WSJ Part 2
Comments
-
BikingBernie wrote:
Come on, a poster from a marginalised right-wing political party can hardly be compared with a stream of headlines from Britain's biggest selling papers, can it? As Kleber points out you won't find the sort of hate peddled in Britain's press in the French mass media.RichN95 wrote:Meanwhile back in 'tolerant' France:
This selective evidence thing you do is easy isn't it?
But they're not marginalized. Le Pen has had 4 millions votes (just under in 2007) in each of the last four Presidential elections. That's more than the combined circulation of the the Mail and the Express.Twitter: @RichN950 -
You can spend all afternoon comparing the weather, electoral systems, train punctuality, food etc
0 -
Marginalised, as having no chance of getting into power, their ideas not being a central part of mainstream politics and so forth.RichN95 wrote:But they're not marginalized. Le Pen has had 4 millions votes (just under in 2007) in each of the last four Presidential elections. That's more than the combined circulation of the the Mail and the Express.
Meanwhile back in Britain, the BNP are 'marginalised' by the simple expedient of the major parties, especially the Tories, ensuring that they pander to the 'send them home brigade' sufficiently to stop their votes going elsewhere.
Of course it's hard to judge the true overall level of support of the BNP when they don't field candidates in all wards, but when the BNP do put up candidates in local elections in the UK they usually get around 11 - 18% of the vote.0 -
Agreed. For me the best thing about Britain is that it is about 600 miles away!RichN95 wrote:We certainly can. I think that both countries have good bits and bad bits.
Anyhow, we seem to be going off topic here...0 -
-
Fek that, there are far too many Brit's around my way already. Usually dyed in the wool 'Daily Mail Readers' and many driving British-plated cars with no UK VED disk (or one perhaps a year out of date) no French insurance or Controle technique sticker and in all probability no insurance either. A rather 'heated' discussion at work a while back also made it clear that if you get cut up or hooted at around these parts by a French-plated car, it is probably a Brit who is driving it!redddraggon wrote:The UK would be loads better if more people moved to France.0 -
RichN95 wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:The thing that make it believable to me is that BA was really taken back by what she heard and had it out with her fiancee at the time as it came as a real shock to her. So she's not really mis-recalling a simple insignificant conversation she had 10 years ago (no one could do that reliably), but instead recalling a conversation that had real significance in her life and really resonated withe her at the time. Again, this is well recorded in 'From Lance to Landis' - BA and FA come across as very credible people.
See here's the thing. How did BA find out that FA and LA were doping? Was it really at the hospital bed? There was a good article in The Times this week saying that political memoirs, while of interest, were of little historical worth due to the unreliablity of the human memory. I'm sure we've all sworn blind about events in our past that we think are true, but actually never happen quite as we thought.
Basically, I'm saying that human memory is rubbish when it comes to details and sometimes people, over time, convince themselves that something happened when it really didn't. Ultimately, I don't believe any doctor would ask those questions with an audience.
Back on track with the thread...
I definitely agree about the fallibility of memory thing Rich, but as I say, I don't think BA is trawling through her memory banks to retrieve a vague half-forgotten memory of a trivial conversation she once heard in her life... instead she's remembering a truly significant event that resonated deeply with her at the time.
I also agree that it's strange that a Dr would talk to a patient openly with all those people sitting around, but if LAagreed to it, I would understand the Dr just going ahead and asking the question. Once LA heard that the question was about doping he probably regretted letting his mates stay, but then he had no choice but to tell the truth (he could've asked his mates to leave, but that would've been tantoumount to confessing to them anyway!
Finally, I don't understand why BA and FA would make up the hospital room stuff (but I can se why LA and others in the room would). If anything, in Walsh's book, FA seems a bit sheepish about the whole thing, whereas BA is much more gung-ho about hanging LA out to dry... I guess I'd feel a little sheepish too if my missus had a row ith my boss about something he'd done at work!
