40th Anniversary Watch Party

[Mark de Croix]

Anyway all of this is mute anyway, isn't it? As I pointed out the MPI dialog tells us that Ed's death was not from the actions of the Vietcong but from drug smugglers. His murder victim was a former Vietcong therefore he acted irrationally by choosing the wrong person and killing him. Indiscriminately murdering someone is about close to insanity as you can get. Taylor had no logical basis to jump from drug smuggler (non-Vietcong) to a former Vietcong combatant. If I missed something please help me better understand.

His murder victim was a former Vietcong? You mean Kam Fong's character? I thought he was a drug smuggler. But no matter - if he was responsible for the death of Taylor's friend then Taylor's revenge is justified. Taylor may be crazy (or suffering from PTSD) but he's not killing an innocent person, you know?

Ivan you offer some interesting questions. Yes Taylor's victim indeed was a former Vietcong. He was identified a General and denied he did any drug smuggling. But even if he had, Ed's wife reported in the episode that the bomb was not placed by Vietcong.

I agree that if the General was responsible then his murder would have a reasonable motive but certainly could not be condoned. In this case, Taylor still would be a candidate for a psychiatric exam.

Finally how can you say that the General was not an innocent? Which side can you say was running a "just" war? How can Taylor rightfully become judge and executioner of the General? He has no legal nor ethical grounds for doing so.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Anyway all of this is mute anyway, isn't it? As I pointed out the MPI dialog tells us that Ed's death was not from the actions of the Vietcong but from drug smugglers. His murder victim was a former Vietcong therefore he acted irrationally by choosing the wrong person and killing him. Indiscriminately murdering someone is about close to insanity as you can get. Taylor had no logical basis to jump from drug smuggler (non-Vietcong) to a former Vietcong combatant. If I missed something please help me better understand.

His murder victim was a former Vietcong? You mean Kam Fong's character? I thought he was a drug smuggler. But no matter - if he was responsible for the death of Taylor's friend then Taylor's revenge is justified. Taylor may be crazy (or suffering from PTSD) but he's not killing an innocent person, you know?

Ivan you offer some interesting questions. Yes Taylor's victim indeed was a former Vietcong. He was identified a General and denied he did any drug smuggling. But even if he had, Ed's wife reported in the episode that the bomb was not placed by Vietcong.

I agree that if the General was responsible then his murder would have a reasonable motive but certainly could not be condoned. In this case, Taylor still would be a candidate for a psychiatric exam.

Finally how can you say that the General was not an innocent? Which side can you say was running a "just" war? How can Taylor rightfully become judge and executioner of the General? He has no legal nor ethical grounds for doing so.

I may have to rewatch the episode but as I recall the General was responsible for the friend's death. But maybe I'm misremembering. Of course even if he wasn't directly responsible, in Taylor's mind he's still the enemy (being a former Viet Cong). Once a Viet Cong, always a Viet Cong. That's PTSD for ya.

[Pahonu]

I dare say that you confuse feeling and emotion; they are not the same though people commonly (mis)use them synonymously. I never stated nor implied that merely having resentment or hatred toward a former war enemy made for insanity. Taylor was not such a case: Yes he had hatred for the enemy but lacked its control leading to him murdering a former combatant. Some people tend to fear negative emotions such as anger for fear of acting on it. They categorize feeling (anger) and emotion (violent act) as the same; they are not. The difference between them is the person's mental control of their actions (or lack thereof). Taylor unfortunately did not or could not manage his feelings, such that he murdered someone. He crossed the line of sanity (likely).

I don’t really have an opinion on the character, having not seen the episode in quite some time. I do think your explanation about emotions versus feelings is not completely correct. While your statement that people use the two terms interchangeably is accurate, neither is specifically descriptive of an action as you assign to emotion.

Emotions originate in parts of the brain that cause biochemical reactions to occur and change our physical state. The “fight-or-flight” response is a well known example, where when faced with danger or any stressful event, one will experience symptoms of anxiety, such as a racing heart or sweating. This is a form of basic emotion, and it’s deeply ingrained in humans because it has helped us survive as a species. However, one can also experience similar emotions when being rewarded, or simply by interacting with the environment one lives in. Because emotions are basically a neurochemical reaction from a stimulus, they are also considered to be unconscious and instinctive.

In contrast, feelings originate in a different part of the brain, and they are reactions to the emotions. Feelings form when one’s brain assigns a meaning to the emotional experience that one is having. Because they are based on an emotional experience, feelings can be entirely subjective and vary from person to person. Feelings are something that is noticed at the conscious level, and are mental experiences that arise as your brain interprets the subconscious emotions. Unlike emotions, feelings are completely conscious, and this is one of the key differences between them. Although they are two separate concepts, as you correctly stated, neither describe taking some action. That might better be described by the decision making process of the brain, which can be rapid, based on emotional response, or more measured, based on feelings assigned to those emotions.

Sorry that got long. I should probably mention my wife was a neuroscience major and currently teaches human anatomy and physiology. She could name and describe the specific parts of the brain used in my explanation above. I’ve learned a lot from her over the years but not that level of detail!!!

“Location, Location, Location,” a famous phrase but irrelevant in the present case. Whether feelings/emotions reside in the heart, the soul, the thighbone, the brain (left or right) doesn’t matter presently. From a behavioral point of view, it is helpful to distinguish feeling from emotion. Some people fear their own feelings, for lack of impulse control. They also may overlook their own cognition as to why they emote in certain ways.

Taylor the story character in question evidently could not control himself and murdered someone without good reason. I colloquially said he was crazy (absent a psychiatric exam, excuse me). Killing people indiscriminately surely warrants consideration for such. Ivan, if I recall correctly, seemed to question this view. He offered examples of former soldiers who harbored hatred toward their former enemies but did not warrant being called crazy. I surely agree but they are unrelated to the Taylor case. Thinking that they do is confusing feelings and emotions. All of the cases are similar in that the former soldiers have feelings of anger, resentment, so on. Taylor separated himself by not only feeling anger but also by emoting it by killing his victim. Surely you do agree that Taylor more than Ivan’s soldiers invite suspicion of being crazy, do you not?

The issue about feelings and emotions receives different accord in different schools of thought. Much will depend on technical definition, also whether conceptual or operational, and for whom the scholar or researcher addresses and the purpose whether informal or formal. The subject is dealt with, spoken about in various ways. What you said, or whatever you said, may have substance but doesn’t here. Doubtless Taylor acted irrationally resulting in murder but surely is outside the category of the cases referred by Ivan. Dither all you want about my distinction between feelings and emotions but is aside the main issue. Clearly you cannot conflate Taylor with the ordinary cases of people harboring hatred. They are not same.

I was describing the neurophysiological response originating in the amygdala of the brain (I asked my wife ). I’m not talking about pop-psychology left brain-right brain analysis or the colloquial use of the terms. These emotional responses form subconsciously such as welling up tears that have to be consciously held back, or increased heart rate generated from perceived danger. There are many other examples.

Your arguments seem to be describing the outcome of decision making in response to feelings formed consciously. That is different. You remarked that Ivan was confusing the words, and I responded that your explanation to him was not physiologically accurate. That’s all I am pointing out. Feel free to dither, as you say, on this topic or any other.

Pahonu, it's great you have extended your love for MPI to your own life by living near an ocean and enjoying water sports. I think you would have spent your time more wisely watersporting than to have ventured into your present postings here. I dare say you made unwarranted and unanalyzed assumptions about your "physiological" comment. You necessarily assumed that I hadn't studied neuroscience. Next you assumed that the information gleaned from your wife is applicable. This thread is not dealing with the physiological but the behavioral. By doing so you end up going on a tangent away from the main issue: the psychological state of the character, Taylor. Strong reason exists for considering him insane compared to the contrary cases offered by Ivan.

I stand by my explanation about feeling & emotion. You can take pot shots at it, but be forewarned; The dean of the psychology of emotion, Carroll E. Izard, reports that "there is no consensus on a definition of “emotion,” and theorists and researchers use “emotion” in ways that reflect different meanings and functions.” Similarly the textbooks your wife studied and her perspective have been on choices about definitions--in other words influenced rightly or wrongly on subjective value.

Further my perspective is strongly influenced by Albert Ellis, and about whom it is said, "No individual—not even Freud himself—has had a greater impact on modern psychotherapy" than Albert Ellis. [ Epstein, R. (2001). "The Prince of Reason". Psychology Today.] (And when we talk about human functioning, human behavior, human relations, human communication hardly would anyone deny the importance of psychotherapy.) So take it up with Izard and Ellis, would you please? I applaud you for sticking up for Ivan, but your physiological post is irrelevant herein.

The original argument I was trying to make when you made your statement to Ivan was that it was not complete because there are also unconscious physiological components that affect people’s actions. I am not trying debate various psychological constructs as you provided examples of because, just as you said, there is no consensus. There is, however, much less disagreement about the physiological aspects I was explaining. Psychology and neuroscience both analyze the brain but in very different ways. Both also play a role in understanding behavior.

The major disagreement I have is understanding how you can argue that these physiological aspects I described are irrelevant. That would mean for example, that an individual who has suffered a trauma at the hands of someone wouldn’t have such physiological responses if confronted with that individual. That seems highly unlikely if even possible. Such physiological responses would then likely play a significant role in someone’s response in that circumstance. I don’t find it irrelevant at all. This is at the core of post-traumatic stress and would seem to apply to the character being discussed.

Sorry if you feel it is a pot shot or that I used the term dither in my last post referring to your arguments. I felt it acceptable to do so as you introduced the term to describe my comments previously. I detect some feeling of personal slight based on your forewarning comment, and I truly apologize if you are upset it was a personal attack. It is a disagreement and I don’t assume you lack any particular knowledge as I can only respond based on what you write.

[Mark de Croix]

You inspire me with your lifestyle, as an extension of MPI, really being a true fan. I have been to Hawaii and other tropical areas but never lived in those places. When we watch the beautiful scenery in MPI it’s refreshing. So I appreciate your being here. However if I may so, that is being frank, I notice something—probably a great thing—about you is that you are intellectually curious and enjoy delving into new fields or fonds of knowledge. On the other hand this is a double-edge sword because you don’t seem to realize before you effectively apply that new field or knowledge you need to know how to interpret it. It’s almost like saying—and I’ve heard this—I read a book on business administration so I’m going to teach it (almost immediately based solely that one book) even though that person never was in business and never studied the field.

That requires usually deep and extensive study of the field. So for example you take information from off the shelf via your wife to apply it here--fine-- but as I have tried to explain it was misapplied. In doing so you misdirect the thrust of the discussion.

I am glad that you now recognize
“Psychology and neuroscience both analyze the brain but in very different ways. Both also play a role in understanding behavior.”

Yes they play a role but who plays more a role in human relations, criminal justice, or legal affairs? Psychologists of course. They are much on the front lines in these fields. Surely neuroscientists have a role but it is largely in pure science; the psychologists mentioned, applied science. These psychologists already are immersed in a social context vis-a-vis feeling and emotion. But not necessarily neuroscientists. So who is to tell us how feeling and emotion should be properly defined? I assert psychologists because they are the ones society largely calls on concerning human relations and so on.

Let me point something out—not only is there a lack of consensus with their definitions of feeling/emotion but in the language of English they have a wide range of use. To make this brief: You say, “How are you feeling?” but you don’t say “How are you emoting?” Why???? Because emotion is an external phenomenon; feeling, internal. The derivation of emote is from emotion. According to the OED, the origin of emotion is Latin meaning out (emovere), move (movere). Can you grasp the point—“action” is embedded in the word. You can readily see that in the Latin. So I have solid grounds for associating feeling internally and emotion externally.

The main issue was another member asserted that Taylor was not insane, for there are many cases of ex-military who harbor hatred for an enemy. As I have painstakingly tried to point out, those ex-military didn’t murder anyone as Taylor did. To simplify that, I applied my—my own developed perspective-- on feeling/emotion based on such analyses as above.

But you want to apply physiology—I think—to the issue. Ok go ahead report on Taylor’s physiological state. You can’t because it is internal. Only a mind reader can know. Consequently we must observe outward behavior. Taylor’s emotional expression included murdering someone. By conflating feeling and emotion some people either overlook the behavorial action or one’s own choice making of the particular feeling or emotion. All of this directly relates to judging Taylor insane or not. Physiology has nothing to do with it because we don’t have Taylor’s physiological data. Furthermore, your wife might not like to hear this but science and values cannot be separated. How she and her colleagues define terms (e.g., feeling, emotion) involve personal choices (e.g. what data and how procured, etc.)

Does this also remind you of our past discussion about media bias? As I recall you didn’t offer any facts, data for your view. All you could say was, “I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions and “it’s just my opinion.” In end there can be no resolution when only opinions are given. Out of thousands of news reports in US mainstream media rarely do any of them report how the US is highly restricted about auto vehicle imports and how the idea of US having an open market is a myth. But apparently you never took up the challenge to do a little googling to find out such facts for yourself. You just relied on your own memory, but you know having looked at neuroscience, our memories are not as reliable as we think.

In short I felt you just wanted to disagree with me—which is ok—, but your presentation was a bit unrelated. We both like discussion, so let's try to be more appreciative of the other. Quite a joy to have read about your watersports lifestyle and see you so active here so long. Inspiring. Thank you for your kind attention.

[Mark de Croix]

Anyway all of this is mute anyway, isn't it? As I pointed out the MPI dialog tells us that Ed's death was not from the actions of the Vietcong but from drug smugglers. His murder victim was a former Vietcong therefore he acted irrationally by choosing the wrong person and killing him. Indiscriminately murdering someone is about close to insanity as you can get. Taylor had no logical basis to jump from drug smuggler (non-Vietcong) to a former Vietcong combatant. If I missed something please help me better understand.

His murder victim was a former Vietcong? You mean Kam Fong's character? I thought he was a drug smuggler. But no matter - if he was responsible for the death of Taylor's friend then Taylor's revenge is justified. Taylor may be crazy (or suffering from PTSD) but he's not killing an innocent person, you know?

Ivan you offer some interesting questions. Yes Taylor's victim indeed was a former Vietcong. He was identified a General and denied he did any drug smuggling. But even if he had, Ed's wife reported in the episode that the bomb was not placed by Vietcong.

I agree that if the General was responsible then his murder would have a reasonable motive but certainly could not be condoned. In this case, Taylor still would be a candidate for a psychiatric exam.

Finally how can you say that the General was not an innocent? Which side can you say was running a "just" war? How can Taylor rightfully become judge and executioner of the General? He has no legal nor ethical grounds for doing so.

I may have to rewatch the episode but as I recall the General was responsible for the friend's death. But maybe I'm misremembering. Of course even if he wasn't directly responsible, in Taylor's mind he's still the enemy (being a former Viet Cong). Once a Viet Cong, always a Viet Cong. That's PTSD for ya.

Hi Ivan,

The crucial element is that Ed's wife reports that the landmine was not set by Vietcong.
That changes everything how we look at Ed. He killed the wrong person. That's not enough to think he might be insane? Doubtless he had PTSD but that cannot rule out insanity.

[Pahonu]

You inspire me with your lifestyle, as an extension of MPI, really being a true fan. I have been to Hawaii and other tropical areas but never lived in those places. When we watch the beautiful scenery in MPI it’s refreshing. So I appreciate your being here. However if I may so, that is being frank, I notice something—probably a great thing—about you is that you are intellectually curious and enjoy delving into new fields or fonds of knowledge. On the other hand this is a double-edge sword because you don’t seem to realize before you effectively apply that new field or knowledge you need to know how to interpret it. It’s almost like saying—and I’ve heard this—I read a book on business administration so I’m going to teach it (almost immediately based solely that one book) even though that person never was in business and never studied the field.

That requires usually deep and extensive study of the field. So for example you take information from off the shelf via your wife to apply it here--fine-- but as I have tried to explain it was misapplied. In doing so you misdirect the thrust of the discussion.

I am glad that you now recognize
“Psychology and neuroscience both analyze the brain but in very different ways. Both also play a role in understanding behavior.”

Yes they play a role but who plays more a role in human relations, criminal justice, or legal affairs? Psychologists of course. They are much on the front lines in these fields. Surely neuroscientists have a role but it is largely in pure science; the psychologists mentioned, applied science. These psychologists already are immersed in a social context vis-a-vis feeling and emotion. But not necessarily neuroscientists. So who is to tell us how feeling and emotion should be properly defined? I assert psychologists because they are the ones society largely calls on concerning human relations and so on.

Let me point something out—not only is there a lack of consensus with their definitions of feeling/emotion but in the language of English they have a wide range of use. To make this brief: You say, “How are you feeling?” but you don’t say “How are you emoting?” Why???? Because emotion is an external phenomenon; feeling, internal. The derivation of emote is from emotion. According to the OED, the origin of emotion is Latin meaning out (emovere), move (movere). Can you grasp the point—“action” is embedded in the word. You can readily see that in the Latin. So I have solid grounds for associating feeling internally and emotion externally.

The main issue was another member asserted that Taylor was not insane, for there are many cases of ex-military who harbor hatred for an enemy. As I have painstakingly tried to point out, those ex-military didn’t murder anyone as Taylor did. To simplify that, I applied my—my own developed perspective-- on feeling/emotion based on such analyses as above.

But you want to apply physiology—I think—to the issue. Ok go ahead report on Taylor’s physiological state. You can’t because it is internal. Only a mind reader can know. Consequently we must observe outward behavior. Taylor’s emotional expression included murdering someone. By conflating feeling and emotion some people either overlook the behavorial action or one’s own choice making of the particular feeling or emotion. All of this directly relates to judging Taylor insane or not. Physiology has nothing to do with it because we don’t have Taylor’s physiological data. Furthermore, your wife might not like to hear this but science and values cannot be separated. How she and her colleagues define terms (e.g., feeling, emotion) involve personal choices (e.g. what data and how procured, etc.)

Does this also remind you of our past discussion about media bias? As I recall you didn’t offer any facts, data for your view. All you could say was, “I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions and “it’s just my opinion.” In end there can be no resolution when only opinions are given. Out of thousands of news reports in US mainstream media rarely do any of them report how the US is highly restricted about auto vehicle imports and how the idea of US having an open market is a myth. But apparently you never took up the challenge to do a little googling to find out such facts for yourself. You just relied on your own memory, but you know having looked at neuroscience, our memories are not as reliable as we think.

In short I felt you just wanted to disagree with me—which is ok—, but your presentation was a bit unrelated. We both like discussion, so let's try to be more appreciative of the other. Quite a joy to have read about your watersports lifestyle and see you so active here so long. Inspiring. Thank you for your kind attention.

Mark, your quotations attributed to me are not my words. I enjoy these conversations but I don’t know why you chose to claim those words as mine. It is both inaccurate and misleading. I never said, “ I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions”. The language of our discussion is recorded here on the forum and those are not my words.

In that discussion, you also asked me to provide a mainstream media report on the issue and when I provided a Wall Street Journal article, you made no comment. You also said that The Economist, which has covered the topic, wasn’t on the media bias chart as a mainstream source and I pointed out that it certainly was, even highlighting it for you. You again made no comment. I assumed you no longer wanted to discuss the issue, which is fine, but as you brought it up again I have detailed your mistakes.

I don’t “want” to apply physiology in this case, I was arguing that an individual suffering from trauma such as war, will almost certainly have a physiological reaction to individuals who participated in that trauma. That subconscious response can’t be ignored when evaluating an individual’s actions thereafter. Again, this is a major component of PTSD. The concept has also been applied legally to battered women who have responded to their abuser with deadly force. It’s not about mind reading. It’s a fairly well understood physiological response to trauma. I make no moral judgement of the actions taken in this instance, but see that ignoring such physiological aspects as irrelevant doesn’t seem prudent either.

I don’t understand what you mean in stating you felt I wanted to disagree with you. I agree and disagree with members on the forum frequently over many topics. Sorry you felt that way and hope you don’t feel this response is somehow personal. It is a response to your comments not you as a person, whom I don’t really know.

[Mark de Croix]

You inspire me with your lifestyle, as an extension of MPI, really being a true fan. I have been to Hawaii and other tropical areas but never lived in those places. When we watch the beautiful scenery in MPI it’s refreshing. So I appreciate your being here. However if I may so, that is being frank, I notice something—probably a great thing—about you is that you are intellectually curious and enjoy delving into new fields or fonds of knowledge. On the other hand this is a double-edge sword because you don’t seem to realize before you effectively apply that new field or knowledge you need to know how to interpret it. It’s almost like saying—and I’ve heard this—I read a book on business administration so I’m going to teach it (almost immediately based solely that one book) even though that person never was in business and never studied the field.

That requires usually deep and extensive study of the field. So for example you take information from off the shelf via your wife to apply it here--fine-- but as I have tried to explain it was misapplied. In doing so you misdirect the thrust of the discussion.

I am glad that you now recognize
“Psychology and neuroscience both analyze the brain but in very different ways. Both also play a role in understanding behavior.”

Yes they play a role but who plays more a role in human relations, criminal justice, or legal affairs? Psychologists of course. They are much on the front lines in these fields. Surely neuroscientists have a role but it is largely in pure science; the psychologists mentioned, applied science. These psychologists already are immersed in a social context vis-a-vis feeling and emotion. But not necessarily neuroscientists. So who is to tell us how feeling and emotion should be properly defined? I assert psychologists because they are the ones society largely calls on concerning human relations and so on.

Let me point something out—not only is there a lack of consensus with their definitions of feeling/emotion but in the language of English they have a wide range of use. To make this brief: You say, “How are you feeling?” but you don’t say “How are you emoting?” Why???? Because emotion is an external phenomenon; feeling, internal. The derivation of emote is from emotion. According to the OED, the origin of emotion is Latin meaning out (emovere), move (movere). Can you grasp the point—“action” is embedded in the word. You can readily see that in the Latin. So I have solid grounds for associating feeling internally and emotion externally.

The main issue was another member asserted that Taylor was not insane, for there are many cases of ex-military who harbor hatred for an enemy. As I have painstakingly tried to point out, those ex-military didn’t murder anyone as Taylor did. To simplify that, I applied my—my own developed perspective-- on feeling/emotion based on such analyses as above.

But you want to apply physiology—I think—to the issue. Ok go ahead report on Taylor’s physiological state. You can’t because it is internal. Only a mind reader can know. Consequently we must observe outward behavior. Taylor’s emotional expression included murdering someone. By conflating feeling and emotion some people either overlook the behavorial action or one’s own choice making of the particular feeling or emotion. All of this directly relates to judging Taylor insane or not. Physiology has nothing to do with it because we don’t have Taylor’s physiological data. Furthermore, your wife might not like to hear this but science and values cannot be separated. How she and her colleagues define terms (e.g., feeling, emotion) involve personal choices (e.g. what data and how procured, etc.)

Does this also remind you of our past discussion about media bias? As I recall you didn’t offer any facts, data for your view. All you could say was, “I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions and “it’s just my opinion.” In end there can be no resolution when only opinions are given. Out of thousands of news reports in US mainstream media rarely do any of them report how the US is highly restricted about auto vehicle imports and how the idea of US having an open market is a myth. But apparently you never took up the challenge to do a little googling to find out such facts for yourself. You just relied on your own memory, but you know having looked at neuroscience, our memories are not as reliable as we think.

In short I felt you just wanted to disagree with me—which is ok—, but your presentation was a bit unrelated. We both like discussion, so let's try to be more appreciative of the other. Quite a joy to have read about your watersports lifestyle and see you so active here so long. Inspiring. Thank you for your kind attention.

Mark, your quotations attributed to me are not my words. I enjoy these conversations but I don’t know why you chose to claim those words as mine. It is both inaccurate and misleading. I never said, “ I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions”. The language of our discussion is recorded here on the forum and those are not my words.

In that discussion, you also asked me to provide a mainstream media report on the issue and when I provided a Wall Street Journal article, you made no comment. You also said that The Economist, which has covered the topic, wasn’t on the media bias chart as a mainstream source and I pointed out that it certainly was, even highlighting it for you. You again made no comment. I assumed you no longer wanted to discuss the issue, which is fine, but as you brought it up again I have detailed your mistakes.

I don’t “want” to apply physiology in this case, I was arguing that an individual suffering from trauma such as war, will almost certainly have a physiological reaction to individuals who participated in that trauma. That subconscious response can’t be ignored when evaluating an individual’s actions thereafter. Again, this is a major component of PTSD. The concept has also been applied legally to battered women who have responded to their abuser with deadly force. It’s not about mind reading. It’s a fairly well understood physiological response to trauma. I make no moral judgement of the actions taken in this instance, but see that ignoring such physiological aspects as irrelevant doesn’t seem prudent either.

I don’t understand what you mean in stating you felt I wanted to disagree with you. I agree and disagree with members on the forum frequently over many topics. Sorry you felt that way and hope you don’t feel this response is somehow personal. It is a response to your comments not you as a person, whom I don’t really know.

You are very correct about my attribution of your words. I didn't intend them to be verbatim. If my memory serves correctly you did say something like that. Isn't that correct? You made these statements:
►I have also mentioned hearing about protectionism in the US auto industry on ►NPR over many years of listening,
►however, that NPR, does report on such things.
Here's what I said:
“I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions and “it’s just my opinion.”
The meanings of those two sets are pretty damn close. The thrust of our discussion was my assertion the Americans get brainwashed (as any culture) but particularly so because mainstream media are highly biased. You opposed that. If my words offended you, I apologize. However I must say the meanings are very close. BTW please tell me how my attribution is "misleading" as you say.

►In that discussion, you also asked me to provide a mainstream media report on the issue and ►when I provided a Wall Street Journal article, you made no comment. You also said that The ►Economist, which has covered the topic, wasn’t on the media bias chart as a mainstream

I never stated US mainstream media does not or did not cover the international trade frictions. What I said was mainstream media is biased by insufficient reporting--insufficient. Insufficient because journalists tend to be ethnocentric by failing to report how their own country violates free trade. However I didn't look at your last post until now. Thank you for offering that. I could only read the first paragraph; I don't have a subscription. It says that Trump tried to apply stricter safety rules in effect being protectionist. This a rare article. Does it also include other barriers found in the US market? Does it report that protectionism is quite high for autos comparatively speaking? Does it report that although low ticket items are quite free to enter it is not case as you go up the scale in value for products, and so on. I may have mentioned that even some sales managers for autos in the US don't have the foggiest notion about really how high import barriers are. Why? Because the American public is not properly informed. Journalists assume the myth of American open market and don't question their country's protectionism. Again if you make a search of journalism before the Trump years you will find little attention given to US protectionism. I mention Trump because he became a target of the liberal press for his fighting with them so much.
► I don’t understand what you mean in stating you felt I wanted to disagree with you.
Because in my view your post lacked substance I couldn't see why you were disagreeing about feeling/emotion. Disagreeing is quite fine of course but didn't see anything relevant to the thread discussion about the character Taylor. Of course subconscious, physiology are important. Needless to even talk about because--- we have no information about Taylor regarding his subconscious and his physiology. Thank you for the post.

[T.Q.]

No new episode was aired: Repeat

March 11, 1982

[CBS 8:00] Magnum, P.I.
Billy Joe Bob
Season 2, episode 1

A hot-headed Texan comes to Hawaii and hires Magnum to find his sister, who was a nightclub singer before going missing.

(Repeat program, originally aired 10/8/1981)

[Pahonu]

You inspire me with your lifestyle, as an extension of MPI, really being a true fan. I have been to Hawaii and other tropical areas but never lived in those places. When we watch the beautiful scenery in MPI it’s refreshing. So I appreciate your being here. However if I may so, that is being frank, I notice something—probably a great thing—about you is that you are intellectually curious and enjoy delving into new fields or fonds of knowledge. On the other hand this is a double-edge sword because you don’t seem to realize before you effectively apply that new field or knowledge you need to know how to interpret it. It’s almost like saying—and I’ve heard this—I read a book on business administration so I’m going to teach it (almost immediately based solely that one book) even though that person never was in business and never studied the field.

That requires usually deep and extensive study of the field. So for example you take information from off the shelf via your wife to apply it here--fine-- but as I have tried to explain it was misapplied. In doing so you misdirect the thrust of the discussion.

I am glad that you now recognize
“Psychology and neuroscience both analyze the brain but in very different ways. Both also play a role in understanding behavior.”

Yes they play a role but who plays more a role in human relations, criminal justice, or legal affairs? Psychologists of course. They are much on the front lines in these fields. Surely neuroscientists have a role but it is largely in pure science; the psychologists mentioned, applied science. These psychologists already are immersed in a social context vis-a-vis feeling and emotion. But not necessarily neuroscientists. So who is to tell us how feeling and emotion should be properly defined? I assert psychologists because they are the ones society largely calls on concerning human relations and so on.

Let me point something out—not only is there a lack of consensus with their definitions of feeling/emotion but in the language of English they have a wide range of use. To make this brief: You say, “How are you feeling?” but you don’t say “How are you emoting?” Why???? Because emotion is an external phenomenon; feeling, internal. The derivation of emote is from emotion. According to the OED, the origin of emotion is Latin meaning out (emovere), move (movere). Can you grasp the point—“action” is embedded in the word. You can readily see that in the Latin. So I have solid grounds for associating feeling internally and emotion externally.

The main issue was another member asserted that Taylor was not insane, for there are many cases of ex-military who harbor hatred for an enemy. As I have painstakingly tried to point out, those ex-military didn’t murder anyone as Taylor did. To simplify that, I applied my—my own developed perspective-- on feeling/emotion based on such analyses as above.

But you want to apply physiology—I think—to the issue. Ok go ahead report on Taylor’s physiological state. You can’t because it is internal. Only a mind reader can know. Consequently we must observe outward behavior. Taylor’s emotional expression included murdering someone. By conflating feeling and emotion some people either overlook the behavorial action or one’s own choice making of the particular feeling or emotion. All of this directly relates to judging Taylor insane or not. Physiology has nothing to do with it because we don’t have Taylor’s physiological data. Furthermore, your wife might not like to hear this but science and values cannot be separated. How she and her colleagues define terms (e.g., feeling, emotion) involve personal choices (e.g. what data and how procured, etc.)

Does this also remind you of our past discussion about media bias? As I recall you didn’t offer any facts, data for your view. All you could say was, “I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions and “it’s just my opinion.” In end there can be no resolution when only opinions are given. Out of thousands of news reports in US mainstream media rarely do any of them report how the US is highly restricted about auto vehicle imports and how the idea of US having an open market is a myth. But apparently you never took up the challenge to do a little googling to find out such facts for yourself. You just relied on your own memory, but you know having looked at neuroscience, our memories are not as reliable as we think.

In short I felt you just wanted to disagree with me—which is ok—, but your presentation was a bit unrelated. We both like discussion, so let's try to be more appreciative of the other. Quite a joy to have read about your watersports lifestyle and see you so active here so long. Inspiring. Thank you for your kind attention.

Mark, your quotations attributed to me are not my words. I enjoy these conversations but I don’t know why you chose to claim those words as mine. It is both inaccurate and misleading. I never said, “ I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions”. The language of our discussion is recorded here on the forum and those are not my words.

In that discussion, you also asked me to provide a mainstream media report on the issue and when I provided a Wall Street Journal article, you made no comment. You also said that The Economist, which has covered the topic, wasn’t on the media bias chart as a mainstream source and I pointed out that it certainly was, even highlighting it for you. You again made no comment. I assumed you no longer wanted to discuss the issue, which is fine, but as you brought it up again I have detailed your mistakes.

I don’t “want” to apply physiology in this case, I was arguing that an individual suffering from trauma such as war, will almost certainly have a physiological reaction to individuals who participated in that trauma. That subconscious response can’t be ignored when evaluating an individual’s actions thereafter. Again, this is a major component of PTSD. The concept has also been applied legally to battered women who have responded to their abuser with deadly force. It’s not about mind reading. It’s a fairly well understood physiological response to trauma. I make no moral judgement of the actions taken in this instance, but see that ignoring such physiological aspects as irrelevant doesn’t seem prudent either.

I don’t understand what you mean in stating you felt I wanted to disagree with you. I agree and disagree with members on the forum frequently over many topics. Sorry you felt that way and hope you don’t feel this response is somehow personal. It is a response to your comments not you as a person, whom I don’t really know.

You are very correct about my attribution of your words. I didn't intend them to be verbatim. If my memory serves correctly you did say something like that. Isn't that correct? You made these statements:
►I have also mentioned hearing about protectionism in the US auto industry on ►NPR over many years of listening,
►however, that NPR, does report on such things.
Here's what I said:
“I don’t remember NPR being biased” or “I remember NPR reporting on the trade frictions and “it’s just my opinion.”
The meanings of those two sets are pretty damn close. The thrust of our discussion was my assertion the Americans get brainwashed (as any culture) but particularly so because mainstream media are highly biased. You opposed that. If my words offended you, I apologize. However I must say the meanings are very close. BTW please tell me how my attribution is "misleading" as you say.

►In that discussion, you also asked me to provide a mainstream media report on the issue and ►when I provided a Wall Street Journal article, you made no comment. You also said that The ►Economist, which has covered the topic, wasn’t on the media bias chart as a mainstream

I never stated US mainstream media does not or did not cover the international trade frictions. What I said was mainstream media is biased by insufficient reporting--insufficient. Insufficient because journalists tend to be ethnocentric by failing to report how their own country violates free trade. However I didn't look at your last post until now. Thank you for offering that. I could only read the first paragraph; I don't have a subscription. It says that Trump tried to apply stricter safety rules in effect being protectionist. This a rare article. Does it also include other barriers found in the US market? Does it report that protectionism is quite high for autos comparatively speaking? Does it report that although low ticket items are quite free to enter it is not case as you go up the scale in value for products, and so on. I may have mentioned that even some sales managers for autos in the US don't have the foggiest notion about really how high import barriers are. Why? Because the American public is not properly informed. Journalists assume the myth of American open market and don't question their country's protectionism. Again if you make a search of journalism before the Trump years you will find little attention given to US protectionism. I mention Trump because he became a target of the liberal press for his fighting with them so much.
► I don’t understand what you mean in stating you felt I wanted to disagree with you.
Because in my view your post lacked substance I couldn't see why you were disagreeing about feeling/emotion. Disagreeing is quite fine of course but didn't see anything relevant to the thread discussion about the character Taylor. Of course subconscious, physiology are important. Needless to even talk about because--- we have no information about Taylor regarding his subconscious and his physiology. Thank you for the post.

