1 2 > 
 
   
 

telling it like it is… on The Malarkey Scale

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5227
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
15 April 2017 09:44
 

One of the buzz-phrases that been around since the beginning of this trump-malarkey is ‘he tells it like it is’.

It is a very interesting thing to say. Those of us who aren’t saying it are wondering what exactly it is that he is telling it like. We expect to find facts, reality, truthfulness and clarity as the basic ingredients of any practice called ‘telling it like it is’.

For example, many of us know the double-slit experiment from reading Gary Zukov’s Dancing Wu Li Masters. Gosh, that was a lot of FUN. When Lawrence Krauss explained the experiment to The Boss in a recent podcast, that was a clear example of telling it like it is. We trust the professor as a well-informed authority on the matter of photon activities in general.

What are all these other folks talking about? What does telling it like it is mean to them? Check out this actual imaginary conversation with a malarkey-supporter at a recent malarkey-rally…

“If he isn’t telling facts, how is he telling it like it is?”

“They’re facts while he tells them.”

“When he stops, what happens to his so-called fact? Does it stop to?”

“Only if we let them. He starts the truth and tosses it out to us and we, together, do our best to see that it never hits the ground.”

“But that’s what the rest of us do with giant balloon-balls at concerts. It’s just a bag of gas. How can you believe in a factual claim that cannot be demonstrated?”

“Look around. It is being demonstrated right now. Just listen…”

“He’s saying something about Gandhi’s funeral being nothing compared to his inaugural crowd.”

“So? Were you there? He was there, I’ll bet.”

“How is the truth being demonstrated here?”

“You can feel the truth here. When he says something I like, I can feel its truth. It’s like I’m tickled all over by invisible bunnies.”

“It’s true because it tickles?”

“I’ll concede that I might feel a bit stupid and unsure believing it if I were at home and alone. But here, we all have the same feeling and it magnifies it for everyone. The truth becomes a magnificent energizing sensation. Our truth will kick your butt.”


We have one side that wants to report facts for enlightenment and another side that wants to conjure them for empowerment. How does one conjure a fact? By telling it like it is. The secret is in the ‘it’. The it does not refer to reality or the physical world at all. It refers to brain activity. To tell it like it is means to deliver a message in a manner that caters to the way some people use their brains and their perception.

This is a useful way to understand political positions that seem impossible to understand. Differences in politics are too often ascribed to philosophical positions or personal values. Traditionally, disagreements over politics are perceived as one position being smarter than another and hence one combatant being stupider than the other. While I do not discount the role stupidity plays in politics, it cannot be a universal explanation tempting as that might be.

Nobody picks the stupid side, so how is it that so many end up on it?

Since no one is choosing to be stupid, our political differences really reside in our preferences in brain mechanics. As in, how we prefer to use our brains. There is a way another person can use their brain that makes your politics appear to be stupid. That might be easily or eagerly accepted but it points to a painful truth. It is the way we use our brains that makes other people’s politics appear to be stupid.

It would not be too great a stretch to call political stupidity an Optical Illusion because it concerns how we look at things. As long as we keep seeing stupidity, our disagreements will lead to conflict and warfare. We’ve all seen how quickly a malarkey-driven administration can stir up both.

Instead of buying ammo on line, we might consider how brain mechanics might be creating the illusions that divide us. The primary illusion being that we are all using the same brain mechanics and getting wildly different results. Accepting that illusion means other results are stupid, evil or the product of a lesser lifeform or worse, the instrument of a rival god-form. All of these views can ease the reality of squeezing the trigger. When the time comes.

It is easy to spot brain mechanics in action. Just invite someone to tell it like it is. Normally, this is a horrible idea that is best avoided but Science beckons. The task does not require paying any attention to content. All the tasker has to do is count the steps that lead to working it out and getting to a satisfied feeling of having ‘told it like it is’. It can be done with one hand.

By step, I mean a unit of logic… a connection of reasoning… one thing meaning something to something else that follows. One of the steps will be the last or final stop where the illusive ‘like it is’ has been delivered. That’s where we stop counting.

For example, if the sample produced is “the cosmos and all its issues are black and white because digital information is 1’s and 0’s”, then we can count two steps. The cosmos having issues is a murky step but it counts as 1. Connecting it to binary code makes it two. Ignore the content, dizziness may result. The point is, the invisible bunny has tickled and like it is has been told in two step. So, it rates a 2 on the Malarkey Scale.