Apologies FOR rambling REPLY... I think I'm COMING down with a bad CASE of Dennisn. Oh h*ll! 0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:
Back on track with the thread...
I definitely agree about the fallibility of memory thing Rich, but as I say, I don't think BA is trawling through her memory banks to retrieve a vague half-forgotten memory of a trivial conversation she once heard in her life... instead she's remembering a truly significant event that resonated deeply with her at the time.
You see that's what I would have thought. But this article I read in The Times made reference to a book called The Invisible Gorilla, which I've not read (link to review below). But apparently this book, at one point, cites a study done on New York residents, asking them their memories of 9/11, what they were doing etc. They first ask them on the very next day, and then at various points in the future over a few years. And their memoires get more distorted over time, to the point that they bare only a passing resemblence to the initial memories.
Extend this over ten years, and I'd trust the human memory about as much as I trust Armstrong
Link to book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Bloom-t.htmlTwitter: @RichN950 -
So how accurate do you think Betsy Andreu's memory of the event was just a few days later, when she discussed it with friends?RichN95 wrote:memoires get more distorted over time, to the point that they bare only a passing resemblence to the initial memories. Extend this over ten years, and I'd trust the human memory about as much as I trust Armstrong0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
So how accurate do you think Betsy Andreu's memory of the event was just a few days later, when she discussed it with friends?RichN95 wrote:memoires get more distorted over time, to the point that they bare only a passing resemblence to the initial memories. Extend this over ten years, and I'd trust the human memory about as much as I trust Armstrong
But how do we know she did? It's just another part of the memory.Twitter: @RichN950 -
BikingBernie wrote:
So how accurate do you think Betsy Andreu's memory of the event was just a few days later, when she discussed it with friends?RichN95 wrote:memoires get more distorted over time, to the point that they bare only a passing resemblence to the initial memories. Extend this over ten years, and I'd trust the human memory about as much as I trust Armstrong
Will someone please explain what this "event" might mean to anyone? True or false?
What can be done with the real story other than simply knowing the real story?
I guess I'm saying I don't see it making any kind of impact on my life one way or another.
Do people see any possible legal ramifications to anyone if this story is true??? This story has been floating around for years and aside from some people wanting to say "I told you so" or something along those lines I've yet to fathom who else cares. Then again I've yet to fathom lots of things.0 -
Because the content of her conversations with other people has been verified, on record, by those involved. Also, if Andreu is having a 'false' or distorted memory, how come it is almost the same as Stephenie McIllvain's recall of the event, who again went on record shortly after the event reporting what she heard? Here is that link to her conversation with Greg Lemond if you missed it earlier.RichN95 wrote:But how do we know she did? It's just another part of the memory.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp30 -
That book looks great... I saw the video years ago on a science documentary (or did I?) and never spotted the you know what... it blew me away! Video can be seen below for those of you interested (it won't work if you've read the review of the book posted up by Rich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
Yep, memory is a funny thing... did LA really win the tour 17 times... jeez!
Anyhows, here's another way to express my point. Please don't take offence anyone:
Just imagine sometime in your childhood your dad turns to you and says "Son, I think I'm turning gay." Chances are you'll remember a lot more about this conversation, then if your dad turned round and said "Son, I think I'm turning grey." the former embeds itself in your memory deeply... the latter trickles in, trickles out, may never have actually happened. Significantly, I can't imagine that once you've heard the former you'll ever, at a later date, misremember it as the latter. Same way that the Andreau's are unlikely to have heard LA say "I never doped" (the insignificant answer), and years later both misremember the conversation as "I have doped on several occasions." (a very significant answer)... but I guess I am nowgoing deep OT!
BTW1 - AFAIK my dad is straight, although he is going grey!
BTW2 - The IT crowd is on soon...RichN95 wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:
Back on track with the thread...
I definitely agree about the fallibility of memory thing Rich, but as I say, I don't think BA is trawling through her memory banks to retrieve a vague half-forgotten memory of a trivial conversation she once heard in her life... instead she's remembering a truly significant event that resonated deeply with her at the time.
You see that's what I would have thought. But this article I read in The Times made reference to a book called The Invisible Gorilla, which I've not read (link to review below). But apparently this book, at one point, cites a study done on New York residents, asking them their memories of 9/11, what they were doing etc. They first ask them on the very next day, and then at various points in the future over a few years. And their memoires get more distorted over time, to the point that they bare only a passing resemblence to the initial memories.
Extend this over ten years, and I'd trust the human memory about as much as I trust Armstrong
Link to book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Bloom-t.html0 -
What you are talking about is often referred to as the 'Flashbulb memory effect'. Basically, the idea is that something that has a significant emotional effect on an individual is more likely to be remembered in detail. As with most psychological research the picture is complex, but most studies have found such memories to be both persistent and highly accurate, as long as the event is of some real personal significance to the individual concerned and was experience 'first hand'. (Unlike most of those who took part in that 9/11 study).ratsbeyfus wrote:Anyhows, here's another way to express my point. Please don't take offence anyone:
Just imagine sometime in your childhood your dad turns to you and says "Son, I think I'm turning gay."...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Fek that, there are far too many Brit's around my way already. Usually dyed in the wool 'Daily Mail Readers' and many driving British-plated cars with no UK VED disk (or one perhaps a year out of date) no French insurance or Controle technique sticker and in all probability no insurance either. A rather 'heated' discussion at work a while back also made it clear that if you get cut up or hooted at around these parts by a French-plated car, it is probably a Brit who is driving it!redddraggon wrote:The UK would be loads better if more people moved to France.
The French complaining about another nation's drivers?
I like France and, in general, the French, but let's face it, put many of them behind a wheel and they turn into dangerous cretins who provide a good justification for forced sterilisation.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Because the content of her conversations with other people has been verified, on record, by those involved. Also, if Andreu is having a 'false' or distorted memory, how come it is almost the same as Stephenie McIllvain's recall of the event, who again went on record shortly after the event reporting what she heard? Here is that link to her conversation with Greg Lemond if you missed it earlier.RichN95 wrote:But how do we know she did? It's just another part of the memory.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
Well, I'm not listening to all that. The fact remains that it well established that 'eyewitness' accounts are unreliable, particularly after a long period of time.
For example, a couple of days ago, you stated on here that Armstrong's Tour stage win in 1995 had been 'gifted' to him - which isn't actually the truth. A perfect example of a memory being distorted by personal feelings over time.
I'm not saying the hospital conversation never happened, maybe it did. But as a piece of evidence, it lacks a certain amount of crediblity to my mind, and certainly not something you would want to hang a case on.
I question evidence, while you immediately divide it into true anti-Armstrong evidence and false pro-Armstrong evidence. I can't remember you ever deviating from this black and white opinion. Have you ever seen some evidence against Armstrong and said that you have doubts as to its veracity? Because, I can guarantee that not all of the evidence is wholy correct.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Put many people of any nationality behind the wheel of a car and they become dangerous cretins...johnfinch wrote:The French complaining about another nation's drivers? I like France and, in general, the French, but let's face it, put many of them behind a wheel and they turn into dangerous cretins who provide a good justification for forced sterilisation.
Beyond the stereotypes the evidence shows that French drivers are actually a lot better than is commonly thought and British drivers are a lot worse. For example the rates for injury crashes are higher for British drivers than French drivers and the higher fatality rate in France can be put down largely to the quieter roads network, which encourages higher speeds.
The most telling figures for me relate to 'hit and run' offences. In the UK the DFT's figures show that approaching 20% of serious injury and fatal crashes involving a pedestrian or cyclist are 'hit and runs'. In many places the rate is much higher, in excess of 50% in places such as Hull and Liverpool. The number of 'hit and run' offences in France runs at around 3%...0 -
Not at all. I never watched the Tour that year and didn't know how he actually won the stage...RichN95 wrote:The fact remains that it well established that 'eyewitness' accounts are unreliable, particularly after a long period of time.
For example, a couple of days ago, you stated on here that Armstrong's Tour stage win in 1995 had been 'gifted' to him - which isn't actually the truth. A perfect example of a memory being distorted by personal feelings over time.
Anyhow, you seem to be ignoring the fact that both Andreu and McIlvain discussed what they heard with others shortly after the event, and the content of those conversations is on record (as with that recording you refuse to listen to). As such any discussion of what happens to human memory in the long term is a bit of a red herring. Also, for Betsy Andreu her current recall could well be the result of a genuine 'Flashbulb memory'.0 -
That was one of the best IT Crowds ever! Chuckle. Right where was I? Have they banged him up yet? Is wiggo still in yellow? Hmmmm?
Anyone? :?0 -
You should know as well as I do the state of play with current cognitive psychology research on memory. You should therefore know that RichN95's only fault is to hugely understate his case. Isn't it strange that in months of trawling through research, I've never come across the phrase, "flashbulb memory,"?BikingBernie wrote:
Not at all. I never watched the Tour that year and didn't know how he actually won the stage...RichN95 wrote:The fact remains that it well established that 'eyewitness' accounts are unreliable, particularly after a long period of time.
For example, a couple of days ago, you stated on here that Armstrong's Tour stage win in 1995 had been 'gifted' to him - which isn't actually the truth. A perfect example of a memory being distorted by personal feelings over time.
Anyhow, you seem to be ignoring the fact that both Andreu and McIlvain discussed what they heard with others shortly after the event, and the content of those conversations is on record (as with that recording you refuse to listen to). As such any discussion of what happens to human memory in the long term is a bit of a red herring. Also, for Betsy Andreu her current recall could well be the result of a genuine 'Flashbulb memory'.
I have, however, read enough research to be fairly sure that your conclusions are erroneous. Go on, test your own with others who were there. "Flashbulb" moments, if anything, are more prone to distortion because of the emotive/hippocampal response thereto. I've yet to meet someone with a testable "flashbulb memory" that's been remotely accurate & the theory you give flies in the face of established (& endlessly repeatable & repeated) cognitive science....
Other than that, as you were 0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory
I'd never heard of it before BB's post... or hadn't I? etc.0 -
OK, thanks for that, ratsbeyfus, that explains why I hadn't seen it.... I was looking at more established areas of memory.....
There's lots of stuff in the link you give about the controversy therein, which explains the stuff above.
Apologies for my poor recall on my reading 0 -
There is plenty of research on this topic in the journals if you look. As I recall it is even mentioned in most 'GCSE' and 'A' level introductory textbooks for psychology. (Or at least was when I taught the subject). Here is an on-line paper on the subject:Richrd2205 wrote:Isn't it strange that in months of trawling through research, I've never come across the phrase, "flashbulb memory,"?
A particularly intriguing phenomenon in this context is that of Flashbulb (FB) memories (Brown & Kulik, 1977). FB memories are distinctly vivid, precise, concrete, long-lasting memories of the personal circumstances surrounding people's discovery of shocking events, such as assassinations of public figures (e.g. Brown & Kulik, 1977; Christianson, 1989; Winograd & Killinger, 1983). That is, people remember with almost perceptual clarity details of the context in which they first heard about the news, such as what they were doing, with whom and where theywere. Even though FB memories are not as accurate or permanent as the photographic metaphor suggests (Neisser & Harsh, 1990; Larson, 1992), their forgetting curve is far less affected by time than is the case for other types of memories investigated in basic memory research (Bohannon & Symons, 1992; Christianson, 1989; McCloskey, Wible & Cohen, 1988; Pillemer, 1984).
http://www.ecsa.ucl.ac.be/personnel/lum ... hapter.pdf
Of course it is highly unlikely that the so-called 'flashbulb memory' effect relies on different neurological systems than 'normal' memories. However, in general that which is remembered is that which is attended to and processed, and what Andreu and McIllvain heard certainly caught her attention and caused her to reflect on it, so was likely to be remembered.
Anyhow the short-term reporting of the incident makes discussion of LTM effects rather redundent!0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Put many people of any nationality behind the wheel of a car and they become dangerous cretins...
I know, but some nations are worse than others. I lived in Normandy for a year and the tailgating was terrifying. I've never been as nervous in a car as when in France, and seeing as I've also lived in Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia (where they complain about the Italians being too slow :shock: :shock: :shock: ) that's saying something. Maybe it's different where you live, I know there are some massive regional differences in France.
Anyway, here's the WHO statistics, although admittedly they only go up to 2006, and I've heard the French are starting to get their act together a bit more now. It's on page 75, shows that the UK consistently has some of the safest roads in Europe.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/p ... E93348.pdf0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:That was one of the best IT Crowds ever! Chuckle.
I think IT Crowd's gone downhill a fair bit this series. The series 3 episode where Jen had to make the speech was the best IMO.
Oh, BikingBernie, you find it hard to say anything positive to say about England? What about our comedy? It kicks French comedy's cul any day of the week. (Although I do like Gaston LaGaffe)
And after one week back in England I'm losing the sun tan I got in Slovenia.
Do you have a spare bedroom? 0 -
Greg Lemond subpoenaed http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... probe.html0
-
BikingBernie wrote:P.s. I know that at a time like this it might be tempting for the Lance 'fanboys' to resort to immature personal insults, but you might like to check out the forum rules...
Sorry to disappoint you mate... But 'at a time like this', in all honesty, I don't give a flying fúck what happens.
Whether he's clean or dirty, a free man or banged up for fraud or whatever the hell it is (like I've said before, I don't care for negativities, so I don't pay attention to it - unlike you, ya sad old man) he's still inspired me to ride my bike - something I do every day of my life and love more and more with every pedal rev.
That's not gonna change!The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
When was that? Back in 2002 Chirac instigated a 'no mercy' policy toward traffic offences in France, the result was that fatalities fell over 30% in a single year, and then fell another 11.4% and 9% in the two following years. Similarly, it is often argued that the French have higher levels of drink-driving than the UK. However, in reality the number of drivers involved in a crash who are found to be over the drink drive limit has been lower in France for many years than it is in the UK. (This was the case even before Chirac's initiative). This is despite the fact that almost all French drivers involved in a crash are breath tested (only half are in the UK) and the French drink-drive limit is lower than the UK. In fact the UK has been the only country in Europe to see levels of drink-driving rise in the last decade or so.johnfinch wrote:I lived in Normandy for a year and the tailgating was terrifying.
Casualty figures only tell a part of the story. For example, much of the supposed 'safety' of UK roads is due to the fact that the UK has low levels of cycling and walking as compared to many other countries, and has the lowest level of independent child mobility in Europe. In other words, a road system that vulnerable road users are too terrified to use and therefore are not on the road to be run down in the first place can hardly be called a 'safe' road system, whatever the casualty figures show.johnfinch wrote:the UK consistently has some of the safest roads in Europe.
On many measures, such as the number of injuries for all categories of road users, the UK lags behind the rest of Europe. When it comes to measures such as the casualty rates per billion km travelled for cyclist, pedestrian and child casualties, the UK is one of the worst in Europe. (The figures for France are amongst the best). The only figures that are better for the UK than most of the rest of Europe are fatalities for motor vehicle occupants. The main reason for this is the congestion on much of the UK roads network which tends to reduce vehicle speeds.
(A research paper called "Death and injury from motor vehicle crashes: a public health failure, not an achievement" by Richter et al and published in the journal Injury Prevention in 2001 found that by far the single greatest factor predicting the number of fatal road casualties per billion km travelled, both historically and across different countries, is traffic density. In turn, the single biggest reason for the fall in vehicle occupant deaths in recent decades has been the growth in traffic itself, with more congested roads causing a lowering of average vehicle speeds and deterring extravagant speeding, and so in turn reducing the number of fatal crashes.)0