It seems quite simple then. I choose my words carefully in responses and often try to clarify. You choose to read into them things that I didn’t say based on your personal bias. By your own admission, you then make arguments against what I didn’t write but what you think or feel I meant, saying it’s pretty damn close. It’s only your opinion that it’s close. It’s not my opinion and it’s not what I said. Please don’t make up quotes by me in the future.

Edit:
If you don’t see the misleading nature of taking someone’s words, rewriting them into what you feel they mean, and quoting that person with what you actually wrote, then there’s not much point in future debate… at least with any intellectual honesty.

[T.Q.]

BUMP

No new episode was aired: Repeat

March 11, 1982

[CBS 8:00] Magnum, P.I.
Billy Joe Bob
Season 2, episode 1

A hot-headed Texan comes to Hawaii and hires Magnum to find his sister, who was a nightclub singer before going missing.

(Repeat program, originally aired 10/8/1981)

[charybdis1966]

BUMP

No new episode was aired: Repeat

March 11, 1982

[CBS 8:00] Magnum, P.I.
Billy Joe Bob
Season 2, episode 1

A hot-headed Texan comes to Hawaii and hires Magnum to find his sister, who was a nightclub singer before going missing.

(Repeat program, originally aired 10/8/1981)

I saw this again recently as I'd bought the Season 2 DVD's as a new year pick-me-up and the thing I noticed this time was Hollywood's propensity to stereo type non urban Americans as unsophisticated and/or uncouth as with their approach to Billy Joe Bob.

I'm not sure why this irritates me so much as I'm neither American or non urban but if I was I'd find this mockery a bit insulting - the same as for any character from the mid west/fly-over country(I hate that expression), eg Adelaide Malone, Cindy Lewellyn and others I can't remember right now.

Apologies if I sound curmudgeonly today.

[308GUY]

Edit:
If you don’t see the misleading nature of taking someone’s words, rewriting them into what you feel they mean, and quoting that person with what you actually wrote, then there’s not much point in future debate… at least with any intellectual honesty.

You mean like somebody saying somebody else "lost it" because that somebody else said something that doesn't fall in line with the original "somebody's" point of view.....at least that's what I get from it.

I only mention it because of history here on the board...has NOTHING to do with Pahonu or anybody else involved in this particular exchange....just a footnote to discourses of the past between other members...but the principle applies....from MY PERSPECTIVE.

Don't want to "get into it" with ANYBODY here....just had a thought pertaining to the current conversation that I felt applied to ones of the past...and you know....the thing about the past is to learn from it...then let it go. Makes for a healthier state of mind from my personal experience. Sometimes it is revisited to ensure the RIGHT lesson was extracted from it.....sometimes as we continue to mature....our own perspective changes....(hopefully).

The day one stops learning....is a day one might as well lay down and stop living.

Sorry for the "interruption" going back under my rock now.

[Pahonu]

Edit:
If you don’t see the misleading nature of taking someone’s words, rewriting them into what you feel they mean, and quoting that person with what you actually wrote, then there’s not much point in future debate… at least with any intellectual honesty.

You mean like somebody saying somebody else "lost it" because that somebody else said something that doesn't fall in line with the original "somebody's" point of view.....at least that's what I get from it.

I only mention it because of history here on the board...has NOTHING to do with Pahonu or anybody else involved in this particular exchange....just a footnote to discourses of the past between other members...but the principle applies....from MY PERSPECTIVE.

Don't want to "get into it" with ANYBODY here....just had a thought pertaining to the current conversation that I felt applied to ones of the past...and you know....the thing about the past is to learn from it...then let it go. Makes for a healthier state of mind from my personal experience. Sometimes it is revisited to ensure the RIGHT lesson was extracted from it.....sometimes as we continue to mature....our own perspective changes....(hopefully).

The day one stops learning....is a day one might as well lay down and stop living.

Sorry for the "interruption" going back under my rock now.

No arguments here!

[Pahonu]

Hey Ivan, ahem… ZelenskytheValiant,

I just noticed your new forum name and like it very much!

[☨magnum.t]

BUMP

No new episode was aired: Repeat

March 11, 1982

[CBS 8:00] Magnum, P.I.
Billy Joe Bob
Season 2, episode 1

A hot-headed Texan comes to Hawaii and hires Magnum to find his sister, who was a nightclub singer before going missing.

(Repeat program, originally aired 10/8/1981)

I saw this again recently as I'd bought the Season 2 DVD's as a new year pick-me-up and the thing I noticed this time was Hollywood's propensity to stereo type non urban Americans as unsophisticated and/or uncouth as with their approach to Billy Joe Bob.

I'm not sure why this irritates me so much as I'm neither American or non urban but if I was I'd find this mockery a bit insulting - the same as for any character from the mid west/fly-over country(I hate that expression), eg Adelaide Malone, Cindy Lewellyn and others I can't remember right now.

Apologies if I sound curmudgeonly today.

They did this in The Elmo Ziller story as well even making fun of Lexi Ziller's accent to her face, of course they thought it a prank by Higgins but there is a common trend in MPI to make fun of the country bumpkin/hick characters. I am from the mountains of East Tennessee and often get funny looks for the way I talk whenever I travel. Most people find it interesting or ask where I am from but I have never been made fun of for it.