Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
"Meta-irony" as occurring in "layers" is an antiquated model of understanding the "true meaning" of a particular output. Such a model initially came into popularity when these "layers" numbered only one, two, or three at most. Probably around 1998.
Nowadays, there is such a saturation of both "ironic" and "unironic" components in people's outputs that such a model cannot be reliably used to "trace back" the original stance. Consider the paradox: how can one ever know it is "Opposite Day?"
I present, in place, a percentage-based system of final intent, also measured as "genuineness."
Think of this as not ignoring the layers, but instead piercing right through them, not this frivolous shucking and peeling.
The system uses contextual clues (a subjective system but admittedly better than the alternative, aka, plucking all the petals off a flower which actually has infinite petals) to formulate the percentages.
Examples:
Ear using Liebe: 85% genuine
Ear using Toon World: 50% genuine
Ear using Superdreadnaught Rail Canon Gustav Max: 35% genuine
Now, the percentage is really the probability of the true meaning in any particular usage being either a "= 0 = goof/gaff" or "= 1 = completely serious."
So whenever Ear uses liebe there is an 85% chance he is meaning something serious, truly expressing himself sincerely despite what were traditionally considered sarcastic or ironic elements - back when irony only ever went one or two layers deep. The other 15% are trolly jokes. And so on.
TL;DR: This incessant "layering" of irony is an inevitable product of our times and oft unavoidable. However, in the end, only one output can be put out, and that product must have a genuineness percentage attached, measuring the 1 or 0 of intent at any given time. Even the most ironic statements possess a magnitude of intent greater than 0%, and thus have intent.
Nowadays, there is such a saturation of both "ironic" and "unironic" components in people's outputs that such a model cannot be reliably used to "trace back" the original stance. Consider the paradox: how can one ever know it is "Opposite Day?"
I present, in place, a percentage-based system of final intent, also measured as "genuineness."
Think of this as not ignoring the layers, but instead piercing right through them, not this frivolous shucking and peeling.
The system uses contextual clues (a subjective system but admittedly better than the alternative, aka, plucking all the petals off a flower which actually has infinite petals) to formulate the percentages.
Examples:
Ear using Liebe: 85% genuine
Ear using Toon World: 50% genuine
Ear using Superdreadnaught Rail Canon Gustav Max: 35% genuine
Now, the percentage is really the probability of the true meaning in any particular usage being either a "= 0 = goof/gaff" or "= 1 = completely serious."
So whenever Ear uses liebe there is an 85% chance he is meaning something serious, truly expressing himself sincerely despite what were traditionally considered sarcastic or ironic elements - back when irony only ever went one or two layers deep. The other 15% are trolly jokes. And so on.
TL;DR: This incessant "layering" of irony is an inevitable product of our times and oft unavoidable. However, in the end, only one output can be put out, and that product must have a genuineness percentage attached, measuring the 1 or 0 of intent at any given time. Even the most ironic statements possess a magnitude of intent greater than 0%, and thus have intent.
- edeholland
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
- ESO: edeholland
- GameRanger ID: 4053888
- Clan: ESOC
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
This is interesting.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
92%edeholland wrote:This is interesting.
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
This is a highly systematic analysis framework
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
Would like an opinion from @Vinyanyérë on this, the probability guru
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
Because outputs can only be considered as outputs if input by another/other entity(ies), and so thereby nullifying the poster's supposed own "true intent," the effective "genuineness" might be considered as the average (I suggest the median if high n, or the mean if low n) of voted genuineness percentages of the receptors. Of course to rid ourselves of the incessant, infinite layering as is our goal, these ratings must, by law, be composed of no irony whatsoever, or else we would need genuineness for genuineness.
I would like to see ESOC implement such a mechanic on each post here. I also suggest a minimum "n" be required before publicly publishing these results. Of course this would require ESOC establish strict and tight countermeasures against smurf accounts and corruptive tendencies.
I would like to see ESOC implement such a mechanic on each post here. I also suggest a minimum "n" be required before publicly publishing these results. Of course this would require ESOC establish strict and tight countermeasures against smurf accounts and corruptive tendencies.
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
94%deleted_user wrote:"Meta-irony" as occurring in "layers" is an antiquated model of understanding the "true meaning" of a particular output. Such a model initially came into popularity when these "layers" numbered only one, two, or three at most. Probably around 1998.
