Menu
- Introduction: Fostering Quotational Excellence
- Misquotation: Improper Quoting, Sourcing, Context, Appropriation
- Emotions and Biases: Affect Heuristic, Stereotype, Attribution Bias
- Logic versus Fame: Formal Fallacy, Genetic Fallacy, Halo Effect
- Authority Bias and Author Bias: Expert Influence, Creator Persuasion
- Classical Logic: Contradiction, Context, Scope, Validity, Generalizability
- Compromise and Subjectivity: Special Pleading and Relativist Fallacy
- Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope and Corollaries
- Illustrated Quotations: Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes
Annotated GALLERY 🖼
⚠️Notes: Click the headings listed in the navigational Menu above to jump to different sections within the post.
Hovering with a mouse cursor over a hyperlinked text or image in this post will bring up a tooltip showing descriptive information or instruction.
Click or touch an image to enlarge or comment on it.
SoundEagle🦅 in 疾風知勁草
Dear Readers and Followers as well as Lovers and Collectors of Fine Quotes,
On the one hand, exploring the eponymous Quotation Fallacy can curate and demonstrate the inventiveness and ingenuity as well as the ignorance and existential risks of humanity as observed from the complex interplay between the myriad manifestations of quotation and the manifold limitations of intrapersonal cognitive processes occasioning significant and recurrent biases, oversights, misjudgements, misrepresentations, vulnerabilities, unwarranted inferential leaps and faulty conclusions to the detriment of developing, advancing and sustaining civil discourse, human rights, democratic governance, social cohesion, community psychology, critical thinking, critical consciousness and sociopolitical development. On the other hand, the discerning mindset and emancipatory potential engendered by the percipient exercise of quotational intelligence plus the multifarious issues and perennial challenges entailed by the Quotation Fallacy call for the holistic and consilient recognition of the importance of quotational excellence, at least to the extent that how we quote (as well as how we live, choose, think and write) and our emotive, emotional, habitual, instinctual, soul-stirring or inspiriting response to a quotation or statement should be judiciously counterbalanced, tempered, filtered or enriched by the vigilance and diligence of our intellectual faculty as guided by philosophy, cognitive science, logical inquiries, sound reasonings and self-appraisals, in conjunction with information literacy and media literacy as well as social and environmental sciences, so that we can consistently have the guidance and mindset necessary for better logic, action, belief formation, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, decision making and problem solving.
In perusing the different sections of The Quotation Fallacy “💬”, this expansive post comparable in scope and function to a monograph provides you with structures of ideas unfolding across various conceptual landscapes and intellectual territories such that taken as a whole, you can be well on the journey towards attaining an in-depth understanding of the history of quotation, the philosophy of quotation, and the sociology of quotation, via an Analytical Prism refracting and dispersing quotational matters into a rich plethora of colourful topics regarding the motivational, psychological, behavioural, sociological, political, cultural, linguistic, intertextual, artistic, academic, philosophical and biological aspects of quotations, including how one perceives or deploys the role, power and potency of quotations; how quotations are formed, presented, disseminated and sourced; how quotations evolve or mutate with time and context; how quotations are generated, chosen, favoured, (ab)used and exploited across different scales, purposes and media; how quotations can provide revealing insights into human behaviour, cognitive pattern and social relation; how quotations are justified and promulgated via the intentions, activities or operations of individuals and organizations; how quotations can become the instruments or ingredients of fusion, appropriation, intertextuality, reimagination and recontextualization; how verbal quotations are indispensable ingredients of human dialogues and daily conversations in the arenas of spoken discourse; how quotations have manifested in not only texts and speeches but also visual arts, performing arts, animal vocalization, interspecies communication and biomimetics or biomimicry; how pictorial quotes become the lingua franca and communicative currencies tempting people with its artistic and expressive qualities but cause the visual defacement of images and the textual suppression of quotations whilst falling short on meeting the noble and inclusive goal of web accessibility; how quotations can be fabricated, misattributed, garbled, mistranslated or stated out of context to become misquotations; how certain forms of misquotation can be (un)intentionally produced to become novel, catchy or amusing statements such as anti-proverb (or perverb), malapropism, eggcorn, Yogi-isms and spoonerism or Sreudian flip; how quotations or statements are misattributed to illustrious authors and eminent authorities, and unjustifiably given more credence and circulation based on the perceived status, fame or fortune of quotees; how one man’s meaty statement is another man’s quoted poison; how quotations can appeal to emotion, consequences, fear, flattery, pity, ridicule, spite and wishful thinking; how quotations can be fallacious, biased, misleading or misguided, especially when they contain formal and/or informal fallacies; how the juxtapositions or pairwise comparisons of some seemingly sound quotations can reveal contradictions and incongruities as well as limits in their reliability, validity and generalizability; how quotations are essential for research and scholarly works in conjunction with paraphrasing, summarizing, referencing and citationality; how the use of quotations can lead to a concentration of knowledge, understanding, control and influence; how quotations can be conceived more as engaging knowledge than mastering information; how quotations are affected and finessed by graphic design, mass media, information technology, sociopolitical trends and sociocultural forces that shape knowledge production, social discourse, cultural reproduction, and the construction and transmission of meaning; how quotations have ascended to become the principal objects of commodification in the age of social media, advanced communications and mass consumerism; how the world has been vastly powered by the quotation industry in which individuals and organizations deploy mass communication to suborn or exploit ideas for matters ranging from self-promotion, testimonial advertising, influencer marketing and tabloid journalism to culture war, social control and political opportunism; how quotations have been used in or associated with ideas, claims, arguments, agendas, projects, campaigns, propagandas, demagogy, media manipulation, Internet manipulation, astroturfing operations and post-truth politics; how misquotations and misinformation have contributed to the growing pollution of the media landscape and information ecosystem; and how quotations can be relevant to and focused on transformative knowledge production and new modes of accountability by cultivating quotational intelligence and consulting the Quotation Checklist to facilitate transformational and sustainble change through critical thinking and quotational excellence.
Quotations have long been a ubiquitous and indispensable facet of life, peppering our talks, texts and thoughts, and echoing our ideas, images and identities in manageable and memorable portions. They can be as enriching and gratifying in vividly colouring certain moments or events as herbs and spices in potently flavouring some dishes or cuisines. Like favourite tunes or beloved ditties, quotations can be recalled straightaway to spring into action or summoned routinely to press into service, thus imparting extra satisfactions to our emotional delight and creative fancy as well as offering further highlights to our narrative prowess and commentary talent. For instance, being a voracious learner and career educator specializing in evaluation, professional development and special education, and “dream[ing] of possibilities, opportunities, and conversations”, Sheila B Robinson speaks for many when she states that “[a] pithy quote can inspire us, compel us into action, challenge or confirm our thinking, and stimulate our conversations.” Quotations have even become convenient surrogates for our thoughts and utterances, as Lord Peter (Death Bredon) Wimsey, the fictional protagonist in a series of detective novels and short stories by Dorothy L Sayers (a prominent English crime writer and poet as well as a student of classical and modern languages), unreservedly proclaims: “I always have a quotation for everything — it saves original thinking.” Marlene Dietrich can certainly be classified as an ardent devotee of letting authoritative quotes be the sounding boards by which one’s ideas are mirrored or resonated, as revealed by her statement “I love quotations because it is a joy to find thoughts one might have, beautifully expressed with much authority by someone recognized wiser than oneself.” If or when our own words and ideas cannot cut through the mundane or rise above the situation, we may indeed rely on an opportune sprinkling of the choicest quotations at the requisite moment to dispel the insipid and repel the anodyne so as to fire up our imagination and spice up our existence.
Hence, it is hardly surprising that we are (quite comfortable with being) surrounded by quotations in both fiction and reality. Yet, once in a while, in moments of clarity, we may come to the realization that quotations are akin to opinions or views in that we are quoting ourselves or others to make certain statements for various purposes and occasions. Rather unfortunately, the ways in which people routinely handle or dispense opinions and quotations (whether of their own or others) are fraught with numerous problems, most of which elude people’s awareness and acknowledgement, since the great majority of people are relatively deprived of intellectual and emotional guideposts to consistently steer an unsullied or impeccable course through the potentially treacherous woods and forests of quotational landscapes.
Moreover, that a quotation purportedly resonates with one’s intention, objective, identity, conviction, principle, boundary or status (quo) may not constitute a reasonable basis or sufficient ground for the unadulterated acceptance of its validity and reliability. To qualify this caveat or predicament at a slightly different tangent, a sensible person exercising a discerning attitude, casting a long view or taking an introspective approach may sooner or later realize that the penetrating feeling, instinct, sensation, conclusion, meaning or belief generated by, or invested in, some claim or truth as embodied by even a seemingly profound quotation, is seldom guaranteed to be entirely foolproof, conveniently flawless, categorically well-founded and perennially infallible, especially when the quotation, quotee and quoter are available for scrutiny or amenable to analysis.
As elucidated later in considerable depth, humans have a strong tendency to automatically find certain quotations and statements more comfortable and appealing than others whilst glossing over detail, leaning on stereotype, and dismissing contradiction, especially in the absence of being serviced by a vigilant, critical and sceptical mind to ward off prejudice and preconception, let alone being stymied by outstanding ignorance and unconscious partiality.
Indeed, it can be quite easy to fall for the charms of some quotations and statements (particularly when they match the existing narrative, expectation or paradigm), and yet very hard to decode or unpack their fallacies. After all, people’s opinions and beliefs are based on not only their perceptions and predilections but also their cognitive biases and faulty reasonings, a great number of which come to be involved in how people routinely process quotations and statements in everyday life from all sources of information. This perennial condition often fundamentally restricts people’s ability to reach better judgements and decisions, whilst also giving people the false impression of being in control of, or in harmony with, their choice and understanding of quotations and statements, which can have significant, persistent and cumulative bearings on many aspects of people’s lives, as discussed in this multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary post under the rubric of the Quotation Fallacy. These discussions pertain to the perennial issues and common pitfalls in people’s daily lives and how people process data, identify problems, explore issues, conduct research, evaluate evidence, cite sources, select viewpoints, interpret opinions, validate beliefs, formulate ideas, make judgements, draw conclusions, create decisions and consider implications, the outcomes of which invariably depend on how people deal with the quotations or statements involved.
Aside from revealing the human factors in people mishandling quotations and statements due to their erroneous judgements and flawed decisions, the various discussions in this post also include uncovering the quotational factors in quotations and statements harbouring errors or defects that affect the logic, cogency, validity, reliability and generalizability of such quotations and statements. Overall, the quotational factors can compound the human factors, as the former can amplify or complicate the latter. The reverse, whereby the human factors influence or impinge on the quotational factors, is just as relevant insofar as the human factors can play significant roles in shaping the quality and validity of quotations resulting from the act of quoting, and from the selection or construction of quotations to be used for whatever purposes and circumstances. Simply put: A full and balanced understanding of the Quotation Fallacy requires the acknowledgement, identification and investigation of errors or defects pertaining to, and originating from, both humans and quotations. What can be unveiled and learnt by us in the process of doing so may indeed be quite sobering or even disconcerting, to the extent that to face the Quotation Fallacy is to confront problematic aspects of quotations as well as some of the most unflattering characteristics of human nature, many of which are as multifarious and consequential as they are ubiquitous and deep-seated. In that regard, one can be forgiven for being wary or doubtful about the worth of (deploying) quotations with respect to matters regarding rationale, representation, integrity, efficacy and consequence. For instance, Uldis Sprogis, self-described as “a semi-retired author, educator, encyclopedic blogger, truth seeker, and landlord with a Masters in Science Education”, has sized and summed up quotations in THE TRUTH ABOUT QUOTES* as follows:
My main objection to quotes is that there are often some or many exceptions to the stereotypic views of the world, especially the ones utilizing analogies and similes. Most quotes have some truth or much truth but they are usually biased subjectively and not very logical.… Quotes are frequently generalizations which have quite a few circumstantial exceptions… There are thousands of quotes and most of them try to make emotional and rare logical connections between a few or handful of words… Life is more complex than just a handful of quotes to live by… Quotes try to tell you what is good or bad but unfortunately are bad at filling in the details…
Nevertheless, Uldis Sprogis is undeniably prolific in quoting, as many as several times a day, his own insightful statements, each of which is superimposed over a photo, turned into an image, and published on his blog. His avid blogging with quotations is part of a hot trend, vogue or craze initiated by the rise of social media, messaging apps, self-publishing platforms and the cult of celebrity. Combining the piquant brevity of a quotation with the visual impact of an accompanying picture worth a thousand words has become the most favoured means of pu(bli)shing a certain idea or claim without investing in, or bothering with, the much more involved and time-consuming task of elaborating the idea or claim. Whether quoting oneself or others, the medium of pictorial quote in the form of quote-cum-image or text-on-photo is quick and convenient as well as space-saving, fitting nicely on the small screen of a hand-held device.
Dozens or even hundreds of images bearing quotes can be flicked across the screen, where each quote can be consumed in under a minute or mere seconds as news feeds, shared photos, season’s greetings, warm congratulations, prominent epigraphs, catchy taglines, memorable slogans, inspirational mottos, choice sayings, routine quips, thoughts of the day, musings of the hour, or the like, via (re)tweets, status updates, signature blocks, blog posts, webpage headers, advertisements and so on. In an era so saturated with individuals and organizations deploying mass communication to suborn or exploit ideas to the ends of self-promotion, testimonial advertising, influencer marketing and tabloid journalism as well as those of culture war, social control and political opportunism, the world is now manifestly brimming with new and old quotations, prodigiously powered by the “quotation industry”, and endlessly coopted by those who are riding the publicity bandwagon and those who are steeped in the cult of celebrity, as explicated by encyclopedia.com:
Out of the tradition of quoting chapter and verse from the BIBLE, of quoting lines from great writers and orators, and of quoting the remarks of the famous, there has grown a minor industry that marshals and highlights the comments, aphorisms, quips, bons mots, and verbal faux pas of the celebrated, notorious, or fashionable. It includes: (1) The compiling and publishing of anthologies of observations by famous people, works promoted and purchased as a means through which public speaking may be enlivened (‘quotes for all occasions’) or readers can enjoy instances of language used to good effect. (2) Brief, topical features in newspapers and other periodicals with such names as Quotes of the Week or They Said It, listing significant, thought-provoking, egregious, or fatuous observations or remarks made by people currently in the limelight. The existence of such items not only requires journalists to find material to fill them but may prompt public or would-be public figures to formulate snappy one-liners that might be listed and attributed.
A prominent exemplar and lucrative subset within the colossal quotation industry is a particular sector herein coined by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ as the motivational quotation industry, whose accomplished practitioners adroitly deploy inspirational quotes as the basis for establishing a living as professional quoters or quote makers. Many factors have coalesced to bring about the meteoric rise of the motivational quotation industry, including the widespread adoption of social media designed to foster rapid sharing of images amongst users; the ease of deploying text layout apps or graphic design software to create custom-made pictorial quotes; the maturing of the digital economy and intangible capitalism conducive to monetizing products and services on social media, blogs and websites; the decline of desktop and laptop computers due to the ascendency of portable devices and smartphones whose small screens are more amenable to unsophisticated content and low information density; the formats of SMSing, texting, tweeting and posting favouring the short and simple rather than the long and detailed; the tendency of media users to convey or display fickle allegiance, superficial solidarity and spasmodic benevolence in online social interactions; the growing inclination of people to treat or deal with a subject briefly or superficially due to attention deficit, update overdrive, information overload and multimedia overdose; the habitual gravitation towards instantaneous news and notifications by skimming over contents, reading only headlines and going for soundbites or video clips; the lack of the mental apparatus or consistent aptitude for differentiating that which is truly profound and meaningful from that which is contrived to impress without direct concern for or relevance to the truth or what genuinely matters; and the predominance of self-help gurus, motivational speakers, life(style) coaches, Internet celebrities, media personalities and social media influencers across social spaces and social discourses purposed and maintained for commercial gain, social capital, cultural capital, personal branding, niche marketing and public relations. The over-reliance on headlines, soundbites and quotations to capture the essence of an issue or topic, to summarize information and to entice the reader, viewer, voter or consumer at the expense of the broader context and deeper understanding has not only contributed to the potency and frequency of media manipulation (via the deployment of formal and/or informal fallacies, disinformation, or quotational, rhetorical and propaganda techniques), but also accentuated the comforming effects of social proof (also called informational social influence), a sociopsychological phenomenon in which people emulate the actions of others to undertake a certain activity, behaviour or experience in a given situation.
“How inspirational quotes became a whole social media industry” and a hugely conspicuous phenomenon of the Internet culture is explained at length by Victoria Turk, the features editor at WIRED UK:
You can barely go on a social media site without being bombarded by motivational quotes. But behind every corny line there’s a human that has lifted or crafted it – and it turns out that inspiration is a highly lucrative industry…
Motivational quotes are endemic on social media, with Facebook and Instagram in particular riddled with “profound” messages, often set against a whimsical background. You know the type – those pictures of waterfalls and sunsets with sayings like “You can’t have a rainbow without the rain” that your aunt keeps sharing with comments like “So true”.
They might make many cringe, but so popular are motivational quotes online that, for some, they can be big business – liked, shared and monetised to create a whole inspirational quote industry.
Shawn, 45 from Canada, runs several popular quote accounts on social media as well as his own quote-filled website. His Twitter account, @motivational, has 669,000 followers; his Facebook account @quotesandsayings has over 4 million. His interest in motivational quotes has proven lucrative, and while he still has a day job in the wireless technology industry, he says that he’s recently been taking home two to three times his regular income from advertising on his website. “I could quit my day job from the advertising revenue I’m getting.” he says.…
For a long time, says Shawn, his Facebook follower number was stuck around 45,000. Originally, he was just posting text quotes. He realised that the [social media] algorithm rewarded regular posting, and he suddenly started to gain thousands of new followers a day. He also started to do “share for share” deals with other popular quote pages, posting content from their pages in return for the same. One of these fellow quote enthusiasts advised him to move away from just posting text, and he embraced what he calls “quote pics” – the now-ubiquitous social media trend of inspirational quotes overlaid over images of sunsets and landscapes. He makes his own images using apps such as Word Swag – although he notes that many accounts seem content just to take and re-use quote pics [that] they find elsewhere if they don’t have a name attached.…
His own preference is for longer, more esoteric quotes, from writers and philosophers like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Arthur Schopenhauer – but that’s not usually what his followers respond to. “It’s always fascinating to see people reacting out of proportion positively towards some really basic piece of junk quote that you think is the worst thing ever,” he says. “Then you’ll see something online that’s great, it’s fascinating, and it gets no attention at all. Everybody’s at different levels in their own development, and you’ve got to realise [that] you’re edging humanity along inch by inch.”…
It’s not just quote pages that are capitalising on the motivational quote phenomenon; brands are also turning to the format as a good marketing tool. In 2018, copywriter Laura Belgray, who runs New York-based company Talking Shrimp, gained viral fame after she wrote a piece published on Money.com with the headline “I Get Paid $6,000 a Day to Write Inspirational Quotes for Instagram. Here’s how I perfected this dream job.”…
What is it that makes motivational quotes so appealing to some (and so repellant [sic] to others)? The format is arguably designed for shareability – originally by word of mouth or in books like the one Shawn found as a teenager, and now on social media. Gordon Pennycook, a psychologist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada, whose work “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit” won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2016, found that some people are more likely to ascribe profundity to nonsense statements than others, and that these people are less reflective and lower in cognitive ability, as well as more likely to hold supernatural beliefs and endorse complementary and alternative medicines.
To be clear, Pennycook’s work used statements made up of nonsense buzzwords as opposed to actual motivational quotes, which do at least make some kind of sense (usually). But in one study where participants were asked to rate the profundity of both these ‘bullshit’ sayings and actual motivational quotes, those who rated the bullshit quotes as more profound were also likely to rate the actual motivational quotes as more profound, and Pennycook sees a similarity between the made-up bullshit he and his team used and some of the more cringeworthy quotes that pop up on social media. One common characteristic is using floral language to make a sentence appear more important or impressive than its actual meaning. “In many cases it’s pretty trite,” he says. “Most self-help books are very elaborate ways of saying ‘You should try harder’ in different ways.”
Ultimately, Pennycook says, we tend to share things that pull on our emotions – whether that’s fake news or inspirational quotes. And while it’s easy to mock people who may read too much into trite platitudes, being too skeptical can also have its downsides. “It does pull some of the magic from the world,” he says.
In short, a pictorial quote is the (re)packaging of a quotation by using software to convert the quotation from its original textual form into an image to be stored, distributed and viewed as a visual presentation on printed materials or digital media. The inexhaustible sources of quotation that people can find and access, the absence of copyright restrictions on using or adapting quotations, and the simplicity with which any chosen quotation can be transformed into a visually pleasing format, have virtually guaranteed a ready-made market and unending (over)supply of pictorial quotes, so much so that a large number of them have become the de facto vehicles for hackneyed ideas or trite statements promoted and promulgated for their intellectual accessibility, instant appeal, gratifying messages, clichéd imports, simplified perspectives, prepackaged worldviews and superficial profundities, all too often lacking originality or freshness, if not ultimately mundane and dull on account of overuse.
Riding on the freewheeling spirit of the digital frontier and the Internet economy, the quotation industry is ostensibly one of the shiniest, trendiest signs that quotations have ascended to become the principal objects of commodification in the age of social media, advanced communications and mass consumerism, where the medium of pictorial quote in the form of quote-cum-image or text-on-photo and the prodigious parading of celebrity quotations and quotes for all occasions have increasingly become the lingua franca and communicative currencies in the domain of branding and marketing as well as the realm of social interactions and relationships, however fleeting or ersatz they are often destined to be due to saturation, overabundance and kitschification. Being shared by the millions daily, the prevalence of pictorial quote is one of the most inescapable signs that image and space have significantly replaced history and narrative as the primary means, preferred modes and organizing principles of cultural (re)production.
There is no exaggeration in concluding that the power of visual communication in the digital age has turned quotation in general and pictorial quote in particular into a poster child, becoming a vital part of promotional material and advertising. The same power has also reduced the patience and attention span of human beings, according to Baris Gencel writing for The Brandberries as follows:
In Effective Advertising, words are not the only way we can communicate ideas and feelings. A more important weapon is the visual. A picture in a print ad captures more than twice as much information as a headline does. In fact, research shows that 90% of the information that sticks in our brains is visual.
10% of people remember what they hear.
20% of people remember what they read.
But 70% of people remember what they see and do.
It’s more than just that. Visuals are processed 60,000 times faster than text, and It’s also true that 93% of our communication is non-verbal.
In a world that has become totally digital, are we becoming more like Neanderthals?
During the last few years, humans have been changing. Interestingly, our visual intelligence is actually increasing while verbal intelligence is on the decline. According to UCL study, the way we communicate is becoming more caveman-like. Modern man is moving more towards a “pictographic form of communication”. Professor John Sutherland from University College London embellishes this when he says:
“This harks back to a caveman form of communication where a single picture can convey a full range of messages and emotions.”
On average, a person is distracted after just 8 seconds.
With all these new forms of media on digital platforms and social media, our attention spans are changing too and we have so many distractions. Imagine looking at Weibo, Facebook, WeChat and Instagram with many incoming messages all at the same time. Our attention span is shortening and we are becoming less patient than ever before.
As we can see, today’s fastest growing social media platforms are visual-based. This number is increasing and 84% of communication is visual-based too.
Given that a pictorial quote is the (re)packaging of a textual quotation into a visual format to be viewed on printed materials or digital media, our being aware of the form, function and design conducive to effective visual communication and quotational excellence is paramount to enhancing our quotational intelligence, given the reach and ubiquity of pictorial quotes in the contemporary world. The basic form of a textual quotation from its inception is purely functional, containing the quoted phrase(s) or sentence(s) between quotation marks. In contrast, the form of a pictorial quote is affected and finessed by graphic design, mass media and information technology. On the one hand, the advancements of technology and social media determine how a pictorial quote is stored, indexed and disseminated. On the other hand, the software for manipulating texts and images affords opportunities for considering how a pictorial quote looks and feels, and for focusing more on the aesthetic experience and on creating additional connection with the quote consumer or dedicatee, especially when a quote is not presented in the usual digital or printed form on screen or paper, but is destined to be featured or immortalized on a treasured object or sentimental item such as a special gift, engraved present, framed picture, keepsake, heirloom, memorabilium, tattoo, trophy, badge, medal(lion), plaque, insignia or emblem. The approach can range from simply placing the intended quote on the printed part of an item to aptly incorporating the quote as part of an abstract or visually provocative design such that the resultant pictorial quote becomes the hero of the visual language and artistic design conveying the meaning and worth of the item. Additional depth, texture or tactility can be imparted by the inclusion of embossing, debossing, inlaying, carving, sculpting, holography or three-dimensional printing. In imparting, accentuating or complementing form, function and design, the medium of pictorial quote tempts the quote maker with the freedom and delight of being artistic and expressive, and seduces the quote consumer or dedicatee with the artful juxtaposition of quotation and imagery.
As discussed earlier and seen from the examples above, pictorial quotes can afford any quoter a good degree of artistic licence and scope for creative flair in designing and superimposing a quotation onto a photo or image, even though the final product may often bear no attribution to the quoter or the quotee. Such are the appeal and popularity of pictorial quotes that they can be seen to adorn computer monitors as screen savers and desktop backgrounds, to decorate interior spaces as framed photos and wall art, and to serve as inspirational materials for, or enhanced features of, signature blocks, customized messages, slideshows, blog posts, status updates, social tweets, greeting cards, printed shirts, posters, bookmarks, epigrams, keepsakes, memorabilia, sentimental items and artworks.
Hence, there is no surprise in finding that pictorial quotes are one of the most pinned and shared categories of images on a “visual search engine” like Pinterest, which is an image sharing and social media service affording users to search, discover, save, catalogue, share and promote information or “ideas” online using images (plus GIFs and videos on a smaller scale) in the form of pinboards. Word Swag App not only offers a quick way for users of smartphones to “create beautifully custom text layouts that would normally take minutes – or even hours – with just a tap” as though “a graphic designer in their pocket”, but also comes with “[h]undreds of quotes, thoughts, and jokes so you’re never at a loss for words”. Those who wish to find a free and expedient way of making pictorial quotes as well as having access to a decent source of curated pictorial quotes can visit picturequotes.com, which allows anyone to create their own pictorial quotes to share with family and friends. Those who are more experienced can rely on the sophisticated features offered by Canva, a graphic design platform that integrates millions of images, fonts, templates and illustrations, and that facilitates users to create social media graphics, presentations, posters and other visual content. Specifically, Canva has published guidelines for creating pictorial quotes in its well-illustrated article entitled “100 stunning picture quotes that will supercharge your creativity”, which are summarized as follows:
- Add graphic images that complement your quote: Bring your quotes to life with a graphic image. Other than helping [to] tell a story and providing context to the quote, graphic images bring oomph to your text.
- Frame your quote: Framed quotes are great for home and office decor — a harmonious collection of framed images and picture quotes may be used to create a gallery wall.
- Turn the text itself into art: Put your creativity to work, by transforming the text into an illustration. Make sure [that] it remains within the right context by having it take a form relevant to the message of the quote.
- Leave something to the imagination: Abstract picture quotes encourages [sic] the reader to think [more] deep[ly]. You can use symbols and visual hints to provide context.
- Breathe life into your quote by incorporating it [as] an image of the outdoors: When all else fails, take inspiration from nature. Your picture quote can then function as a nice escape from a stressful work day or as a reminder of how you’ll reward yourself with a vacation after a challenging project.
- Make it a poster: Picture quotes attain larger[-]than[-]life power when it’s printed as a poster.
- Use an unconventional canvas for your quote: Quotes can humanize an otherwise impassive object like a wall or building.
- Make It Fun and Childlike: Even the oldest quotes can live forever in youthful fonts and colors. When done right, this style can make even the most complex ideas easier to understand.
- Remember that sometimes, less is indeed more: Minimalist design is popular in the modern design scene — it is simple, yet elegant. A minimalist quote graphic typically displays no more than text and a simple background for a clean look.
- Don’t be afraid of fancy fonts: Cursive or script fonts just feel more personal, [as if] it could be a handwritten letter.
There is a further outcome that can be observed in the ascent of pictorial quote. The background image or photo framing a quote gains in meaning when it is seen in context against or in connection with the quote, since the image or photo per se does not carry specific meanings or signify something concretely. In other words, the image or photo accrues, derives or plays off meanings from or against its superimposed quotation such that it takes on more specific quality — a quality that has been overlaid, heightened or rendered prominent by the (interpretation of the) meanings encapsulated by the quotation. In that sense, there is an interrelationship or synergy between the quote and the image or photo insofar as the pairing generates related understanding to influence the reader and add layers of depth to a quote, based on the reader’s response to both. This accumulation of meanings across different media, where an image or a photo has its signification or significance coloured, altered or crystalized by being “read” or viewed in the context of a quotatation, is a new and rather revolutionary phenomenon, one that would have been considered to be odd, objectionable or even outlandish in the past when hardly any image or photo had ever been brazenly “branded” or “disfigured” by overlaying text beyond the traditional practice of captioning with a title or explanation beside an image or photo. Perhaps the saving grace of, or rather the concession to, using pictorial quotes despite incurring visual defacement lies in the fact that some of the background images and photos conscripted for the purpose are admittedly (somewhat) bland, mundane, nondescript or uninteresting in themselves, be they ever so ripe or copyright-free as to be picked for undergoing quotational defacement in the first place. Whether the looks or messages of such images and photos can be somehow enhanced (without inept handling of the cosmetic compromise or visual interference incurred) by the superposition of quotations is veritably a subjective matter open to debate, if not largely a function of the skill, taste, whim, discretion and quotational intelligence of the pictorial quote maker.
