psychoceramics: Chart of psychoceramics

[moroney @ world.std.com (Michael Moroney)]

Found this in sci.astro, an attempt to "plot" certain personality types
on two axes, an "oddness" axis and a determination of correctness of the
"ideas" by the proponent.  Enjoy.

-Mike


Path: world!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.pitt.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!GS63.SP.CS.CMU.EDU!jeffrey
From: jeffrey+ @ GS63.SP.CS.CMU.EDU (Jeff Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: What about Hale-Bopp... Is Nancy right after all..?
Date: 21 Mar 1996 23:33:56 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <4isp14$8--@c--.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
References: <4iicke$n--@l--.ivg.com> <4iknkp$35e@bone.think.com> <4ilna1$dc6@news.doit.wisc.edu> <4imu1l$e0r@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <4in5kt$nfu@news.doit.wisc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gs63.sp.cs.cmu.edu


Brian Zeiler <b--@s--.wisc.edu> writes:
> jeffrey+@ALF7.SPEECH.CS.CMU.EDU (Jeff Smith) wrote:
> >Brian Zeiler <b--@s--.wisc.edu> writes:
> >> s--@T--.COM (Daan Sandee) wrote:
> >> >there are at least four other nuts posting regularly to this group.
> >> Am I one of the "nuts"?  I'd be flattered!
> >
> >   Sorry, Brian, you're only a "crank" right now.  Or maybe not even a crank,
> >you're still pretty young; my feeling is that cranks, like "geezers" have to
> >be old and withered.  Perhaps you're only a zealot?
> 
> Okay, then let's rank the classifications of scientific aberrance, from 
> mild to severe:
> 
> 1)  Zealot
> 2)  Crank
> 3)  Nut
> 4)  Crackpot

   Maybe a simple, linear ordering is naive.  I think we should extend the
measure of "kookishness" into a two-dimensional vector space.  Using two axes
of "Aberrance of opinion" and "Vehemence of belief,"  we can then divide
the plane into named regions, graph the positions of various people, and thus
be able insult them more accurately.  For example:


            ^
            |               |               |
 O     huh? |               |      NUT      |    LOON
 D          |               |_______________|________________________
 D          |\              |
 I          | \           __|______________          CRACKPOT
 T  bizzare |  |         /                 \
 Y          |   \       /      ZEALOT       |______________________
            | N  \     /___________         |
            |     \   /            \        |        CRANK
        odd |      \ /  ENTHUSIAST  \       |
            +----------------+--------------------+-------------------->
         uncertain       convinced        conspired against      I'M RIGHT!!1!

                                   VEHEMENCE

where N is the region of accepted scientific aberrance.

   Some interesting observations:  we note that the crucial deciding factor for
nuts, loons and cranks is the measure of vehemence.  You never see an uncertain
crackpot.  Also, we can see that "enthusiast" is a subset of the larger tribe
of "zealots," the crucial difference being the oddity of their beleifs and,
ultimately, the strength of these convictions.

   Using this graph, we can handily place various sci.astro "regulars" into
the proper categories and end this ceasless debate about whether Nancy is a
loon or merely a crackpot.  Using my own Bible of Scientific Correctness (the
same one used to pillory Galileo, Tesla and Pons and Fleishmann, of course)
I find that:


            ^
            |                         * Maharaj                     * Nancy 
 O     huh? |                    * Abian                          * Archie
 D          |
 D          | * Alcubierre
 I          |
 T  bizzare |
 Y          |             * Brian
            |                        * Jeong          * Seto
            |                          * Tomes
        odd |
            +----------------+--------------------+-------------------->
         uncertain       convinced        conspired against      I'M RIGHT!!1!

                                   VEHEMENCE


   As we can see, Nancy and Archie rest comfortably in the class of "loons,"
largely due to their inability to even CONSIDER the possibility that they could
be wrong.  Meanwhile, Abian and Jai Maharaj are certainly convinced that their
own view of the universe is correct, but they have not passed that crucial
"Conspiracy Barrier."  I am hoping that they soon will see that the Forces of
Evil are indeed allied against them, and that the BATF is following their
every move.  Then they can don their aluminum foil hats and become true loons.

   Sadly, some of the more colorful posters to sci.astro only weigh in at the
zealot level.  Come on, guys!  Work harder!  Let's start to hear your free
energy theories!  And what about the MJ-12?  Or the psychic technology that
you're channeling from the Gas Beings of Sirius?  And remember: extra points 
are awarded for suppressed inventions and spittle-flecked letters to the 
President!

					smith

-- 
Jeffrey Smith                    Robotics Institute,  Carnegie-Mellon U.
jeffrey+@cs.cmu.edu                       http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jeffrey