Nowadays, there is such a saturation of both "ironic" and "unironic" components in people's outputs that such a model cannot be reliably used to "trace back" the original stance. Consider the paradox: how can one ever know it is "Opposite Day?"
I present, in place, a percentage-based system of final intent, also measured as "genuineness."
Think of this as not ignoring the layers, but instead piercing right through them, not this frivolous shucking and peeling.
The system uses contextual clues (a subjective system but admittedly better than the alternative, aka, plucking all the petals off a flower which actually has infinite petals) to formulate the percentages.
Examples:
Ear using Liebe: 85% genuine
Ear using Toon World: 50% genuine
Ear using Superdreadnaught Rail Canon Gustav Max: 35% genuine
Now, the percentage is really the probability of the true meaning in any particular usage being either a "= 0 = good/gaff" or "= 1 = completely serious."
So whenever Ear uses liebe there is an 85% chance he is meaning something serious, truly expressing himself sincerely despite what were traditionally considered sarcastic or ironic elements - back when irony only ever went one or two layers deep. The other 15% are trolly jokes. And so on.
TL;DR: This incessant "layering" of irony is an inevitable product of our times and oft unavoidable. However, in the end, only one output can be put out, and that product must have a genuineness percentage attached, measuring the 1 or 0 of intent at any given time. Even the most ironic statements possess a magnitude of intent greater than 0%, and thus have intent.
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: May 16, 2015
- ESO: Hyperactive Jam
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
70%deleted_user wrote:92%edeholland wrote:This is interesting.
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
30%Jam wrote:70%deleted_user wrote:92%edeholland wrote:This is interesting.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
Better be staying truthful out here. I propose genuiness ratings are reserved for actual content.Of course to rid ourselves of the incessant, infinite layering as is our goal, these ratings must, by law, be composed of no irony whatsoever, or else we would need genuineness for genuineness.
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: May 16, 2015
- ESO: Hyperactive Jam
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
Is the law genuine?deleted_user wrote:Better be staying truthful out here. I propose genuiness ratings are reserved for actual content.Of course to rid ourselves of the incessant, infinite layering as is our goal, these ratings must, by law, be composed of no irony whatsoever, or else we would need genuineness for genuineness.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
That's literally your job not mine.
- Vinyanyérë
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1839
- Joined: Aug 22, 2016
- ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
- Location: Outer Heaven
- Clan: 팀 하우스
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
You raise some interesting proposals. However, I think that your model is too much of an oversimplification to reflect reality beyond perhaps the confines of an intermediate-level course in memeology.
I'd like to raise two issues: the first, the presentation of "genuineness" as a one-dimensional scale; the second, the lack of explanatory power of this model against highly complex messages. You first offer this measurement of "genuineness" as an alternative to the canonical "layers of irony" model. That is to say, no matter how many layers of irony one veils their thoughts under, these can be cut through to reveal a single "point" to a message. Attempting to unravel multiple reversals due to someone being "ironically ironic" is a fruitless effort, but we can subjectively evaluate a whole post by a single probability measurement. Notably, it's a probability measurement, the underlying ground truth is thus a discrete "genuine" or "not genuine". Now, that sounds a little too binary for my tastes: as in many things, I think that we are better-suited to evaluate sincerity on a spectrum, but that isn't my main issue. I take issue with the fact that we're confined to one dimension at all.
I'd like to present two problems through thought experiments. The first problem is what I will dub the "problem of dependence of intent". For example, suppose that someone writes a post on this forum that scores very low on the genuineness scale, perhaps 10 or 20 percent. Now suppose that someone makes a completely serious response to that low-intent post. How would we measure the intent of this serious response? Let's go a step further - suppose that someone makes a completely serious response to a low-intent post, but the responder is fully aware of the low-intent-quality of the original post. Is that a high-intent or a low-intent response? But wait - what if the original post was actually high-intent, but the responder misinterpreted it as being low-intent, but gave a serious response anyway? We suddenly have multiple layers of irony even under the intent measurement! What's more, our evaluation of intent of a post clearly depends on the extent to which the poster is "in the know" of the intent of the post that they respond to. We are left with a chaotic situation: even in a mild ten-post thread, the intent evaluation of the later posts is so subject to initial conditions that we cannot possibly make an accurate judgment.
