5 ms·

Dazzle camouflage is fun but, at least originally, based on kind of specious logic. "I suddenly got the idea that since it was impossible to paint a ship so th

by theoh 11y ago

Dazzle camouflage is fun but, at least originally, based on kind of specious logic. "I suddenly got the idea that since it was impossible to paint a ship so that she could not be seen by a submarine, the extreme opposite was the answer – in other words to paint her, not for low visibility, but in such a way as to break up her form and thus confuse a submarine officer as to the course on which she was heading." Thinking in opposites is an insidious trait that plays a big part in art and culture... but not in technology. The dazzle scheme sounds more reasonable in this account: "Wilkinson writes that “the painting of ships with the ‘Dazzle’ scheme is based on the general assumption that it is impossible to obtain invisibility at sea, especially where, as in the case of an attacking submarine, the object is seen against the sky with practically no sea to form a background…the only course open is to paint her in such a way as to deceive the attacker as to her size and course; this can only be done by extreme contrasts of colour and shapes which will so distort the vessel as to the symmetry and bulk.” (A Brush with Life)"

Retric 11y ago
It's not based on opposites. Subs needed location and heading to sink a ship. They realized that gross location was out, so heading became the next target.
- theoh 11y ago
  Norman Wilkinson, the developer of dazzle camouflage in the UK, had a flash of inspiration while sitting on a train that an "extreme opposite" approach was required. As someone who deals with artists a lot, I can only express my strong feeling that this was not a rigorous strategic insight. Creative, yes. In fact there appears to be no conclusive proof of the perceptual effectiveness of dazzle painting. Great for morale, though! I'm open to hearing alternative accounts.
  - Retric 11y ago
    There was too much noise in the data to make real comparisons. Yes, 41% of the dazzle ships were struck amidships, compared to 52% of the uncamouflaged. However, dazzle ships where generally larger, so this may have been due to near misses becoming hits. IMO, dazzle would have only been useful when subs where under time pressure. However, it's a paint job so even a tiny difference would make this cost effective.
  - KineticLensman 11y ago
    My understanding is that the camo was intended to confuse WW1 sub captains who were trying to compute torpedo firing solutions in their heads whil peering through the periscope. The target ship plainly would be highly visible but it's speed and heading would be obfuscated
marcosdumay 11y ago
> Thinking in opposites is an insidious trait that plays a big part in art and culture... but not in technology. Why do you think it's rare in technology? To me it seems common in science, and, despite not instantly remembering any examples, does not sound far fetched in tech.
- theoh 11y ago
  Well, I mean dualistic things like the "binary oppositions" of Levi-Strauss' structuralism. Or Pythagoras' Table of Opposites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites Of course in the hard sciences you have electric charge, matter/antimatter, and I guess the spatial directions (up/down) and the more formal things like inside/outside. At that point I reckon we start slipping into philosophy. Philosophers are aware that "inside/outside" is sometimes a vague distinction for objects of interest like humans and they now know better than to intentionally pursue a strong programme of dualism. See e.g. https://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/DualFFem.html https://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/DualFFem.html for comments on the kind of cultural ideas I'm referring to. My point is not that opposites/oppositions don't occur in technology, but that they are rampant in much cultural production. I know a lot of artists who think the fact that computers use binary code validates some complex (or reductive) dualistic picture of the world. George Boole himself apparently had some funny dualistic ideas, of the kind later promulgated in "Laws of Form" by Spencer-Brown. Dualism is seductive and gets elaborated into huge (and often prejudiced) systems of values. The reality is that most of what computers do is necessarily digital, but not necessarily binary. The bits are down there but they don't totally determine the nature of the software. Yes, bits correspond to on/off. Would you also say that "nut" and "bolt" are binary opposites? That's where I draw the line. Neil Gershenfeld makes the non-centrality of binary pretty clear in his Edge interview/monologue: https://edge.org/conversation/neil_gershenfeld-digital-reality https://edge.org/conversation/neil_gershenfeld-digital-reali...
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Ok, I completely misunderstood you. I was thinking about inverting things like "well, if I can't solve this problem, let me look for a better problem to solve", that's pervasive in tech. I do agree that your concept is rare on practical fields. Theoreticians have a good time searching for dualism (in physics, you'll find it named as symmetry - a slightly more general concept), and with good results. But practitioners don't have much freedom on this front. There are some dual implementations around, mostly for noise cancellation, but there's little more. Anyway, I don't in think the specific example of dazzle camouflage there was any dualism thinking.