See? This is easy. Most malarkey does not exceed 3 on the scale, which looks like this:

The Malarkey Scale-

1- Junior bench-warmer and donation-base
2- Radio-inspired activist and combat-conversationalist
3- Fountain of Wisdom and ready for the Big Chair
4- Skeptic
5- Over-thinking fence-sitter
6 and over- The opposing side

Anyone who takes any position on anything will rate somewhere on the Malarkey Scale. A point will be reached where like it is has been told. Usually, it is when the bunny tickles and the clues are plain in tone and posture.

The Malarkey Scale will become even more useful in identifying future encounters with artificial intelligences. Run the ‘tell it like it is’ experiment. An AI will always rate at or near infinity on the scale. They never feel the tickling of the bunny.

[ Edited: 03 May 2017 11:03 by Nhoj Morley]
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5347
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
15 April 2017 12:08
 

That was awesome. I really hope the word malarkey makes a comeback.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
17 April 2017 12:12
 
Jb8989 - 15 April 2017 12:08 PM

That was awesome. I really hope the word malarkey makes a comeback.

Since the election I’ve been trying to figure out why 63 million Americans voted for Trump.  I thought, surely they could see the malarkey steaming off of him . . . I mean, to the point where it would have been dangerous to light a match.  It has dawned on me slowly that they didn’t vote for him by ignoring the stench of malarkey, they voted for him because of the malarkey.  He is a cult leader.  They love malarkey. 

I can’t find it right now, but recently I saw a magazine photo of a young woman at one of Trump’s rallies looking up at him reverently with moist shining eyes.  Maybe that’s when I had my revelation.  Cult leaders can do no wrong.  Even when ‘the cool aid’ comes out, his blond acolyte in the red cap will sip hers with moist shining eyes.  Heaven awaits!

demagogue 2 :    a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power -  (Webster)

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5347
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
18 April 2017 12:38
 
unsmoked - 17 April 2017 12:12 PM
Jb8989 - 15 April 2017 12:08 PM

That was awesome. I really hope the word malarkey makes a comeback.

Since the election I’ve been trying to figure out why 63 million Americans voted for Trump.  I thought, surely they could see the malarkey steaming off of him . . . I mean, to the point where it would have been dangerous to light a match.  It has dawned on me slowly that they didn’t vote for him by ignoring the stench of malarkey, they voted for him because of the malarkey.  He is a cult leader.  They love malarkey. 

I can’t find it right now, but recently I saw a magazine photo of a young woman at one of Trump’s rallies looking up at him reverently with moist shining eyes.  Maybe that’s when I had my revelation.  Cult leaders can do no wrong.  Even when ‘the cool aid’ comes out, his blond acolyte in the red cap will sip hers with moist shining eyes.  Heaven awaits!

demagogue 2 :    a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power -  (Webster)

You actually brought the word back for me!

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  4706
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
19 April 2017 00:09
 

Would excess bunkum lead to a complete malarkey!?

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
19 April 2017 11:47
 
MARTIN_UK - 19 April 2017 12:09 AM

Would excess bunkum lead to a complete malarkey!?

  Yes.  Like Trump and professional wrestling.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I  I’m really surprised this scene wasn’t repeated at one of his debates.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5227
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
03 May 2017 10:59
 

Our current Presidentay is a fraud and a false front. Lots of people are, but is this a case of engaging in fraud? Can it be demonstrated that our pumpkin-in-chief ran with no intention of being President? At least, not as the Constitution defines the role or as its founders imagined.

The Oval Office, like power, has become something to grab and hold. Persuasion has taken the form of threats and coersion. Truth is simply the loudest sound in the room. The White House was conquered instead of bestowed. These have been stubborn facts lurking beneath a fascade for a long time already but this new scenario has them out in plain sight.

It has become disturbingly clear that squash-boy had very little knowledge of the role or its history and had made no real preparation for it. Much of the job has come as a complete surprise. Should we have a mechanism in place that could reveal these deficits in advance? A simple application form might suffice. Clear questions with multiple-choice answers about the basics of the job would serve to exclude candidates who score less than 20%. Many face such hurdles when seeking employment.

Many pumpkin-voters have lost confidence in the system the founders kicked off. It is not hard to see why. Take a close look at what went into the founding process. These guys were pushing everything past six on the Malarkey scale and often hitting ten or more. Long chains of reasoning were exposed and discussed. The language used emerged from a slow-cooking crucible. The task was not complete until everyone involved felt at least a little tickle from the bunny that told them they were doing the right thing.

That is the crux of the matter. Never mind the details (the Founders were blinded morons on many issues), the primary factor of change is The Malarkey Scale itself. Throughout our brief history, there is a Bell Curve to find that is more intriguing than Mr. Murray’s.

The high part of this curve stretches from the Revolution to the Civil War where it turns downward continuously to the present day. It is the broad average of capacity for malarkey as measured by the scale. Long chains of reasoning earn high numbers on the scale but are still ultimately, in some as-yet unknown way, malarkey. Upscale malarkey tends to be responsible, forward looking, compassionate and open to examination. Low-end malarkey tends to be defensive, over-dressed and much louder. Five is the mid-point.

This does not indicate a change of fashion. It is a change in emphasis and effort in education and training that points students toward either long-chain malarkey or short-chain malarkey. The long-chain type requires a strong perception of long chains or narratives. Explanations and arguments of this type are easy to spot as they are perceived as clearly having a beginning, middle and end. Short-chain malarkey requires no patience and can usually be perceived all at once.

Patience (as a form of stamina) is the main factor in malarkey type selection. Many find delaying gratification a challenging skill. The same challenge is faced when aspiring to higher numbers on the scale. How long can you hold out for that satisfying feeling of correctness? Or will you stop at that first little tickle from Clara Tee the invisible bunny? It is just like the marshmellows. The rewards of enduring six steps of malarkey is greater than just one or two. It is an exquisite tickling.

Nature is not fair about this. Some folks get such an overwhelming tickle from just one step of reasoning that the thought of two does not occur. Others become numb to anything that rates less than four. If training is too selective, one can end up with a certain context or subject that always demands five or more while everything else is satisfied with a two.

This election reveals a growing number of folks who demand that our national malarkey not exceed three on the scale. Not out of preference but rather out of necessity. Their training always gave one marshmellow at a time and always right away. One marshmellow never had any bearing on another marshmellow. The intellectual elite will wait for six marshmellows and then share them with people who do not deserve them.

Thus we have elected a Champion of Low-End Malarkey. His brain can barely push a three on The Malarkey Scale. After only minutes, one can plainly see his wimpy strength run out. He has weak narrative ability. He has found the arena in which he is a lost boy. An ant in a clown suit. Unless the whole game is changed. We can see the re-malarkafication of history in progress.

Our founding system, with all its sixes and what-not, may, like our expanding universe, simply vanish from view.

[ Edited: 11 May 2017 10:50 by Nhoj Morley]
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5227
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
04 May 2017 10:24
 

Our God-given Presidentay has taken a big step in deregulating malarkey and providing tax relief for all low-end malarkey that stays (eternally) within two on the scale.

There was a Great Celebration of eye pinching and preparation for the energy of love in its dynamic, electrical form as our germ-freak-in-chief pretends to be the monolith from 2001.

Image Attachments
 
pumpkin_voters.jpg
 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
04 May 2017 11:10
 
Nhoj Morley - 04 May 2017 10:24 AM

Our God-given Presidentay has taken a big step in deregulating malarkey and providing tax relief for all low-end malarkey that stays (eternally) within two on the scale.

There was a Great Celebration of eye pinching and preparation for the energy of love in its dynamic, electrical form as our germ-freak-in-chief pretends to be the monolith from 2001.

Guess who’s coming to dinner?  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/30/526268975/trump-invites-controversial-philippines-leader-to-white-house

(quote) -  “Do your duty, and in the process, you kill 1,000 persons, I will protect you,” Duterte told police on July 1, the day after he was sworn in, Michael Sullivan reported for NPR.

The Philippines president has also been accused of encouraging civilians to kill people attempting to buy or sell drugs.

“Forget the laws on human rights,” he said in his final campaign speech before he was elected. In September, he compared himself to Adolf Hitler.”

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/128896/beat-protester-trumps-rally-hell-cover-legal-fees

[ Edited: 04 May 2017 11:15 by unsmoked]
 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5227
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
18 May 2017 10:36
 

Kruchev said “we will bury you”. Soviet/Russian foreign policy was always been based on harvesting “useful idiots”. They have found one who is very experienced with a shovel.

To some perceptions in the past and present, democracy is doomed to be a failed experiment that has inconveniently not yet failed. Once it does, it will serve to prove a point. The founders of these systems were mistaken in their understanding of mankind. Evidence for that point sits in the White House.

There, an understanding of democracy can be summarized as “I won”. The winner’s job is to make it clear that it is useless to be a loser, sorry, member of a loyal opposition. If you’re loyal, then you can’t be the opposition. This is the simple logic found at the low end of The Malarkey Scale. Explaining the nuance of the concept of a loyal opposition will require many steps of logic to fully express and thus will quickly exceed three on the scale. Anyone using more than three steps of logic risks becoming an elitists and an enemy of the people.

In traditional political structures, no one is allowed to use more steps of reasoning than Great Leader. This principle is exemplified in every possible appearance and function. Traditionally, Great Leader always gets one more scoop of ice cream than everyone else. Even if Great Leader has a tummy ache and does not want all that ice cream, he can at least stir it around with his spoon until no one else wants it. Debauchery can be frowned upon, but only once Great Leader has demonstrated that he has the greatest capacity for it.

Voting and elections do not define democracy. Any election held by Great Leader will be a clear choice of life or death for one’s social standing if not their coporreal form.

Great Leaders the world over are thrilled to have a fellow extra-scooper join their ranks. There is no need for overt colusion with our tweeter-in-chief. It is enough to know he is there, turning our constitutional republic into two words with too many letters.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
20 May 2017 11:53
 

I heard on the news yesterday that when Trump visits different countries this week, speeches are going to be kept short, due to his limited attention span.

quote:
 
“After four months of interactions between Trump and his counterparts, foreign officials and their Washington consultants said certain rules have emerged: Keep it short — no 30-minute monologue for a 30-second attention span. Do not assume he knows the history of the country or its major points of contention. Compliment him on his Electoral College victory. Contrast him favorably with President Barack Obama. Do not get hung up on whatever was said during the campaign. Stay in regular touch. .. “

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/58766127.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
21 May 2017 12:47
 
 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5227
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
26 May 2017 09:28
 

An important part of the Science of Malarkey is understanding the roles that intelligence and perception play in building a truth or, Basic Malarkeyoid Structure.

Truth becomes necessary when our perception of plain facts is exceeded. We could call plain facts the truth but that is usually not necessary because they are already plain to see. Truth must transcend the plain facts and reveal something that is not plain to see. That is what makes truth malarkey.

In Science, malarkey is called a theory or accepted consensus. Truth is a label used with caution. All proper science carries the label. It reads, “Warning- This might be a load of malarkey”. 

This humbled admission exposes a useful tool in the exploration of ourselves. It is an entirely new spectrum of classifications to explore and compare. It is The Malrkey Scale that allows truth to be examined in a whole new way. It is a method that sidesteps content and logic by asking just one question, “where does it stop?”

A ‘stop’ is a logical conclusion and is broken down into categories like bases in baseball. A ‘first stop’ is a conclusion based on plain facts that are plain to see. A ‘second stop’ is composed of either two or more first stops or one first stop plus another plain fact or two. A ‘third stop’ is built from second stops and first stops and maybe more plain facts. And so on.

Unlike baseball, malarley continues on to fourth, fifth or as far as one can go. One simply counts the stops to establish a value on The Malarkey Scale.

After an extensive collection of stop counts, patterns can be seen that correlate with social stratification and voting habits. And that means more malarkey.

The first revelation from this research is that there are varying appetites for malarkey. Like jumbo pancakes, some are fully satisfied with just one or two while others demand three or even four. Some gorge themselves until they have to write it all down just keep track.

The second revelation is that one’s taste for malarkey has nothing to do with how smart or savvy they are. However, it has everything to do with how smart and savvy one can be.

The popular expression ‘full stop’ is useful in malarkeyology because that’s how a value is earned on the scale. If there is no third stop, then second stops becomes full stops. Even science sometimes makes a full stop in order to launch a technology that depends on some things being dependably true. Then science keeps going.

Without encouragement, only a few are more than a two or three. Most fours and fives have inspirational people in their lives without whom they would be mere twos. The key ingrediant in inspiring upward scale-mobility is malarkey itself. A young mind is unlikely to see upward mobility if told that their malarkey is something else, like an eternal truth. This deception must be avoided. The mere acknowledgement of the existence of malarkey liberates and even taunts young minds to climb the scale.

The great divide in the population is seen on the scale as a simple incombatibility of malarkey stoppage points. Ones and twos will never be enough for fives and sixes and the threes will bully and exploit them. Fives will always be too far out for twos or threes to see.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5227
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
04 June 2017 11:42
 

I once tech’ed a small production of Bye Bye Birdie. It includes the painfully upbeat musical number ‘Put On A Happy Face’. To make my face happy, I badgered the vocalist about singing it as ‘sit on a happy face’. It was the ‘70’s after all. He came real close as I stared from the lighting cage. I made it work keeping it straight.

This memory pops up as I watch the Sunday morning shows. This festering little tune could be the theme of the Trumped-up Aministration. Watch as White House personel, craven senators and news anchors all put on a happy face when they report… no, trumpet the trash talk that is the new party line.

It’s a look that tries to express, “I’m so happy with what is coming out of my face. I like saying these things and I feel completely comfortable saying them as many times as needed to make the President… I mean America, Great Again”.