The next is what I'll dub the "problem of joint intent". Consider someone writing an entirely serious and genuine post that contains zero instances of the letter "e". We could argue that this post is not genuine - the author would not have made the post as they did had they not been subject to the restrictions that they were under. However, we could argue that the post is genuine - it accurately expresses the author's intent, but additionally fulfills a different goal that the author intended. To emphasize, the author had two intents and fulfilled both simultaneously! We can't possibly hope to measure genuineness with a single number here - there's two dimensions across which they can succeed or fail.
What really puts your theory to the test, however, is when the "problem of dependence of intent" and the "problem of joint intent" are combined. Suppose that someone writes a serious response to a post of uncertain sincerity, but they write the response not out of particular interest in the subject matter but as a means of procrastinating on other, more important projects - for instance, and I'm not drawing from personal experience here - let's say they had to write an ro16 preview news post for an Age of Empires III tournament, but instead procrastinated by writing a lengthy response about the nature of intent. It's unclear how to evaluate intent here at all. Is a response that accurately reflects their beliefs demonstration of high intent? Is the fact that they make the response solely to avoid having to other work proof of low intent? Does the answer depend on how serious the post they're responding to is? Does the answer depend on how serious they think the post they're responding to is?
I'd like to raise two issues: the first, the presentation of "genuineness" as a one-dimensional scale; the second, the lack of explanatory power of this model against highly complex messages. You first offer this measurement of "genuineness" as an alternative to the canonical "layers of irony" model. That is to say, no matter how many layers of irony one veils their thoughts under, these can be cut through to reveal a single "point" to a message. Attempting to unravel multiple reversals due to someone being "ironically ironic" is a fruitless effort, but we can subjectively evaluate a whole post by a single probability measurement. Notably, it's a probability measurement, the underlying ground truth is thus a discrete "genuine" or "not genuine". Now, that sounds a little too binary for my tastes: as in many things, I think that we are better-suited to evaluate sincerity on a spectrum, but that isn't my main issue. I take issue with the fact that we're confined to one dimension at all.
I'd like to present two problems through thought experiments. The first problem is what I will dub the "problem of dependence of intent". For example, suppose that someone writes a post on this forum that scores very low on the genuineness scale, perhaps 10 or 20 percent. Now suppose that someone makes a completely serious response to that low-intent post. How would we measure the intent of this serious response? Let's go a step further - suppose that someone makes a completely serious response to a low-intent post, but the responder is fully aware of the low-intent-quality of the original post. Is that a high-intent or a low-intent response? But wait - what if the original post was actually high-intent, but the responder misinterpreted it as being low-intent, but gave a serious response anyway? We suddenly have multiple layers of irony even under the intent measurement! What's more, our evaluation of intent of a post clearly depends on the extent to which the poster is "in the know" of the intent of the post that they respond to. We are left with a chaotic situation: even in a mild ten-post thread, the intent evaluation of the later posts is so subject to initial conditions that we cannot possibly make an accurate judgment.
The next is what I'll dub the "problem of joint intent". Consider someone writing an entirely serious and genuine post that contains zero instances of the letter "e". We could argue that this post is not genuine - the author would not have made the post as they did had they not been subject to the restrictions that they were under. However, we could argue that the post is genuine - it accurately expresses the author's intent, but additionally fulfills a different goal that the author intended. To emphasize, the author had two intents and fulfilled both simultaneously! We can't possibly hope to measure genuineness with a single number here - there's two dimensions across which they can succeed or fail.
What really puts your theory to the test, however, is when the "problem of dependence of intent" and the "problem of joint intent" are combined. Suppose that someone writes a serious response to a post of uncertain sincerity, but they write the response not out of particular interest in the subject matter but as a means of procrastinating on other, more important projects - for instance, and I'm not drawing from personal experience here - let's say they had to write an ro16 preview news post for an Age of Empires III tournament, but instead procrastinated by writing a lengthy response about the nature of intent. It's unclear how to evaluate intent here at all. Is a response that accurately reflects their beliefs demonstration of high intent? Is the fact that they make the response solely to avoid having to other work proof of low intent? Does the answer depend on how serious the post they're responding to is? Does the answer depend on how serious they think the post they're responding to is?
duck
imo
imo
- Vinyanyérë
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1839
- Joined: Aug 22, 2016
- ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
- Location: Outer Heaven
- Clan: 팀 하우스
- Vinyanyérë
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1839
- Joined: Aug 22, 2016
- ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
- Location: Outer Heaven
- Clan: 팀 하우스
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
50%Vinyanyérë wrote:You raise some interesting proposals. However, I think that your model is too much of an oversimplification to reflect reality beyond perhaps the confines of an intermediate-level course in memeology.
