posted Jul 31, 2008

I just typed a response and it said server busy so I lost it all. Grrr.

Its been a good discussion, we'll have to agree to disagree as I honestly believe what I'm saying - not reaching out to objectify a retrospective opinion, or delude myself. Nadal did say he was tired and he looked it in the match (to me). You say he admitted against that (citation?). But the context is important as you cant compare geese and ganders unless the context [substrate] is the same. But we can agree to disagree on that

We are clearly both into the 'mental' drivers of things. I'm not so psychology job-based as clearly you are but I do have an interest, e.g. quantum mechanics in free-will vs determinism, etc. So, we have probably more common ground than Nadal vs Federer. I am partisan towards Nadal admittedly as believe that Fed isnt respectful to other players in defeat and I dont like his general arrogance, but thats me. But I havent sought to dodge bullets, dive into loopholes, etc. I hope you see that.

Agree Fed isnt overly narcissistic, its just his style. But I wonder whether his initial drivers are in the process of being altered hence the lack of motivation.

All this after a message about Federer vs Ginepro eh?

Anyway - all the best, its been good and look forward to discussions anon.

Cheers

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2008

Just seen your reply Beethoven. I'll come back to it but meetings to go to, etc...

However quickly, I did see the match and believe that Nadal was tired. Thats all I can say, yes I quoted supportive data but after my opinion was formed not before.

Please supply data/referenced opinion to the contrary - I'm happy to be proved wrong

6-0 is never always just 6-0. One could be illness, one could injury, one could be outplayed, one could be lack of will/effort, etc. My proposal is that the two 6-0's were different.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2008

but have actively ignored any that may supoprt pfp.

----

Actively ignored is a bit strong. This 'dodging' profile is getting a little irkesome. PFP has been saying that Nadal wasnt tired, and that both 6-0's could be seen as humiliation. In isolation - yes, in context - no. Both matches were very different except for the result IMO. Plus I havent read any match reports where Nadal has denied that tiredness was a factor. Sure, if he has said that then fine but lets see the evidence otherwise its just conjecture.

Otherwise I'm familiar with the psychological constructs put forward.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2008

personfromporlock

Thanks for the invite but not sure I'm up for it anymore.

it's many many years since I studied philosophy (French mainly 18th century and German as part of a combined language degree.

My poor brain tends to switch off now unless I feel really strongly about something.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2008

lol...I'm not sure any of us are up for it anymore.

All the best, good discussions and hope we pleasantly cross swords elsewhere

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2008

Ilikethis,
We are probably all stretched so you're not alone there. I'm on vacation so I have a little more time. Good choice of study, btw.

Beethoven,
Thanks for the fillip as this exchange will probably serve as the basis for a really interesting forum, let's call it the 'drivers forum, down the road, but Lydian is at a distinct disadvantage here as I have gone after his precepts while deliberately avoiding putting my own out there. I have said to him 'prove it' whilst I have sat back a little smugly (I freely admit). In truth, I am as partisan as Lydian admits to being but I deliberately avoided presenting my own data and so he was not in a position to go after mine, as I went after his.

What I did was simply to hypothetically mirror his (I could say Fed was sick and Rafa humiliated...the obverse image of his precept) but I too have been selective with the data I have selected in 'rationally explaining' to myself why Federer lost while Nadal won.

I don't offer this as a rebuff of what you've said by the way, but to show that all of us will select the data we need to support the point of view we hold, which if I understand you Beethoven, is your point.

Does this amount to a confession by me?

Well, we can only accurately question others' uses of data if we ourselves are familiar with the tracks upon which we feel their points run so there's a collective guilt or 'knowing' if we challenge someone or challenge their 'precepts'. This amounts to a very democratic or a catholicity of thought where debates rage.

So, to conclude, I WAS right, but only because I too was wrong, or have been wrong, so in the end when I accused him of dodging, it's because I know the dodges myself (lol) and any minute now I expect some guy from the football boards to drop in and tell us that we should get out more, which we probably should.

Where does this leave Lydian? Well, either he was too polite to go after me, or inquire after my bias which wouldn't have been too hard to find if he looked, or he was genuinely questioning, as I believe he was, the challenge I posed to him.

In summary, I am a little bit 'meaner' than Lydian. Whilst I would not dream of breaking a law or being malicious etc., he is probably a nicer person than I am though this explanation could also be very selective. Anyway, I don't want to talk about 'me' (even though it's not about 'me' or 'us', it's about my outlook and our outlooks and how our perceptions are shaped by our minds) as we'll be dismissed as being flakes) or worse, narcissistic.

Conclusion. The pineal gland, which hasn't evolved in millions of years (according to Arthur Miller) still reigns supreme as it is first among equals and always able to convince the brain to do its bidding.

-I prefer red to blue and by god I'll find the data to prove my thesis.

Blake is playing and I can smell dinner.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2008

The true nature of the beast is revealed.

Nice noodling, wrong conclusion.

Ciao.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2008

Easy to sit back Lydian.

Let's hear your conclusion.

By 'wrong' you do mean that you disagree, don't you, or have you learned nothing from our exchange?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2008

Sitting back is always easy as you have demonstrated yourself all too clearly - although not always the path of least resistance.

Sometimes, there is a time to sit back, sometimes there is a time to lean forwards. Again, context is everything - have you not learnt anything from our exchanges?

So lets review. You had the opportunity to find common ground, to openly discuss the Federer vs Nadal match and the data that supported the humiliation/tiredness contexts.

But no, you decided to take a path of stealth and selectivity throughout to see what I would say. Your wrap up was disappointing on a personal level. Why? Again you seek not to bring things together but to elaborate to points score. You coldly refer to me in 3rd person throughout the wrap-up is curious in itself. Its how a person talks about a case study, rather impersonal, detached and clinical to be honest. I can only conclude you like to observe and comment from a distance without giving much of yourself. You come across as quite self-satisfied to be honest...statements like "where does that leave Lydian?". Its all abit narcissistic isnt it? But maybe thats the profile you wish for me to pick up on, maybe its just a front.

So what was your objective with the wrap-up anyway? To be a smart-alec, or to make a genuine point, or both together - it can be quite satisfying to make a good point whilst seeking to belittle your protagonist right?

But as for conclusions I dont buy the pineal gland [what about amygdala, etc..], Miller [so what about Miller, he was better writing stageplays...], red-blue stuff.

But psychological musings aside, your premise is that I didnt hold an opinion until I had supportive data. An allegation I have consistently rejected.

However, I still see NO data from yourself regarding Nadal's rejection of the tiredness theory. Therefore, you are saying Red > Blue, or vice-versa without seeking data to prove your point.

Therefore, I put it that it has been you all along who has found it easy to sit back.

So, to answer your question, which in itself was assumptively arrogant - no, I havent learnt anything from the exchange I didnt know before.

However, I have learnt that we're probably not going to get along on 606 - our personality profiles dont stack up well.

Of course I could be misjudging you wildly but you probably dont care about that do you because stealth always keeps you one step a head right?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2008

Hello Lydian,
That's a very broad canvas you paint. I'd rather others (if there are any left) arrived at their own conclusions regarding our exchange, but.....

I suppose all I can say is that I think you let yourself open to criticism by trying to interpret the same 6-0 result differently.

I didn't make excuses (based on context or anything else) for Federer whereas you did for Nadal.

As for referring to you in the third person, I was addressing/responding to Beethoven. (I wasn't thinking of you, sorry.) The wrap-up was me stating that I was/am as partisan as you admitted to being but that I didn't print evidence (questionable excuses) of my partisanship, as you did. I didn't make excuses for Federer's 6-0 loss. You made excuses, based on 'context', which Beethoven quite rightly, imo, rejected.

I credited you with being genuinely involved with the challenge I had posed to you, saying I was possibly a bit meaner than you, how you hadn't gone after evidence of my being partisan. There isn't any (on a par with yours) as I simply wouldn't interpret the same result differently, simply because I preferred one player and not another. Stealth?
-No. Just, well, common sense. (Apologies, but I know no other way of saying it.)

I built on the idea, prompted by Beethoven, that we all are selective where data is concerned.

As a way of finding common ground, I was and am quite happy to attribute our differences to the influence of the pineal gland, as that would suggest that the brain and its penchant for selecting the data that suits it, is a co driver while the pineal, the primitive, has its way. I was putting us on equal footing. If this is being a smart alec, then I am a smart alec.

The reason why I have not proffered any data (you finally caught on, I see) relating to Nadal's tiredness is that I CAN accept your Hamburg tiredness theory without blinking. Fine by me. BUT, you can't excuse Nadal and not allow the same excuse for Federer. You insist that you can but you simply cannot, (at least not to my satisfaction). This is evidence of being partisan and while we are all partisan, if you OFFER others evidence of your bias, they will pick up on it and challenge you.

As for my being one step ahead, maybe, but not because I am stealthy (though I can be) but because I know better than to interpret the same 6-0 result differently. -People just won't buy it.

You sound as if you feel I have somehow betrayed you or tried to belittle you. My singular goal was to state that what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. You can't accept this and you have stuck to your guns, citing context. I say you are not wise to do this, and I regard my earlier conclusion as a very frank confession by me, crediting you with noble motives, pointing to the pineal as the probable source of our disagreement, a noble exit.

If you feel angry because you sniff that I was really being a little condescending, fair enough. I was a bit. I was quite prepared to let you off the hook, allowing rain to interrupt play, as it were.

You are 'wrong' (i.e. unwise) imo to excuse Nadal's 6-0 defeat but not allow Federer's 6-0 defeat to have the same weight.

I am all for face saving but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

________________________

Suggestion.

End all of this now by telling me/us why 6-0 can be excused by Nadal's tiredness, but the same 6-0 result amounts to humiliation for Federer.

-You can't, can you?

Last word from me.
Take as long as you like but your previous attempts, wadr, have not been very clear. Not clear, not because you aren't smart (you are) but because I, were I faced with the task, couldn't manage such a feat. -It's a bridge too far.

If you choose not to, I will draw no conclusions as to why and I urge others reading this exchange to do the same.

~Porlock.

p.s. I am embarassed to have written a response so long. -Apologies to all.

add comment | complain about this comment