To make matters worse, pictorial quotes harbour yet another disadvantage as they contain only graphic or pictorial data devoid of the actual texts constituting the intended quotations, thus excluding them from being relationally found, indexed and ranked by search engines, which, unlike humans, can neither “read” nor textually reconstitute quotations that have been previously reduced to nontextual information in the form of image data. After all, search engines, web browsers, social media and mobile apps scarcely possess sufficient artificial intelligence to decode the contents of visually embedded quotations or image-based quotes other than treating pictorial quotes as regular images. Even if image decoding could somehow be introduced to process pictorial quotes online for “reading” or reconstructing their visually embedded quotations, the time and computing power required could be prohibitive and the decoding accuracy could often be unsatisfactory, considering that even the most decent optical character recognition software would only be optimally proficient at extracting texts from a solid-coloured background, and would tend to produce subpar, unreliable or unmeaningful results from a photo-realistic image, especially in cases involving fancy fonts, intricate pictures and low image-font contrasts. Consequently, textual suppression arising from the ubiquitous practice of creating, presenting and circulating pictorial quotes has markedly deprived quotations of their textual autonomy and existence, insofar as the ascendancy of graphics has led to the sustained suppression of quotational texts, along with the widespread defacing of images and photos. So prevalent are the distribution of and the demand for pictorial quotes in applications ranging from banners, billboards and posters to (re)tweets, status updates, signature blocks, blog posts, webpage headers and advertisements that countless images and photos have been reduced to commodifiable fodders destined for quotational defacement anytime, regardless of their provenance and prominence, even (more so) if they happen to be inspirational, awesome or iconic pictures of nature, landscape, luminary, art, architecture, social event, historical moment or astronomical phenomenon. That quotation, even in its disembodied, nontextual, image-defacing form, has (been strategically coopted to) become a social currency, driving force and principal means for branding (via distinctive wording, quoting and design to promote a particular product, individual, party, company or cause) and virtue signalling (through publicly expressing opinions or sentiments to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue) is all too apparent, if not increasingly turning into a cause for concern with respect to the simultaneous commodification of quotation and image to the detriment of their respective autonomies and intrinsic values, whether or not one may justifiably grant or recognize in pictorial quote its own autonomy and validity as a contemporary form of utilitarian tool, practical art or meme carrier.
Last but not the least, the textual suppression in every pictorial quote resulting from the practice of embedding quotation within a graphic or image is the utter bane for millions of those who are (legally) blind, visually impaired, illiterate or have a learning disability, since these people have no viable and reliable way of “reading” the visually embedded quotation that sighted and literate folks can optically decipher from the image or photo with ease. Many people who are compromised in seeing, reading or learning routinely rely on some form of assistive technology that renders text and image content as speech or braille output, such as speech synthesizer (also known as text-to-voice converter or text-to-speech system), screen reader, or refreshable braille display (also called braille terminal), to navigate and comprehend on-screen data normally presented for sighted and literate users via the graphical user interface, the main interface for human-machine interaction. Web browsers, word processors, email programmes, icons and windows are some of the most essential computer applications regularly deployed by users of assistive technology. Given that pictorial quotes are graphics drawn on the screen at particular positions, there is no purely textual representation of the graphical contents of the display that can be converted into speech or braille output, unless the punctiliousness of the author of a web document has ensured the presence of alternative text in the form of alt="" to include the intended quotations within the respective alt attributes of the <img> elements used to embed the corresponding graphics in the source HTML or XHTML document. Otherwise, the quotations contained in pictorial quotes always remain “invisible”, inaccessible and non-existent to users of speech synthesizer, screen reader or braille terminal. Such issues caused by textual suppression also remain unsolvable when pictorial quotes are presented on printed materials. In summary, pictorial quotes have fallen short on meeting the noble and inclusive goal of web accessibility, which is to remove barriers to communication and interaction that numerous people face in the physical world, especially people with compromised hearing, movement, sight and cognitive ability, by providing equal access and equal opportunity to people with diverse abilities, on the basis that access to information and communications technologies, including the world wide web, has been defined as a basic human right in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).
To circumvent the two disadvantages of pictorial quotes, namely, the visual defacement of images and the textual suppression of quotations, and also to enhance web accessibility, SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ has sought to present quotations above their respective images to preserve and honour them in good faith, as can be seen in the Illustrated Quotations showing Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes at the end of this post. Each of the images there can be clicked or touched to reveal an entirely separate comment section in which to submit comment(s) or reply to existing comment(s) regarding the specific quote and image. On the whole, this manner of treating quotations as (if they are) captions or descriptions of their accompanying images or photos imparts a double advantage: the images or photos remain intact and their respective quotations remain machine-readable textual data amenable to full-text searching and browsing by all and sundry, regardless of where they situate on the spectra of sightedness and literacy. An example of such an Illustrated Quotation is shown below:
Ability is what you are capable of doing.
Motivation determines what you do.
Attitude determines how well you do it.
As the Illustrated Quotation above demonstrates, separating the quotation from the image confers the benefit of permitting the quotation to be shown with greater liberty in any font size and font style without being constrained by the dimensions and composition of the image.
A partial compromise is possible without sacrificing the machine-readability and indexability of an Illustrated Quotation. If the same quotation demonstrated above must be bounded by or appear within the image for any reason, then the superposition would often necessitate a smaller font size or a larger image. In addition, a font shadow or font outline would enhance the visual contrast between the quotation and the image. The placement of the quotation should ideally harmonize with the composition of the image such that the most specific, salient or defining features of the image remain most visible or least obscured, as the next example shows. Note that the quotation is real text.
Motivation determines what you do.
Attitude determines how well you do it.
In spite of the far greater reliance on the power of visual communication in the digital age, the centrality of quotation in playing the essential role of portraying or sculpting messages in the visual and textual domains through the inventive use of pictorial quotes and Illustrated Quotations is also apparent in the arenas of spoken discourse through the use of verbal quotations, which are indispensable ingredients of human dialogues and daily conversations, repeating not just what is said as words but also what is conveyed through verbal expressions, intonations, emotions, gestures and body language. The roles and intricacies of verbal quotation manifested in quotidian situations involving speech, social discourse, storytelling, open discussion and argumentative exchange can be gleaned from the following extract from Wikipedia:
In spoken discourse
Traditionally, quotations — more specifically known as direct quotations — have been distinguished from indirect quotations. Direct quotations differ from indirect quotations in that they are reported from the perspective of the experiencer, while indirect quotations are reported from the perspective of the reporting speaker (e.g. “He said: ‘I am leaving now’” versus “He said (that) he was leaving immediately”)…
Both direct and indirect quotations in spoken discourse are not intended to be verbatim reproductions of an utterance that has been produced. Instead, direct quotations convey the approximative meaning of such an utterance along with the way in which that utterance was produced. From a sociolinguistic perspective, a direct quotation in spoken discourse can therefore also be defined as “a performance whereby speakers re-enact previous behaviour (speech/thought/sound/voice effect and gesture) while assuming the dramatic role of the original source of this reported behaviour”. Indirect quotations are simply paraphrases of something that a reporting speaker heard.
Reasons for using
Quotations are employed in spoken discourse for many reasons. They are often used by speakers to depict stories and events that have occurred in the past to other interlocutors. The speaker does not necessarily have to have been an original participant in the story or event. Therefore, they can quote something that they did not hear firsthand. Quotations are also used to express thoughts that have never been uttered aloud prior to being quoted. For example, while telling a story, a speaker quotes inner thoughts that they had during a specific situation. Finally, speakers use quotations to propose future dialogue for participants in a situation that may take place in the future. For example, two friends talk about their 10-year high school reunion that will take place in the future and propose what they would say. While future dialogue can be proposed for a situation that will likely happen, it can also be based on a situation that will not actually take place. In the latter usage, the proposed dialogue only exists in the conversational context.
The quoted material is usually not a verbatim replication of an utterance that someone originally said. Instead, quotations in spoken discourse reproduce what a speaker wishes to communicate to their recipients; quotations demonstrate something that someone said, the manner in which that person said it, and the current speaker’s feelings about what was said. In this way, quotations are an especially effective storytelling device; the speaker is able to give a voice to the protagonists in their stories themselves, which allows the speaker’s audience to experience the situation in the way that the speaker themselves experienced it.
Quoting something as well as seeing or hearing something quoted may be deemed as irreducibly personal to the extent that any value or impact of the quotation(s) present is indexed to the person who comes to the understanding of the quoted content. Nevertheless, they can also be seen as highly interpersonal in the context of relationships or communication between people at social events or cultural settings “based on inference, love, solidarity, support, regular business interactions, or some other type of social connection or commitment”.[❆] Therefore, the value or impact of the quotation(s) present is not only public but also communicable to other persons at those events or settings, through the inclusion of quotational highlights or accentuations that inject particular points of interest within the flow of ideas, speeches or discourses. Accordingly, quotations constitute a regular component of sociocultural dynamics and currencies. Since many quotations are rarely featured alone, their impacts, influences and contributions are often veiled, underestimated and insufficiently recognized, unless such quotations are specifically conscripted to function as prominent catchphrases, epigraphs, mottos, axioms, proverbs, mantras, slogans, shibboleths, manifestos or talking points to bring or engineer some consequential outcomes. Whatever degree of sociocultural embeddedness that various quotational practices may have assumed throughout their respective spheres of influence at one time or another, the range and power of influences that quotations have collectively wielded in societies throughout human history can be as portentous and immeasurable as they are penetrating and far-reaching. That quotations have had such a pervasive reach in the lives of people across ages, and that they have been used as some of the most potent tools of persuasion, incitement, inspiration, and even conversion or coercion, should beckon more of us to focus our attention on our own quotational intelligence and maturity as well as our quotational ignorance, assumptions and liabilities. In particular, quotational intelligence is hereby coined and defined by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ as the capacity to construct, interpret or treat quotations with or for logic, action, belief formation, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, decision making and problem solving. More generally, quotational intelligence can be described as the ability to properly perceive or infer information from quotations, and to retain the information or quotations as knowledge or resources to be applied towards adaptive behaviours within an environment or context.
Via a series of analytical and multipronged approaches, this post seeks to uncover and elucidate a wide range of issues and problems arising from the Quotation Fallacy so that they can be identified and apprehended, if they are to be avoided, alleviated or eliminated successfully to protect, preserve or enhance our quotational intelligence. Considering that a good quote can pointedly reflect or meaningfully project one’s worldview, attitude, intention or identity like a shining beacon, inspiring lodestar or scintillating jewel, it does pay great dividends to quote well indeed. As the abbé Joseph Roux states: “A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.” Like precious gems embedded in the intellectual matrix and sprawling groundmass of an oeuvre, fine quotations are far more destined and deserving to be found by a man of wit who recognizes them as the good things that come in small packages.
To illustrate the prosaic practicality and day-to-day expediency of quotations, one may quote a short passage from Oscar Wilde’s letter written while the Irish poet and playwright was imprisoned: “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” Considered to be one of the most influential authors of the 20th century, Marcel Proust, a French novelist, critic and essayist, has certainly endorsed the use of quotations as follows: “One must never miss an opportunity of quoting things by others which are always more interesting than those one thinks up oneself.” More than mere fodders or fillers, quotations have truly become collectables, treasures and even arsenals in our intellectual, emotional and spiritual lives for a vast number of situations and purposes, thus functioning as the staples of our everyday interactions and transactions, whether casually or strategically. It is no wonder that quotations have come to be spoken, written, printed, recorded and illustrated both ad libitum and ad nauseam, manifesting in a great variety of forms and purposes such as verbal statements, status updates, social tweets, blog posts, personal flags, signature blocks, commercial billboards, customized messages and memorable catchphrases. Quotations are also the staples of academics and researchers who construct or compile expert demonstrations by means of quotational evidences, illustrative quotations and arguments via quotations in lexicographical works, canonical texts, comprehensive anthologies, expansive encyclopaedias, scholarly publications and other authoritative sources.
In literary theory, quotations are closely linked to citationality, a measure of an author’s citation of other authors’ works through quoting or through using endnotes and footnotes. On the one hand, certain works are highly citational by virtue of making frequent use of various quotations from and numerous allusions to other works. On the other hand, works with low citationality can appear to be isolated entities existing in a vacuum without identifiable quotations from or explicit references to other authors or texts.
In certain creative idioms, citationality is very much a product of the playful language of references, often featuring tongue-in-cheek, whimsical quotations with considerable verve and inventiveness. By and large, citationality has become a typical feature of postmodernism, especially in some manifestations, phenomena and genres of pop culture, insofar as parody films such as Meet the Spartans, animated sitcoms such as The Simpsons, television comedy series such as Mystery Science Theater 3000, and educational comedy television series such as Adam Ruins Everything, thrive on and make their mark with clever use of quotations and citations by referencing many other films, TV shows, people and pop cultural events of the time or in the past, via humorous forms or entertaining means of allusion, imitation, appropriation, reinterpretion, reimagination and recontextualization.
Away from mass media and no less significant in the textual realm, citationality also relates to intertextuality, the relationship between texts, via the roles of quotation and other cross-referencing figures as follows:
Intertextuality is the shaping of a text’s meaning by another text. It is the interconnection between similar or related works of literature that reflect and influence an audience’s interpretation of the text. Intertextuality is the relation between texts that are inflicted by means of quotations and allusion. Intertextual figures include: allusion, quotation, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche and parody. Intertextuality is a literary device that creates an ‘interrelationship between texts’ and generates related understanding in separate works. These references are made to influence the reader and add layers of depth to a text, based on the readers’ prior knowledge and understanding. The structure of intertextuality in turn depends on the structure of influence. Intertextuality is a literary discourse strategy utilised by writers in novels, poetry, theatre and even in non-written texts (such as performances and digital media). Examples of intertextuality are an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text, and a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another.
Intertextuality does not require citing or referencing punctuation (such as quotation marks) and is often mistaken for plagiarism. Intertextuality can be produced in texts using a variety of functions including allusion, quotation and referencing.…
The degree of citationality and intertextuality may be regarded as on a dramatic increase insofar as quotation has been heavily conscripted in postmodern art, literature, music and movies not just to express an aesthetic or movement characterized by fusion and hybridity unfolding via the intertextual dynamics of borrowing, fragmentation, melange, pastiche, and pop eclecticism intermixing high and low cultures or blurring their distinctions, but also to signify, celebrate or glorify irreverence, irrationality, irony and playfulness, often in accessible formats or popular standards amenable to (re)interpretation without specialist knowledge or expert adjudication, often interwoven, whether interestingly, reflexively or embarrassingly, with the characters and performances of contributors and participants, often aiming for or resulting in jumbled storylines, simulated realities or phantasmagorical scenes, often elaborating or concluding without a clear moral or central message, without a sequential plot or grand narrative, and yet often still able and free to mock or challenge the status quo, social norm and authorship with zany, quirky, outré, mordacious or uproarious references to established concepts, entrenched practices, prevailing aesthetics and mainstream values, even to the point of providing serious commentaries on the existing state of affairs and social or political issues with backhanded zeal, mock insouciance, oblique rectitude, or other ironic or unexpected juxtapositions. On the whole, the penchant for spinning quotational webs is one of the most defining features of postmodernity.
By now, it should be patently clear that quotation is a many-splendoured thing — for it can encompass a plethora of presentational forms and functions within a medium or between media. Scarcely confined to the textual territory, quotations can exist just as well in creative oeuvres of the visual and sonic domains as distinct, repeatable components, whether they are being borrowed straightforwardly or appropriated skilfully. According to Wikipedia: “A quotation can also refer to the repeated use of units of any other form of expression, especially parts of artistic works: elements of a painting, scenes from a movie or sections from a musical composition” via the intentional deployment of excerpts, collages, samplings, interpolations, plunderphonics or musical quotations from the same artist’s work (self-referential) or from a different artist’s work (appropriation). In the domains of design, the visual arts or the spatial arts, visual quotations are incorporated into projects or artistic works by means of visual representations, images and photographs ranging from simple juxtaposition, collage and assemblage to graphic illustration and digital manipulation. We are veritable quoters when we imitate, appropriate or pay homage to some musical genres, paintings or buildings in our own works; when we follow certain ideas, recipes, fashions, rituals or lifestyles in our own lives; when we copy someone’s mannerism, persona, habits, quirks or jokes for fun; and when we live by or subscribe to particular mindsets, paradigms or traditions.
As an example of multicultural or cross-genre quotations, the following musical composition of SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ demonstrates a copious amount of quoting and mixing some of the most stylistically identifiable features of musical genres from various regions and cultures in the world through the fine art of orchestral arrangement and instrumentation. Lasting nearly three minutes, this set of musical quotations is tantamount to a somewhat humorous pastiche comprising a medley of pieces imitating the multicultural parade of a great circus:
Far from being confined to the human world, quotations also abound in the nonhuman realm, for animals can be excellent quoters and quotees in their own right, as revealed in the interdisciplinary post entitled “Do Animals Create Art and Music? 🎵🐕🎶🐒🎹🐘🖼🐬🎨”. Both animal calls and anthropogenic sounds have been given ceremonious quotations by some of the finest mimics in the animal kingdom. Mockingbirds and starlings in the northern hemisphere as well as Australian magpies, bowerbirds and lyrebirds in the southern have unhesitantly appropriated into their repertoires the sounds of human speech, machine guns, excited monkeys, barking dogs, mating cats, flushing toilets, police sirens, walkie-talkies, mobile phones and computer games. Pet owners and bird lovers are regularly treated with the cross-species utterances of spiritually possessed, self-humanizing or auto-civilizing ravens, magpies, hill mynahs, parrots, cockatoos, cockatiels, galahs, parakeets, rosellas, macaws and budgerigars, as these avian friends communicate with their human companions, often quoting them with wanton adroitness, reproducing phrases with convincing intonation and credible mannerism.
The medium of interspecies quotation involving extraspecific sounds and gestures presents a fascinating way for both human and nonhuman quoters to enlarge or enrich their repertoires and vocabularies well beyond the normal confines of communicating in their intraspecies native tongues. It is thus to be expected that imitating and quoting the sounds (via onomatopoeia or musical rendition), movements, colours, shapes, actions and behaviours of nonhumans in mythologies, literary genres, poems, narratives, rituals, dances, songs, music, visual arts, performing arts and applied arts have long been present in virtually every human civilization, and lately in modern societies via biomimetics or biomimicry for solving complex human problems and inventing novel engineering solutions, by emulating the models, systems and elements of nature in new technologies inspired by biological solutions at macro and nanoscales, such as animal-like locomotion, biofeedback, self-healing abilities, environmental resistance, exposure tolerance, hydrophobicity, self-assembly, optics, photonics, solar energy, permaculture and bioremediation.
The strength and quality of nonverbal communication such as body language, facial expression, eye movement, body posture, gesture, touch, and the use of (personal or public) space, like those observed in everyday activities as well as performing arts, depend on the finesse of the individual person or performer in quoting human gesture and movement for expressing meanings or intentions, and for executing or reenacting behaviours, especially in the absence of written or spoken words. Some performance art exploits and conveys visually encoded human experiences to such an effective degree that optical illusions have become the lingua franca of certain artforms. For example, prodigiously proficient in the theatrical technique of suggesting or quoting action, character and emotion without words or speech, professional mime artists can seamlessly engage and entertain audiences as they convincingly titillate the human imagination using only gesture, expression and movement to communicate a story or depict a situation to their audiences, as demonstrated at the start of the post entitled “👁 Optical Illusions 👁🗨❇️😵✳️👀”. Here, the expressive and evocative power of gestural quotation can be brought to bear by the performer through gesticulations to transform what is ostensibly a featherweight balloon into a cumbersome object with enough inertia to resist strenuous pulling and pushing.
In the final chapter entitled “9. What Is Quotation and Why Do We Do It?” of her book published in 2011, Ruth Finnegan elaborates on the centrality and diversity of quotation in cultural transmission, having gained considerable insights through her academic research into the comparative sociology/anthropology of artistic activity, communication and performance. The gist of the elaboration can be distilled from the following excerpts:
The dominant educational practices; presumption of widespread literacy; particular mix of media; literary genres; the tensions surrounding notions of plagiarism; the uses and prohibitions of quoting and their fluid dynamic amidst changing technologies and ethics; even the linguistic forms through which we speak and write – all these between them present one specific case within the long human experience of quoting and quotation.…
Quoting can be used for originality or routine; for challenging authority or for lauding it; to control or to rebel; for excluding or including; for passive memorising or for brilliant extemporisation and creatively applied insight. As speech act, quoting can accomplish a multitude of things, from asserting or subverting or manipulating tradition to uplifting in sermon or imposing rigours on the young. Others’ words and voices can be called on to convey irony or humour, to situate writer, speaker and character in narrative, to carry the voice of the divine, to bond within a group or to distance from it. Quotation collections can be exploited as mines or as symbols, prized by some, resented or ignored by others. Short quotes like proverbs or verses from sacred writings can resonate in the memory, interrupt an otherwise smooth text, stir up activism, exert pressure, settle disputes, or persuade others.…
Quoting can put something on stage, elevated as an object for the expression of some attitude to it. The ’look at me’ stance in aesthetically marked genres is itself a kind of quotation, or at any rate akin to it. This displaying is turned to many purposes: recognised as art, as the object of exegesis or contemplation, as something to be ridiculed or attacked. It draws attention to itself as something needing ’reading in slow motion’ and with ’multiple meanings’… Taking on others’ words and voices can be for indirection too. Veiled and metaphorical quotations convey others’ messages and formulations in an evocative rather than explicit way, or make a point without seeming too personal about it. They can carry layers of meaning for some but not all participants… The literary device of allusiveness can link in subtle indirect ways to other people, places, times, ideas – even to other dimensions of oneself.
These variegated modes of using others’ words and voices intersect and overlap. Multiple purposes and effects can go along together, or work out differently not only in differing times and places but for differing participants in the same moment. Within this bundle of usages there are near-infinite purposes to which the human activities of quoting can be turned.
… the far and near of quoting, its paradoxical duality. In quoting in its widest sense – the interweaving of others’ words and voices in our own – we do indeed evoke the past and the far removed, hear the words and voices of others, set texts at a distance, look from outside ourselves. But also, by that very act, we brand the past with the present, capture others’ voices into our own, draw the distant to ourselves. In quoting we simultaneously enact past and present, enstage both ourselves and others.
All linguistic action is in a sense rooted in what has gone before. But quoting is pre-eminently so. It deploys words and voices from the past. Even a report of the most recent of conversations rehearses a prior event, while other wordings go back in actuality or perception for years or centuries. Learning the ’great sayings of the past’ is a recurrent element in the education of the young, and the processes of cultural transmission from one generation to another have not seldom included an obligation to conserve and pass on the words of those before them. Quotations connect to the personages of the past, not just within our families and intimates, but to iconic individuals and symbols of history. Using their words is to associate yourself with an evocative figure of the past.
The words and voices are from the past. But to quote is not only to see them as before and beyond, but to bring them to the present and take them to yourself. It is to insert yourself into the unfolding of history – or of eternity – and lay claim to a part in it.
Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote,
And think they grow immortal as they quotequipped Edward Young (1728, Satire I) – satirically no doubt, but he had a point. Quoting is at once to capture voices from the past into the here and now, and to extend the present into the past – not immortality exactly, but a stride over the gap of chronology, a touch of continuity outside time.
The conjunction of far and near also comes out in the distancing dimension inherent in quotation. We call on text or voice outside the self, beyond the ephemeral interests of the passing moment. Here is an external voice to which the speaker or reader of the moment conjoins their own, endowing it with the aura and tone of the other. They put another perspective on some situation – the voice of revered authority, of some universal human dilemma, of the truth in proverb, of some recollected voice – and in doing so venture to bring that outside vision to themselves. Quoting can give speaker and listener a stance outside the quoted words, looking in from the outside. Here, some would say, is that key act of objectifying that enabled the scientific revolution or, for others, the great commentaries on literary and religious texts or the enduring human power to see themselves from the outside. Here too lie the possibilities of parody, of mockery, of critique, contemplation, challenge. Chunks of words can be isolated – more, or less – away from the flow of action, set up for reflection or play, detached from the speaking or writing self.
Putting matters into perspective, the discussions so far have manifoldly illustrated that quotation is central to cultural learning and transmission, whereby humans and animals within and between groups, societies or cultures learn, relay and share information via their ability and willingness to quote and be quoted. In every practical sense, and for all intents and purposes, quotations are indispensable linking devices providing all and sundry with readymade ingredients, encapsulated ideas, potent expressions and fertile repertoires to draw inspirations from, and make connections amongst, works and peoples across diverse platforms, media, genres, disciplines, cultures and social backgrounds. Thus, quotations can be understood as an essential category of knowledge acquisition and presentation with the ideas and insights of anybody, anytime and anywhere, online and offline. When used properly, quotations are reliable mouthpieces and focussed conduits for highlighting a wealth of information or inspirations with the desired precision and potency. To engage with fine quotations is to search and spotlight some extraordinary gems of ideas or certain meaningful constellations of insights at their most pithy and piquant around particular topics or issues about which we care enough to stake our reputations in restating them via our talks, texts and thoughts, and even in living by them via our social lives, allowing them to frame our ways of knowing and learning, of presenting and expressing ourselves, of being mindful agencies and reflexive citizens in the world. Quotations are indeed the appurtenances of communications as well as the trappings of oral and written cultures, providing the means for excerpting, abstracting or telescoping; for showcasing, targeting or extending ideas; for modelling or imitating styles and contents; for transmitting or transplanting the quoted materials through time and space; and for demonstrating the validity or applicability of a quotee’s work or view documented in the past, to be (re)introduced or (re)considered in the context of the present via the quotational mechanism of restating, reprising, reclaiming, reinvigorating, reinterpreting or re-envisioning.
As a further illustration of the many-splendoured nature of quotation, the case below exemplifies the emotional delights, titillating prospects, risk-reward justifications, opportunistic explorations, pick-and-choose satisfactions, and strategic evaluations, both resulting from and created by our manifold associations and relationships with quotable materials, or rather, our varied approaches and reactions to making and using quotations, the creative process of which is introduced and elaborated enthusiastically at A Quiver Of Quotes as follows, where in its most heightened form may even arouse frisson or aesthetic chills in the quoter who concurrently experiences psychophysiological excitement involving paresthesia (skin tingling), piloerection (goose bumps) or mydriasis (pupil dilation):
We live by cultural conventions and social norms, by the promises we give and are given, by the rules of nature. When they are broken, we know, because we can quote the particular article of faith that has been broken.
“I said … ”
“You said … ”
“He said … She said … ”
“It said …”But what makes a statement worth quoting?
That it conveys meaning or information, that it is memorable or ingenious, that it is pretty, pithy, or that it pierces the very heart of some—any—truth.
There are quotes, good quotes, and better ones. Their quality is defined by the influence they wield over the reader or listener. If they make you break out in goosebumps, or marvel at a turn of phrase, or think—they’re probably quotes that made you quiver inside for a moment. And those might be worth dissecting to see what lies at their core, what figure of speech, what trick of the linguistic trade.
For why not? Everyone who can use language, can also use it a bit more effectively. Crafting quotes is for writers and speakers, sure, but aren’t we all writers of our own lives and speakers of our own stories?
The resoundingly positive endorsement towards the use of “quotes, good quotes, and better ones” on account of “the influence [that] they wield over the reader or listener” is also similarly echoed by Reverend Doctor Robert C Stroud (also known as Robert Charlesson), who provides five admirably convincing reasons in his post entitled Using Quotations in Your Writing to answer his own questions “Do you consider quotations good or bad? As a reader, do you think quotations enhance what you are reading . . . or do they detract from the text?”:
My personal opinion is that the educated use of quotations enriches writing. (Sloppy quotation is another matter.) Positive contributions made by quotes would include:
They can offer “authoritative” support of a point being made by the writer.
Quotations can offer a refreshing change of pace in a lengthy work.
The selection of the individuals quoted gives me insight into the mind of the current writer.
A well-chosen epigraph piques my curiosity about the chapter which follows.
And, frankly, I simply enjoy a brilliant turn of phrase or a timeless but fresh insight.
Such reasons are also both similar and desirable in the domains of design, the visual arts or the spatial arts, where visual quotations by means of visual representations, images and photographs ranging from simple juxtaposition, collage and assemblage to graphic illustration and digital manipulation are commonplace. Four reasons for the inclusion of visual quotations are identified by Mic L Porter in discussing a pragmatic approach to “misrepresentation and visual quotation in design and art”:
- To offer general orientation, and mood setting for the reader. These quotations are often found at the start of sections and article or book chapters and have been selected to influence the framing of the material that follows.
- To provide the material that will be the subject of comment and/or academic criticism. This is fundamental to many articles and assignments in humanities; how might a poet be considered without specific reference to, and illustrations of, their work?
- To acknowledge the work of authorities in the subject that either support the viewpoint of the author or upon which a new argument or concept is to be grounded. Establishing prior art and then developing the new is fundamental to progress in scientific and technological matters.
- Adornment applied to a work to enhance beauty; perhaps imply erudition and reading with the intention to spice up the work and to promote favourable response within the reader.