I'd like to raise two issues: the first, the presentation of "genuineness" as a one-dimensional scale; the second, the lack of explanatory power of this model against highly complex messages. You first offer this measurement of "genuineness" as an alternative to the canonical "layers of irony" model. That is to say, no matter how many layers of irony one veils their thoughts under, these can be cut through to reveal a single "point" to a message. Attempting to unravel multiple reversals due to someone being "ironically ironic" is a fruitless effort, but we can subjectively evaluate a whole post by a single probability measurement. Notably, it's a probability measurement, the underlying ground truth is thus a discrete "genuine" or "not genuine". Now, that sounds a little too binary for my tastes: as in many things, I think that we are better-suited to evaluate sincerity on a spectrum, but that isn't my main issue. I take issue with the fact that we're confined to one dimension at all.
I'd like to present two problems through thought experiments. The first problem is what I will dub the "problem of dependence of intent". For example, suppose that someone writes a post on this forum that scores very low on the genuineness scale, perhaps 10 or 20 percent. Now suppose that someone makes a completely serious response to that low-intent post. How would we measure the intent of this serious response? Let's go a step further - suppose that someone makes a completely serious response to a low-intent post, but the responder is fully aware of the low-intent-quality of the original post. Is that a high-intent or a low-intent response? But wait - what if the original post was actually high-intent, but the responder misinterpreted it as being low-intent, but gave a serious response anyway? We suddenly have multiple layers of irony even under the intent measurement! What's more, our evaluation of intent of a post clearly depends on the extent to which the poster is "in the know" of the intent of the post that they respond to. We are left with a chaotic situation: even in a mild ten-post thread, the intent evaluation of the later posts is so subject to initial conditions that we cannot possibly make an accurate judgment.
The next is what I'll dub the "problem of joint intent". Consider someone writing an entirely serious and genuine post that contains zero instances of the letter "e". We could argue that this post is not genuine - the author would not have made the post as they did had they not been subject to the restrictions that they were under. However, we could argue that the post is genuine - it accurately expresses the author's intent, but additionally fulfills a different goal that the author intended. To emphasize, the author had two intents and fulfilled both simultaneously! We can't possibly hope to measure genuineness with a single number here - there's two dimensions across which they can succeed or fail.
What really puts your theory to the test, however, is when the "problem of dependence of intent" and the "problem of joint intent" are combined. Suppose that someone writes a serious response to a post of uncertain sincerity, but they write the response not out of particular interest in the subject matter but as a means of procrastinating on other, more important projects - for instance, and I'm not drawing from personal experience here - let's say they had to write an ro16 preview news post for an Age of Empires III tournament, but instead procrastinated by writing a lengthy response about the nature of intent. It's unclear how to evaluate intent here at all. Is a response that accurately reflects their beliefs demonstration of high intent? Is the fact that they make the response solely to avoid having to other work proof of low intent? Does the answer depend on how serious the post they're responding to is? Does the answer depend on how serious they think the post they're responding to is?
duck
imo
imo
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
I found this to be particularly interesting since I essentially have a full time job posting on ESOC by avoiding the dumb tasks I'm supposed to do at work. At the same time, I keep thinking: seriously though, why would they liebe when they could have just stayed in bed?Vinyanyérë wrote: Suppose that someone writes a serious response to a post of uncertain sincerity, but they write the response not out of particular interest in the subject matter but as a means of procrastinating on other, more important projects - for instance, and I'm not drawing from personal experience here - let's say they had to write an ro16 preview news post for an Age of Empires III tournament, but instead procrastinated by writing a lengthy response about the nature of intent. It's unclear how to evaluate intent here at all. Is a response that accurately reflects their beliefs demonstration of high intent? Is the fact that they make the response solely to avoid having to other work proof of low intent? Does the answer depend on how serious the post they're responding to is? Does the answer depend on how serious they think the post they're responding to is?
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
Honestly I really have to give extra credit to Callen, he's introduced an entire new form of shitposting by just responding to someone's post with a percentage. It takes a legitimately creative mind to come up with shit like that and I'm glad ESOC has that.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent
97%gibson wrote:Someone do me
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests