3 ms·

While I see you were explaining - I criticize their reasoning. If you are looking for something, you will find it. Sometimes the reasoning is easy to follow -

by Nadya 11y ago

While I see you were explaining - I criticize their reasoning. If you are looking for something, you will find it. Sometimes the reasoning is easy to follow - other times it demands such illogical leaps as to question the validity or reasoning of the person trying to show the connection. Give me any two numbers and I'll find a way to transform it to 9/11. For a time, people had even made a game out of doing just that. For example, I have a can of Pringles on my desk. It has 190 calories. 190? Divided in a way makes two numbers, 19 and 90. 90 minus 19 is 71. The original 190 minus 71 is 119. Reverse 119 and there you have it, 9/11! What you have is a group of people intent on finding messages that aren't there. Sometimes they have some claims easily understood by others and other times they delve so far into absurdity where only they can follow the train of thought that led them down their path of reasoning. Even if I can follow the logic, that doesn't necessarily mean I should give it any credit or significant meaning.

snowwrestler 11y ago
This is a common complaint about literary criticism, but it's wrong. "You can find anything you look for" is usually said by people without any training or experience in literary criticism. It's equivalent to a literary critic saying "you can make a computer do anything"; while computers are incredibly powerful, any knowledgable programmer understands that that is not true. The blog post carefully lays out the evidence for what they are talking about. But that also exists against a cultural background, and if you don't have that background, it will be less persuasive because you won't recognize the referenced patterns as easily.
- Nadya 11y ago
  To which I say "give me any two numbers". >It's equivalent to a literary critic saying "you can make a computer do anything"; while computers are incredibly powerful, any knowledgable programmer understands that that is not true. There's physical constraints and constraints on our own knowledge. What someone means behind a statement and their motivations behind that statement are a lot more within human constraints. There are no limitations on interpretation. Linguistic interpretation is a lot more open-ended than that and when I say people can make up whatever they like, as long as they have some strands of logic to prop up behind it, I mean it. How many different interpretations of Romeo and Juliet do you think can be found within each scene? Each interpretation will be colored by the observer's experiences. If they are pre-determined to find a certain message, they'll find it. I know this for a fact. Humans see connections, patterns, and meanings that aren't really there. As an example, the puzzle Masqurerade has already been solved. Yet there are people who are so certain that their solution is the correct one. They see patterns that aren't really there, and readily convince themselves of the truth of their solution. Many of the solutions are quite logical, some even give a close answer. The problem is that the puzzle has already been solved. [0] http://hazlitt.net/feature/goes-all-way-queen-puzzle-book-drove-england-madness http://hazlitt.net/feature/goes-all-way-queen-puzzle-book-dr...

by Nadya 11y ago

snowwrestler 11y ago

This is a common complaint about literary criticism, but it's wrong. "You can find anything you look for" is usually said by people without any training or experience in literary criticism. It's equivalent to a literary critic saying "you can make a computer do anything"; while computers are incredibly powerful, any knowledgable programmer understands that that is not true. The blog post carefully lays out the evidence for what they are talking about. But that also exists against a cultural background, and if you don't have that background, it will be less persuasive because you won't recognize the referenced patterns as easily.

Nadya 11y ago
To which I say "give me any two numbers". >It's equivalent to a literary critic saying "you can make a computer do anything"; while computers are incredibly powerful, any knowledgable programmer understands that that is not true. There's physical constraints and constraints on our own knowledge. What someone means behind a statement and their motivations behind that statement are a lot more within human constraints. There are no limitations on interpretation. Linguistic interpretation is a lot more open-ended than that and when I say people can make up whatever they like, as long as they have some strands of logic to prop up behind it, I mean it. How many different interpretations of Romeo and Juliet do you think can be found within each scene? Each interpretation will be colored by the observer's experiences. If they are pre-determined to find a certain message, they'll find it. I know this for a fact. Humans see connections, patterns, and meanings that aren't really there. As an example, the puzzle Masqurerade has already been solved. Yet there are people who are so certain that their solution is the correct one. They see patterns that aren't really there, and readily convince themselves of the truth of their solution. Many of the solutions are quite logical, some even give a close answer. The problem is that the puzzle has already been solved. [0] http://hazlitt.net/feature/goes-all-way-queen-puzzle-book-drove-england-madness http://hazlitt.net/feature/goes-all-way-queen-puzzle-book-dr...