It takes some practice to look happy about your happy face. A misplaced eyebrow or badly-timed shrug can make a happy face look like it has sharp spikes on its backside.

Mike Pence wears his happy face as is if whatever is behind it has retreated into an alternate reality. There are only so many times that one can say “broad-shouldered” before inviting an asteroid strike.

If this drags on, each of in turn will have find our own happy face to wear whenever we need it. Like when in a room full of people who do not need to put on a happy face because they are already happy. Be sure yours is firmly in place before saying things like, “Yer gun collection is cool. It’s yer bullet collection that makes me nervous!” 

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  6956
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
04 June 2017 12:45
 
Nhoj Morley - 04 June 2017 11:42 AM

I once tech’ed a small production of Bye Bye Birdie. It includes the painfully upbeat musical number ‘Put On A Happy Face’. To make my face happy, I badgered the vocalist about singing it as ‘sit on a happy face’. It was the ‘70’s after all. He came real close as I stared from the lighting cage. I made it work keeping it straight.

This memory pops up as I watch the Sunday morning shows. This festering little tune could be the theme of the Trumped-up Aministration. Watch as White House personel, craven senators and news anchors all put on a happy face when they report… no, trumpet the trash talk that is the new party line.

It’s a look that tries to express, “I’m so happy with what is coming out of my face. I like saying these things and I feel completely comfortable saying them as many times as needed to make the President… I mean America, Great Again”.

It takes some practice to look happy about your happy face. A misplaced eyebrow or badly-timed shrug can make a happy face look like it has sharp spikes on its backside.

Mike Pence wears his happy face as is if whatever is behind it has retreated into an alternate reality. There are only so many times that one can say “broad-shouldered” before inviting an asteroid strike.

If this drags on, each of in turn will have find our own happy face to wear whenever we need it. Like when in a room full of people who do not need to put on a happy face because they are already happy. Be sure yours is firmly in place before saying things like, “Yer gun collection is cool. It’s yer bullet collection that makes me nervous!” 

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8993308/funny-tweets-paul-ryan-mike-pence-trump-address-congress/

 
 
NL.
 
Avatar
 
 
NL.
Total Posts:  5142
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
06 June 2017 07:38
 

I think the dividing line here comes down to the degree to which people are genuinely oriented towards the same goals when making disparate comments.


As an example, academics in different camps often become almost comically convinced that those with different theories are idiots who have not seen the light; are arguing “in bad faith”; just stubborn jerks who can’t admit they’re wrong, and so on. But there is little question that, perhaps with a superficial layer of delicate egos and investment in one’s own work aside, true academics - those who devote their lives to knowledge, often for little pay and a lot of debt - really do want to get at the truth, first and foremost. When they disagree, they disagree passionately because they care about the truth and think they have it right.


Another example might be doctors. If you have ever been in the frustrating position of trying to get a diagnosis for an ambiguous problem for yourself or a loved one, you know it’s possible to see five different doctors and get five different answers. It is a rattling experience - you want to say “But… but… you have official looking science lab coats and scrubs! Hi tech gear and machines! This is capital S Science! Now spit out the correct answer already!”. And clearly doctors all want the same thing, in terms of accurately diagnosing a patient - but nonetheless, two different docs with the same high tech Science Machines might come to conclusions that directly contradict each other. Even the person who wants to heal people by waving crystal wands over them is, if they are truly doing it in good faith, presumably bound by the same end goal and therefore at least hypothetically persuadable by evidence about moving towards that goal.


Malarky, to my mind, is about slinging mud to see what sticks for the sake of discrediting another. This may be done consciously or it may be unconscious, but if you decide to use information as a weapon, safe to say your unconscious processes in doing that aren’t going to turn out well. I think the intent is to sow confusion and chaos and plant doubt about one’s enemies; although personally I think the end result is Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. In any given comments section now there are so many ideological trolls from all directions throwing out ridiculous theories that I find it bolsters my faith in the people I already trust and makes the rest of the internet fade to a dull frenzied background noise. This is a shame, because there was a time when I felt I really could find thoughtful, divergent opinions in such contexts, but now I just think “Oh, they’re all just crazy “Fake news!!!” [on all political sides - right, left, libertarian, authoritarian] trolls or Russian trolls or just deranged trolls, and if there are a few that are speaking in good faith, I don’t have the time to find that needle in a haystack.”


Hopefully such feedback loops are self-correcting in the long run - you say crazy shit about one side, they say crazy shit about you, everyone concludes “Well this is just lunatics ranting” and ignores the conversation entirely, until hopefully everyone realizes that is no fun and counterproductive to accomplishing much of anything.

 
 
 1 2 >