapses at the tail end when he tires out.

[aubreymcfate]

He does do pretty well, except the exchange around 6:30 makes no sense on his part. "i didn't say it wasn't a big deal, i said i didn't care if people called me that." What does that mean?? He contradicts himself and never directly acknowledges the point they made. I'm not saying there's no good rebuttal, but he definitely didn't give one.

rilla, i feel this isn't the first time your cryptic and terse responses have left me super confused.

wuf -- there's definitely a geographic nature to what people believe. The idea of "psychogeography" is somewhat related to this. It's a much more expansive concept that I don't fully understand because I haven't read all the literature, but the simplest definition offered by Guy Debord supports your statement: "the study of the precise laws and specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organized or not, on the emotions and behavior of individuals."

In the same way that the medium is the message (in the sense that it is the way we receive information -- and not the information itself -- that shapes society and our interpersonal dynamics), our environment and the way we interact with it affects our behaviors.

I often wonder why I don't drop all my ambitions and just live a quiet life where the salt of the Aegean is ever-present in the air, because that's where I am truly at my sanest.

[a500lbgorilla]

Terse?

I find myself brief and warm.

Cryptic is a fair point, though.

[aubreymcfate]

thanks for clarifying

edit: honestly the fact that i don't have the option to use a text smiley over the emoji is bullshit and quite frankly makes this place an oppressive regime. "individual liberty" my ass.

[JKDS]

My god those kids were annoying. How'd he not punch one of em?

[boost]

Good people aspire to be good people, bad people are convinced they already are.

[JKDS]

Who said that, Jack Burton?

[aubreymcfate]

Good people aspire to be good people, bad people are convinced they already are.

Analogous to the notion that stupid people have the blind conviction that they are unerringly smart and smart people are insecure and second-guess themselves.

[wufwugy]

i second guess other people. smart league.

[MadMojoMonkey]

i second guess other people. smart league.

I second guess myself and distrust anything coming from wuf. Genius league.

[wufwugy]

genius league > smart league.

you've foiled me this time. but next time.....there's gonna be a next time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I looked for evil laugh gif and I found angry yawn gif.

Better.

[boost]

Who said that, Jack Burton?

Me.

I was hoping for a Bertrand Russel type when I went to google, but I'm happy to take Jack Burton as a compliment.

[aubreymcfate]

coincidentally, bertrand russell (along with many others) said the thing i compared your statement to.



https://www.facebook.com/stantonwarr...type=2&theater

[chemist]

coincidentally, bertrand russell (along with many others) said the thing i compared your statement to.
https://www.facebook.com/stantonwarr...type=2&theater

I know its the randomness thread but the facebook link was totally random, is it in any way related to the great philosopher Earl Jack Bertrand?

What was “walking on water,” if it wasn’t Bible talk for surfing?

This one is easy: It was Dynamo messing about with his time machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEc_jeGBVxs

[OngBonga]

What was “walking on water,” if it wasn’t Bible talk for surfing?

It's sun worship. Jesus = Sol. Ever seen the reflection of the sun on water? I have.

[aubreymcfate]

Thomas Pynchon posed the question in Inherent Vice, which was then made into one of the most brilliant films I've ever seen by PT Anderson (hence the Les Baxter song it links to, which was on the soundtrack [which is also mmmph *kisses fingers* fantastic]). So y'all can go tell him your theories yourselves. ;P

YouTube vid is blocked in my country (Amurica).

The video was totally random. I dunno. Just spreading the gyrating Christian joy.

[a500lbgorilla]

Society is entering a new epoch



Where talent and satire merge as one

[wufwugy]

Mel Brooks the original merger of talent and satire.

[bigred]

Looks like I missed a lot after disconnecting for a few days. Hello from the northern tip of Vietnam.

[Savy]

How do people go about remembering peoples names when they meet quite a few new people at once? I'm bad enough at remembering one new name any more than that in a short period of time and it's unlikely I'm retaining any of them. At the same time though it's going to appear rude and is something I should fix so any ideas are appreciated.

[JKDS]

I try associating the name with something.

Others deliberately repeat the name a ton before the meeting ends

[bigred]

How do people go about remembering peoples names when they meet quite a few new people at once? I'm bad enough at remembering one new name any more than that in a short period of time and it's unlikely I'm retaining any of them. At the same time though it's going to appear rude and is something I should fix so any ideas are appreciated.

Repitition. When I meet someone I repeat their name in my head a few times and try to say it a few times within the first 10 minutes of meeting them.

Also, people are human and we all forget names sometimes. It's much better to be upfront and say I apologize but could you repeat your name for me. I think this is greater appreciated. "Hey, man" or tricks to figure out someone's name are pretty transparent.

[OngBonga]

The three R's.

Repetition repetition repetition.

[Poopadoop]

Repetition works by keeping the name in short term memory long enough for it to be encoded in long term memory. Association works by encoding the name more deeply, in a network that already exists in LTM. The more different ways a name can be encoded, the better it will be remembered.