by theoh 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

It's not based on opposites. Subs needed location and heading to sink a ship. They realized that gross location was out, so heading became the next target.

theoh 11y ago
Norman Wilkinson, the developer of dazzle camouflage in the UK, had a flash of inspiration while sitting on a train that an "extreme opposite" approach was required. As someone who deals with artists a lot, I can only express my strong feeling that this was not a rigorous strategic insight. Creative, yes. In fact there appears to be no conclusive proof of the perceptual effectiveness of dazzle painting. Great for morale, though! I'm open to hearing alternative accounts.
- Retric 11y ago
  There was too much noise in the data to make real comparisons. Yes, 41% of the dazzle ships were struck amidships, compared to 52% of the uncamouflaged. However, dazzle ships where generally larger, so this may have been due to near misses becoming hits. IMO, dazzle would have only been useful when subs where under time pressure. However, it's a paint job so even a tiny difference would make this cost effective.
- KineticLensman 11y ago
  My understanding is that the camo was intended to confuse WW1 sub captains who were trying to compute torpedo firing solutions in their heads whil peering through the periscope. The target ship plainly would be highly visible but it's speed and heading would be obfuscated

marcosdumay 11y ago

> Thinking in opposites is an insidious trait that plays a big part in art and culture... but not in technology. Why do you think it's rare in technology? To me it seems common in science, and, despite not instantly remembering any examples, does not sound far fetched in tech.

theoh 11y ago
Well, I mean dualistic things like the "binary oppositions" of Levi-Strauss' structuralism. Or Pythagoras' Table of Opposites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites Of course in the hard sciences you have electric charge, matter/antimatter, and I guess the spatial directions (up/down) and the more formal things like inside/outside. At that point I reckon we start slipping into philosophy. Philosophers are aware that "inside/outside" is sometimes a vague distinction for objects of interest like humans and they now know better than to intentionally pursue a strong programme of dualism. See e.g. https://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/DualFFem.html https://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/DualFFem.html for comments on the kind of cultural ideas I'm referring to. My point is not that opposites/oppositions don't occur in technology, but that they are rampant in much cultural production. I know a lot of artists who think the fact that computers use binary code validates some complex (or reductive) dualistic picture of the world. George Boole himself apparently had some funny dualistic ideas, of the kind later promulgated in "Laws of Form" by Spencer-Brown. Dualism is seductive and gets elaborated into huge (and often prejudiced) systems of values. The reality is that most of what computers do is necessarily digital, but not necessarily binary. The bits are down there but they don't totally determine the nature of the software. Yes, bits correspond to on/off. Would you also say that "nut" and "bolt" are binary opposites? That's where I draw the line. Neil Gershenfeld makes the non-centrality of binary pretty clear in his Edge interview/monologue: https://edge.org/conversation/neil_gershenfeld-digital-reality https://edge.org/conversation/neil_gershenfeld-digital-reali...
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Ok, I completely misunderstood you. I was thinking about inverting things like "well, if I can't solve this problem, let me look for a better problem to solve", that's pervasive in tech. I do agree that your concept is rare on practical fields. Theoreticians have a good time searching for dualism (in physics, you'll find it named as symmetry - a slightly more general concept), and with good results. But practitioners don't have much freedom on this front. There are some dual implementations around, mostly for noise cancellation, but there's little more. Anyway, I don't in think the specific example of dazzle camouflage there was any dualism thinking.