Somewhat ironically, the ubiquity of quotations is capable of betraying, confounding and obfuscating their importance as well as their costs. As useful and tempting as quotations can and have become in our lives and stories, we should neither be blasé nor blind towards the risks, threats, potentials and opportunities resulting from, or afforded by, quotations. There can be plenty of issues and caveats to uncover and heed whenever we make or partake in a quotation by reproducing a passage from a book or author, repeating a statement by a person, or citing a specified entity as the source of a statement. These issues and caveats are collectively identified and discussed in the Quotation Fallacy, a coinage of SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ. Being as enjoyable to read as it is edifying to digest, the thoroughgoing revelation or radical reckoning attained from the detailed study of the Quotation Fallacy can constitute excellent food for thought as well as a splendid guide for living a more examined life, as one proceeds to be a wiser and more discerning quoter who is capable of being sufficiently critical or appreciably methodical in recognizing and fostering quotational excellence whilst sharpening one’s quotational intelligence.
Paying good attention to the Quotation Fallacy puts us on the path of being competent evaluators of the quality, authenticity, validity and reliability of quotations by increasing our skill and motivation for uncovering whether a quotation is a Bogus Quote (fabricated and falsely attributed), Misattribution (attributed to the wrong person), Misquote (garbled but similar to what the quotee actually stated), Mistranslation (garbled in translation), or Contextomy (a selective excerpting of words, phrases or sentences from their original linguistic context in a way that alters or distorts the source’s intended meaning — a practice commonly called “quoting out of context”).
An apposite understanding of the Quotation Fallacy can also assist us in recognizing overt or hidden flaws in quotations, which can often lead us astray with various sorts of Formal Fallacy, error in logical form or structure (also called Logical Fallacy, Deductive Fallacy or Non Sequitur), and Informal Fallacy, error in content or reasoning (also called Relevance Fallacy, Conceptual Fallacy or Soundness Fallacy). Detecting and identifying such fallacies are essential in determining whether a quotation in question contains any claim or argument that is Fallacious (based on a mistaken belief), Biased (unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something), Misleading (giving the wrong idea or impression), or Misguided (having faulty judgement or reasoning).
Accordingly, a decent understanding of the Quotation Fallacy can facilitate our acquiring the cognitive tools and intellectual acumen necessary to recognize the errors or defects propagated in quotations and statements from numerous sources, including the media, academia, luminaries, dignitaries, celebrities, ideologues, politicians, pundits, stakeholders, advertisers, influencers, Internet users and bloggers, particularly in the era of post-truth politics, fake news, personal attacks (including ad hominem, damaging quotations, trolling and flaming), misquotations, misinformation, disinformation, misrepresentation, sensationalism, alternative facts, false reality, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, yellow journalism, astroturfing, historical negationism and anti-intellectualism, numerous instances of which seem to be intractably stoking our partial or utter ignorance as well as growingly courting our emotional drives, biased attitudes, cardinal urges, primal impulses and tribal instincts. The more we commit the Quotation Fallacy, the less we possess quotational intelligence, and the more easily we can be convinced or manipulated to defend, support or purvey the interests, beliefs, agendas and actions of those who propagate problematic quotations or statements.
Even though our use of quotations may have started out of personal or professional interest and expression, the detailed explorations and analytical forays into the Quotation Fallacy facilitate much deeper insights into our many otherwise unexamined behavioural patterns and thinking styles involving various tacit assumptions and faulty reasonings, so that we can triangulate these insights with what we already know and do well to surmount ingrained biases and flawed judgements, to improve our experience and deployment of quotations, and to contribute to developing or practising a superior repertoire of fine quotes.
Moreover, in an age where many regions of the world are severely beset with environmental destruction, socioeconomic turmoil, political corruption, rampant discrimination, ubiquitous misinformation, widespread inequality and even systematic persecution, there is indeed a heightened urgency that our voices along with those of concerned citizens be heard and heeded, as Michael Reynoso has so eloquently expressed as follows:
Our voice is what we have to say to the world. So, make it worth hearing!
Having a voice is something that wants to get out of us. It’s a feeling that you would not have fully lived, without letting the world know.
Our voice is in fact, our contribution to mankind.
Our Voice Matters
Our very own words and our cherished quotations are the fundaments of our voices. Yet, we must endeavour to never lose sight of the cardinal fact that how our voices are (liable to) being (mis)represented and (mis)quoted is also becoming a highly critical matter capable of affecting our lives with various challenges and repercussions ranging from the positively transformative to the negatively disruptive, as we navigate through the trials and tribulations of an increasingly troubling age, the numerous issues of which will be teased out in the ensuing discussions. These issues can have significant bearings on matters regarding quotational intelligence, critical consciousness (an in-depth understanding of the world, allowing for the perception and exposure of social and political contradictions as well as taking action against oppression), critical thinking (the rational, sceptical, unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence), community psychology (with respect to understanding and enhancing the quality of life of individuals within groups, organizations, institutions, communities and society through collaborative research and action), and sociopolitical development (defined as “the process by which individuals acquire the knowledge, analytical skills, emotional faculties, and the capacity for action in political and social systems necessary to interpret and resist oppression.… [it] is vital to human development and the creation of a just society”).
To those who are more academically inclined, intellectually curious, philosophically motivated or existentially driven, this very expansive post explicating the Quotation Fallacy and all its corollaries may serve well as “a valuable text for a critical thinking class”, according to Professor Hugh Mercer Curtler, “a retired academic who taught philosophy and Humanities (Great Books) for 41 years in three different colleges and universities”. For those who are also vocationally minded, the usefulness and practicality of understanding the Quotation Fallacy can reach far beyond the walls of academia in relation to meeting career demands and facing upcoming challenges in the job market, considering that critical thinking is listed by the World Economic Forum in its Executive Summary of 2016 entitled “The Future of Jobs: Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” as the second of the top ten skills required to thrive in 2020 and beyond, when the market demand for higher cognitive abilities with respect to creativity, reasoning, problem solving and social skills will significantly increase. Even though technological enhancements have brought more and more automations to routine technical tasks such as bookkeeping and operating machinery, many business and service sectors as well as high-level tasks ranging from strategic planning to research and (technological) development activities are increasingly reliant on critical thinking, emotional intelligence and problem solving skills in their staff to analyse, comprehend and act on information and operations provided by technologies, particularly when the rapidly changing workforce, gig economy, globalization, demographic shifts, digital communications and online commerce have ushered in not merely a much broader clientele and wide-ranging competition from different geographical and cultural backgrounds, but also growingly complex or ambiguous scenarios giving rise to problems whose satisfactory solutions require an ample supply and coordinated deployment of the following soft skills, many if not all of which are deemed to be sine qua nons for employability and success in life.
|
 Food for Thought and Veg for Critical Thinking
|
In addition, presented in style at the end of this post is a collection of inspirational and thought-provoking quotes chosen for you by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ. By now, you would have realized that this comprehensive post might first appear to some readers to be dealing with the pitfalls of quotation as people navigate through the process or action of quoting, and with the rather wanton, problematic and indiscriminating ways in which many people use and share quotes. For those readers who persist in perusing the post in its entirety, what ultimately appears at the end of the tunnel of this well-formatted, book-length post entitled The Quotation Fallacy “💬” is the transformative spirit of, and the dogged quest for, critical thinking, in the aim of living a more examined life and cultivating a more sagacious mind, even in the midst of situations, cultures or societies where critical thinkers are unwelcome, misunderstood or persecuted. Ultimately, the litmus test and sustained validation of the profundity, influence and resonance of even the choicest quotations or statements come not from the passive words, authoritative ideas and prescriptive passages in time-honoured scriptures, pedagogical disquisitions, philosophical monographs and academic treatises, but from the active embodiments and critical engagements of our knowledge, insight, wisdom and humanity as experienced and expressed dynamically via our very own quotational intelligence throughout the course of our lives, for we are the living conduits through which quotations may come alive, as we appreciate or (re)create quotational excellence within a certain page, stage, speech, canvas, music, gesture, performance, ritual, narrative or tradition via the processes entailed in communication, research, knowledge transfer, habitus (socially ingrained habits, skills and dispositions acquired through imitation (mimesis)), mimesis (imitative representation using analogies), prosopopoeia (impersonation or personification), Dionysian imitatio (the rhetorical practice of emulating, adapting, reworking and enriching a source text by an earlier author), imitation (an individual observes and replicates another’s behaviour), representation (the use of signs that stand in for and take the place of something else), appropriation (the process of constructing knowledge from social and cultural sources, and integrating it into pre-existing schemas), (re)interpretation, (re)signification, (re)contextualization, the act of expression, the act of resembling, and the presentation of the self (impression management or self-presentation), all of which are creative avenues and adaptive modalities enriching and interpenetrating our lives via our vast arrays of quotational enactment, wherein our best moments can be vividly expressed and captured in their finest details as living epitomes and quotable exemplars.
Many quotes have reached us in the present from the distant past. For example, the first quote 疾風知勁草 昏日辨誠臣 勇夫安識義 智者必懷仁 as presented below is a Chinese poem that has existed for more than one thousand and three hundred years, and is available in several variations. The poem is reputed to be written by Emperor Taizong of Tang 唐太宗 (28 January 598 – 10 July 649), previously Prince of Qin, personal name Li Shimin (李世民), postumous names Wen Huangdi (文皇帝) and Wen Wu Dasheng Daguang Xiao Huangdi (文武大聖大廣孝皇帝). He was the second emperor of the Tang dynasty (唐朝) of China, ruling from 626 to 649. Also known as a politician, (military) strategist and poet, he has been deemed as one of the greatest emperors in China to the extent that his reign became the exemplary model against which all future emperors were benchmarked. Known as the “Reign of Zhenguan” (貞觀之治), his era is regarded as a golden age in ancient Chinese history and was treated as required study and reference material for future crown princes. Emperor Taizong continued to develop imperial examination systems, and asked his officers to be loyal and true to the policies, not the people, so as to eliminate corruption.
This poem functions as the emperor’s approbation of the upright character of Xiao Yu 蕭瑀 (574 – 647), courtesy name Shiwen (時文) and posthumously known as Duke Zhenbian of Song (宋貞褊公), who served the emperor either as a chancellor or in other designated roles six times and was dismissed six times before being chosen by the emperor in 643 to become one of the 24 dignitaries of Lingyan Pavilion (凌煙閣) commemorated with life-size portraits for their meritorious services and contributions to the Tang empire. Apart from enduring repeated recruitments and dismissals by several emperors under whom he served justly and faithfully, Xiao Yu not only had the courage and perseverance throughout his careers to advise, persuade and admonish those emperors without fear or favour, but also had surrendered and dedicated his own lands, real estates and military power without hesitation to Emperor Gaozu of Tang 唐高祖, the founder of the Tang dynasty. Such an upright and incorruptible character as embodied by the honourable deeds as well as the scrupulous dedication and unflinching sacrifices of Xiao Yu is patently worthy of being immortalized by the poem. In light of the frequency and prevalence of social turmoils and gross injustices caused by official misconduct as exemplified by egregious cases of malpractice and malfeasance in the business, financial and political spheres in various countries and regions across the contemporary world, the potent messages borne by this seventh-century poem have gained even more gravity and relevance in the twenty-first century. Visit the post entitled “💨 Strong Wind Knows Tough Grass 🌾 疾風知勁草” to learn more about the poem.
疾 風 知 勁 草However, quoting the poem and attributing the authorship to Emperor Taizong is somewhat problematic because the first line of the poem, “ 疾 風 知 勁 草 ”, literally meaning “ Strong wind knows tough grass. ”, already existed as an idiom (a phrase or expression with a figurative, non-literal meaning) as early as 23 AD, supposedly conceived by Emperor Guangwu 光武帝 (15 January 5 BC – 29 March 57 AD) of the Han dynasty (漢朝). It can be translated more freely and meaningfully into less literal but more idiomatic English prose as “The storm puts strong grass to the test.”, conveying that one’s true colours are revealed after a severe or daunting test. The second line, “ 昏 日 辨 誠 臣 ”, literally means “ Dusky day recognizes honest statesmen. ”, signifying that one’s integrity is tested during gloomy, turbulent times. The third line, “ 勇 夫 安 識 義 ”, rhetorically asks “ How can brave men ever know rectitude? ”, declaring that one’s sense of justice and morality is beyond mere bravery. The last line, “ 智 者 必 懷 仁 ”, states “ Wise persons must possess kindness. ”, indicating that wisdom and compassion go hand in hand.
The first half of the poem begins with a metaphorical proclamation that only the grass that can withstand the force of an intense gale is truly known to be strong. It then intimates that only in times of sociopolitical turmoil can a person in office be identified as a loyal minister or an honest statesman. The second half of the poem asserts with a rhetorical question that people who exercise courage without wisdom are just brave men who do not know righteousness at all. It concludes that only those who are both wise and brave can truly possess benevolence and righteousness, for they have genuinely comprehended what kindness and justice are. The whole poem edifies us that only the strong and sincere can bear hardship and turmoil; and that only the wise and valiant can know righteousness and cherish benevolence.
Considering that the quoted poem comes in at least two variations (one of which has “ 板 蕩 識 誠 臣 ” as the second line), and given that its first line, “ 疾 風 知 勁 草 ”, is a figurative idiom that already existed roughly at the start of the first millennium, more than 600 years before the poem was written, one is left with some trepidation about specifying the pedigree or provenance of a quotation, which in this case happens to be an ancient Chinese poem presenting the issue of partial indeterminacy or circumscribed accuracy of its origin(s) and authorship(s) to any quoter who wishes to credit the quotee with total precision or unequivocal fidelity. Another issue incurred by such a quotation is the challenge posed by translating idioms, where a literal word-by-word translation of an opaque, abstruse or inscrutable idiom will most probably fail to convey the same meaning in other languages. Indeed, any quotation presented with misattribution (attributed to the wrong person) or mistranslation (garbled in translation) qualifies as a misquotation.
The second quote shown below is not only as ancient as the Roman Empire but also indeterminate as to its true source. Even though it has been credited to Marcus Aurelius, a practitioner of Stoicism who became Roman emperor from 161 AD to 180 AD, there are contentions as to its authenticity and authorship due to unresolved historical inconsistencies.
Live a good life.
If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
For those who are interested, please read Fabricated Marcus Aurelius Quote and Did Marcus Aurelius say “Live a good life”?. Perhaps one could indeed take George Mikes more seriously when the Hungarian-born British writer, journalist and humourist uttered: “I have made it a rule that whenever I say something stupid, I immediately attribute it to Dr Johnson, Marcus Aurelius or Dorothy Parker.”
Likewise, according to Wikipedia: “Many quotations are routinely incorrect or attributed to the wrong authors, and quotations from obscure or unknown writers are often attributed to far more famous writers. Examples of this are Winston Churchill, to whom many political quotations of uncertain origin are attributed, and Oscar Wilde, to whom anonymous humorous quotations are sometimes attributed.” The more prominent a person or entity, oeuvre or canon, story or legend, and news or data, the more likely and frequent that they will be quoted, misquoted or misattributed. The history of quotation has been littered with misquotations, many of which have pulled the wool over our eyes as to the true origins of many familiar sayings and famous lines. A quotation (mis)attributed to a famous person, leader or even deity not only commands more attention and credibility but also confers a decent impression and reflected prestige on the quoter, who is momentarily linked to the idea, ethos or spirit of the quotee. People’s desire or incentive to be associated with distinguished persons or entities, esteemed oeuvres or canons, remarkable stories or legends, and noteworthy news or data, has been injecting increasingly greater uncertainties into the provenance of diverse quotations. One can hardly conceive of another more expedient and straightforward way of being in the good company of some eminent characters or historical figures than appearing to know their finest statements and quotable sentences by heart, especially when there will be scarcely any negative sanctions or repercussions for doing so, and when the true import and intrinsic value of a quotation are subordinate to the imputed prestige of the quotee as well as the underlying intent and the derived satisfaction of the quoter. Indeed, there continues to be a prolonged state of quotational affair with renowned public figures in human societies across the world throughout many eras, as Ruth Finnegan sums up in her book entitled “Why Do We Quote? The Culture and History of Quotation” this widespread phenomenon interminably stoking misattributions for the sake of quoting larger than life and pandering to the iconic:
… Confucius, Shakespeare, Mao, Churchill, Roosevelt, Marx or, in earlier times and to an extent now too, St Augustine, Cicero, Virgil or Plato – these are among the personages widely acclaimed as quotable. After all, ’People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first’ as David Comins put it, and, depending of course on the particular situation, it always sounds acceptable to attribute a quotation to, say, Gandhi, Aristotle, Mark Twain, or, of course – and specially in memorial or family occasions – ’my grandmother’.…
It is striking how readily certain revered personages have attracted quotations to themselves. We have all doubtless encountered claims like ’My mother always said…’, or ’To quote my late boss…’ without necessarily taking them too literally. For personages in the public domain it goes further. The evocative ’If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’, regularly ascribed to Isaac Newton, had notable precursors in ancient sources (unpacked in Merton 1965), just as many of Benjamin Franklin’s famous aphorisms were lifted from others: ’The only thing we have to fear is fear itself’ had already been said in more or less the same words by Montaigne in 1580, Francis Bacon in 1623, the Duke of Wellington in 1832 and Thoreau in 1851 (Pennycock 1996: 208). Such ’misattributions’ will no doubt continue to circulate. They are what these personalities might have said, and there is something appealing about crediting to some named hero sayings that have rung down the ages. They are the personalities – iconic quoters – who par excellence are categorised as authorised vehicles of quotation.
Having demonstrated the indeterminate origins of the first quote and the second quote, both of which have come to us from antiquity in ancient China and the Roman Empire respectively, let us proceed with examining the extent of the history pertaining to a quote that has emerged in various incarnations much more recently. Before doing so, we should take a proper moment to examine and reflect on the significance and implications of this particular quote. At once pithy and piquant, the third quote intimates that how we take things to be is quite independent of how things really are.
To the extent that our views are coloured by our expectations and upbringings, they have a strong tendency to be personalized or relativized, thus routinely deviating from and becoming at odds with the realities of life and the true nature of things. After all, our perspectives (particular slants, views, prospects or outlooks on things), orientations (basic attitudes, beliefs or feelings regarding certain subjects or issues), frames of reference (how issues or matters are structured and contextualized via a set of criteria or stated values in relation to which measurements or judgements can be made), and points of view (specific attitudes or ways of considering issues or matters) characteristically entail limitations, imperfections, biases, value judgements, opinions, interpretations, assumptions and even speculations or wishful thinking. Whether or not we are aware of and willing to acknowledge the ongoing sociocultural mediations and intrapersonal cognitive distortions separating our subjective reckoning from the objective reality, there is no escaping that we are individually conditioned and compelled to project our views and expectations onto matters through the lenses and filters of our minds and perceptions, often occasioning assorted pitfalls, prejudices and fallacies, as elucidated in the subsequent sections of The Quotation Fallacy “💬”. The anonymous author at Philosophical Epiphany, a “blog [that] revolves around Philosophy, Mind, and Art”, has even gone as far as declaring that “Life is Mostly Imagined”:
Most of the time we are so fanatical with our thinking (in such a ubiquitous manner) that we fail to realize our relentless thinking. Nearly all of our perceptions are contaminated by our beliefs, expectations, inclinations, and biases. At times, this perceptual contamination prevents us from interacting with the world as it is in itself. More often than not, we struggle to perceive our environment without infecting the objective reality with our naive attributions.
Evolutionary theories suggest that we rely on inherent biases and stereotypes to interact more efficiently with our daily encounters. Piaget’s assimilation model as well as Le Châtelier’s principle in chemistry may be stretched to encompass this philosophical dimension: When met by a novel experience, our mind will endeavor to alleviate the stress via ‘experience-integration’ under pre-existing categories. In addition, Piaget suggests that when impressions do not fit into an ideological meadow, we begin to accommodate the data by fostering a new cognitive faction. However, note that accommodation will evidently stem from our concealed prejudice, beliefs, upbringing, desire, and inclinations of the world.
[E]xorbitant over-analysis of the world causes objectivity to suffocate in a sea of biased subjectivity; successively, tainting the authenticity of the world as it presents itself to us. Furthermore, overlaying the manifestations of the world with ‘biased’ attributions contributes to an aberrant imagination.
We ought to change the ideas in our mind to unveil the true realities of the world
Being so pithy and striking as to warrant further investigation of its import, the quotation “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.” is akin to the saying “Truth is in the eye of the beholder.” Moreover, it can be comfortably encapsulated by the idea of a reality tunnel, a sort of representative realism coined by Timothy Francis Leary, who propounded the notion that people invariably view things and interpret them differently as a result of their respective beliefs and experiences creating a set of subconscious mental filters which mediate or colour their perception and understanding of the(ir) world, their encounters and their surroundings. The far-reaching ramifications of these filters for which there is still no universally applicable and satisfactory solution is elucidated by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ’s verbatim transcript of the following two-minute passage of what his close associate and co-author, Robert Anton Wilson, said in the ensuing video:
Long before quantum mechanics, the German philosopher, Husserl, said that, “All perception is gamble.” Every type of bigotry, every type of racism, sexism, prejudice, every dogmatic ideology that allows people to kill other people with a clear conscience, every stupid cult, every superstition, written religion, every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles.
We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don’t even know [that] we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think [that] this is reality. In philosophy that is called naïve realism: what I perceive is reality. And philosophers have refuted naïve realism every century for the last twenty-five hundred years, starting with Buddha and Plato. And yet most people still act on the basis of naive realism.
Now the argument is [that] maybe my perceptions are inaccurate, but somewhere there is accuracy. The scientists have it with their instruments. That’s how we can find out what’s really real. But relativity and quantum mechanics have demonstrated clearly that what you find out with instruments is true relative only to the instrument [that] you are using and where that instrument is located in spacetime. So there is no vantage point from which real reality can be seen — we are all looking from the point of our own reality tunnels. And when we begin to realize that we are all looking from the point of view of our own reality tunnels, we find [that] it is much easier to understand where other people are coming from. Or the ones who don’t have the same reality tunnels as us do not seem ignorant or deliberately perverse or lying or hypnotized by some mad ideology. They just have a different reality tunnel, and every reality tunnel might tell us something interesting about our world, if we are willing to listen.
The definite origin or actual provenance of the third quote as seen above, namely “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.”, is equally indeterminate if not even more so than the previous two, for the pedigree of the quote cannot be traced and attributed decisively to a single quotee or definitive source. Instances as well as precursors and variants of this often quoted adage, maxim or saying have appeared in various works and publications since the beginning of the nineteenth century, as revealed by Quote Investigator and summarized by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ with amendments and hyperlinks as follows:
- An instance of the adage was deployed by Anaïs Nin (a French-Cuban American diarist, essayist, novelist and writer of short stories and erotica) in her 1961 work “Seduction of the Minotaur” where the character “Lillian was reminded of the talmudic words”. [Page 124, sixth printing in 1972]: “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
- A thematic precursor to the adage appears in the 1801 sermon by an English wit, writer and Anglican cleric, Reverend Sydney Smith, published by the University of Oxford, Second Edition, Volume 1 of 2, “On the Predisposing Causes to the Reception of Republican Opinions”. [Page 104]: “not as the truth of things is, but as we are ourselves.”
- Another instance of the adage can be found in a Danish-to-English translation of the 1876 “Nicolai’s Marriage: A Picture of Danish Family Life” by a Danish theologian, professor and author, Carl Henrik Scharling, who credited the influential Prussian German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, as the source, though the quote has yet to be located in the writings of Kant by Quote Investigator. [Volume 2 of 2, Page 211]: “we see things not as they are, but as we are.”
- The adage is quoted as an epigraph in a 2006 article entitled “How We See Sharon–and Israel” by religious minister Marc Gellman for Newsweek Web Exclusive in Newsweek magazine, where the quoted adage is the result of a loose English translation of a comment from a section within the Talmudic tractate Berakhot (folio 55b) concerning the interpretation of dreams. “We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.”
- Two original statements containing the gist of the adage can be located within the domain of dream analysis from the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth, Folio 55b, translated into English by Maurice Simon under the editorship of Rabbi Dr Isidore Epstein. According to this Talmudic notion of dream analysis, since people can only dream about things that they have come across or thought about, their dreams thus comprise or constitute not reality but a version filtered through the lens and scope of their experiences. “…to each man according to his dream he did interpret.” and “A man is shown in a dream only what is suggested by his own thoughts…”
- A version of the adage is printed in a March 1890 article entitled “The Psychology of Prejudice” by writer George Thomas White Patrick, who published it in “The Popular Science Monthly”. In June of the same year, an excerpt from the article was reprinted in “Current Literature, Random Reading–Current Thought and Opinion”. [Pages 634 and 440 respectively]: “We see things not as they are but as we are…”
- A variant of the adage was used by a Harvard College instructor of elocution, Samuel Silas Curry, in his 1891 textbook entitled “The Province of Expression: A Search for Principles Underlying Adequate Methods of Developing Dramatic and Oratoric Delivery”. [Page 392]: “we do not see things as they are, but as we are ourselves.”
- Another form of the adage can be witnessed in the 1914 newspaper column presenting homilies (as religious discourses intended mainly for spiritual edifications rather than doctrinal instructions) in Column 4, Jersey City, New Jersey (GenealogyBank) on 8th June for “Jersey Journal, Christian Endeavor Activities”. [Page 8]: “we see things not as they are but as we are.”
- A different variation of the adage can be seen in a tale called “The Gift” by a British writer and journalist, Henry Major Tomlinson, in his 1931 collection of short stories entitled “Out of Soundings”. [Page 149]: “We see things not as they are, but as we are ourselves.”
- Another variation of the adage was stumbled upon by Dr Joseph Garriso, a columnist writing for Column 2 titled “A Happening: We Only See As We Are” on 17 January 1970 in “The Greensboro Record” newspaper of North Carolina. Garriso claimed that he saw the saying penciled on a bookmarked page in a friend’s book, and that he did not know “[w]hether this was original or a quotation”. [Page A7k]: “We never see anything as it is, but as we are.”
- A slight variation of the adage was deployed by Dennis Kimbro (a tireless educator, public speaker and business consultant) and Napoleon Hill (a lecturer, author and consultant to business leaders) in their 1991 famous self-help book entitled “Think and Grow Rich: A Black Choice and Daily Motivations for African-American Success” written for black Americans. [Page 245]: “we see things not as they are but as we are.”
- Two instances of the adage have been used without any attribution by an American educator, businessman, motivational author and keynote speaker, Stephen Richards Covey, in his 2004 book entitled “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change”. [Page 28 or 36 depending on the edition]: “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are” and [a variant form on Page 277 or 289 depending on the edition]: “all people see the world, not as it is, but as they are.”
Until concrete, demonstrative evidence about the precise origin and evolution of this relatively familiar and somewhat thought-provoking adage, maxim or saying can be obtained from further research or future discoveries, one must conclude in the meantime that the author or source of the expression that has come to be more or less recognized in the form as “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.” should be designated as Anonymous or Unknown, even though the expression has been found, cited, stated, quoted, credited, translated, epigraphed, referenced and even handwritten, in one variant or the other, by Anaïs Nin, Sydney Smith, Carl Henrik Scharling, Marc Gellman, Berakoth in the Babylonian Talmud, newspaper columns, George Thomas White Patrick, Immanuel Kant, Samuel Silas Curry, Dennis Kimbro, Napoleon Hill, Stephen Richards Covey, and possibly more yet to be uncovered and attributed. It is indeed a very sobering affair that even wielding a fine scalpel with such a commanding degree of forensic diligence and investigative precision has yet to yield a definitive genesis of the adage, maxim or saying. Nevertheless, the process of conducting “quotational etymology” has so far managed to shed some light on the abovementioned authors and sources, regardless of the extent to which each of them can qualify as a putative, tentative or obscured quotee or quoter within the nexus or constellation of similar-sounding quotes or imperfectly cloned statements accumulating in time from the 1800s (if not even earlier) to the present and well into the future, as the adage, maxim or saying continues to be quoted verbatim or replicated with variations.
Likewise, the quotation “I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” has continued to be misattributed to George Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Cyrus Stuart Ching, J Frank Condon, Richard P Calhoon, N H Eagle, Cale Yarborough and others, although the claims of origin have seldom been commensurately verified or adequately challenged, and the provenance of the quotation has yet to be collaborated or substantiated by any solid evidence that directly connects the alleged quotee to the quotation. Even a common source for locating the origins of certain quotations such as Wikiquote merely designates the quotation as being unsourced. Nevertheless, an extensive trace mounted by Quote Investigator reveals a rich tapestry of what seems to have become a popular metaphorical adage in the form of “Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get filthy and the pig likes it.” or “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.”, along with listing chronologically various instances of the quotation undergoing transformation or adaptation. According to the following excerpt from Quote Investigator (QI), the quotation approximating its modern form is conceivably traceable to an unnamed relative of Cyrus Stuart Ching around the mid-20th century:
Quote Investigator: QI has located no substantive evidence that Twain, Lincoln, or Shaw crafted this saying. Each was given credit only many years after death.
The adage evolved in a multistep multi-decade process. An interesting precursor was in circulation by 1776. QI has a separate article about that saying: Don’t wrestle with a chimney sweep or you will get covered with grime.
In 1872 a partial match using “hog” instead of “pig” appeared within a letter by J. Frank Condon published in an Ebensburg, Pennsylvania newspaper. Condon was responding to a previous verbal fusillade. Emphasis added to excerpts by QI: 1
It has been remarked by a wise man that he who wrestles with a hog must expect to be spattered with filth, whether he is vanquished or not. This maxim I have long known and appreciated; nevertheless, there are occasions when it must be disregarded. A man may be attacked in such a way that he is compelled to flagellate his hogship, even at the risk of being contaminated by the unclean beast.
The label “maxim” and the phrase “long known” signaled that the saying was not constructed for the letter; instead, it was already in circulation. This simpler adage differed from the modern version because it did not mention the contentment of the swine.
The earliest strong match for the modern saying located by QI appeared in the January 3, 1948 issue of “The Saturday Evening Post” within a profile of Cyrus Stuart Ching who was the head of the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The ellipsis is in the original text: 2
A man in the audience began heckling him with a long series of nasty and irrelevant questions. For a while Ching answered patiently. Finally he held up his big paw and waggled it gently.
“My friend,” he said, “I’m not going to answer any more of your questions. I hope you won’t take this personally, but I am reminded of something my old uncle told me, long ago, back on the farm. He said. ‘What’s the sense of wrestling with a pig? You both get all over muddy . . . and the pig likes it.’”
Ching did not claim coinage; instead, he credited an unnamed uncle who may have been relaying a pre-existing item of folk wisdom. Oddly, another later citation shows Ching crediting his grandfather. Whatever the source, Ching did help to popularize the expression.
Misattributions aside, all of the previous examples also demonstrate that both the form and the origin of a quotation are not always clear-cut or immutable, and that the quotation itself can undergo incarnations and alterations, waxing and waning in popularity depending on usage, circulation and circumstance. In short, the provenance of a quotation cannot be taken for granted, even if its providence (in terms of soundness, usefulness, profundity or edification) is not in question. There can exist precursors and variants regardless of how definitive or authoritative we may (have been led to) believe about a quotation. Consequently, both the quotee and quoter can indeed be regarded as the temporary, if not permanent, chains or links in the existence and evolution of a quotation, as Quotation Mutation unfolds.
The lack of a definitive origin or provenance, the risks of misattributions or misquotations, and the pitfalls of Authority Bias and Author Bias (to be discussed later) necessitate that the Illustrated Quotations featuring Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes in the final section of this post are displayed anonymously with their imports and implications carried by their contents alone, so that readers and admirers of fine quotes can appreciate them without being encumbered, influenced or prejudiced by their own prior knowledge or preconception of the quotees, to whom those quotations, illustrated or otherwise, are likely or even surely to have been misattributed.
Therefore, it is beyond any doubt or contention that there are many issues to consider apart from simply quoting some statements to demonstrate certain points, to the extent that we should strive to beware of how those statements have been quoted, attributed and disseminated to avoid or reduce the risk of misquotations. A misquotation refers to an act, instance or occasion of quoting a person or a source incorrectly or inaccurately; or of attributing a quotation to the wrong author or incorrect source. misquotations can easily lead to quoting out of context (also called contextomy or quote mining) as a result of being misleading in the following ways, as outlined by Gary N Curtis in The Fallacy Files regarding familiar contextomies:
A contextomy is a quote that has been taken out of context in such a way as to create a misleading impression of its meaning. A “familiar contextomy” is a contextomy that finds its way repeatedly into print or conversation, usually to support a particular point.…
- Bogus Quotes: Quotes that have been fabricated and falsely attributed.
- Misattributions: Quotes attributed to the wrong person.
- Misquotes: Garbled quotes that are similar to what the quoted person actually said.
- Mistranslations: Quotes garbled in translation.
As can be deduced from the previous explanations, both misquotation and quoting out of context can be committed deliberately (intentionally) or accidentally (unintentionally), and can result in the compromise, alteration, distortion, falsification or misrepresentation of the meaning and purpose as well as the origin, authenticity, legitimacy, validity, credibility or reliability of a quotation. Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words, phrases or sentences from their original linguistic context in a way that alters or distorts the source’s intended meaning — a practice commonly known as “quoting out of context”. Here, the (problem of) misquotation caused by quoting out of context arises not from the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are subjected to being separated from their sources anyway), but from the quoter’s decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences that together constitute the original “context” that serves to clarify the meanings and intentions behind the quoter’s selected words, phrases or sentences. Overall, quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to alter or distort its intended meaning, thus producing misquotation, misinformation and misrepresentation. On the one hand, quoting out of context or contextomy can be intentionally created to strengthen a case, support an argument, bolster a viewpoint, fortify a stance, persuade specific individuals or mislead certain people, often largely based on or driven by some dubious or questionable position, premise, purpose, motive, agenda or goal. On the other hand, quoting out of context or contextomy can be accidentally produced by someone who misunderstands or misinterprets the quotee’s meaning, or who omits something essential on account of assuming it to be inessential. Regardless of the intent or the lack thereof — as a fallacy — quoting out of context differs from false attribution insofar as the resulting out-of-context quote is still attributed to the correct source. Therefore, verification of the validity, veracity and reliability of a quote by checking (with) its source(s) is both prudent and necessary to identify or deal with misquotation arising from quoting out of context.
An example of misquotation and quoting out of context can be demonstrated as follows:
Original Statement: This has been the best movie that George has watched this year! Of course, it is the only movie watched by George this year.
Quotation or Restatement: George considers the movie to be “the best that he has watched all year”, as long as plot or character development has not been on his radar.
Not only has the Quotation or Restatement failed to capture the context, irony or joke that George has watched only one movie this year, it has also been unfaithful in reproducing the Original Statement, not least in conflating “this year” with “all year”, and inferring or assuming that plot or character development has not been a criterion for his consideration of the quality of the movie.
Having a rather discernible leaning towards journalism, an online resource known as ✔️ocabulary.com provides a straightforward definition and some good examples of what constitutes quoting a person or a piece of spoken or written text inaccurately. Note that the word “misquote” can be both a verb and a noun:
misquote
To misquote someone is to incorrectly repeat the words they’ve said. It’s unethical for a journalist to deliberately misquote the subject of an interview.
It’s extremely common for people to misquote famous figures like Gandhi (who never literally said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”) and Machiavelli (who didn’t exactly say, “The ends justify the means”). These examples can also be called misquotes. As with many words, Shakespeare is credited with being the first to use this combination of mis-, “wrong,” and quote, “repeat or copy out exact words.”
Usage Examples
As discussed later, numerous instances of bogus quotes and misattributions plus other forms of misquotation can be (un)intentionally produced to become novel, catchy or amusing statements, such as anti-proverb (or perverb), malapropism, eggcorn, Yogi-isms and spoonerism or Sreudian flip, the last of which is a whole class of speech errors encapsulated by various quotations that have been concocted and falsely attributed to a person after whom the slip-of-the-tongue condition is named.
Misquotations also apply to quotations that are apocryphal (meaning false, spurious, bad or heretical) in any general context or usage, when such quotations are sourced from, or traced to, apocrypha, which are (usually written) works of doubtful origin or unknown authorship. Originally referring to writings and objects that are hidden, secret, obscure, esoteric, non-canonical, or of questionable value, the adjective apocryphal has come to be used in modern English to refer to any text or story deemed to be of dubious authority or veracity, although the text or story may contain some moral truth. In this broader metaphorical sense, the word apocrypha(l) can indeed suggest a claim — as carried or purveyed by a quotation in question — that is in the nature or parlance of folklore (the expressive body of culture shared by a particular group of people, including customary lore and oral traditions such as tales, proverbs and jokes), factoid (a false statement presented as a fact; a (true but) brief or trivial item of news or information; an item of unreliable information reported or repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact), or urban legend (also called urban myth, urban tale or contemporary legend, a form of modern folklore usually comprising fictional stories, often presented as true, with macabre, humorous, reified, idealized or stereotyped elements rooted in local popular culture for entertainment purposes, or routinely promulgated as semi-serious explanations for random, unsolved, unexplained or intriguing events such as certain conspiracies, mysteries, disappearances and strange objects). As a corollary, the likelihood of committing misquotations can be significantly great(er) when using, making or relaying quotations from such sources, many of which can be as culturally entrenched as they are misleading. Therefore, quoters should be mindful of the circumscribed validity and reliability of folk wisdom, and of the assumptions planted in vernacular rhetoric, belief and mythos. They also need to beware of the amplifying effects of communal reinforcement and herd mentality (also called mob mentality, pack mentality and gang mentality) as well as the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad nauseam, to the extent that if an unfounded premise, claim or belief, be it in the form of folklore, factoid or urban legend, is mentioned and repeated by numerous individuals, then it will (very likely) be erroneously accepted as the truth — the result of confusing or conflating its justification with its widespread acceptance, especially in the absence of sufficient empirical evidence, corroborative data, demonstrative proof, systematic test, methodical research or scientific verification.
Folklore, factoid and urban legend aside, the everyday life of our hyperconnected environment characterized by the widespread and habitual use of phones and smart devices that have Internet connectivity has enabled quotations to be sourced from texts, images, soundbytes, news and real-time events on various digital platforms, and to be disseminated by users on social media and messaging apps with ease and impunity. In such an environment, misquotation has even been (mis)used by quotees as a tool or strategy to gain publicity, or as an excuse or cover for dodging certain responsibilities, accountabilities or consequences resulting from their actions or statements, by citing that their perceived, alleged or putative disreputes, infamies, misdeeds or transgressions are solely or partly the intentional or unintentional outcomes of quoters misquoting them in certain ways, irrespective of whether such quotees should not have been quoted at all in the first place, and regardless of whether they have been quoted against their wish or without their permission. SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ thereby coins the term Appeal to Misquotation to explain social tactics or human behaviours that engage or exploit misquotation to produce a certain publicity stunt, insincere claim, poor defence, inane apology, deceptive pretext or invalid argument. A descriptive explanation of misquotation falling within the purview of Appeal to Misquotation can be found at encyclopedia.com as follows:
Until the 20c, quotation was largely from written and printed sources; in recent decades, however, quotations have increasingly been taken from live performance, especially speeches and interviews, the taking of excerpts being done in shorthand or, more recently still, with the help of tape recorders. As a result, ‘quotees’ are increasingly aware of the risks of being misquoted or may take refuge from the consequences of what they have said by claiming that they were misquoted. People in the public eye may seek to establish ground rules for interviews and statements to the media: these range from the more informal Don’t quote me (on this) to the more formal This is off the record and perhaps the requirement that a statement be unattributed, except perhaps to ‘a usually reliable source’. Such requirements may or may not be respected; they may or may not even be meant to be respected, but intended instead to serve as an indirect way of gaining publicity.
Regarding the origin or authenticity of a quotation spread by any person, entity or media, including files, archives, books, magazines, newspapers, emails, text messages, blog posts and social media, in general, it is not always possible to determine or evaluate the accuracy of the source of a quote and the contexts in which the quote is created and used by the author or by other people. This limitation remains valid even when one has the luxury of consulting a database of quotations or an encyclopedia of quotes, where misquotations, if present, can spread rapidly due to the large number of online users relying on the database or encyclopedia on a daily basis. Edmark M Law describes the predicament of ascertaining the authenticity of a quote’s origin in a comment addressed to SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ as follows:
The origins of lots of quotations are difficult to pinpoint. People like to attribute clever quotes to Einstein, Twain, Wilde, etc. since this would look better than attributing them to some unknown nobody. Even authoritative sources like Oxford and Bartlett’s contain a large number of mistakes. Quote Investigator (a website) is rather good since it tries to track down the origin of the quotes they investigate. Unfortunately, I have also found some errors there.
The biggest source of misinformation regarding quotes (and their origins) today is, of course, the Internet. You can find a huge number of misquotations and misattributions in social media and “quotes” websites[.]
That’s why when I post quotes, I seldom use a “Quote” book or website as a reference. Normally, when I find an interesting passage from a book that I read, I’d quote it. Sometimes, when I see an interesting quote from a quote book, I try my best to find the original source. If I can’t find the original source, then I most likely won’t post it.
It is indeed a bitter irony that the supposed benefits conferred by the ascendency and convenience of the World Wide Web providing a vast digital information space containing documents and other web resources have also resulted in the dissemination of countless concocted materials and quoted texts of dubious origins and citations, such that the clear signals of quotations have become increasingly muddied by the noises of misquotations and sullied by the clamours of injudicious quotational deployments by a large number of Internet users and media consumers during the course of interacting with websites, reading (electronic) books and magazines, watching news and videos, and listening to radio and podcasts. As a result, the authenticity, the original context and the true source of a quotation can no longer be automatically guaranteed or easily established unless one exercises further checks against multiple reputable sources, or by other dependable means of authentication. As a contributing writer for The New Yorker, and the author of The Confidence Game and Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes, Maria Konnikova attributes the prolonged and intractable mess of misquotations to the tendency of the human cognitive apparatus to abbreviate reality and simplify sensory data, filtering them with habits and preconceptions, as well as approximating them according to previous experiences, all in the service of easy comprehension and recall. She also links misquotations to memory errors, typos, misprints and negligence, resulting in successive accumulations and propagations of quotational deviations. SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ hereby coins the term Quotation Mutation to refer to the change, whether one-off or accumulative, gradual or sudden, in a hitherto verbatim quotation caused by any intentional or unintentional human error (such as memory lapse, speech error, typo, miscopy, misprint, misattribution, mistranslation, mishearing, misinterpretation or negligence), resulting in a variant form that coexists with the original or eventually eclipses, usurps or replaces it. Furthermore, the forms of speech error include anti-proverb (also called perverb), malapropism, eggcorn, Yogi-isms, and spoonerism (also known as Sreudian flip), all of which are explained in great detail later. The upshot of Quotation Mutation is that pithy and catchy misquotations are more likely to be remembered and circulated than their unadulterated counterparts, creating a snowballing effect, which is further amplified by the replicating and disseminating power of social media and messaging apps on the Internet. The following excerpt from Maria Konnikova’s article entitled “‘Beam Us Up, Mr. Scott!’: Why Misquotations Catch On” presents the gist of her explanations for the longevity and prevalence of misquotations.
But in the modern age, where basically everything is track-downable, what’s our excuse? Why do misquotes arise—and why are they so persistent and hard to eradicate?
The persistence part is simple, especially with the rise of the Internet. It has become far easier to share—and incorrect information is just as sharable as valid information. The more something is shared, the more hits it gets, the more difficult it becomes to verify, and so forth. It becomes easier to just quote and hope for the best. But why do we misquote in the first place?
Have you noticed how incorrect quotes often just sound right—sometimes, more right than actual quotations? There’s a reason for that. Our brains really like fluency, or the experience of cognitive ease (as opposed to cognitive strain) in taking in and retrieving information. The more fluent the experience of reading a quote—or the easier it is to grasp, the smoother it sounds, the more readily it comes to mind—the less likely we are to question the actual quotation. Those right-sounding misquotes are just taking that tendency to the next step: cleaning up, so to speak, quotations so that they are more mellifluous, more all-around quotable, easier to store and recall at a later point. We might not even be misquoting on purpose, but once we do, the result tends to be catchier than the original.…
That’s the thing about misquotations. They tend, for the most part, to arise not out of malice or intentional misrepresentation but out of understandable cognitive processes. (That, and improper punctuation. Remember Jessica Dovey, the inadvertent heir to Martin Luther King?) And the more understandable a process, the more likely it is to play out in similar fashion for multiple people—and the more likely the misquotation is to spring up at various times and in various places, instead of being immediately corrected.
Of course, the other common reason for misquoting is simple laziness. We think we remember something and so we just write it down, rather than spend time checking. Or, we like the way a phrase sounds or the message it has and so we just assume our (likely online) source is correct—and the more sites there are with the mistake, the more persuasive it becomes—instead of painfully tracking down the original to verify it for ourselves.
So how do you spot that misquote? There’s (sadly) no effortless way to go about it. The most we can do is to always be skeptical of ourselves, especially if something sounds too right or fluent or spot on. Because the better it sounds, the more likely it is to be a little off. That, and check quotes before we perpetuate them in cyberspace or print. Otherwise, we might end up like Bob Dylan, who once remarked, “I’ve misquoted myself so many times, I don’t know what I’ve said.” (He totally could have said that, right?)
It is a foregone conclusion that misquotations can never be adequately contained let alone completely eliminated on a global scale. For conscientious creators and consumers of quotes who wish to foster quotational excellence and espouse quotational intelligence, the time and effort incurred in preventing and managing misquotations can be an insurmountable stumbling block without a ready access to some reputable sources and dependable means of authentication, a few of which are suggested in Wikipedia as follows:
Common quotation sources
Famous quotations are frequently collected in books that are sometimes called quotation dictionaries or treasuries. Of these, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, The Yale Book of Quotations and The Macmillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases are considered among the most reliable and comprehensive sources. Diaries and calendars often include quotations for entertainment or inspirational purposes, and small, dedicated sections in newspapers and weekly magazines — with recent quotations by leading personalities on current topics — have also become commonplace.
Quotations and the Internet
Chiefly a text medium in the beginning, the World Wide Web gave rise to any number of personal quotation collections that continue to flourish, even though very few of them seem to facilitate accurate information or correct citation.…
The sheer bulk of online quotations, combined with more efficient search engines, has effectively made the Internet the world’s quotation storehouse, encompassing an unprecedented number of easily obtainable quotations. Though matters of accuracy still remain, features such as Amazon.com’s Search Inside the Book and Google Book Search may serve to alleviate such concerns.
In addition, it is highly prudent and beneficial to seek and read the source of a quotation to uncover how it is originally embedded in the author’s text or statement, so that one can acquire a good knowledge of the context out of which the quotation arises, in order to reduce the risk of quoting out of context and to increase the chance of achieving quotational excellence. For instance, instead of just quoting Henry David Thoreau’s statement “You must live in the present, launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment.” from a secondary source, one can visit any reliable source or the original publication to peruse at least the text surrounding the quotation, as shown below:
A wise man will know what game to play to-day, and play it. We must not be governed by rigid rules, as by the almanac, but let the season rule us. The moods and thoughts of man are revolving just as steadily and incessantly as nature’s. Nothing must be postponed. Take time by the forelock. Now or never! You must live in the present, launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment. Fools stand on their island opportunities and look toward another land. There is no other land; there is no other life but this, or the like of this. Where the good husbandman is, there is the good soil. Take any other course, and life will be a succession of regrets. Let us see vessels sailing prosperously before the wind, and not simply stranded barks. There is no world for the penitent and regretful.
Longer quotations can be given titles to summarize or clarify their contents. As can be observed, if one were to use the much longer text above as a quotation, it is both possible and desirable to tease out the most salient phrase to be used as the title of the quotation, which in this case is Find Your Eternity in Each Moment.
Revealing more texts from original sources and deploying longer quotations have become all the more paramount in many cases, since the risks and temptations of misquotation and quoting out of context have never been greater in modern times, considering the ease and flippancy with which quotations and statements can be tossed around in the mass media, public arenas, political platforms and contemporary discourses to support, defend, dismiss or distort a certain issue or argument, or to discredit the opponent of an argument (or any person for that matter in any situation) through false attribution (when a quotation or work is accidentally, traditionally, or based on bad information attributed to the wrong person or group; a specific fallacy where an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument), misinformation (false or inaccurate information, including questionable statements, false rumours or insults and pranks) or misrepresentation (the action or offence of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something), as the following excerpt shows:
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies may be both intentional, as well as accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it to be non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
- As a straw man argument, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. It is common in politics.
- As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
The second form of argument, namely appealing to authority or committing an argument from authority (also called argumentum ad verecundiam) based on the informal fallacy of quoting out of context, is both diagnostically discussed and critically analysed in this post under the heading Authority Bias and Author Bias: Expert Influence, Creator Persuasion.
The arena of appropriation by quotation has never been one of egalitarianism as measured by the levels of equality in terms of opportunity, recognition and censorship. The significance of quotes tends to be asymmetrically perceived and skewed towards those originated from authority. The use of and access to quotations have been unevenly distributed across the human population, as they depend on the quoters’ age, race, rank, seniority, gender, status and profession, as well as their levels of attainment in education, religion, politics or other social positions, plus the places, cultures and eras in which they live — all of which condition, regulate and structure the repetitions of others’ words and works. Colonised or marginalised groups lacking adequate or legitimate control, ownership and (re)presentation of their works have been particularly vulnerable to exploitation and (mis)appropriation. Forging aboriginal artefacts for profit as well as quoting or appropriating passages from indigenous works and oral traditions unprotected by intellectual property rights have happened repeatedly and extensively without due acknowledgement or retrospective ascription, even under the purview of (ethnographic) research in which the utterances and stories of research subjects are treated as research data rather than (recorded, transcribed, translated or interpreted) quotations requiring attribution of authorship. Yet, extensive or even wholesale quotation (with or without explicit attribution) is a common feature of some genres and practices, ranging from the scissors-and-paste compilations of Chinese historiography (reproduced from verbatim extracts and whole documents of earlier texts), centos (poetical works comprising verses or passages culled from other authors), found poetry (created by using words, phrases and sometimes whole passages from other sources and reframing them by modifying spacing and lines, adding or deleting text to create new meaning, or producing a literary collage), Medieval texts (constructed by monks from the words of earlier authorities), and Renaissance commonplace books (scrapbooks filled with passages from other texts, such as quotes, proverbs, poems, letters, prayers, recipes, concepts, facts, legal formulas, or tables of weights and measures, to serve as references or memory aids for readers, writers, students and scholars), to turntablism (the art of manipulating sounds to create new or modified music, sound effects, audio mixes and other creative sounds and beats by using two or more turntables and a DJ mixer with cross fader), plunderphonics (any music produced by taking one or more existing audio recordings and altering them in certain ways to make a new composition), remix culture (a society or lifestyle permitting and fostering derivative works that combine or edit existing materials to produce a new creative work or product), and Creative Commons (an American non-profit organization at the forefront of the copyleft movement devoted to supporting the building of a richer public domain by providing an alternative to the automatic “all rights reserved” copyright through expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share, reuse or redistribute freely), as well as open collaboration projects such as Wikipedia (a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of openly editable content) and Appropedia (an open website for sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives by exploring collaborative solutions in sustainability, sound principles, appropriate technology, original research, project information, poverty reduction, international development and permaculture), plus works and products produced via open science, open data, open research, open access, open content, open source, open format, open design, open manufacturing and so forth, such as Scholarpedia (a peer-reviewed open-access English-language encyclopedia where knowledge is curated by communities of experts). In particular, digital natives and online citizens have been disproportionately quoting and sharing far more than their offline counterparts, since they have unimpeded 24-hour access to a wide range of online quotational tools ranging from emails, Internet petitions, chain emails, web feed (or news feed) and web syndication to social bookmarking, reposting, retweeting and reblogging available on social news services, microblogging platforms, social networking sites, and content management systems.
In any case, who the quoter can or should be is neither a given automatically, nor to be taken for granted indiscriminately. In many traditional myths, tribal legends and ceremonial rites, specific passages can only be recited by designated shamans, priests or elders. Throughout history and across civilizations, when, where and how the quoter may deliver what quotation to whom are consequential insofar as an apposite quotation is one that is apt in the circumstances or apropos in relation to the situations at hand. Quoting something in the wrong circle, setting, context, occasion, convention or etiquette, let alone genre or language, would produce an inapposite quotation, and could be construed as infelicitous, harassing, provoking, violating, profaning, desecrating, shameful, cheeky, unbecoming, inconsiderate, pretentious, vexatious, impudent or impertinent. For instance, quoting proverbs, maxims or adages is generally more appropriate and acceptable to peers, younger persons or socially subordinate individuals than to superiors or seniors. Similarities and differences in age, class, status, identity, personality, perspective, belief, outlook, worldview and allegiance are some of the major ingredients or determinants influencing the acceptability, desirability or even the availability of a quotation. It would require little time or effort to reveal age-old faultlines by quoting the wise to the fool, the valiant to the craven, the utopian to the dystopian, the optimistic to the pessimistic, the extrovert to the introvert, the positivist to the pragmatist, the naturalist to the artificialist, the scientific to the superstitious, the atheistic to the religious, the evolutionary to the creationary, the revelatory to the obscurant, the progressive to the conservative, the politically correct to the politically suspect, the democratic to the despotic, the integrationist to the segregationist, the cohesive to the divisive, the ecologist to the economist, the eclectic to the dogmatic, the broad-minded to the intolerant, the liberal to the bigoted, the permissive to the puritanical, or the moderate to the extreme. In general, severe deviation from or transgression of quotational norms could disrupt social harmony and incur moral or even legal sanctions, especially in cases involving sacrilege, blasphemy, piracy, plagiarism, misappropriation, misrepresentation or defamation.
In short, the iterability of quotation has always been limited insofar as the capacity of a quote to be repeatable in different contexts is both contingent (acceptable only if certain circumstances are the case) and circumscribed (restricted to certain roles or situations). After all, quotation is a communicative process and social construct that varies by context and culture, in which creators and consumers of quotation may have (been entrusted with) different rights and responsibilities, however overtly or tacitly they may have been defined or agreed upon. On the one hand, quotation may be wielded by powerful interests in ways that effectuate or accentuate the (dis)empowerment of certain voices or the (mis)represention of certain groups. On the other hand, quotation may also be leveraged by individuals and organizations to occasion change or create opportunity for personal, civic, social, economic or political gains.
Quotation as a legal and social construct also manifests in the contexts of publishing practices, access to information, the commodification of information, citation practices and intellectual property laws. Continuing the preceding discussion on the unequal use of and access to quotations in relation to opportunity, recognition and censorship as a function of the quoters’ sociodemographic background and social standing, there is even the twist of double irony in the outcome of appropriation by quotation (or appropriating through quotation), described as follows. On the one hand, artists, authors and composers of greater reputation are much freer than their less prominent colleagues to appropriate and quote at length (with or without attribution) and yet less likely to be chastised for copyright infringement, forgery, piracy, plagiarism, misquotation or being copycats, considering that the extent to which an artist, author or composer of great renown is deemed to have erred or strayed in their (approach towards) appropriation or quotation of works by others may indeed depend not so much on the objective evaluation of their questionable practice as on the subjective judgement of (the merit of) their oeuvre and prestige, which can be substantially swayed by authority bias, a proclivity whereby people assign greater weight or accuracy to the opinion or work of an authority figure, and thus become more influenced by such opinion or work, even to the point of being oblivious to its intrinsic value, reliability, validity and legitimacy, or rather, the lack thereof, as discussed later under the heading Authority Bias and Author Bias: Expert Influence, Creator Persuasion. For example, the revered maestri and esteemed colleagues who borrow heavily or cobble together from previous outputs or other sources, and who often publish under the “mini-paper with same data from slightly different angle” approach to maintain a certain research output volume, are more likely to accrue admiration for their veritable “research”, “recycling”, “repurposing” or “(re)creative licence”, rather than condemnation for their “appropriation”, “plagiarism”, “publish-or-perish mentality” or “quantity-over-quality strategy”. Even in the supposedly meritocratic environment of academia, condign punishments or punitive measures are more prone to be less likely or less severe when such transgressors possess high academic status or social standing, and when the research projects involved are deemed to have high visibility, (commercial) value, financial reward, or applicability. On the other hand, in the normal course of creative freedom or academic collaboration, eminent artists and certified scholars are more likely to be accused of and criticized for counterfeit or plagiarism than their student counterparts, who are usually let off lightly because they are still deemed to be subordinate apprentices, and who, paradoxically, are always expected and motivated to emulate their “masters” by appropriating or quoting apposite works of experts and canonical authorities, but at the risk of turning in inferior works or naive scholarship and being labelled as cheaters or plagiarisers when quoting excessively without adequate citations, or worse still, being reprimanded by their teachers or supervisors for committing piracy as a result of having free access to quoting through the world wide web to excess (and uncritically), or intentionally attempting to represent the works of others as their own.
Notwithstanding academic seniority, research productivity and the degree or threshold of originality, all academic research and scholarly work invariably rely on disciplined, systematic and cumulative inquiry or discourse via the judicious use of quoting (word for word), paraphrasing (with different words and phrasing) and summarizing (by condensing to an overview of a text) to integrate evidence or source material and to incorporate the ideas, writings or discoveries of experts, and therefore require proper documentation of cited texts and referenced sources in the form of citations, which are abbreviated alphanumeric expressions embedded in the body of a work and their corresponding entries in the bibliography, for acknowledging the relevance of others’ works to the topic(s) of discussion at the spots where the in-text citations (called parenthetical referencing or Harvard referencing) or the sequential reference numbers (known as the citation-sequence system or the Vancouver reference style) appear, as shown in the examples below. In the academic environment, citations are necessary to uphold intellectual honesty and avoid plagiarism, to attribute prior or unoriginal works and ideas to the alleged, correct, bona fide or original sources, and to allow readers not only to ascertain independently whether the referenced materials support the claims or arguments of the author(s) or researcher(s) in the stipulated manners or methodologies, but also to gauge the validity and reliability of the materials and methodologies used. Simply put, a citation is a quotation from or reference to an author, passage, book, paper, article, webpage or other published item as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
The following excerpt from the post entitled “🦅 SoundEagle in Earth Day 🌍🌎🌏” demonstrates the citation-sequence system or the Vancouver reference style involving the use of the bracketed and superscripted sequential reference numbers and the respective numbered entries in the reference list. Hovering the mouse cursor over where any of the reference numbers appears in the text will bring up a tooltip showing the corresponding full citation. This on-demand and in-situ feature enables the reader to see the citation proper without being interrupted by being taken to the reference list to see the same after clicking or touching the reference number to jump to the corresponding entry in the reference list, and then having to return to the point of departure by clicking or touching the caret symbol (^) at the right of each reference number in the reference list. In fact, this useful pop-up feature can even replace both parenthetical referencing or Harvard referencing and the citation-sequence system or the Vancouver reference style.
Earth Day is an annual day on which events are held worldwide to increase awareness and appreciation of the Earth’s natural environment. Earth Day is now coordinated globally by the EarthDay.org (formerly called Earth Day Network),[1] and is celebrated in more than 175 countries every year.[2] In 2009, the United Nations designated 22 April International Mother Earth Day.[3] Earth Day is planned for April 22 in all years at least through 2015.[4]
References
- ^ “Earth Day Network” (earthday.org) Available at http://www.earthday.org/ Retrieved 2011-04-22
- ^ Earth Day Network: Countries We Serve (earthday.org) Available at http://www.earthday.org/
- ^ “General Assembly Proclaims 22 April ‘International Mother Earth Day’ Adopting By Consensus Bolivia-Led Resolution”. United Nations (un.org) 2009-04-22 Available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10823.doc.htm Retrieved 2011-04-22
- ^ “When is Earth Day?” (apples4theteacher.com) Available at http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/earth-day/when-is-earth-day.html Retrieved 2012-04-22
In the case of this book-length post entitled The Quotation Fallacy “💬”, implementing citations using the combination of on-demand, in-situ pop-up references and hyperlinks is a matter of prudence and practicality to dispense with the overly expansive space that would otherwise be required to accommodate a bibliography or reference list whose entries are in the hundreds, which would have made the already lengthy post even longer.
In contrast, parenthetical referencing or Harvard referencing makes use of in-text citations in lieu of the sequential reference numbers applicable to the citation-sequence system or the Vancouver reference style. Each of the in-text citations is usually abbreviated to (the first) author’s name, year of publication and page number(s) but always placed in parentheses. Where there are three or more authors, all authors other than the first are represented in the in-text citation by et al. (for “et alia” meaning “and others”), but are usually given in full in the bibliography. Included herewith are three examples: (Arditti et al. 2012:413), (O’Hanlon et al. 2014:127-8) and (Nilsson et al. 1988:59-60), which correspond to the following three journal references extracted from the long bibliographic entries in the “Related Sites and Articles” section of the post entitled “Do Plants and Insects Coevolve? 🥀🐝🌺🦋”:
‘Good Heavens what insect can suck it’- Charles Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan morganii praedicta (academia.edu) Joseph Arditti, John Elliott, Ian J. Kitching, and Lutz T. Wasserthal (2012). ‘Good Heavens what insect can suck it’- Charles Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan morganii praedicta. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 169, 403–432.
Pollinator Deception in the Orchid Mantis (jstor.org) O’Hanlon, J., Holwell, G., Herberstein, M., & Natural History Editor: Mark A. McPeek (2014). Pollinator Deception in the Orchid Mantis. The American Naturalist, 183(1), 126-132. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673858 doi:1
Hawk-moth scale analysis and pollination specialization in the epilithic Malagasy endemic Aerangis ellisii (Reichenb. fil.) Schltr. (Orchidaceae) (onlinelibrary.wiley.com) Nilsson, L. A. and Rabakonandrianina, E. (1988). Hawk-moth scale analysis and pollination specialization in the epilithic Malagasy endemic Aerangis ellisii (Reichenb. fil.) Schltr. (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 97: 49–61. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.1988.tb01686.x
As discussed and illustrated above regarding giving full bibliographical information for the cited sources in an academic work, either the Harvard referencing’s combination of an in-text citation and its bibliographic entry or the Vancouver reference style’s combination of a reference number and its numbered entry in the reference list constitutes what is commonly regarded as a citation, whereas bibliographic entries by themselves or other list-like compilations of references are not.
In scholarly work, referencing the ideas and findings from experts and other sources requires bibliographical citations; whilst explaining, explicating or elaborating on these ideas and findings requires the coordinated use of quoting (word for word), paraphrasing (with different words and phrasing) and summarizing (by condensing to an overview), as mentioned earlier. Paraphrasing and summarizing mandate analytical and writing skills to develop and demonstrate cogent understanding and interpretation of major ideas or concepts; whereas quoting necessitates precise replication of spoken or written words to provide strong evidence, to act as an authoritative voice, or to support certain statements, arguments or positions. All paraphrases and summaries can (in turn) become quotations, for they are themselves (potential) fodders to be quoted in the endless cycles of quoting, paraphrasing and summarizing that permeate academic endeavours in the constantly expanding intellectual world of humanity. Therefore, on the proviso that misquotation can be kept at bay indefinitely, quotation is, beyond any reasonable doubt, a staple tool and practical means for the transmission and verification of knowledge, as it ultimately provides the closest link to, and the unadulterated reproduction of, the chosen aspects or pertinent parts of certain referred materials, regardless of whether such aspects or parts are the results of quoting, paraphrasing or summarizing in the first place. In stark contrast to craft, experiential or religious knowledge, the world of scholarly knowledge is indeed a stage of quotation (accompanied by citation), where proper citation curtails (the likelihood of) misquotation.
Incorrect, defective, unethical or fraudulent citation practices automatically lead to misquotation and misrepresentation in many ways. Such practices are becoming much more tempting and prevalent since scientific kudos and academic publishing have become embodied by what can be unenviably described as the citation race, relentlessly fuelled by the publish-or-perish mentality and increasingly benchmarked by scientometric indicators of scholarly output, publishing performance and citation impact, all of which can significantly affect decisions regarding manuscript submissions, academic careers, research funding and journal standings. To begin with, although citation as an accounting of knowledge sourcing and intellectual honesty is an important metric for academics, it can be easily compromised by attritions whereby citations to online sources become invalid or nugatory as cited webpages become defunct, and by human errors ranging from inconsistent or erroneous use of citation styles or systems, to sloppiness or carelessness of researchers, authors or journal editors in the publishing procedure. Even more sobering regarding both the quantification and impact of citation is that both can be insidiously manipulated and consequently tarnished by conflicts of interest in academic publishing leading to unethical behaviours of both the authors and journal staff, such as inflating journal impact factor whereby up to 30 percent of total citations to some journals are generated by commissioned opinion articles; forming citation cartels whereby certain groups of authors cite one another disproportionately more than they do other groups of authors working on the same subject to artificially boost academic recognition or scientific excellence by mutually increasing the number of their own citations; and practising coercive citation whereby a scientific or academic journal editor forces an author to include spurious or extraneous citations within an article before granting publication, for the purpose of inflating the journal’s impact factor to raise the profile or reputation of the journal. On the whole, the citation race can detrimentally affect the behaviours of scholars, editors and other stakeholders explicitly, and of readers and writers implicitly, leaving behind parlous implications and unresolved issues about the social value of research assessment, whilst highlighting the precarious nature of maintaining intellectual integrity and academic careers.
Even when properly sourced and cited, and by extension, cogently paraphrased or summarized, quotation — like many things in life — also has its share of dark sides, given that it can be used for good as well as bad intent that readily engenders or exacerbates misunderstanding, unease, tension, displeasure, torment, conflict, contention, contretemps, fallout, infringement, misappropriation, shame or even infamy, which one may from time to time recognize or encounter in cases mired in the consequences or repercussions of quoting certain sensitive, privileged, controversial, problematic, flawed, dubious, questionable or objectionable passages of some sources ranging from private message, personal letter, intimate memoir, confidential correspondence, secret memorandum, classified text and restricted file to historical monograph, revealing chronicle, religious scripture, political document, research paper and official report. There is no shortage of ways and avenues in which quotation could quickly become the bane of life, at least to the extent that most folks would fare poorly in the face of their secrets, wrongs, flaws, failings, misgivings or insecurities being revealed or exposed via quotation, and that many people would object to their work, character, status, identity, affiliation, conviction, reputation or achievement being affronted, tarnished, denigrated, ridiculed, lampooned, denounced, scapegoated, scandalized, misrepresented, misappropriated or counterfeited through (mis)quotation. It is unsurprising that quotation has been unhesitatingly deployed as an expedient display and acerbic instrument of scorn, revenge, rancour or enmity at any scale and frequency, rendered all the more tempting, potent, rapid and widespread by digital technology and social media. Some of these negative aspects of quotation have been identified by Ruth Finnegan who writes about Controlling Quotation: The Regulation of Others’ Words and Voices in her book entitled “Why Do We Quote? The Culture and History of Quotation” as follows:
… quoting is often an applauded activity. But at the same time it can draw intense controversy… Quoting is after all a risky undertaking.… Many approved of quotation in the right circumstances, but also described how people quoted to show off, to annoy others, or to make unjustified claims. Quoting could be pretentious and a way of excluding others, resented if used inappropriately or by unauthorised people, and to be condemned if merely ’parroting’ others or making free with what belonged to someone else. ’Plagiarism’ above all was denounced in the strongest terms, seen as a serious menace above all in this age of the internet.
There is a long background to such ambivalence. Quoting has indeed been turned to valued purposes in many situations. People have used quotation to create beautiful literature, gathered wise and lovely sayings from the past, commented with insight or humour on the human condition – or on their fellows – and engaged reflectively in the processes of human living. But it also has an ambiguous side, and quoting and quotation have long been surrounded by doubts and restrictions. The terms surrounding quoting … include negative notions like regurgitation, copying, plagiarism and theft, or two-sided ones like appropriation, imitation or collage, and for centuries individuals have brought out the dark as well as the bright side of repeating others’ words.…
… Like other strong forces in social life quoting and quotation cannot be left unfettered, and through the ages have been subject to a plethora of social, ethical, aesthetic and legal constraints.
As a strong force in social life, quotation has not always been sufficiently tempered with restraint and respect, especially when it is unleashed in full might without the censure of conscience. “The power of quotation is as dreadful a weapon as any which the human intellect can forge”, according to John Jay Chapman, a lawyer, literary critic, essayist, lecturer, journalist and writer. For better or worse, both quotations and misquotations can serve as some of the most persuasive means to concentrate partisan perspectives, undermine collective cohesions, exacerbate factional conflicts, intensify cultural divisions, deepen ideological cleavages, summon political rallies, instigate public protests, or incite social changes, even initiate and sustain social movements. However, certain forms or instances of misquotation and quoting out of context are so egregiously misleading, incendiary, vilifying, belligerent, defamatory, slanderous, libellous, calumnious or scurrilous that they ascend to the category of damaging quotation, to the extent that they can ultimately bring some people or parties into disarray, disrepute, infamy or incredulity, whether rightly or wrongly.
On the one hand, damaging quotations are often exploited as one of the most potent and effective aspects of discrediting tactics, which can range from truthiness, sensationalism, yellow journalism, historical negationism, anti-intellectualism, personal attacks (including ad hominem, trolling and flaming), opposition research, crowd manipulation, post-truth politics, fake news, disinformation, political infighting and negative campaigning (also called mudslinging) to defamation (also known as calumny, vilification or traducement), destabilisation, social undermining, professional ruination and public ostracization. They are not only used as staple arsenals to undermine political, military or economic power, but also deployed as a technique in abuse, brainwashing and other psychological contexts to disorient, disarm, discredit, disparage, dishonour or bully the victim. Dispensers of damaging quotations characteristically deploy a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their aims, such as manipulating information, misrepresenting views, manufacturing dissents, falsifying data, misquoting statements, twisting truths, spreading lies, sowing doubts, casting aspersions, shifting blame, deflecting attention, denying culpability, avoiding scrutiny, glossing over details, using weasel words, deploying rhetorical flourishes, making sly innuendoes, planting and fostering rumours, feeding conspiracy theories, raising false accusations, and deploying smear tactics, all of which can be presented in, distributed with, or fomented by spoken insults, speeches, pamphlets, flyers, posters, campaign ads, cartoons, Internet memes and social media posts.
On the other hand, damaging quotations are not always the instruments or (by)products of malicious intents or nefarious purposes, as they can be in the service of placing a spotlight on some problematic or questionable governance, management, administration or dealing in a position of trust, whether in public office or private workplace, at least insofar as damaging quotations can exacerbate damaging allegations of, and instigate investigations into, certain bad deeds, ill conduct, deception, corruption, malversation, malpractice, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance or connivance. Even seasoned dispensers of damaging quotations are by no means impervious or invulnerable to (the threat or pressure of real or potential) scrutiny and sanction, since their claims, antics and behaviours in authorizing, sanctioning or rationalizing damaging quotations as a justified means for exerting reputational damage or even inflicting character assassinations on people, social groups, institutions, countries, laws, regulations or constitutions are often so glaringly public that they can be studied in detail to reveal the plots, motives or agendas behind those damaging quotations.
How and why quotations can be produced and weaponized to become damaging are elucidated (with slight amendments to grammar and spelling) as follows on Wikipedia, especially in the contexts of culture war, social control, corporate hegemony and political opportunism that exist to sustain political support or boost political influence to the exclusion, erosion or detriment of pertinent ethics or political principles:
A damaging quotation is a short utterance by a public figure used by opponents as a discrediting tactic. These utterances are often, but not always, taken out of context (a tactic sometimes referred to as contextomy) or otherwise changed to distort their original meaning. These quotations may be inserted or alluded to in negative political ads to discredit the character or intellectual ability of the originator. More typically, however, they are used in political arguments by both politicians and political pundits often in ways which are fallacious. These quotations are compiled into books or posted on the internet and are repeated in other contexts such as in talk radio or in the United States by stand-up comedians in late-night television monologues. The publication of these quotations is justified as a necessary part of maintaining an informed citizenry. In cases where the quotation in question is taken widely out of context it can be difficult for a candidate to find recourse, even though it is very easy to check the accuracy and the context of a quotation by using internet resources (such as search engines); in popular jargon, the quotation (especially if humorous) can grow into a meme.
Categories
There are various common categories of quotations: malapropisms or grammatical errors, exaggerations about past achievements, lack of conviction, consorting with the enemy, moral turpitude, indifference towards victims of crime, racism or discrimination, etc.
In the case of malapropisms, it is a rhetorical fallacy (called argument ad hominem) to conclude that the entire argument of whoever made the utterance is incorrect. Yet it has become common in partisan argument in the United States.…
Given the availability of inexpensive computers and the widespread use of the Internet, it has become easy for anyone to accumulate and distribute these quotation lists. Like the “Yogiisms” of baseball great Yogi Berra, or the Colemanballs collected by Private Eye, a damaging quotation purports to give insight into the thinking of the speaker, frequently a politician or of the politicians or political groups that used it as means of attack. As such they belong to the colourful history of political satire.
Overall, great care must be given to avoid misrepresenting the author of a quotation or statement, and to prevent distorting or perverting the original meaning of a quotation or statement through misquotation, misconception, misappropriation, misinterpretation, miscontextualization or misrepresentation. Nevertheless, in certain cases, it is possible to appropriate, recast, resignify or reinterpret a quotation or statement in a new perspective or different light by the inclusion of other semantic rules or contextual information to substitute or modify certain words, such as the switching of rhetorical modes, the injection of some figure of speech (or rhetorical figure), the exploration of multiple meanings, and the use of certain stylistic devices, including but not limited to the deployment of homonymy, metonymy, polysemy, synonymy, auto-antonym, hyponymy and hypernymy as well as irony, paradox, metaphor, simile, synecdoche, ambiguity, allusion, imitation, parody, pastiche and satire, even augmented or enlivened by sketch, burlesque, lampoon and cartoon, as demonstrated by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ’s previous image entitled “Best Quotation to Win an Exclusive, Loyal Contract to Make Pig Boss’ Company Great Again”. In a heuristic cartoon, all is not as straightforward as it seems. Hence, this cartoon is not so much a political statement or posturing as it is a graphical and succinct way of highlighting bullying behaviours, one of which is demanding loyalty, attention and/or contribution from victims and allies alike. Of course, there are additional layers and meanings in the cartoon, including those imparted by the mordacious use of the polysemic word “quotation”, which ironically also happens to be the central topic of this post. Moreover, how viewers interpret the cartoon is also very much a good reflection or indication of their backgrounds, experiences, expectations and internal states, which certain well-designed cartoons or statements can elicit or uncover, regardless of viewers’ political persuasions or affiliations. Anyone is welcome to decode or unpack the meanings (both connotations and denotations) encapsulated or implied by the cartoon.
For those who lack the skill, time, resource or inclination to appropriate, recast, resignify or reinterpret a quotation or statement in a new perspective or different light by elaborate or sophisticated means, there are still plenty of ready-made materials with which to experiment or play around. For example, a well-known proverb such as “One man’s meat is another man’s poison.” can be rather unassumingly but somewhat amusingly transformed into “🥩One man’s meaty statement is another man’s quoted poison.⚗️”, flanked by illustrative emojis.
Ruth Finnegan sums up the value and diversity of quotation as a universal resource in the opening paragraph of chapter 7. Arts and Rites of Quoting in her book entitled “Why Do We Quote? The Culture and History of Quotation” as follows:
Quotation, imitation, tradition, allusion, model, reminiscence – these and similar notions run through the study of literature, of ritual and of culture. Others’ words and voices come in speeches on official occasions, in rituals, religious texts, and genres conceptualised as ‘high art’. The works of Milton or Wordsworth are crammed with allusions and parallels; Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, the poems of Alexander Pope, the writings of Coleridge and countless other works in the literary canon borrow from earlier writers; and Renaissance literature fed among other things on the anthology of saws from earlier texts. Kuna ritual oratory featured quotes within quotes, Greek and Latin historians used their characters’ speeches to forward and embellish their narratives, and quotation was a key dimension of the literary arts of the West African Yoruba. Alluding has been among the most frequently used literary devices, sermons and theological expositions brim with biblical quotation, and the works of certain modern writers are sometimes described as wholly made up of quotations. However it is defined, quotation in one or another of its many transformations weaves through the literary arts and rites of humankind, as creators and hearers evoke and play upon the words and voices of others.
Whilst some notable forms of allusion, imitation, appropriation, resignification, reinterpretation or recontextualization are based on the clever use of literary devices and the intentional modifications of existing quotations or statements, others are due to the situational outcomes of misapplication, contradiction, extemporization, idiosyncratic substitution, unanticipated contextualization, unintentional speech error, creative mishearing or inadvertent witticism. Akin to works of art with respect to flexibility and diversity, both quotations and misquotations can be constituted wholly, in part, or in combination from the products of conscious manipulations, accidental creations or improvisatory utterances, some of which are catchily categorized as anti-proverb (also called perverb), malapropism, eggcorn, Yogi-isms, and spoonerism or Sreudian flip, as the following five tables demonstrate.
Anti-Proverb / PerverbThe transformation of a standard proverb for humorous effect.
|
|
On page 28 of Proverbs: A Handbook (Greenwood Folklore Handbooks: Greenwood Press, 2004), Paremiologist Wolfgang Mieder defines anti-proverbs or perverbs as “parodied, twisted, or fractured proverbs that reveal humorous or satirical speech play with traditional proverbial wisdom”. They have also been defined by Wolfgang Mieder, Fred R Shapiro and Charles Clay Doyle as “an allusive distortion, parody, misapplication, or unexpected contextualization of a recognized proverb, usually for comic or satiric effect” on page xi of The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012). Some authors have bent and twisted proverbs to create anti-proverbs for a variety of literary effects. In the Journal of American Folklore, Heather A Haas explains on page 38 of her paper entitled “The Wisdom of Wizards—and Muggles and Squibs: Proverb Use in the World of Harry Potter” that J K Rowling reshapes a standard English proverb into “It’s no good crying over spilt potion”, and another into Dumbledore’s cautioning Harry Potter not to “count [his] owls before they are delivered”. Anti-proverbs are called “postproverbials” by some African proverb scholars, as seen in a large collection of articles about anti-proverbs or postproverbials in the journal Matatu Volume 51 (2019): Issue 2 (Sep 2020): Special Issue: The Postproverbial Agency: Texts, Media and Mediation in African Cultures, edited by Aderemi Raji-Oyelade and Olayinka Oyeleye. In his paper entitled “Proverbs and Anti-proverbs in Ọladẹjọ Okediji’s Rérẹ́ Rún: A Marxist Perspective”, Lere Adeyemi from the Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, University of Ilorin in Nigeria purports that they add humour, colour and beauty to his writing. On a political plane, he believes that they can “stimulate critical consciousness in the readers to fight for their rights but with wisdom.… the conscious manipulation of the so-called fixed proverbs could generate new proverbs, encourage creativity in the writers and expose hidden meanings of proverbs.” To have full effect, an anti-proverb must be based on a known proverb. For example, “If at first you don’t succeed, quit” is only funny if the hearer knows the standard proverb “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”. Anti-proverbs are used commonly in advertising, such as “Put your burger where your mouth is” from Red Robin. Anti-proverbs are also common on T-shirts, such as “Taste makes waist” and “If at first you don’t succeed, skydiving is not for you”. Standard proverbs are essentially defined phrases well known to many people, such as Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. When this sequence is deliberately slightly changed to “Don’t bite the hand that looks dirty”, it becomes an anti-proverb. The relationship between anti-proverbs and proverbs, and how much a proverb can be changed before the resulting anti-proverb is no longer seen as proverbial, are still open topics for research. |
Examples
|
MalapropismThe use of an incorrect word in place of a word with a similar sound, resulting in a nonsensical, sometimes humorous utterance.
|
|
Malapropisms often occur as errors in natural speech and are sometimes the subject of media attention, especially when made by politicians or other prominent individuals. Philosopher Donald Herbert Davidson has noted that malapropisms show the complex process through which the brain translates thoughts into language. Humorous malapropisms are the type that attract the most attention and commentary, but bland malapropisms are common in speech and writing. An instance of speech error is called a malapropism when a (re)produced word is nonsensical or ludicrous in context, yet similar in sound to what was intended. Malapropisms differ from other kinds of speaking or writing mistakes such as eggcorns or spoonerisms, and from the accidental or deliberate production of newly made-up words (neologisms). For example, using obtuse [wide or dull] instead of acute [narrow or sharp] does not constitute a malapropism; whereas using obtuse [stupid or slow-witted] to mean abstruse [esoteric or difficult to understand] amounts to a malapropism. Nevertheless, there are malapropisms that can also be deemed as eggcorns, such as “Having one wife is called monotony” (monogamy). A malapropism tends to maintain the part of speech of the originally intended word. According to linguist Jean Margaret Aitchison, “[t]he finding that word selection errors preserve their part of speech suggest that the latter is an integral part of the word, and tightly attached to it.”[❆] Likewise, substitutions tend to have the same number of syllables and the same metrical structure — the same pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables — as the intended word or phrase. If the stress pattern of the malapropism differs from the intended word, then unstressed syllables may be deleted or inserted; whereas stressed syllables and the general rhythmic pattern are maintained. Malapropisms can often involve homophonic translation (also known as homophonic transformation), which renders a text into a near-homophonic text in the same or another language, such as uttering “And all the king’s men” as “Indolent qui ne se mène” (Lazy is he who is not led); “Caesar adsum jam forte” (I, Caesar, am already here, as it happens) as “Caesar had some jam for tea”; and “recognize speech” as “wreck a nice beach”. The last-mentioned is an often-used example in the literature of speech recognition, an interdisciplinary subfield of computer science and computational linguistics that develops methodologies and technologies to enable the recognition and translation of spoken language into text by computers with the main benefit of searchability. Four cases of malapropism created from the mind of SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ are shown as follows. The third case even manages to exhibit 27 malapropisms. The fourth can indeed constitute a kind of collaborative poetry whereby the original poem can acquire new imports and dimensions after being transformed by malapropisms.
|
Examples
|
EggcornAn idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker’s dialect (sometimes called oronyms).
|
|
An eggcorn is a word or phrase that sounds like and is mistakenly used for another word or phrase in a seemingly logical or plausible way. The new word or phrase introduces a meaning that is different from the original but plausible in the same context, such as “old-timers’ disease” for “Alzheimer’s disease”. An eggcorn can be described as an intra-lingual phono-semantic matching, a matching in which the intended word and substitute are from the same language. The term eggcorn was coined by British-American professor of linguistics Geoffrey Keith Pullum in September 2003 in response to an article by American linguist Mark Yoffe Liberman on the website Language Log, a blog for linguists. Liberman discussed the case of a woman who substitutes the phrase egg corn for the word acorn, and argued that the precise phenomenon lacked a name. Pullum suggested using “eggcorn” itself as a label. An eggcorn differs from a malapropism, the latter being a substitution that creates a nonsensical phrase. Classical malapropisms generally derive their comic effect from the fault of the user, whilst eggcorns are substitutions that exhibit creativity, logic or ignorance. Nevertheless, there are cases that can be classified as both eggcorns and malapropisms, such as “Having one wife is called monotony” (monogamy). Eggcorns often involve replacing an unfamiliar, archaic or obscure word with a more common or modern word (“baited breath” for “bated breath”). The phenomenon of eggcorn is similar to the form of wordplay known as the pun, except that, by definition, the speaker or writer intends the pun to have some humorous effect on the recipient, whereas one who speaks or writes an eggcorn is unaware of or ignorant about the effect. Eggcorn is also similar to but differs from mondegreens (a mishearing or misinterpretation of a word or phrase, often within the lyrics of a specific song or other type of performance) or a folk etymology (a change in the form of a word caused by widespread misunderstanding of the word’s etymology), because it must still retain something of the original meaning as the speaker understands it, and may be a replacement for a poorly understood phrase rather than a mishearing or misinterpretation. Overall, eggcorns occur when people try to deploy analogy and logic to make sense of an idiom or (stock) expression that includes a term which is unmeaningful to them. For instance, the regular expression “in one fell swoop” might be replaced by “in one foul swoop”, the archaic adjective “fell” being substituted with the common word “foul” to convey the cruel or underhand meaning of the phrase as the speaker understands or interprets it. Hence, eggcorns are of interest to linguists as they not merely show language changing in real time, but also can reveal how and why the change occurs. As Jan Freeman elegantly puts it on 26 September 2010 in an essay entitled “So wrong it’s right: The ‘eggcorn’ has its day”:
Jim Bernhard sums up on 24 August 2015 in his essay entitled “A Rash of Eggcorns” published on his blog aptly named “Words Going Wild” as follows:
One case involving eggcorns created from the mind of SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ is shown as follows.
|
Examples
|
Yogi-ismsMalapropisms as well as pithy and paradoxical statements.
|
|
Lawrence Peter “Yogi” Berra (12 May 1925 – 22 September 2015) was an American professional baseball catcher, who later took on the roles of manager and coach. As a celebrity, Berra was also well-known for his impromptu pithy comments, quirky sayings, memorable quips, malapropisms, and seemingly unintentional witticisms known as “Yogi-isms”, which frequently took the form of either an apparent tautology or a contradiction, but often with an underlying and powerful message that offered not just humour but also wisdom. Allen Barra, an American journalist and author of sports books, has described Yogi-isms as “distilled bits of wisdom which, like good country songs and old John Wayne movies, get to the truth in a hurry.”[❆] The lack of a definitive origin or provenance, the risks of misattributions or misquotations, and the pitfalls of Authority Bias and Author Bias have remained with some Yogi-isms indefinitely. In an essay entitled “Yogi Berra Wasn’t Trying to Be Witty”, Jeremy Stahl, the senior editor at Slate, attempts to give a credible account of Yogi-isms and their popular appeal to the public imagination as the sayings of a wise buffoon:
|
Examples
|
PostludeVery much in the vein of Yogi-isms is the much less familiar Goldwynism, eponymously named after Samuel Goldwyn (27 August 1882 – 31 January 1974) who are known for such remarks. He was a Polish-American film producer best known for being the founding contributor and executive of several motion picture studios in Hollywood, winning the 1973 Golden Globe Cecil B DeMille Award, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award in 1958, and the Irving G Thalberg Memorial Award in 1947. According to A.Word.A.Day at Wordsmith.org, Goldwynism is “[a] humorous statement or phrase resulting from the use of incongruous or contradictory words, situations, idioms, etc.” Some examples include the following:
Considering that Goldwyn was born nearly 43 years earlier, it is unclear as to whether “Yogi” Berra ever learnt about and emulated Goldwynism. |
Spoonerism or Sreudian FlipA slip of the tongue.
|
|
A spoonerism is a speech error or word play caused by phonetic mix-ups whereby corresponding consonants, vowels or morphemes are switched (see Metathesis) between two words in a phrase. The condition is named after the Oxford don and ordained minister, the Reverend William Archibald Spooner (1844–1930), who was a warden of New College, Oxford, and who was allegedly famous for manifesting it. A spoonerism is also known as a marrowsky, purportedly after a Polish count who suffered from the same impediment. An example of spoonerism is remarking “The Lord is a shoving leopard” instead of “The Lord is a loving shepherd.” While spoonerisms are commonly heard as slips of the tongue, and getting one’s words in a tangle, they can also be used intentionally as a play on words. Spoonerism is definitely a good case of misquotation, as most of the quotations attributed to Spooner are apocryphal, the result of misattributions, outright fabrications and college pranks. Evidence supporting Spooner as the original exemplar of spoonerism is very scant and patchy at best. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (3rd edition, 1979) enumerates only one substantiated spoonerism: “The weight of rages will press hard upon the employer” (instead of “rate of wages”). Spooner himself claimed that “Kinquering Congs Their Titles Take” (instead of “Conquering Kings” in reference to a hymn) was his sole spoonerism. Most spoonerisms were probably never uttered by Spooner but rather concocted by colleagues and students as a pastime. In other words, the vast majority of spoonerisms are really just bogus quotes insofar as they are quotations that have been fabricated and falsely attributed to Spooner, after whom this particular form of error in speech has been coined. Soon after the dawn of the third millennium, SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ accidentally uttered “The long is too song.” instead of “The song is too long.”, and then blurted out the term “Sreudian flip” on being amused by the slip of the tongue, by spoonerizing “Freudian slip”, which is a well-known term in classical psychoanalysis to describe an error in speech, memory or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an internal train of thought, unconscious subdued wish, subconscious emotion, repressed feeling or suppressed desire. Two more examples created from the mind of SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ are shown as follows. The first example even manages to exhibit two spoonerisms or Sreudian flips: We like to see the big parks at Bay Moon Town.🏞 The sunny bays welcome everybody.🏖️ Those who wish to learn more may read the book entitled “Experimental Slips and Human Error: Exploring the Architecture of Volition”. |
Examples
|
Whether it would be easy or hard to find or cite the source of certain quotes, there exist other more important issues and considerations to be aware of than just those pertaining to misquotations. To begin with, there are valid and even compelling reasons for a discerning and reasonable person to conclude that, irrespective of the source and how a quote eventually comes to be known and used, the message of a quote (when correctly interpreted or understood) is more important than the messenger, whose public status, identity and fame or the lack thereof, as well as our knowledge and assumptions of them, plus the noise and travail of our existence and the hustle and bustle of our lives, can readily or even surreptitiously taint, usurp, prejudice or interfere with our reception and understanding of the message.
The highly subjective and fluid manner in which we arrive at what we consider to be something quotable is in itself a veritable source of enjoyment and a means of discovery. Apart from the mood and setting in which we find or settle ourselves, the tone, form, style and context of what is about to be quoted can have a significant bearing on our perception and evaluation of its value and quality. As what is heard, said or read distils into quotations, it is inevitable that our certain emotions and experiences are being evoked, recalled or massaged, along with our existing biases, extant viewpoints and prevailing expectations, not to mention our longstanding propensities and eccentricities, and to say nothing of our outstanding passions, desires, urges, impulses, feelings and sentiments as well as our established habits, motives, beliefs and affiliations, plus our past traumas, unhealed wounds, emotional attachments, well-guarded blindspots, clever egos and mental traps, all of which can have some bearing on not only how we feel about any quotation but also how, what, why, when and whom we quote. On the whole, we are often inclined or predisposed to pick and choose quotations based on emotions rather than facts, unbiased reasons or holistic considerations, regardless of the specific styles and contents of those quotations. At the very least, such quotations are poised to exert affective influences on our role as perceptive quoters and receptive readers. For some folks, the process of quoting or the action of conceiving quotations can become so resonant, engaging and purposeful that it is almost visceral and even transformative, as described vividly and imaginatively at A Quiver Of Quotes:
How are the quotes chosen?
I find them in the wild. More accurately, I venture into the wilderness of written words and let the quotes find me. (In my experience the quotes like to poke eyes, box guts, deliver spine shivers, and attach wings to the imagination — although, I’m told the latter isn’t an organ of the body, so scrap that if you’re pedantic.)
Let me drop one layer of metaphor and say that again.
I read a book or a magazine or an article, and when a string of words starts to quiver before my mind’s eye, I note it down. Quiver may seem like a strange word to describe the criterion I use, especially because it encompasses so many different phenomena: from the grammatical mistakes and confusing constructions that make my brain itch, to the funny that makes me laugh, to the enlightening that makes me go aha!, to the beautifully poetic that uplifts a soul I didn’t know I had (really?) and makes me want to sing aloud despite my congenital atonality. Also, whether a quote quivers or not is a matter of concentration, emotional balance, blood sugar content; not to mention experiences, foibles and quirks, inclinations and aversions. This is where I insert the disclaimer again: I’m not a professional linguist, I’m only human.
The disadvantage of this approach is that my source of quotes is as finite as I am (not as infinite as the internet, for example).
The advantage of this approach is that I possess a certain, if partial, context for each quote.
Even though how quotes come to life may often seem or feel to be a straightforward matter of placing some words between quotation marks or repeating certain statements verbally, the abovementioned fertile interactions and varied situations that we frequently find ourselves in, or surrender ourselves to, the very moments of encountering, choosing, forming or even extemporizing quotations, have copiously demonstrated that the process of quoting or the action of conceiving quotations is open to various influences or interferences, insofar as the conception or creation of any quotation seldom originates from what can be categorically deemed as a rational affair, a logical process, an objective engagement, a mechanized activity or a systematic procedure. Unlike computers, machines, robots, automata and artificial intelligence, we as humans are hardly ever equipped with a clear default, tidy reset, handy reboot or even expedient reprogramming for recalibrating our minds to a neutral position to free us from (the costs and effects incurred by) our emotional baggage and aftermath, not to mention each of us being the lifelong captive of our subconscious and its subliminal perception and processing. Throughout the waking hours, we are continually carried along by many psychological processes, mental habits and internal states, which can influence our judgements and decisions by stealth. Given that people are responsive beings whose current emotions (such as love, joy, pleasure, empathy, trust, pride, confidence, surprise, anticipation, hope, fear, anger, hatred, contempt, disgust, anxiety, boredom, shame, embarrassment, sadness, grief, guilt, regret, remorse, disappointment and other conscious experience) habitually influence their decisions and behaviours, it would be quite difficult to avoid the affect heuristic, which is a rapid, involuntary emotional response, a kind of mental shortcut described in Wikipedia as
a subconscious process that shortens the decision-making process and allows people to function without having to complete an extensive search for information. It is shorter in duration than a mood, occurring rapidly and involuntarily in response to a stimulus. Reading the words “lung cancer” usually generates an affect of dread, while reading the words “mother’s love” usually generates a feeling of affection and comfort. The affect heuristic is typically used while judging the risks and benefits of something, depending on the positive or negative feelings that people associate with a stimulus. It is the equivalent of “going with your gut”. If their feelings towards an activity are positive, then people are more likely to judge the risks as low and the benefits high. On the other hand, if their feelings towards an activity are negative, they are more likely to perceive the risks as high and benefits low.[2]
In other words, the affect heuristic is a simple, efficient rule that people often intuitively use to form judgements and make decisions such that emotional response, or in the common parlance of psychology, “affect”, plays a major and leading role. As a general term describing mental processes that involve feeling, affect refers to the underlying experience of mood, feeling, emotion or desire as influencing behaviour, and is thus significantly contrasted with cognition, motivation and action. People are repeatedly prone to being dependent on affect heuristic and therefore (en)tangled by the outcome of their emotional experience because the human mind, as intelligent, adaptive and complex as it is, has evolved to be a cognitive miser due to the innate proclivity of human beings to think and solve problems in simpler and less effortful ways rather than in more sophisticated and operose manners, irrespective of their intelligence. This proclivity can be even more pronounced when people have to make judgement under uncertainty by relying on heuristics and biases, as concluded in the seminal research of Israeli cognitive and mathematical psychologist Amos Nathan Tversky, and Israeli psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman, who is also the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Moulded by affect heuristic, these (judge)mental shortcuts are helpful in daily life since they provide effort-reduction and simplification in decision-making to offset or compensate for the limited human capacity to process information comprehensively or exhaustively. Whilst such shortcuts assist people in quickly getting to where they want or need to be, many of the shortcuts can often increase the likelihood, risk and cost of people being sent off course, because people’s judgement and reasoning can be (subtly, surreptitiously or subconsciously) influenced and distorted by people’s affective states and their concomitant experiencing of feelings or emotions.
The art of quoting sees scant logic; what appeals to the heart becomes the reality of quotation.
Deprived of a reset button or default setting, we also have to contend with not having full control or command of our emotional patterns, as they mould and stretch themselves to accommodate the ever-changing contours of daily experience, let alone the larger emotional troughs and valleys incurred by more unpredictable or taxing events through the vicissitudes of our lives. In an extensive and detailed post entitled “How to change the world”, Dr Bob Rich acknowledges the often relative, facile, labile and consuming nature of our emotional states and automatic reactions, which are continually affected by, and fluctuating with, the “current norm” or “the norm of the moment” in our surroundings or circumstances, and which are still filtering and altering our perception, judgement and remembrance through our emotional lenses in spite of our intellectual maturity as adults, even after having come a very long way from our cognitive myopia as infants who live only in the present.
Joy is when life is better than usual, though it might be another’s hell. Unhappiness is when things are worse than the current norm, although far better than others could hope for.
Like an animal, an infant lives in the forever-present. When she is miserable, life has always been terrible, and always will be, an unending, terrifying vista of woe. When she is happy, everything has always been wonderful, and happiness is a sea of joy. As adults, intellectually we are far beyond this, with an appreciation of past and future, change and progression. However, our automatic reactions to our surroundings are still that of the baby, of the animal. Change is perceived, judged, remembered in comparison to the norm of the moment.
In addition to being adequately aware that our judgements and decisions can be readily coloured or influenced by our current emotional and psychological states, we must also be significantly vigilant against the many ways in which our emotions can be played or manipulated by the persuasiveness of certain quotations via their appeal to emotion, the scope, occurrence and ramifications of which are indeed considerable if not alarmingly common and frequent. Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy or literary device characterized by the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions in order to manoeuvre certain situation(s) or to win some argument(s), especially in the absence of factual evidence or logical reasoning. Accordingly, the manipulative, emotive nature of appeal to emotion in achieving a seemingly plausible though ultimately irrelevant aim or outcome to persuade with emotion(al diversion) is a type of red herring waiting to exploit people’s emotional vulnerability and to prey on their lack of reasoned judgement. Encompassing several logical fallacies such as appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite and wishful thinking, appeals to emotion constitute some of the most common and effective argument tactics in which persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument in lieu of working with substantiated facts, cogent reasons and logical processes, without which the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable or demonstrable to be true, accurate or justified. Overall, an appeal to emotion is intended to elicit inward thoughts or feelings from the acquirer or recipient of the information, who, in turn, is intended to be convinced that the claim(s) or fact(s) presented in the fallacious argument are true, accurate or justified solely on the basis that the quotation(s) or statement(s) proferring the argument may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity, joy, anger, spite and so on, thus potentially triggering biased reactions, hasty judgements, false conclusions or injudicious responses as a result of being influenced or overcome by the stimulation, particularly with respect to contentious situations, (in)tense circumstances, hot-button issues, controversial matters or partisan politics. Even though these emotions may be provoked by (the intentional deployment of) appeals to emotion to increase the persuasiveness of some statement(s) or to win certain argument(s), neither the validity nor the reliability of the quotation(s) or statement(s) involved has been admissible or upheld as long as substantial proof and proper validation of the argument(s) are unprovided or unforthcoming, and the premises of the argument(s) remain invalid.
Emotive rather than analytic delivery of a message is an age-old phenomenon. As highly interactive and social animals, human beings have long learnt to engineer or exploit many of their quotations and statements to efficaciously press the emotional buttons of their peers, readers and audiences for the purpose of eliciting emotive reactions, dramatic responses or reactive stances in order to deliver an idea, to drive home some issue, or to incite certain action via the emotional rapport or resonance in positive cases, or via the emotional disgust or agitation in negative cases, all the more so with respect to sensitive, controversial or provocative matters. Emotional reaction or emotive impulse can indeed get the better of those who either fail to recognize appeal to emotion as a formal fallacy (also called logical fallacy, deductive fallacy or non sequitur), or neglect to moderate their feelings, emotional states or reactions as a result of being persuaded or stimulated by some emotion-based claim or argument carried by a quotation or statement, especially if the claim or argument is fallacious (based on a mistaken belief), biased (unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something), misleading (giving the wrong idea or impression), or misguided (having faulty judgement or reasoning). Therefore, it is a necessity for discerning recipients or acquirers of the information contained in a quotation or statement to check, question or ascertain not just the veracity and validity of the information, but also the vulnerability (as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity) of their emotions to any detectable form of persuasion or manipulation conducted via any overt or subtle appeal to emotion, including the use of loaded language (also called loaded terms, ethical words, emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) to invoke an emotional response or exploit stereotypes.
An appeal to emotion (which can include appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking) is in such a contrast to an appeal to logic and reason because even though an emotion as elicited via emotive language may form a prima facie reason for action, there is always further work, thought, effort or cognitive reflection required before one can obtain a considered reason or response, particularly regarding unfamiliar, vexed, contentious, chronic or complex issues. To do so, one needs to cultivate scepticism and exercise critical thinking insofar as the truth or value of any claim contained in a quotation can be far better uncovered, appreciated and (pre)served by the strength of one’s reasoning, and by the reason or evidence presented in the quotation, than by the emotional impact, preference or bias engendered by the quotation. Applying scepticism and critical thinking requires one to defer judgement, suspend doubt and eschew drawing conclusions until or unless adequate evidence or cogent reason can be established from (studying) the content and context of the quotation. It encourages one to determine whether the quotation is relevant, clear, precise, accurate, profound and insightful (plus other qualities and criteria enumerated in the Quotation Checklist). It also behoves one to be cognizant of assumptions, biases and fallacies both within oneself and within the quotation itself.
Given that emotion is our affective apparatus for perceiving and comprehending the emotional content and its expressive constituents within a quotation, and that the import and resonance of a quotation are dependent on and coloured by our emotional profiles, histories and experiences, being a sceptic and critical thinker is not so much ignoring or severing our emotion as justifying or validating it. In other words, the goal of evaluating a quotation with scepticism and critical thinking is less about divorcing, suppressing or containing our emotion, and more about whether our emotion aroused by the quotation should be given credence, particularly when one or more forms of appeal to emotion have been apparent or identified in the quotation. Overall, undue attention to emotional content can potentially diminish or terminate our understanding and comprehension of the underlying message and deeper import within the quotation, since our affective response, psychological state and biological dynamics can propel our attention away from the communicative exchange and relational process necessary for reasoned apprehension of pertinent issues into the vagrancy of our stream of thought, habitual reaction or (un)conscious bias.
Although it can be hard for logic and reason to prevail over emotion, there are good incentives and valid justifications for deploying the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements critically, not just for moderating or modulating our emotional response but also for innoculating ourselves against the assault of untruth, misinformation, disinformation and prevarication, lest we should become victims or even (willing or unwitting) participants in manipulation, indoctrination, chicanery, duplicity, sophistry, hoax or fraud. For instance, it has been shown by the research findings and studies conducted by Gordon Pennycook (who is “an Assistant Professor of Behavioural Science at University of Regina’s Hill/Levene Schools of Business … [and] an Associate Member of the Department of Psychology”) and David G Rand (who is “an Associate Professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, the Director of the Human Cooperation Laboratory and the Applied Cooperation Team at MIT, and an affiliated faculty member of the MIT Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and MIT Institute of Data, Systems, and Society”) that the lack of reasoning resulting from mental slackness or lazy thinking characterized by having a low cognitive reflection test score has a greater impact than wilful ignorance, bias, partisanship, motivated reasoning, and even the accuracy or veracity of information, on people’s ability to winnow truth from falsehood, as well as their willingness and likelihood to share misinformation or disseminate false or deceptive news, regardless of their sociodemographic background, intelligence and political allegiance. Pennycook and Rand conclude that people need not be held captive by their (political) biases if they bother to exercise their reasoning; read full articles rather than just headings before opining, recommending or sharing; induce themselves and their friends to deliberate on (the accuracy of) what they read and share; whilst also guarding themselves against being distracted by the trappings and frivolities on social media that predispose them to not thinking critically, which causes them to be more prone to deception and manipulation online.
Furthermore, emotive arguments and loaded language are often particularly effective and persuasive in eliciting raw and quick reaction by exploiting the potential for emotional complication caused by the human predisposition for acting impulsively, spontaneously or passionately. However, such an emotive reaction based upon an emotional response without the rein of further considered judgement can ultimately be highly unconducive and even detrimental to situation, argument, discourse, writing or speech where fairness, impartiality and sagacity are required.
Emotions fuelling biases and flaring opinions can be seen as a major, volatile contributor to innumerable social flashpoints, cultural minefields and ideological infernos, where truths become victims and martyrs. One of the most influential, intense, high-stakes, polemical and unscrupulous forms of emotional manipulation can be amply observed in post-truth politics, which has been so potent and obtrusive a sociopolitical phenomenon that “post-truth” was designated by English Oxford Living Dictionaries as the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016, and was defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. Ironically, the Global Language Monitor (GLM), “a media analytics company that documents, analyzes and tracks cultural trends in language the world over, with a particular emphasis upon Global English”, ranked “Truth” as its Top Word of 2017 and placed “Post-Truth” in fourth place after “Narrative” and “Opioids”. Also known as post-factual politics and post-reality politics, post-truth politics is defined in Wikipedia as “a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of facts by relegating facts and expert opinions to be of secondary importance relative to appeal to emotion.” As a result of privileging emotional appeal to achieve sociopolitical aims at the expense of factual validity and moral integrity, even the most sanctimonious quotations or statements catapulted from the arena of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, anti-intellectualism, anti-expertise sentiment, populism, conspiracy theories, post-truth politics, demagoguery, ochlocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, kakistocracy, narcissistic leadership or the like need to be critically examined or at least taken with a grain of salt, whilst staying not only well equipped with cool-headedness, balance of mind and emotional equilibrium but also well inoculated with moral fortitude and ethical stalwartness.
Gratuitously familiar, at times rather off-putting, but undeniably effectual, alarmingly ubiquitous, almost ineluctable, and often highly addictive or ambivalently seductive, is a vigorous form of appeal to emotion saturating much of contemporary life and manifesting conspicuously in the public sphere. It is formally identified as sensationalism, which may appear to be conveying compelling news through a selection of sensational or even scandalous quotations and statements, but is ultimately partial, deceptive and misleading, if not trivial and superficial, in both substance and deliverance, particularly when journalistic objectivity (encompassing professionalism, fairness, disinterestedness, factuality and non-partisanship) clashes with profit motive or corporate agenda. Characteristically exploiting the shock value and thrill factor of the content, sensationalism is described in Wikipedia as “a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are overhyped to present biased impressions on events, which may cause a manipulation to the truth of a story.… Some tactics include being deliberately obtuse, appealing to emotions, being controversial, intentionally omitting facts and [fabricating] information, being loud and self-centered, and acting to obtain attention” in pursuit of the scoop to the point of bending facts, distorting truths, ignoring science and even becoming vexatious or insulting by goading and taunting interviewees to provoke strong reactions or visceral responses to generate compelling viewing and dramatic soundbites.
Adding to the all too common pitfalls or quandaries of being trapped or seduced by various forms of appeal to emotion is emotional reasoning, yet another consequence of people (falling into the habit of) being creatures of emotion as they reason about certain situations through their emotional lenses and thus come to some distorted views or conclusions about those situations based on their feelings or emotional states, as summarized by Wikipedia:
Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence. For example, even though a spouse has shown only devotion, a person using emotional reasoning might conclude, “I know my spouse is being unfaithful because I feel jealous.”
Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. For example, a test-taker may feel insecure about their understanding of the material even though they are perfectly capable of answering the questions. If he (or she) acts on his insecurity about failing the written test he might assume that he misunderstands the material and therefore might guess answers randomly, causing his own failure in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Being captives of our emotions, we cannot deny or underestimate the susceptibility and manipulability of our emotions with respect to certain activities, outcomes and objectives of blogging, publishing, advertising, canvassing and interviewing as well as various forms of politics, broadcast and communications on mass media, social media and face-to-face interactions. Pitched to readers and viewers on a highly contrived and gratuitous level, some of the news and information of our contemporary world are significantly dramatized to grab our emotion or seize our attention, as if their validity and veracity have been engineered to be validated by their emotional content and shock value, or by their potential to tease and their potency to titillate. In the article entitled “Is the world really better than ever?” published under the news series called “The long read: In-depth reporting, essays and profiles” by The Guardian, Oliver Burkeman describes the emotional entanglements to which people are being routinely exposed by the ubiquitous foregrounding of opinions at the expense of factual discussion, reasoned argument, rigorous analysis and unbiased reporting:
… we live now in the Age of the Take, in which a seemingly infinite supply of blog posts, opinion columns, books and TV talking heads compete to tell us how to feel about the news. Most of this opinionising focuses less on stacking up hard facts in favour of an argument than it does on declaring what attitude you ought to adopt: the typical take invites you to conclude, say, that Donald Trump is a fascist, or that he isn’t, or that BBC presenters are overpaid, or that your yoga practice is an instance of cultural appropriation. (This shouldn’t really come as a surprise: the internet economy is fuelled by attention, and it’s far easier to seize someone’s attention with emotionally charged argument than mere information – plus you don’t have to pay for the expensive reporting required to ferret out the facts.)
Furthermore, people are at the mercy of attribute substitution, which happens when they have “to make a judgment (of a target attribute) that is computationally complex, and instead substitutes a more easily calculated heuristic attribute” or stereotype. It is a psychological process that lies beneath a number of cognitive biases and perceptual illusions. Overall, people characteristically commit or experience attribution bias:
In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others’ behaviors.[1][2][3] People constantly make attributions regarding the cause of their own and others’ behaviors; however, attributions do not always accurately reflect reality. Rather than operating as objective perceivers, people are prone to perceptual errors that lead to biased interpretations of their social world.[4][5]
Attribution bias is very closely related to self-attribution bias, another long-established concept in psychological research dealing with the common phenomenon of people attributing successful outcomes to their own skills, endeavours, capacities or acumens, and unsuccessful outcomes to factors beyond their control. People are prone to self-attribution bias because of their tendency to ascribe successes to their own character, personal skills or innate aspects such as talent or foresight, but to ascribe failures to external factors, unforeseen circumstances, others’ behaviours or outside influences, blaming luck, team, trends or confounding factors for derailing their goal or progress. In other words, self-attribution bias is a cognitive phenomenon in which people attribute successes or positive events to dispositional factors on the one hand, and failures or negative events to situational factors on the other. The upshot of self-attribution bias is that people are more inclined to tout, inflate or overestimate their achievements or positive attributes, but to deflect, ignore, minimize or underestimate their shortcomings or negative attributes; they become overly enthusiastic about positive feedback or praises, and unnecessarily dismissive of negative feedback or criticisms. In attempting to uphold dignity, retain pride, preserve ego, boost self-image or affirm self-esteem, people often defend, justify or rationalize certain outcomes through cognitive biases, perceptual distortions and psychological illusions, becoming more proud, vain, rigid, defensive, complacent, indifferent, irrational or recalcitrant, and thus rendering themselves much more likely to err in judgement and decision-making to the detriment of achieving considerably and consistently more desirable, holistic, optimum or superior outcomes. Self-attribution bias is also known as self-serving bias as follows:
A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more responsibility for their group’s work than they give to other members, they are protecting their ego from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self’s need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher’s poor teaching ability or unfair test questions might be exhibiting the self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.
Both motivational processes (i.e. self-enhancement, self-presentation) and cognitive processes (i.e. locus of control, self-esteem) influence the self-serving bias. There are both cross-cultural (i.e. individualistic and collectivistic culture differences) and special clinical population (i.e. depression) considerations within the bias.…
For example, the myth of the quotation or statement “If I can do it then anybody can.” is perpetuated by similar mental predispositions or cognitive biases, insofar as people tend to evaluate situations based on their assessments, experiences and outcomes of their own prevailing circumstances. The myth is also rooted in the fact that people can have a strong tendency or proclivity to overestimate the ability and autonomy of the individual, and to underestimate the role and influence of the social. Those who are enticed or charmed by the preconceived notion “If I can do it then anybody can.” would have ignored that the structural nature of inequality, the systemic nature of social organization, the influential sphere of sociopolitical ideology, the bargaining power of socioeconomic status, the social relations to the means of production, the transactional advantages of social capital, the symbolic commands of cultural capital, and the pervading effects of social stratification and epistemic injustice, let alone the perennial issues of age, gender, sex, race, caste, class, sexuality, religion, disability, physical appearance, height, genetics (nature) and upbringing (nurture), can create advantages for some individuals and disadvantages for others, and thus can be the underlying causes of an individual’s success or failure regardless of how hard the person works.
At an academic blog named “Voices from the Margins: A welcoming space for resistance to the forces of oppression and hegemony” and created “to encourage dialogue about possibilities and support for alternate ways of communicating that celebrate the inclusiveness of diversity”, Dr Carol A Hand highlights in her post titled “Disunited States – Reflection on the Morning After” the impacts of socialization and acculturation as well as entrenched sociodemographic factors and unresolved social injustices in producing systemic and structural (dis)advantages that shape the trajectories and outcomes of individual human lives, especially those who have been marginalized:
What do we expect from the soul of a nation built on genocide, enslavement, and unearned entitlement based on gender, the claim of property “ownership,” and ancestry? Why should it be surprising when the legitimacy of the governing structure of such a nation is challenged by those who inherited their positions on the margins and view themselves as victims of its unfair system?
In a very real sense, all of us have been socialized to accept and internalize our congenital place in a given society. Every aspect of the social values and institutions we encounter is affected by our positionality – our birth, where we live, how our parents parent us, the quality of nutrition, care, and education we receive. We are constantly reminded about our place in the social order. Myths of meritocracy encourage a largely unattainable false hope that we can achieve increased social status if we work hard enough. We are rarely, if ever, encouraged to question the legitimacy of the values or institutions that constrain our life possibilities, though.
The work and resources of people on the margins are essential for the continuing existence and comfort of the parasitic elite. The issue of how to control the vastly more sizeable percentage of the population that is marginalized has been accomplished through a capillary network of discriminatory practices in every aspect of people[’s] lives by their ability to pay. Education is a crucial dimension in the socialization process. Those who are lowest in the social structure are the least likely to receive an education that prepares them to think critically and aspire to professional careers (other than sports) or leadership positions.
Often oblivious to the abovementioned multifactorial issues affecting and determining the life chances of individuals, various people have been led to believe that emulating the elites, the trailblazers, the rich and famous, the successful and glamorous, or the powerful and eminent in any fashionable domain or socially desirable field of human endeavour by studying the putative formulae or recipes for success, is the answer to the realization of their hopes and aspirations, the ticket to their future prosperity, the pathway to their prospective ascendancy, the means to be ahead of the pack, or the route to reach the top of social hierarchy. Countless supposedly inspirational quotations, epigraphs, slogans and even rules of life (as well as vast amounts of promotions and profits) have been sourced or created from bestsellers and brand leaders in the forms of books, videos, seminars, workshops, conferences, coaching sessions, mentoring classes, networking avenues and the like. Nevertheless, the power of certain quotations to inspire, as well as the feasibility, realizability and reward of what the quotations claim, can often be overpromised and much less egalitarian than many people would care to know or admit. “Quotes by famous humans frequently have more validity for those with a potential to be great”, and even then, “[q]uotes are motivational only if you agree with the statements based on your personal experience or have a belief in the wisdom of an authority figure whom you admire and respect”, as commented by Uldis Sprogis who has earnestly pondered THE TRUTH ABOUT QUOTES*. Furthermore, in rethinking the obvious at the Polymath Project and citing the research of Steven Pinker, Charles Chu, a “writer in Science, Education, Politics, Culture, Self Improvement, Life Lessons, Psychology, Entrepreneurship”, warns us of confusing or conflating accomplishments due to genetic endowment or native talent with those due to diligence or determination, reminds us of the myths or illusions of tabula rasa, “success formula”, functional training, parenting advice and education programme, as well as cautions us against the fallacy of “doing what the best do”, essentially a form of Authority Bias or Author Bias by appeal to Expert Influence or Creator Persuasion, as explicated in the quoted paragraphs chosen as follows:
Here’s one version of the greatest in the world fallacy that I see everywhere:
“To be the best in the world, study the best in the world and do what they do.”
For a long time, I was convinced this was true.
To be a successful investor, I thought you could read books by Warren Buffett or George Soros and emulate them. To be an elite basketball player, I thought you could spend nights and weekends watching footage of Lebron James or Kobe Bryant and train like they train.
Or — as many self-help books claim — I thought you could be successful by imitating the routines of the best in the world…
Humans are not blank slates. We have different personalities, different strengths and weaknesses. You can’t run the same ‘success formula’ through each of us like you can run an algorithm through a computer. Sadly, most of the world still seems to think you can.
Tom Brady’s training program isn’t going to work for me. Why? Because I’m not Tom Brady. I don’t have his reaction speed, his proprioceptive awareness, or his ability to recover from training.
Most of us are — by definition — closer to the average, and what works for the exceptional doesn’t always work for the ordinary. If everyone at your local YMCA had to train like a Navy SEAL, most of them would be in the hospital before dinnertime.
This one-size-fits-all, do-what-others-do kind of thinking is naive, but it seems to be everywhere, even in the scientific literature.
Take education, for example. In school, I was able to get A’s without studying. Yet, I looked down on other kids and blamed them for their bad grades, saying, “They get bad grades because they aren’t working hard enough.”
In retrospect, that was both dishonest and egoistical of me. I didn’t work hard at all: Most of my time in school was spent playing video games. My grades were due to talent, and I don’t deserve praise for that.
Another example is parenting advice. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker has been pointing out for over a decade now that much of parenting advice is BS (or at least severely misguided).
Like people selling functional training, people selling parenting advice regularly mistake luck (genetics) for skill (parenting).…
Likewise, you shouldn’t look at the kids who get into Harvard or Princeton and apply their study methods. Why? For the same reasons: A big part of getting into top-tier schools is SAT scores. SAT scores are a glorified IQ test, and much of IQ is genetic.
A good education program should make everybody better, not simply help the kids who are already good at taking tests succeed.…
If you think about it, “do what the best do” is another form of argument from authority.
Disadvantaged people’s lives and voices are far less privileged, facilitated and represented because of the sociocultural, political and economic statuses that they cannot acquire, access or amass by having the social class, birthright, credential, identity or habitus that their advantaged counterparts possess in disproportionate abundance via structural causes and institutional means, insofar as their disadvantages are also the result of their ongoing and systemic “exclusion from the institutions devoted to making sense of, describing, and explaining human experiences — the institutions, such as newspapers and universities, that are most able to add new concepts to the common stock of concepts that we use for communicating to other people about our experiences. Miranda Fricker argues that unequal participation in the activities that shape the categories through which we understand the world makes some people’s lives less intelligible — sometimes, less intelligible to themselves, and often, less intelligible to others.”[❆] This lack of intelligibility and recognition further degrades and alienates (the lives and voices of) the underprivileged and disenfranchised. The tentacles of differential advantage, cumulative dominance, runaway polarization, rampant inequality and epistemic injustice can penetrate even what are purportedly or supposedly meritocratic spheres of life, including science and academia, thus furnishing dramatically more opportunities, recognitions and resources for those who are already well-established, well-resourced, well-cited or well-connected in their respective fields, as abbreviated in the following chosen and concatenated excerpts from Wikipedia:
The Matthew effect of accumulated advantage, described in sociology, is a phenomenon sometimes summarized by the adage that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” The concept is applicable to matters of fame or status, but may also be applied literally to cumulative advantage of economic capital.
In the sociology of science, “Matthew effect” was a term coined by Robert K. Merton to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers who are already famous. For example, a prize will almost always be awarded to the most senior researcher involved in a project, even if all the work was done by a graduate student. This was later formulated by Stephen Stigler as Stigler’s law of eponymy – “No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer” – with Stigler explicitly naming Merton as the true discoverer, making his “law” an example of itself.
Merton furthermore argued that in the scientific community the Matthew effect reaches beyond simple reputation to influence the wider communication system, playing a part in social selection processes and resulting in a concentration of resources and talent. He gave as an example the disproportionate visibility given to articles from acknowledged authors, at the expense of equally valid or superior articles written by unknown authors. He also noted that the concentration of attention on eminent individuals can lead to an increase in their self-assurance, pushing them to perform research in important but risky problem areas.
In science, dramatic differences in the productivity may be explained by three phenomena: sacred spark, cumulative advantage, and search costs minimization by journal editors. The sacred spark paradigm suggests that scientists differ in their initial abilities, talent, skills, persistence, work habits, etc. that provide particular individuals with an early advantage. These factors have a multiplicative effect which helps these scholars [to] succeed later. The cumulative advantage model argues that an initial success helps a researcher [to] gain access to resources (e.g., teaching release, best graduate students, funding, facilities, etc.), which in turn results in further success. Search costs minimization by journal editors takes place when editors try to save time and effort by consciously or subconsciously selecting articles from well-known scholars. Whereas the exact mechanism underlying these phenomena is yet unknown, it is documented that a minority of all academics produce the most research output and attract the most citations.
There is always the risk or trap of being so seduced by the glory and accolade heaped upon those who are successful, triumphant or idolized that one ceases to think critically about the deeper implications of an innocently sounding quotation or statement that is as simple, promising and exuberant as “If I can do it then anybody can.”. This lack of critical mindset, faculty or attitude can readily lead one to latch onto a sanguine outlook or feel-good moral position that neglects or negates one’s personal responsibility to make sense of, and account for, the relevant history, contexts and contents as well as the moral, social and political bearings and principles pertinent or peculiar to tall and shining achievements. Overly optimistic beliefs as typified by the quotation or statement “If I can do it then anybody can.” may also be a sign or symptom of survivorship bias, survival bias or success bias, which is a fallacy of focusing on the people (or things) that succeed or prosper in some selection process, whilst disregarding those that fail or flop due to their lack of support, resource, visibility, fame, renown, honour or recognition. This form of bias can produce significant blinkers in people’s perceptions and conceptions of success and failure.
Some of the most salient and revealing examples of people disproportionately looking up to, believing in, or concentrating on, those with tall and shining achievements can be exemplified by the so-called “Horatio Alger myth” or “rags to riches”, in which persons of impoverished origins seemingly ascend to middle-class prosperity or even upper-class affluence from humble backgrounds or abject poverties through sheer determination and hard work, though often what ultimately changes their fates and facilitates their emancipations is actually some extraordinary act of redemption, bravery, courage or honesty, certain chance encounter or arranged meeting with a benefactor, influencer, impresario or luminary, and/or a particular set of people, events, happenstances or circumstances, that not only engender the substantive forces and resources required for achieving unstinting liberation and thoroughgoing ascension to eminence, but also sustain such dramatic socioeconomic transformation in the lives of such persons. The ramifications of such myths promulgated by many highly celebrated stories, whether real or fictional, can be far-reaching insofar as the stories deeply entrench certain cultural stereotypes and highly elevate specific life trajectories, whilst they obfuscate, supplant, suppress, usurp or subvert critical social issues and moral matters with romanticized visions of success, mythologized tales of prosperity, legendary retelling of the golden age, or unrealistic archetypes of fame and fortune, whilst emphasizing or even enshrining the narratives of the victorious and the authorities of the jubilant, some of which can also be considered as exemplars of the monomyth or hero’s journey. For instance:
Rags to riches refers to any situation in which a person rises from poverty to wealth, and in some cases from absolute obscurity to heights of fame — sometimes instantly. This is a common archetype in literature and popular culture (for example, the writings of Horatio Alger, Jr. and recently J. K. Rowling).
Criticism
The concept of “Rags to riches” has been criticised by social reformers, revolutionaries, essayists and statisticians, who argue that only a handful of exceptionally capable and/or mainly lucky persons are actually able to travel the “rags to riches” road, being the great publicity given to such cases causes a natural survivorship bias illusion, which help [to] keep the masses of the working class and the working poor in line, preventing them from agitating for an overall collective change in the direction of social equality.
The abovementioned criticism is valid and defensible insofar as the underlying picture or concealed reality beneath such myths is a far cry from something openly inspiring and galvanizing towards achieving some wholesale social change for the good of many instead of just a lucky few or an exceptional minority, and for genuinely initiating and sustaining fundamental or widespread social change for the betterment of all and sundry. Nostalgia and mythology can indeed interact and entangle with the popular beliefs, common narratives, received wisdoms and putative legends of our times through the dynamics of cultural reproductions and social constructions. In other words, nostalgia and mythology can function like social narcotics, rendering many contemporary issues as well as certain past events and recorded histories less pitched, contentious, disputable or problematic than they really are or have been, especially when they have been fermented by survivorship bias, survival bias or success bias, which, for better or worse, further reinforces the allure of such myths, and thus perpetuates the legitimacy of their concomitant genres, stories and characters, considering how exuberant, promising and optimistic the cultural phenomena, social aspirations, and collectively held beliefs generated by such myths can become in popular media and contemporary societies, as well as in various exhortations, slogans, manifestos, catchphrases, epigraphs and quotations resulting from such myths.
Moreover, the distorted views or beliefs commonly encountered in people’s ignorance, misunderstanding or underestimation of prominent factors in their social upbringing and systemic socialization practices with respect to how people justify or rationalize the outcomes of their efforts or achievements are also the result of people succumbing to the cognitive processes of motivated reasoning, which is a sort of inferred strategy of justification and a kind of implicit regulation of emotion, in which people’s attitudes, decisions, deliberations and judgements are seldom neutral but often motivated by beliefs and outcomes. People often so desire to maintain or achieve these beliefs and outcomes that their thought processes favour, emphasize or gravitate towards those attitudes, decisions, deliberations and judgements that seek or amplify positive emotional states and avoid or attenuate negative emotional states as a way to dissolve mental discomfort or circumvent psychological stress known in the field of behavioural science as cognitive dissonance. The crux of motivated reasoning is therefore rooted in the tacit connections between emotions and biases, which can cast considerable impacts and raise serious ramifications in both the reliability and validity of judgement and decision-making. Some of these issues are summarized by Wikipedia as follows:
Motivated reasoning is an emotion-biased decision-making phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology. This term describes the role of motivation in cognitive processes such as decision-making and attitude change in a number of paradigms, including:
- Cognitive dissonance reduction[1]
- Beliefs about others on whom one’s own outcomes depend[1]
- Evaluation of evidence related to one’s own outcomes[1]
The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”.[2] This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”.[3]
All in all, in being more aware of the tacit connections between emotions and biases with respect to our choice of, and response towards, quotations, we shall do very well in achieving higher quotational excellence by guarding against the traps and pitfalls or the downsides and drawbacks of affect heuristic, appeal to emotion, sensationalism, emotional reasoning, attribute substitution, heuristic, stereotype, attribution bias, self-attribution bias (also called self-serving bias), survivorship bias, survival bias or success bias, motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance, plus the eighty-odd cognitive biases enumerated near the beginning of Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope and Corollaries.
As discussed earlier in Emotions and Biases: Affect Heuristic, Stereotype, Attribution Bias, the susceptibility or vulnerability of our emotions to various influences and manipulations as a result of being exposed to, involved in, or persuaded by, affect heuristic, appeal to emotion, emotional reasoning and motivated reasoning, can substantially increase in any quotation or statement containing a formal fallacy, which is able to not only confound or tamper with our emotions but also muddle or invalidate the logic and validity of the claim or argument carried by the quotation or statement. This conundrum or dilemma is all the more acute and inescapable if the quotation or statement is also associated with fame (and fortune).
To establish the (inter)connections between Logic and Fame, let us first examine the former in greater detail. In philosophical logic, a formal fallacy (also known as logical fallacy, deductive fallacy or non sequitur) is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. It is a kind of fallacy where deduction goes amiss and ceases to be a logical process. In other words, a formal fallacy is (caused by) a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure. In the strictest sense, a formal fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a non-existent principle.
Whether or not the claim or argument contained in a quotation or statement is sound and devoid of any formal fallacy can be determined by examining its logic or pattern of reasoning as follows. An argument is a progression from premises to conclusion using valid inference such that one premise follows from its predecessors. It starts with a series of statements called the premises intended for determining the degree of truth of another statement called the conclusion. A true conclusion can only be reached or guaranteed by having true premises and a valid argument. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In other words, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Moreover, an argument is sound if it is valid and has true premises such that its true premises necessitate a true conclusion. Simply put, an argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. However, some argument can have true premises but still have a false conclusion, since in a valid argument, premises necessitate the conclusion even if one or more of the premisses is false and the conclusion is false. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion since truth and validity are separate in formal logic, which stipulates that truth is a property of claims or statements (such as premises and conclusions), whereas validity is a property of the argument itself. A few examples of a quote, claim or statement containing a formal fallacy are shown as follows:
“Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete or even faked! That proves that I’m right!”
“The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!”
“Adolf Hitler liked dogs. He was evil. Therefore, liking dogs is evil.”
The daily frequency with which we encounter fallacious or misguided statements such as the above, let alone other countless similar instances found in everyday interactions and public discourses on mass media, social platforms and political arenas, can be a good gauge of the social mores and mental stance of people in particular environments, in which such or similar quotes, claims or statements are allowed to circulate (with impunity). A social mirror or indicator of baser instincts, uncritical attitudes or intellectual mediocrities aside, when quotations or statements marred by formal fallacies are known or thought to originate from luminaries, dignitaries, celebrities or politicians, their effects and impacts may become dramatically amplified, as such quotations or statements can be much more easily peddled or exploited by virtue of sheer influence, superb impression or consummate stature in spite of their flaws.
Logic & Goal versus Fame & Fortune
Being active members of a highly gregarious and communicative species, we are often content with our many assumptions about other people and their endeavours based on their social status and physical attributes. All too often, if the messenger or quotee is known to be famous or deemed to be authoritative, we are far more likely to defer our better judgement, surrender our common sense, forsake our suspicion, suspend our scepticism, relinquish our intellectual autonomy, disregard the yardstick of logic, or throw caution to the wind through our admiration of, or alliance with, the messenger or quotee, believing that our use of such a quote and the eminence of its originator will automatically, inevitably or categorically impart significant credence and meaning to our own position, purpose and perspective.
The following example demonstrates that some popular statements or well-known quotations of eminent influence are often assumed to be unquestioningly true and authoritative, even though careful enquiries, critical analyses or logical evaluations can readily uncover their flaws. Lorenzo Pasqualis warns us about famous quotes and logical fallacies by highlighting the case of a fictional private detective, Sherlock Holmes, who is recognized for his uncanny expertise in applying astute observation, forensic science and logical reasoning that borders on the fantastic. Originating from the signature utterance of the famed detective who unswervingly delivers it with sanctimoniousness as he unlocks clues necessary to solving a crime, the renowned quotation or statement “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” typifies a Holmesian fallacy (also called Sherlock Holmes fallacy, process-of-elimination fallacy, far-fetched hypothesis or arcane explanation). Putting the faulty reasoning that lies behind the famous quote under the spotlight, a Holmesian fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a certain explanation is believed to be true by claiming that alternative explanations are impossible without actually establishing the means or facts to rule them out exhaustively. In other words, it occurs when some explanation is claimed or believed to be true on the basis that other explanations are impossible, and yet not all other explanations have been ruled out.
Logical fallacies will show their ugly head in dialog during your career in tech, and life in general. Do not let that go! It will distort reality and introduce contradictions to supposedly logical arguments. People regularly repeat phrases and quotes as unquestionable truths, because some famous person said them in the past. Such phrases sound smart and are attached to famous names that we would not dare to question. People repeat those phrases because we are used to them, and we assume them to be true.
…a quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle…has a logical fallacy:
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
When you hear someone quote this monstrosity, don’t let it go! It is a logical fallacy, and it is simply wrong. Just because Arthur Conan Doyle was a “Sir” and wrote books about a smart detective, it does not mean he was right all the time.…Once you eliminate the impossible, what remains is “not impossible”, which simply means “possible”. If something is possible it does not mean that it is true, nor likely. It simply means that there is a non-zero chance of it being true, not a certainty.
Logically correct statements, sometimes don’t sound as smart as similar fallacies
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should have stated the principle as follows:
“Once you eliminate everything that is not the truth, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
A Holmesian fallacy is not just a formal fallacy (also called logical fallacy or deductive fallacy) but also an informal fallacy (also called relevance fallacy, conceptual fallacy or soundness fallacy) because it originates in an error in reasoning other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument, such that the argument is formally valid but is unsound because of the falsity or irrelevance of one or more of its premises. In other words, any argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally valid but still fallacious. All in all, a Holmesian fallacy is an exemplar of a paralogism, which is a fallacious or illogical argument, reasoning or conclusion, especially one committed by mistake or believed by the speaker to be logical; or one that seems to be superficially logical or that the reasoner believes to be logical.
The importance of being mindful of people’s susceptibility to being misled or beguiled by something seemingly convincing, supposedly logical or outwardly reasonable is indeed well demonstrated here, since even the validity or reliability of a statement as renowned and intelligent sounding as “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” is neither beyond intellectual scrutiny nor immune to the charge of pseudoprofundity or pretension of depth. That the statement itself typifies a Holmesian fallacy eponymously is an obvious point for those who are well informed of its aforementioned flaws. Unfortunately, the statement is also problematic in other ways, causing it to sound much more profound and generalizable than it really is. To begin with, another problem associated with a Holmesian fallacy is its appeal to omniscience, formally called argument from omniscience (also known as allness or absolute thinking), which is the opposite of argument from ignorance. An argument from omniscience occurs when the argument, statement or quotation presents a case that amounts to someone having or claiming to know literally everything about the subject matter at hand. Upholding (the validity or reliability of) an argument from omniscience is a tall order indeed, if not an impossibility, as there may always be unknowns, exceptions, outliers, anomalies, counterexamples and the like to the putative claim or extant generalization. Such an argument, statement or quotation is typically expressed with words like “all”, “everyone”, “no one”, “everything”, “nothing”, “always”, “never”, “since/because this/that is what it is for”, “this/that is all there is to it”, or the like, and is often plagued by false precision (also called overprecision, fake precision, misplaced precision or spurious precision) and precision bias (also known as numeracy bias or range estimate aversion). The latter is a form of cognitive bias in which an evaluator of information commits a logical fallacy as the result of confusing precision for accuracy. Specifically, in assessing the merits of an argument, measurement or report, an observer or assessor mistakenly believes that greater precision implies greater accuracy, and that since a quotation or statement is precise, it is also true.
As revealed by the exemplar of a Holmesian fallacy just described above, it is quite ironic, if not downright unfortunate, that quotations that are logically true may appear to be less clever, appealing, insightful or intelligent than those that are logically flawed. Falling into such a trap and being somewhat fooled or misled by apparently canny, percipient, sagacious and thought-provoking quotations notwithstanding, in willingly assuming famous quotations to be true or valid on account of their provenances without bothering to examine them for harbouring formal fallacies (also called logical fallacies or deductive fallacies), we fail to assess the phrases and quotations on their respective merits, and thus simultaneously succumb to the genetic fallacy (also called the fallacy of origins or the fallacy of virtue), which “is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context”, and to the halo effect, a form of cognitive bias and a specific type of confirmation bias, in which our overall impression of a famous person influences not only our thoughts and feelings about the person’s character or attributes, but also our opinions and assessments of the person’s writing or saying in quotations. Indeed, it is all too easy to use famous quotations from our favourite celebrities, preferred authorities, esteemed luminaries or honoured dignitaries as shields, excuses, pretexts or justifications to bolster a particular defence or standpoint, to reinforce certain kind of belief or reasoning, to relax the reins on our follies or shortcomings, and to counter any qualms that we might have about specific acts or issues.
On the flip side, the relevance or significance of a quotation can be readily disparaged or tarnished by a mere reference to an infamous person, whose credibility or character is questionable. As a result, we run a great risk of dismissing any intrinsic value of the quotation summarily, unfairly or indiscriminately.
As mentioned, the act of using or even just reading famous quotes can readily or unknowingly cause one to fall into the troubled catchments of formal fallacies (also called logical fallacies or deductive fallacies), informal fallacies (also known as relevance fallacies, conceptual fallacies or soundness fallacies), genetic fallacy (also called the fallacy of origins or the fallacy of virtue), and halo effect, especially when one tries to appeal to authority or commit an argument from authority (also called argumentum ad verecundiam), in which the support of a professed expert or claimed authority is deployed as evidence for the conclusion of an argument or a quotation, on the basis that an expert knows better and that the reader or audience should conform to the expert’s opinion or assessment. Also rooted in cognitive biases, such an argument presented as statement(s) or quotation(s) is defeasible and thus in principle is open to valid objection, forfeiture, annulment or revision, since it is a sort of reasoning that is rationally compelling but deductively invalid, and since it is a contingent statement, which only amounts to a specific type of non-demonstrative reasoning without a full, complete or final demonstration of a claim, in which fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged. Whilst appeal to authority or argument from authority is a familiar fallacy, it is a valid inductive argument that can be cogently maintained or effectively deployed when all parties of a discussion, proposal, activity or project agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.
Quoting SoundEagle🦅 in Flight
In general, an appeal to authority or argument from authority by way of quoting a famous person, expert, authority or cognoscente should only be used when the case or context of an argument or quotation has sufficient validity and reliability, if one were to avoid being tarnished or led astray by the authority bias, which is the tendency of an individual or group not only to impute more validity or attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authoritative figure, imposing icon, respected dignitary or reputable celebrity (even when the opinion is unrelated to the content of the case or quotation), but also to be significantly more influenced by the opinion to the detriment of retaining effective autonomy in forming judgements and making decisions. As a matter of fact, the authority bias is another precipitous tendency, involuntary emotional response or mental shortcut described as follows in Wikipedia as the result of informal means of social control through internalization of norms, values and ideologies by the process of socialization, such that an individual normally equipped with a very wide range of behavioural repertoires and potentialities is led to develop behaviours confined to the much narrower range of what is acceptable or tolerable to the dominant group’s standards, what is urged or boosted under social pressures, and what is encouraged or emboldened by social conformities.
…The Milgram experiment in 1961 was the classic experiment that established its existence.[2]
We usually have deep seated duty to authority, and tend to comply when requested by an authority figure.[3]
In any society, a diverse and widely accepted system of authority allows the development of sophisticated structures for the production of resources, trade, expansion and social control. Since the opposite is anarchy, we are all trained from birth to believe that obedience to authority is right. Notions of submission and loyalty to legitimate rule of others are accorded values in schools, the law, the military and in political systems. The strength of the bias to obey a legitimate authority figure comes from systemic socialization practices designed to instill in people the perception that such obedience constitutes correct behavior. Different societies vary the terms of this dimension.[4] As we grow up, we learn that it benefits us to obey the dictates of genuine authority figures because such individuals usually possess higher degrees of knowledge, wisdom and power. Consequently, deference to authority can occur in a mindless fashion as a kind of decision-making short cut.[5]
See also
For those who prefer ingesting something short and sweet to digesting the long and full discussion above, the fallacy of quoting an authority can be summed up with three one-sentence paragraphs located in the middle of Mark Reijman’s article entitled “Don’t fall for the authority bias” as follows:
Remember that authority typically only applies to a narrow field.
For example, it doesn’t make sense to invoke a quote from Einstein on religion, as his expertise was in physics!
Always look at the strength of the argument, not the person behind it.
Citing Albert Einstein as an authority for a determination, deliberation, cogitation or resolution on religion even though his primary expertise, principal achievement and professional acumen were in physics is actually an instance of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field, insofar as fallacious arguments from authority are also often the result of citing a non-authority as an authority. Such an appeal to non-authority is characterized by the philosophers Irving Marmer Copi and Carl Cohen as a fallacy of ad verecundiam “when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand… Whenever the truth of some proposition is asserted on the basis of the authority of one who has no special competence in that sphere”.[❆]
Even in matters regarding physics and astronomy, one must be very careful of attributing popular quotations to German-Jewish theoretical physicist Albert Einstein as the quotee, given that misquotations in the forms of bogus quotes (quotes that have been fabricated and falsely attributed) and misattributions (quotes attributed to the wrong person) are especially rife in countless quotations alleged to have been uttered or written by famous figures and prestigious celebrities, whose statuses or achievements lend manufactured credence and provenance to the quotes, even when the contents of such quotes are problematic or questionable, and when such prominent attributions have never been absolutely confirmed or properly authenticated. For instance, the often quoted expression “God does not play dice with the universe.” is never stated by Einstein himself in English or his native tongue, and is at best a concise paraphrase of Einstein’s remark in a 1926 letter, written in German and addressed to German-Jewish physicist and mathematician Max Born. The English translation can be read as follows: “The [quantum] theory says a lot, but does not bring us any closer to the secrets of the ‘old one’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.” Andrew Robinson, a journalist and the author of the biographical book entitled “Einstein: A Hundred Years of Relativity” and published in 2015, has come to the following conclusions on 12 March 2018 about this state of affair in the final paragraph of his article entitled “Why do we love to quote (and misquote) Albert Einstein?”:
The phenomenon of Einstein misquotation is largely driven by an all-too-human desire for mystification and for authority figures, epitomised by the two words ‘iconic’ and ‘genius’. When relativity first became popular in the 1920s, many people assumed that Einstein could be cited to the effect that everything is relative, including truth; that all observations are subjective; and that anything is possible. ‘I like quoting Einstein,’ as the Jewish-American author, historian and broadcaster Studs Terkel declared with a grin in an interview with The Guardian on his 90th birthday in 2002. ‘Know why? Because nobody dares contradict you.’ Terkel’s quip is especially ironic, given Einstein’s lifelong distrust of authority – particularly in physics, education or politics. But even here, Einstein commands the last word. In an authentic aphorism for an unnamed friend, he wrote in 1930: ‘To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.’
Hence, one should ascertain that an alleged authority is not only accurately quoted, authentically attributed, and reasonably fit to function or adjudicate in an area of their expertise, but also reasonably focussed on facts relevant to the argument, discussion or quotation, so as to guard against any appeal to, or argument from, false, misleading or unqualified authority, especially if such an authority happens to be one of those who are believed, approached or consulted merely by reason of their position, influence, wealth and/or status. In addition, one would do well in detecting, discouraging, rejecting or eschewing any attempt at creating or crafting a veneer of legitimacy, a façade of validity, or a semblance of erudition, whether relying on or resulting from an appeal to authority or argument from authority via the gratuitous, unjustified, disingenuous, unscrupulous or exploitative use of quotations or statements originated from certain cognoscenti, experts, gurus, leaders, politicians, luminaries, dignitaries, celebrities, superstars, historical figures or the like.
Examining the circulation, recognition and visibility of information as a function of knowledge structure and power hierarchy is the key to self-empowerment in one’s ability to gauge the worth and veracity of information. The Association of College & Research Libraries has compiled a set of learning and research guidelines united under the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education “based on a cluster of interconnected core concepts” in response to “the dynamic and often uncertain information ecosystem in which all of us work and live, … [and to] a greater role and responsibility in creating new knowledge, in understanding the contours and the changing dynamics of the world of information, and in using information, data, and scholarship ethically.” The Framework comprises six frames, each containing “a concept central to information literacy, a set of knowledge practices, and a set of dispositions”:
- Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
- Information Creation as a Process
- Information Has Value
- Research as Inquiry
- Scholarship as Conversation
- Searching as Strategic Exploration
According to the detailed explication presented below for the first of the six frames, we should be well aware that the social nature of our perception of and reliance on authority in mediating our own assessment of the value of information can not only present us with far-reaching consequences in our overall evaluation and application of information, but also interact with us in ways that are contingent and contextual, inasmuch as the notion and influence of authority are themselves socially constructed and culturally dependent, and are thus open to much more nuanced engagements based on the context and circumstance in which the information is needed and used. In other words, understanding how authority is constructed plus learning how to contextualize and differentiate various types of authority when evaluating and using information as well as navigating the information ecosystem are essential for improving our information literacy.
Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required.
Experts understand that authority is a type of influence recognized or exerted within a community. Experts view authority with an attitude of informed skepticism and an openness to new perspectives, additional voices, and changes in schools of thought. Experts understand the need to determine the validity of the information created by different authorities and to acknowledge biases that privilege some sources of authority over others, especially in terms of others’ worldviews, gender, sexual orientation, and cultural orientations. An understanding of this concept enables novice learners to critically examine all evidence—be it a short blog post or a peer-reviewed conference proceeding—and to ask relevant questions about origins, context, and suitability for the current information need. Thus, novice learners come to respect the expertise that authority represents while remaining skeptical of the systems that have elevated that authority and the information created by it. Experts know how to seek authoritative voices but also recognize that unlikely voices can be authoritative, depending on need. Novice learners may need to rely on basic indicators of authority, such as type of publication or author credentials, where experts recognize schools of thought or discipline-specific paradigms.
Knowledge Practices
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities
- define different types of authority, such as subject expertise (e.g., scholarship), societal position (e.g., public office or title), or special experience (e.g., participating in a historic event);
- use research tools and indicators of authority to determine the credibility of sources, understanding the elements that might temper this credibility;
- understand that many disciplines have acknowledged authorities in the sense of well-known scholars and publications that are widely considered “standard,” and yet, even in those situations, some scholars would challenge the authority of those sources;
- recognize that authoritative content may be packaged formally or informally and may include sources of all media types;
- acknowledge they are developing their own authoritative voices in a particular area and recognize the responsibilities this entails, including seeking accuracy and reliability, respecting intellectual property, and participating in communities of practice;
- understand the increasingly social nature of the information ecosystem where authorities actively connect with one another and sources develop over time.
Dispositions
Learners who are developing their information literate abilities
- develop and maintain an open mind when encountering varied and sometimes conflicting perspectives;
- motivate themselves to find authoritative sources, recognizing that authority may be conferred or manifested in unexpected ways;
- develop awareness of the importance of assessing content with a skeptical stance and with a self-awareness of their own biases and worldview;
- question traditional notions of granting authority and recognize the value of diverse ideas and worldviews;
- are conscious that maintaining these attitudes and actions requires frequent self-evaluation.
In the larger scheme of things, the authority bias occurs when individuals rely on clues about the social structure of a network, community or population, so that they can admire or recognize the social standings of certain authorities or elites in a network, community or population to determine what social value or cultural model to adopt or imitate. According to dual inheritance theory (DIT), also called gene-culture coevolution or biocultural evolution, which connects individual-level processes to population-level outcomes, and treats culture as a dynamic property of individuals rather than a superorganic entity to which individuals must conform, the type and nature of the authority bias depend on how the particular kind of authority or cultural model impresses on individuals through prestige, skill, success, status and similarity (or homophily):
Social learning at its simplest involves blind copying of behaviors from a model (someone observed behaving), though it is also understood to have many potential biases, including success bias (copying from those who are perceived to be better off), status bias (copying from those with higher status), homophily (copying from those most like ourselves), conformist bias (disproportionately picking up behaviors that more people are performing), etc.…
Model-based biases result when an individual is biased to choose a particular “cultural model” to imitate. There are four major categories of model-based biases: prestige bias, skill bias, success bias, and similarity bias. A “prestige bias” results when individuals are more likely to imitate cultural models that are seen as having more prestige. A measure of prestige could be the amount of deference shown to a potential cultural model by other individuals. A “skill bias” results when individuals can directly observe different cultural models performing a learned skill and are more likely to imitate cultural models that perform better at the specific skill. A “success bias” results from individuals preferentially imitating cultural models that they determine are most generally successful (as opposed to successful at a specific skill as in the skill bias.) A “similarity bias” results when individuals are more likely to imitate cultural models that are perceived as being similar to the individual based on specific traits.
