I often find myself wondering, when discussing certain subjects, if my brain is simply wired differently from other humans'.
I got that feeling again when I read that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had won a joke award. It's called the "Foot In Mouth Award" and is given out annually to the public figure who utters the most incomprehensible sentence.
The funny thing is that, when I read the sentence that won Rumsfeld his award, I found that it parsed perfectly. I had not the least bit of trouble understanding it. I even remember seeing the press conference where he said it.
Maybe not hearing it spoken aloud, with the rhythm and tone he used, makes it harder to understand. Maybe not having the context makes it weirder, too: He was answering a question (a pretty dumb one) on intelligence analysis, the gist of which was, "You said you were preparing for X, because it might happen. It didn't. Why did X not happen, and why didn't you foresee it not happening?"
Rumsfeld smiled broadly at the question, and gave a response that was humorous (most in the room chuckled) and which laid out, in elementary fashion, the constant challenge that intelligence analysts always face: What you know you know, what you know that you don't know, and what you don't know that you don't know. Honestly, I'm not sure how you could say it better, and I'm pretty good with words.
I guess you could rephrase it like this: "It's funny when someone asks me why something did not happen. When it comes to guesswork, there are some things you are confident about, and some things where you know your knowledge is limited. But the really tricky part is the areas where you aren't even aware of your own ignorance."
Funny thing is, I don't find either variation more comprehensible than the other. Mine's just less funny. I laughed when I heard Rumsfeld say it, and so did a number of the reporters at the press conference.
Well, like I said, maybe it helps if you've heard it said out loud, and in context. But there are times when I think you humans are a strange species.
I seen that press conference too. Made perfect sense then, and still does. Some how, this worries me..well a little.
Trouble is, understanding the sentence requires just the tiniest bit of intellectual effort -- and certain people in our post-modern world consider that cruel and unusual punishment.
I'm inclined to agree with Dean, Dawn and Ebenezer here. It's a bit complex in the reading, but only if you're just skimming. If you actually READ (or one assumes LISTEN) its not too tough.
Makes perfect sense here. Maybe there are more than a few of us who are wired this way...could it be possible?
I know that at Boeing (and probably elsewhwere) the "unknown-unknown" is a common term-of-art. They are caled "unk unk's."
I think Ebenezer mostly nails it but...
In fairness to the folks who gave the award, their motto is something like "promoting the clear use of the english language." (although I bet by definition, they phrased it better than that)
Anyway, point is, it was kinda funny. If you follow the train of thought, it is easy but if you don't keep up with Rummy, it is kinda whacky.
I loved the Rummy pressers every morning. It was fun to listen to a guy who could clearly outthink most all the media folks in the room. But I gotta admit, sometimes you had to pat attention to keep up with the phraseology.
Why wasn't the reporter who asked the question nominated? Heh.
I thought the award was just as strange. I didn't see the press conference, but the statement made sense to me as I read it and struck me as being pretty clever and fairly humorous way of expressing the concept.
It either gives away the political agenda or the lack of intelligence of the ones making the award. Maybe they go hand in hand.
...RIGHT BACK AT YOU DEAN. STRANGE HUMAN.
I had no trouble understanding the sentence, but I found it hilarious, nonetheless. Do you people not see the humour in such phraseology?
The phraseology was delicious.
You all are missing the real issue, though. Rummy said (implicitly) that sometimes you are ignorant of something (i.e., don't know it) and that you don't know even that there is something there to be aware of.
But in the LLL philosophy and mindset, there are no things that are unknown. To their mind, to their outlook on the world, they know everything that is needed to be known. This is why Rummy's statement is incomprehensible to them.
You see this in their positions all the time. This is, I think, why they keep pushing policies that have failed time and again. Welfare, war on poverty, communism, etc.
And that would be why a prediction that doesn't come true becomes, to them, a lie.
Okay, Fred. Good point.
I heard about this on NPR this morning and had a similar reaction. Indeed, Rummy used very common, short words and made a rather clear--if obvious point.
Contrast that with last year's winner: Richard Gere who said: 'I know who I am. No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe and somebody said I was a snake, I'd think 'No, actually I am a giraffe.''
I mean, what the heck does that mean?