Obviously if you have time repetition is easier and will work. If you're given multiple names to remember in quick succession however, that isn't really an option. In that case what I do is to repeat the name out loud, look at the person, and try to associate the name with something memorable about them. It could be 'Rosie' and red hair or something, where you think 'Rosie is red'. The next time you see the person that feature serves as a cue - you see the red hair and think 'Rosie'.

Repeating the name out loud encodes it on a motor level, so that your brain associates the sight of that person with the act of saying their name. It also helps encode it on an auditory level, as you hear the name you're saying and looking at the person whose name it is.

Another trick is to associate them with something memorable. For example, if it were Stan, you might think 'Stan with a face like a can', and then picture his face as a can. You might then imagine them scratching their face and it making a tinging sound. Or maybe the can is filled with nuclear waste. The more vivid and silly it is the more memorable it's likely to be because how can you forget 'Stan the can face, who tings when he touches his face and is spilling out with nuclear waste?'

Obviously you should be thinking these things silently and not saying 'nice to meet you Stan the can face' (although if you can get away with it, saying it out loud would probably help you remember it better).

[The Bean Counter]

How do people go about remembering peoples names when they meet quite a few new people at once? I'm bad enough at remembering one new name any more than that in a short period of time and it's unlikely I'm retaining any of them. At the same time though it's going to appear rude and is something I should fix so any ideas are appreciated.

Most work places have all the names and photos on the intranet now. I tend to download the organisation chart in my first week and spend some time getting all the names and faces down. That and repetition.

Schools have the photos of the pupils on the school system too (if that's where you're working). You can also use seating plans to make life easier.

[The Bean Counter]

In my experience, remembering a person's name is one of the best things you can do to build a relationship. That and remembering a few things about them, no matter how long it was since you saw them e.g. "How is life in xyz?", "How is your daughter xyz getting on with the new school?", "bad result for Leeds this weekend", etc. So many people are so bad at this and I find it annoying if I can remember telling them something and they can't remember it at all.

[Savy]

In my experience, remembering a person's name is one of the best things you can do to build a relationship. That and remembering a few things about them, no matter how long it was since you saw them e.g. "How is life in xyz?", "How is your daughter xyz getting on with the new school?", "bad result for Leeds this weekend", etc. So many people are so bad at this and I find it annoying if I can remember telling them something and they can't remember it at all.

I'm really good at that for some reason yet names just don't stick. Of the 20 or so people I've spoken to I could tell you where they are from, what the used to do, how they get to work, some basic small talk stuff yet I can remember 4 names. 2 of them are higher ups who I'll never have a conversation with, one is the guy I've been stood next to for ~25 hours (and I only know that as I keep checking his work badge) and one is a girl I think is hot so for some reason sticks.

And no just working in a warehouse atm, school stuff won't start till next year probably maybe not even until August but ye remembering students names is obviously very important too.

[aubreymcfate]

Also, people are human and we all forget names sometimes. It's much better to be upfront and say I apologize but could you repeat your name for me. I think this is greater appreciated. "Hey, man" or tricks to figure out someone's name are pretty transparent.

And half the time it's met with a sigh of relief and a "I forgot yours too, could you please tell me." Authentic interaction usually helps with ingraining their name too.

There have been a couple people whose names I repeatedly forgot though. They'd be really excited to see me every time and I felt like such a jackass. After about the third time of that happening their names naturally cemented themselves in my head out of shame. That can be a last resort thing to rely on. :P

[aubreymcfate]

so I did that podcast thing. I think it came out ok for my first time doing anything of the sort. Def had the whole "oh man i should have said x y and z" and all other sorts of worries and qualifications of what i said afterwards, but that's normal, i'm sure. anyway, if anyone wants to hear it, shoot me a message.

[Savy]

Why not just post it so people can click as their own leisure?

I'm interested to see what it's about but it's unlikely I'll listen to the whole thing.

[aubreymcfate]

i guess i'm just being a little shy/reserved. i was so nervous and there's so much i didn't say that i should have, so many thoughts i had that i forgot due to performance anxiety, so many things i didn't articulate up to my standards. i dunno, it's a little rough.

i don't expect anyone to listen to the entire thing, or anywhere close, most (not all) of the things we discuss isn't really anyone's bag here. but i appreciate any time you take out of your schedule to give it. the second half is considerably better, more relaxed, and silly/fun, number of good laughs. maybe skipping around is best.

http://studiodonovan.com/listen/2016...e-sakellaridis

i guess the only thing id request is that if anyone has critical feedback, just pm me, don't post about it here. thanks.

i got another podcast invite, bigger one this time. i'm happy to share as they unfold, hopefully i'll get better with experience.

newayz

</making a huge deal out of nothing>

[MadMojoMonkey]

I am shocked that you used a pseudonym on the podcast.
What's wrong with your real name, Aubrey McFate?

What are you hiding?