Triple Bogus When Lit

Previous: Binary Search

[ source: wikimedia commons ]

A Triple Bogus Attack is similar to a Double Bogus Attack, but it's even more bogus, if you can imagine.

It's a rare thing to see, even when the manure is flying thick and fast, as it often does in the realm of politics, for example.

But it's remarkable in its rarity and therefore, possibly, worth pointing out.

As you recall, in a Double Bogus lie, I'm pressed to explain F but I talk about G instead. And even if I do a good job of explaining G, my explanation is irrelevant, because it doesn't explain F. On the other hand, and maybe even more important, it shows that I am unwilling to talk about F.

A Triple Bogus Attack has all these characteristics, but in Triple Bogus, my "explanation" doesn't really explain G, either!

If you look at Triple Bogus as a tactic, with a dispassionate, logical eye, it's astonishing that anyone would ever try it.

From this point of view, Triple Bogus is reminiscent of a dragonfly or a bumblebee, where you look at the parts and then you look at the whole and you say to yourself, "That will never fly!"

But every now and then, you see one going by, and it flies just fine -- or at least it seems to.

Quite a remarkable little animal, as I was saying, and we will talk more about it later.

Next: to be continued
Previous: Binary Search
Home: Contents
~~~
Your comments are invited.

Double Bogus When Lit

Previous: Basic Strategy For "Guess The Number"

[source: made in China dot com]

Let F represent some fact which has recently come to light and which reflects badly on me for some reason.

F could be an event that has happened, a confidential document that has leaked, the result of a scientific experiment, or any other inconvenient fact, where "inconvenient" means "inconvenient for me."

Maybe F makes me look stupid or negligent; maybe F implies that I've done something immoral or illegal. Not that I would do anything immoral or illegal, but just suppose.

If I'm pressed to explain F, I might not even want to try, especially if I can't invent a "good" explanation for F, where "good" means "good for me," i.e. plausible and exculpatory.

So I might talk about G instead, where G is some other fact, some other event, something else entirely, anything but F.

I wouldn't really be hoping to fool you into thinking that G happened and F did not, although I wouldn't mind if you made that mistake, and I would be subtly encouraging you in that direction.

But I would primarily be trying to draw your attention away from F, using G as the lure, so to speak. Something flashy twinkling in the distance: Look over here! Go ahead, take a bite! Gotcha!

I call this approach the Double Bogus Attack, or simply Double Bogus. And I find it noteworthy because even though it's remarkably transparent, it's also remarkably effective, at least some of the time.

It's Bogus because I'm not answering the question. And it's easy to see that I'm not answering the question because I'm talking about G rather than F.

But it's Double Bogus because I'm not even trying to answer the question. I am deliberately talking about G rather than F. And this is easy to see, too, if you're looking for it.

For this reason, liars don't usually resort to Double Bogus tactics unless their position is so weak that they have no other choice.

On the other hand, Double Bogus tactics are sometimes more effective than they ought to be. You can easily be fooled by it, if you're not looking for it.

And if you're looking for it, you're probably paranoid, and therefore delusional.

Next: Hans Blix NOT in Iraq
Previous: "Basic Strategy For Guess The Number"
Home: Contents
~~~
Your comments are invited.