Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

  • Quote

Post by deleted_user »

"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.
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by edeholland »

This is interesting.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by deleted_user »

edeholland wrote:This is interesting.
92%
User avatar
Tokelau jesus3
Jaeger
Posts: 2353
Joined: Aug 5, 2016

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by jesus3 »

This is a highly systematic analysis framework
Image
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by deleted_user »

Would like an opinion from @Vinyanyérë on this, the probability guru
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by deleted_user »

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.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by Goodspeed »

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.
94%
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by Jam »

deleted_user wrote:
edeholland wrote:This is interesting.
92%
70%
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by Goodspeed »

Jam wrote:
deleted_user wrote:
edeholland wrote:This is interesting.
92%
70%
30%
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by deleted_user »

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.
Better be staying truthful out here. I propose genuiness ratings are reserved for actual content.
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by Jam »

deleted_user wrote:
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.
Better be staying truthful out here. I propose genuiness ratings are reserved for actual content.
Is the law genuine?
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by deleted_user »

That's literally your job not mine.
User avatar
Korea South Vinyanyérë
Retired Contributor
Donator 06
Posts: 1839
Joined: Aug 22, 2016
ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
Location: Outer Heaven
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

  • Quote

Post by Vinyanyérë »

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
:mds:
imo
User avatar
Korea South Vinyanyérë
Retired Contributor
Donator 06
Posts: 1839
Joined: Aug 22, 2016
ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
Location: Outer Heaven
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by Vinyanyérë »

And now for the coup de grâce
duck
:mds:
imo
User avatar
Korea South Vinyanyérë
Retired Contributor
Donator 06
Posts: 1839
Joined: Aug 22, 2016
ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
Location: Outer Heaven
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

  • Quote

Post by Vinyanyérë »

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?
50%
duck
:mds:
imo
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by fightinfrenchman »

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?
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?
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by fightinfrenchman »

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
Image
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by gibson »

Someone do me
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Introducing the Spectrum of Intent

Post by deleted_user »

gibson wrote:Someone do me
97%

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV