--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > I passed along a metaphor some days ago that > > > > no one commented on, but I'll do so again > > > > because I think it explains a great deal about > > > > all of us here, both those with lingering TM > > > > loyalties and those without. The question is > > > > HOW did we ever come to accept as not only > > > > normal but "more than normal" in a positive > > > > way things that most people on the planet, if > > > > they encountered them, would consider crazy > > > > or at the very least eccentric, and not very > > > > admirable? > > > > > > > > The answer -- for me -- is "frog in a pot" > > > > syndrome. Throw a frog in a pot of boiling > > > > water and it instantly gets that it is in > > > > danger, hops out, and lives to hop another > > > > day. But put a frog in a pot of cold water > > > > and then slowly raise the heat to the boiling > > > > point, and the frog will stay there until > > > > the water boils, and die. It's the *gradual* > > > > increase of danger that the frog does not > > > > perceive as dangerous. > > > > > > OK, I'll comment on it (in a desperate attempt > > > to, you know, derail the conversation). > > > > > > The "'frog in a pot' syndrome" is, er, pseudo- > > > science: > > > > > > http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp > > > > > > More succinctly: According to Dr. George R. Zug, > > > the curator of reptiles and amphibians at the > > > National Museum of Natural History, "Well, that's, > > > may I say, bullshit." > > > > > > If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, > > > it will of course attempt to escape, but it's > > > very likely to die of burns even if it does > > > manage to get out. > > > > > > If you throw a frog in a pot of cold water and > > > gradually raise the temperature, the frog will > > > leap out as soon as the water begins to become > > > uncomfortable, well before it gets hot enough to > > > harm the frog. > > > > > > So, are people dumber than frogs? Or is the > > > harmfulness of the water temperature a matter > > > of perception? Is one person's boiling pot > > > another person's comfortably warm bath? > > > > > > For some of us, of course, the water became > > > uncomfortable very early on, and we jumped > > > out, although we still find moderately hot > > > water useful for, say, making tea and washing > > > dishes. As long as we don't have to be > > > *immersed* in it, we don't see its very > > > existence as a frightening threat, and we > > > don't feel a compulsion to pursue a crusade > > > against it for decades. > > > > > > Barry will no doubt be relieved to know that > > > the Evil Hillary used the frog myth several > > > times during her campaign, so it's not that > > > he's the only person on earth who still isn't > > > aware that it's what James Fallows calls a > > > "stupid, cruel, hackneyed, and unscientific > > > cliche." > > > > > > See Fallows's Boiled Frog Archive here: > > > > > > http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/boiledfrog/ > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/36p2sv > > > > > > (And no, I didn't "Google" the boiled-frog > > > canard in order to write this post. I'm a > > > regular reader of Fallows's excellent blog, > > > so I took advantage of his documentation.) > > > > > > > Boy, talk about missing the point! > > Um, did you read the whole post?
Erm, most of it ;-) > > I thought it was a great analogy about what it's > > like to join the TMO without knowing what it's really > > like and then having the drip-drip of weirdness grow > > ever more difficult to bear before hopping out. > > Don't you get it? I'm trying to *distract attention* > from Barry's point in order to keep anybody from > discussing the weirdness of the TMO. I mean, I'm one > of those crazy, brainwashed TBs who believes (as I'm > being boiled to death) that every single thing the > TMO does is a function of its perfect coordination > with the Laws of Nature and is therefore not to be > criticized. > > Sheesh. *My* point is that, like frogs, people stay > with the TMO as long as it's tolerable; but that, > unlike frogs, people have a wide range of tolerances. > My tolerance was very low, and I beat feet very quickly. > (And this was long before it really got weird.) > > Barry's tolerance was high enough for him to stay with > it for many years, but apparently it did him so much > damage that for many years since he's been compelled > to constantly attack TMers who never had much > investment in the TMO and don't react so violently to > its weirdness. > > He reminds me of nothing so much as the Ancient Mariner. >