Since genetic evolution is relatively well understood, a large part of dual inheritance theory (DIT) examines cultural evolution and the interactions between cultural evolution and genetic evolution. Understanding that social learning is a system of pattern replication, and that there exist different rates of survival for different socially learned cultural variants, requires the recognition of an evolutionary structure: cultural evolution. On the whole, evolutionary sciences attempt to posit and demonstrate why and how human beings have ingrained predilections to follow authority especially during their formative years so as to maintain the cultural cohesion and social functioning of the group(s) to which they belong and on which their very survival depend. Hence, people are by nature highly vulnerable to the influence of authority for better or worse, and thus by necessity need to be constantly vigilant against undue or adverse influence from any authority, especially if they value being sufficiently autonomous to cultivate critical thinking and to live an examined life.
The Quotation Fallacy with Authority Bias & Author Bias
In a comment addressed to SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ, Keith, who is a client manager for a professional consulting firm, and also a blogger providing a source of “[i]ndependent views from someone who offers some historical context”, concedes a similar point about the author of a quote playing a part in our reception or attitude towards the quote: “we have to guard against author bias. Sometimes, we may like a quote and then like it more when we discover the author. It also feeds part of our ego to be able to cite Mark Twain or Confucious [sic].”
Therefore, adding even more caveats to using quotes is the ever-present author bias, which, according to Writing@CSU | The Writing Studio, an open-access, educational website supported by the Colorado State University, “can carry an understated or implied judgment … reflect[ing] an author’s bias or preference for one side of an issue over another”, not to mention that an author’s opinion, agenda or subjectivity can significantly affect the content or discussion of an issue. Given that the opinions and backgrounds of different authors will have significantly different bearings on what, how and why certain issues or subject matters are selected and approached, one should be mindful of the underlying assumptions, patterns, paradigms, propagandas and the like, which invariably accompany authors publishing their oeuvres in any medium or format, even something as factual as an academic article from a reputable and long-established source such as a journal or encyclopaedia, let alone those not generally regarded as trustworthy sources, much less those resembling opinion pieces giving little or no citations.
If possible, one should gather and examine the opinions or findings of multiple authors to reveal or review whether they are consistent or divergent, to learn about cross-fertilizations in collaborative works or edited volumes, to discover or identify confluences of data or views, and to have a sense of the interconnections of disciplines and knowledges, since many findings and techniques across distinct domains are variously based or founded on (the (re)organizations or (re)contextualization of) existing data, concepts, ideas, models, theories, archetypes, narratives, rules, codes, lexicons, grammars, logics, syntaxes, equations, derivations, abstractions, generalizations, classifications, quantifications, measurements, instrument(ation)s, interdisciplinarity and so on in vastly interconnected fashions, and have been reliably used or referenced for a long time. Regardless of the level of consensus amongst authors, the cumulative achievements, benefits and synergies resulting from the convergence of evidences and efforts from authors of different disciplines and persuasions can be just as illuminating in their magnitude and diversity as the competitions, animosities and adversities resulting from the divergence of authors’ personalities, approaches, convictions and circumstances.
By extension, one should always establish the validity and reliability of authors’ claims by triangulation using multiple methods or multiple types and sources of information, and should never categorically trust unusual or unconfirmed information from only one or a few sources, especially when (the tasks of assessing or establishing) the authenticity, validity and reliability of those claims and sources are so specialized, conflated or complicated as to be very difficult for laypersons lacking appropriate expert training or professional acumens to gauge or understand. Borrowing the wisdom of Winston Churchill: “True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information.” Furthermore, in an age where misinformation and falsehoods abound on various digital media and communications channels, and where authors and agents with dubious credentials and spurious claims are free to disseminate any news or contents created to promote agendas and profits, or to propel fads and followings, it would also be highly prudent to be aware of authors’ associations and funding sources as well as authors’ elisions of evidence and evasions of counterarguments. Living in an era of instant gratification, when information is so easily obtainable and disseminated through digital means, one can never take the integrity and authenticity of information for granted, even when the information is presented or repackaged as quotations that appear to be reasonably admissible or seemingly convincing. After all, the Internet is and has been quite saturated with false, inaccurate, erroneous or problematic claims, opinions, interpretations and data from factions who have dubious and even unscrupulous goals, misguided missions and questionable agendas. Passive consumptions of quotations aside, often one may not be aware that many problems and issues can only be apparent or identifiable to those who are truly discerning of some ongoing pitfalls and oversights from which people who lack certain proficiencies and aptitudes invariably suffer, let alone having the wherewithal to see for oneself the social constructionist nature of knowledge and its epistemological dimensions, and how everyday people and even certain scientists could err even in the face of solid evidence gained from multiple lines of independent inquiries and researches from miscellaneous fields.
In examining multiple sources of information from different authors, one must refrain from cherry picking data and ignoring contrary evidences, so that one may obtain not only reasonable exposure to contrasting viewpoints or perspectives, but also the possibility of evaluating and changing one’s standpoints, approaches and behaviours, regardless of how entrenched they might have been. After all, it is important for, and also courageous and admirable of, all of us to confront sensitive and polarizing issues amidst social prejudice, ignorance and bigotry, to have lived an examined life, to be inquisitive and open-minded, and to be watchful and punctilious of why and how we quote any authority or any author, and what we quote from their work.
Moreover, instead of just putting one’s faith in quoting an authority or author to illustrate a point, demonstrate an idea or deliver an opinion, one will be more satisfyingly, if not more authoritatively, poised to acquire and impart knowledge first-hand and reliably, should one be willing to carry out due diligence in exploring areas of interest by conducting some (background) research into the subject matter(s) in question, and then to present the findings by quoting oneself, or quoting from the horse’s mouth. As Emilio J D’Alise summarizes in a comment addressed to SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ, “rather than rely on the intellectual laziness of pressing other people’s words into one’s service, it would behove a person to formulate their own opinions based on research and the gained understanding of a given subject and then present not only said opinion, but the reasoned path [that] one traveled in reaching it, and do so in their own words” whilst being aware “of various fallacies and guarding against both employing them in support of one’s own argument and in accepting them as having value when offered up by others.”
Providing expert demonstrations by means of quotational evidences, illustrative quotations, and arguments via quotations is an indispensable aspect of lexicographical traditions, canonical texts, comprehensive anthologies, expansive encyclopaedias, scholarly publications and other authoritative sources, as they contain numerous empirical data in the form of quotations to exhibit or explicate particular usages and validities of their respective domains and subject matters. For example, the usefulness of dictionaries is vastly enhanced by the inclusion of demonstrative quotations of how certain words or expressions have been defined and deployed by various writers, literary sources and textual media. Even judicial, journalistic, forensic and exploratory investigations must rely on the veracity of quotations to build or (re)construct cases. Unfortunately and exasperatingly, the validity and reliability of quotations can also be easily abused, hijacked or undermined through egregious cases of misquotation, misconception, misappropriation, misinterpretation, miscontextualization, misrepresentation or falsification to give the illusion of authority or expert endorsement. For instance, the case of misquotation can often be attributed to false attribution, as indicated by the following excerpt from Wikipedia:
False attribution can refer to:
- Misattribution in general, when a quotation or work is accidentally, traditionally, or based on bad information attributed to the wrong person or group
- A specific fallacy where an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy
The fallacy of false attribution is a type of appeal to authority, where the proponent either hides or puffs up the credentials or credibility of the source to enhance an argument.
A version of false attribution is where a fraudulent advocate goes so far as to fabricate a source, such as creating a fake website, in order to support a claim. For example, the “Levitt Institute” was a fake organisation created in 2009 solely for the purposes of (successfully) fooling the Australian media into reporting that Sydney was Australia’s most naive city.
A contextomy (taking a quote out of context) is a type of false attribution.Incorrect identification of source
Another particular case of misattribution is the Matthew effect [of accumulated advantage]: a quotation is often attributed to someone more famous than the real author. This leads the quotation to be more famous, but the real author to be forgotten (see also: obliteration by incorporation).
In Jewish biblical studies, an entire group of falsely-attributed books is known as the pseudepigrapha.Such misattributions may originate as a sort of fallacious argument, if use of the quotation is meant to be persuasive, and attachment to a more famous person (whether intentionally or through misremembering) would lend it more authority.
Those who would like to cultivate or improve their ability to winnow quotational truth from falsehood may consult the quotation checklist provided by Michael Hopkins in Quotations and Misquotations from The TalkOrigins Archive with respect to being heedful and critical of the fallacy of arguments via quotations as well as misquotation and appeal to authority or argument from authority. The enhanced Quotation Checklist below has been improved with a longer, more widely applicable explanatory overview, and then augmented from 11 to 20 points by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ so that it has a much broader coverage and can be applied to examine the validity and reliability of quotations in both academic and non-academic domains. For serious scholarly works, this Checklist is highly applicable to academics and researchers who construct or compile expert demonstrations by means of quotational evidences, illustrative quotations and arguments via quotations in lexicographical works, canonical texts, comprehensive anthologies, expansive encyclopaedias, scholarly publications and other authoritative sources. The Checklist is also beneficial to those who deal with history, archival research, investigative journalism, media studies, cultural studies, social science, behavioural science, political science, law, (socio)linguistics, information science and information literacy.
One of the favorite tactics of evolution [or climate change] deniers and other pseudoscientists [, obscurantists and tabloid journalists] is to use numerous quotations to make their [misleading, misguided, fabricated or fraudulent] case. For many people the use of quote after quote makes a very persuasive argument [even though it gives the false impression of having substance and validity].… The[ir] use of quotations often is a fallacy of argument from authority, selective quotation may be occurring, the quotations are often out-of-date, the quoted authorities are often not appropriate authorities, evolution [or climate change] deniers [and other pseudoscientists, obscurantists and tabloid journalists] are sometimes not honest in representing who the people [whom] they quote are, and many of the quotations are misquotations.…
To sum up, when [such people] provide quotations many questions need to be asked[,] including:
- Is the quote itself accurate?
- Do the preceding and following passages change the meaning of the quote?
- Does the quoter use the key terms in the same way as the quotee?
- What is the quotee’s actual opinion on the point in question?
- Who was the quotee addressing?
- Is the quote out-of-date?
- Who is the quotee?
- Is the quotee a relevant authority to the issue at hand?
- What do other relevant authorities think?
- Is the quote from a popular source or from the primary peer-reviewed literature?
- Is the quotee actually correct?
- Is the quote properly sourced and cited?
- Is the quote supported, contextualized, manipulated or advertised by illustration(s), graphic(s) or audiovisual material(s)?
- Is the quote a contextomy — a selective excerpting of words, phrases or sentences from their original linguistic context in a way that alters or distorts the source’s intended meaning — a practice commonly known as “quoting out of context”?
- Does the quote appeal to emotion (which can include appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking)?
- Is the quote a
- Bogus Quote: fabricated and falsely attributed
- Misattribution: attributed to the wrong person
- Misquote: garbled but similar to what the quotee actually stated
- Mistranslation: garbled in translation
- Does the quote contain any claim or argument that is
- Fallacious: based on a mistaken belief
- Biased: unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something
- Misleading: giving the wrong idea or impression
- Misguided: having faulty judgement or reasoning
- Does the quote contain any
- Formal Fallacy: error in logical form or structure (also called Logical Fallacy, Deductive Fallacy or Non Sequitur)
- Informal Fallacy: error in content or reasoning (also called Relevance Fallacy, Conceptual Fallacy or Soundness Fallacy)
- Is the quote apocryphal (meaning false, spurious, bad or heretical) in any general context or usage, especially when it is sourced from text or story of dubious authority or veracity, or is presented in the nature or parlance of
- Folklore: the expressive body of culture shared by a particular group of people, including customary lore and oral traditions such as tales, proverbs and jokes
- Factoid: a false statement presented as a fact; a (true but) brief or trivial item of news or information; an item of unreliable information reported or repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact
- Urban Legend: a form of modern folklore usually comprising fictional stories, often presented as true, with macabre, humorous, reified, idealized or stereotyped elements rooted in local popular culture for entertainment purposes, or routinely promulgated as semi-serious explanations for random, unsolved, unexplained or intriguing events such as certain conspiracies, mysteries, disappearances and strange objects
- Is the quote used in or associated with ideas, claims, arguments, agendas, projects, campaigns, propagandas, demagogy, media manipulation, Internet manipulation, dubious blogs, fake news websites, sockpuppet account, fake accounts, social bots, deepfakes, troll farms, front organizations, astroturfing operations or post-truth politics involving personal attacks (including ad hominem, damaging quotations, trolling and flaming), smear tactics, misquotations, misinformation, disinformation, misrepresentation, sensationalism, fake news, alternative facts, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, yellow journalism, historical negationism, anti-intellectualism, the cult of anti-expertise sentiment, the politicization of science, or populism?
One should be well aware that an authority may present itself not just via an individual of some influence or stature, but also through various entities such as communities, cooperatives, associations, organizations, institutions, departments, faculties, companies, groups, classes, forums, networks, clubs and societies, where like-minded people who are attracted, identified or governed by their own norms, shared values and mutual interests within a dominant, larger society, or within a distinctive culture and institution, can interact via the relationships and (inter)dependencies among its constituent members, including those emerging or thriving under new social forms and relations, whether in cyberspace or via the application of knowledge to social, economic and cultural activities. As mentioned earlier in Emotions and Biases: Affect Heuristic, Stereotype, Attribution Bias, people can have a strong tendency or proclivity to overestimate the ability and autonomy of the individual, and to underestimate the role and influence of the social. Therefore, one has to be cognizant of the cultural dynamics and social forces at work, as well as how information or issues are framed as they are being created, presented, propagated or contested in the form of quotations or statements, especially if one also happens to be embedded or involved in those entities, as the following excerpt from Wikipedia explicates:
In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies, organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual’s perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.…
One can view framing in communication as positive or negative – depending on the audience and what kind of information is being presented. The framing may be in the form of equivalence frames, where two or more logically equivalent alternatives are portrayed in different ways (see framing effect) or emphasis frames, which simplify reality by focusing on a subset of relevant aspects of a situation or issue. In the case of “equivalence frames”, the information being presented is based on the same facts, but the “frame” in which it is presented changes, thus creating a reference-dependent perception.
The effects of framing can be seen in many journalism applications. With the same information being used as a base, the “frame” surrounding the issue can change the reader’s perception without having to alter the actual facts. In the context of politics or mass-media communication, a frame defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. For political purposes, framing often presents facts in such a way that implicates a problem that is in need of a solution. Members of political parties attempt to frame issues in a way that makes a solution favoring their own political leaning appear as the most appropriate course of action for the situation at hand.
Hence, the framing of quotations or statements, especially in high-stakes, high-strung, volatile, pressurized, controversial, contentious, provocative, polarizing, polemic, politically charged, emotionally saturated or contextually sensitive situations or environments, necessitates that the quotations or statements be considered not just on their own but also in conjunction with the entities purveying them, at least to the extent that whilst there can be good reasons or justifications for allowing the merits or intrinsic worth of some quotations or statements to stand on their own regardless of the origins and authors of those quotations or statements, we should indeed be careful about how the manners or methods of delivery, the surrounding contexts and underlying agendas, as well as the various cultural lenses, social distortions and framing effects, may significantly change or affect the meanings and tones of those quotations or statements to the detriment of their reception, conveyance, relevance, reliability, validity and integrity, particularly when there is a confluence of Emotions and Biases as well as Authority Bias and Author Bias.
May we always be adequately mindful of both authority bias and author bias to attain a significant degree of intellectual autonomy, if not dispassionate objectivity. A timely reminder in the form of a pithy article entitled “Contrary to Reason” by George (Joshua Richard) Monbiot, a writer, investigative journalist, zoologist, environmentalist and political activist, alerts us to the constant assaults on reason, intellect and integrity as well as the dilutions of idea and substance, which are brazenly stoked by the chronic inducements of consumerist ethos, pop culture and tabloid mentality in the unrelenting cult of celebrity and hero-worship saturating the mass media and contemporary living:
One of the curiosities of our age is the way in which celebrity culture comes to dominate every aspect of public life. Even the review pages of the newspapers sometimes look like a highfalutin version of gossip magazines. Were we to judge them by the maxim “great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people”, they would not emerge well. Biography dominates, ideas often seem to come last. Brilliant writers like Sylvia Plath become better known for their lives than their work: turning her into the Princess Diana of literature does neither her nor her readers any favours.
Even when ideas are given prominence, they no longer have standing in their own right; their salience depends on their authorship. Take, for example, the psychology professor Steven Pinker, who attracts the kind of breathless adulation that would seem more appropriate in the pages of Hello magazine.
The cult of celebrity, the pursuit of fortune, and the allure of fame, have all played major roles in the rise of the age of adulation, which is also accompanied by, and correlated to, the age of reputation, to the extent that we often judge the quality of information, be it a quotation or statement, according to the reputation of the informer, so much so that our adulation with the informer and their reputation can trump the importance of the information. The cause of such a shift of emphasis can be attributed to not just the rise of social media and mass communication that ushers in the age of information, but also the specialization of knowledge resulting from the stronger gravitation towards advanced differentiation of skills in the workforce, thus dramatically increasing the gaps of knowledge between experts and laypersons, and by extension, between the authority and the public.
As a corollary of the trend towards professionalism, firsthand expert information can and has become increasingly impenetrable, abstruse, remote, gated or even unavailable, whilst their content, potency, purpose and influence may be dissipated, diluted, displaced, disrupted, repackaged, marketed, co-opted, (mis)appropriated, (mis)represented, politicized or sensationalized by second-hand channels or secondary sources, where information is predominantly delivered to the public as news feeds, status updates and social (re)tweets as well as opinion pieces, gossip columns, vanity articles, derivative posts, slick editorials and appealing tabloids, endlessly filtered, mediated, curated, annotated or commented by eager entities, media personalities, zealous middlepersons, perfervid dilettantes, fervid influencers and fervent followers, in whom we, as readers and consumers, often (have to) trust solely on the basis of our implicit acceptance and tacit acknowledgement of their reliability and competence, which we conveniently assume or expediently determine to be more or less proportional to the apparent statuses of those conveyors of such information, especially those who have become the author(ity) by reputation.
In other words, the perceived reputation of trusted public presenters of second-hand materials can become the de facto surrogates and voluntary proxies for the quality, veracity and validity of the original sources containing specific information or oeuvres, some of which, ironically, are at greater risk of becoming evermore separated from, unfamiliar to, or misunderstood by, certain factions of the public. This ironic dilemma of a receding intellectual horizon with vanishing authenticity and depleting originality has also been intensified by the paradoxical phenomenon or situation in which the decentralized access to unedited stories, rehashed news, retweeted clips and reblogged posts across social media and blogging platforms have coalesced into a behemoth, the sheer size, reach and influence of which can often cause original contributions by authors and intellectuals to lose their power to create a focus or a point of difference.
All in all, any information culled from intermediaries, extracted from mouthpieces, or derived from non-primary carriers and transcribers, is potentially capable of affecting, sidestepping or usurping the conveyance, reputation and even the intention of the authentic source, author or creator. There is certainly little or no escape from being presented and having to deal with additional layers of Authority Bias and Author Bias incurred by our regular exposure to, and reliance on, secondary sources of information, unless we are content with accepting them uncritically by trusting the reputation of those sources.
Hence, in facing the paradigmatic shift from the age of information to the age of reputation, we have finally arrived at the unenviable juncture that the critical assessment of the reputation of information sources must become indispensable or mandatory, to the extent that we have recurrently and overly entrusted reputation or prestige as the singular gauge or sole arbiter of quality, veracity, validity and reliability, especially in the absence, deprivation, rejection or perversion of primary sources, original information, expert guidance or hard data. Reputation is indeed a double-edged sword in that its reliability as an indicator of the quality of information with respect to the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about the conveyor of the information is not only by no means foolproof but also potentially very misleading, disrupting or damaging, particularly in the era and context of post-truth politics, fake news, disinformation, sensationalism, alternative facts, false reality, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, yellow journalism, astroturfing, historical negationism and anti-intellectualism, as well as demagoguery, ochlocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, kakistocracy and narcissistic leadership.
In a nutshell, the authenticity and true nature of the information contained in, or encapsulated by, a quotation or statement, have a far better chance of being uncovered or clarified, when we can elevate our reception, impression, judgement, evaluation and consumption of the information well beyond the noise of adulation and the veneer of reputation that have played some significant roles in bringing our attention to, or piquing our interest in, the information in the first place. Needless to say, separating ourselves from the gloss of adulation and reputation surrounding incoming information can only be achieved and maintained by our being highly cautious and adequately critical about both the kinds and tactics of media, channels and sources bearing or transmitting that information, whose fidelity can be readily tainted or compromised by agenda and prejudice, misinterpretation and misrepresentation, as well as outright falsification and fabrication.
How reputation can be a significant force of influence and bias impinging on our daily lives as we wade through vast amount of information is excellently revealed by the following discussion by Gloria Origgi, an Italian philosopher and a tenured senior researcher at CNRS (the French National Centre for Scientific Research) in Paris:
There is an underappreciated paradox of knowledge that plays a pivotal role in our advanced hyper-connected liberal democracies: the greater the amount of information that circulates, the more we rely on so-called reputational devices to evaluate it. What makes this paradoxical is that the vastly increased access to information and knowledge we have today does not empower us or make us more cognitively autonomous. Rather, it renders us more dependent on other people’s judgments and evaluations of the information with which we are faced.
We are experiencing a fundamental paradigm shift in our relationship to knowledge. From the ‘information age’, we are moving towards the ‘reputation age’, in which information will have value only if it is already filtered, evaluated and commented upon by others. Seen in this light, reputation has become a central pillar of collective intelligence today. It is the gatekeeper to knowledge, and the keys to the gate are held by others. The way in which the authority of knowledge is now constructed makes us reliant on what are the inevitably biased judgments of other people, most of whom we do not know.…
The paradigm shift from the age of information to the age of reputation must be taken into account when we try to defend ourselves from ‘fake news’ and other misinformation and disinformation techniques that are proliferating through contemporary societies. What a mature citizen of the digital age should be competent at is not spotting and confirming the veracity of the news. Rather, she should be competent at reconstructing the reputational path of the piece of information in question, evaluating the intentions of those who circulated it, and figuring out the agendas of those authorities that leant it credibility.
Whenever we are at the point of accepting or rejecting new information, we should ask ourselves: Where does it come from? Does the source have a good reputation? Who are the authorities who believe it? What are my reasons for deferring to these authorities? Such questions will help us to get a better grip on reality than trying to check directly the reliability of the information at issue. In a hyper-specialised system of the production of knowledge, it makes no sense to try to investigate on our own, for example, the possible correlation between vaccines and autism. It would be a waste of time, and probably our conclusions would not be accurate. In the reputation age, our critical appraisals should be directed not at the content of information but rather at the social network of relations that has shaped that content and given it a certain deserved or undeserved ‘rank’ in our system of knowledge.
These new competences constitute a sort of second-order epistemology. They prepare us to question and assess the reputation of an information source, something that philosophers and teachers should be crafting for future generations.
According to Frederick Hayek’s book Law, Legislation and Liberty (1973), ‘civilisation rests on the fact that we all benefit from knowledge which we do not possess’. A civilised cyber-world will be one where people know how to assess critically the reputation of information sources, and can empower their knowledge by learning how to gauge appropriately the social ‘rank’ of each bit of information that enters their cognitive field.
The persuasive power of reputation often wielded, exploited and even abused by some major influencers and celebrities in the age of adulation, the age of information and the age of reputation aside, the endorsements and promotions from media personalities and self-appointed experts, especially when associated with or accentuated by (mis)quotations, misinformation (false or inaccurate information), disinformation (propaganda or false information spread deliberately to mislead or deceive), confirmation bias, bandwagon effect, illusory truth effect, and truth by consensus, can all too readily usurp, ruin or interfere with good causes and true callings. Reputational endorsements and promotions frequently include or accompany the aims and claims of politicians, demagogues, marketers, advertisers, influencers, media personalities, publicity agents, niche bloggers, life(style) coaches as well as special interest groups, climate change deniers, pseudoscience peddlers, anti-vaccinators, bigots, hatemongers, obscurantists, disinformers, profiteers and so on, many of whom can very significantly increase their reach and influence as they form social networks, alliances, parties, societies, organizations, corporations and conglomerates, thereby creating more potent platforms and opportunities for affecting policies and outcomes, thus resulting in much greater social, economic and environmental ramifications, polarizations or degradations. Such people and agencies are not necessarily comprising well-known figures or unknown strangers, as they can happen to be our relatives, friends or associates, thus further complicating or compromising the quality and autonomy of our critical thinking and decision making.
In the face of all of these players and factors, we can no longer simply think or summarily insist that we can know many things with great certainty and without prejudices just by using media outlets, checking news feeds, watching press releases, reading blog posts, perusing journals, doing Google searches and studying whatever search results and web contents that arise from the keywords and phrases that we use. Accordingly, we are neither indefensibly remiss nor needlessly pessimistic in conceding the utter seriousness of the perennial and sobering issue that large proportions of the human populations worldwide are often ill-equipped to recognize and deal with misquotations, misinformation, disinformation, biases and fallacies, particularly if reputation, and by extension, affiliation, are relied upon as infallible arbiters of validity and reliability, especially when technical knowledge or specific claims are beyond people’s means to handle, comprehend or control with care and propriety.
In conclusion, whilst it may appear to be neat and convenient to rely on aspects of an author’s identity or background such as their personal traits, career profiles or biographical attributes, including age, gender, religion, ethnicity, psychology, social status, professional achievements, political views and historical context, to distil relevance, pinpoint validity or extract meaning from the author’s work or quote, such knowledge about, or profiling of, the author may unduly influence or constrain one’s ability to limit or transcend what one has inferred from such identity and background information, which can lead to interpretive tyranny and other distortions caused by attribution bias, motivated reasoning, stereotype and survivorship bias (also known as survival bias or success bias), as well as formal fallacies, genetic fallacy and halo effect in conjunction with authority bias and author bias, thereby frustrating one’s effort to be open-minded and unprejudiced towards the author’s writing or statement, regardless of its form and purpose, as well as irrespective of how it is quoted.
For these reasons, the Illustrated Quotations showing Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes at the end of this post are allowed to stand alone with their full weights and implications carried by their contents alone, which readers and followers can appreciate without prior knowledge or preconception of the quotes’ creators or the quotees. Moreover, these quotes have been chosen on the basis of their heuristic potentials and edificatory strengths as well as their veracity and validity.
Closer examination, deeper assessment and better reasoning have been applied in the process of selecting suitable quotations for inclusion as a collection here, given that quotations can come in many forms and flavours. SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ has had to be vigilant and to realize that numerous quotations are characteristically subjective, biased, one-sided, tendentious or even invidious, if not significantly flawed, fallacious, specious or spurious. Fortunately, quotations can often be better understood or critiqued via analysis, comparison, logic, scoping and contextualization so that their limitations, idiosyncrasies or inconsistencies could be uncovered.
For instance, what might first appear to be very persuasive and highly sensible quotations could be inescapably self-contradictory, meaning that one can find quotations that are apparently reasonable on their own but are at odds with each other when put side by side, or when examined from other perspective(s). At the very least, one needs to concede the validity of the law of noncontradiction, which dictates that contradictory quotations or conflicting statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time (‘Nothing can both be and not be’), as well as the law of excluded middle, which mandates that for any proposition in a quotation or statement, either that proposition is true or its negation is true (‘Everything must either be or not be’). In short, many quotations that people use or encounter daily are quite circumscribed in their validities and reliabilities. Upon applying careful inspection and higher-level scrutiny, they can be revealed to be far from universally true or comprehensively applicable.
As the illustration above and the examples in the following Table of Contradictory Quotations or Statements show, there are plenty of quotations or statements that apparently contradict one another. Stoking confusion or evoking befuddlement aside, contradictory quotations or statements could provoke conflict, scepticism or incredulity if they were used or found in close proximity to one another in any given situation. Nevertheless, many, if not all, of the contradictions would be alleviated, resolved or eliminated by observing the contexts surrounding the quotations or statements. Only then could any pertinent nuance, subtext, mishandling, misquotation, miscontextualization, misrepresentation and other concomitant defect or associated irregularity be identified. In other words, when using, treating or encountering a pair of quotations or statements that appear to be incongruous or contradictory with each other, it pays to examine and comprehend the intended purpose and relevant context of those quotations or statements, and to know which quotation or statement is applicable when, so as to mitigate or avoid being mired or stymied by the conflicts and inconsistencies arising from the inappropriate juxtaposition of certain quotations or statements.
Table of Contradictory Quotations or StatementsEach row below contains opposing quotes or polarizing sayings.
|
|
| Absence makes the heart grow fonder. | Familiarity breeds contempt. Out of sight, out of mind. |
| Actions speak louder than words. | The pen is mightier than the sword. It is the thought that counts. |
| Attack is the best form of defence. | He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. |
| Birds of a feather flock together. | Opposites attract. |
| Clothes maketh the man. | Never judge a book by its cover. |
| Do it well, or not at all. | Half a loaf is better than none. |
| Don’t cross your bridges before you come to them. | Forewarned is forearmed. |
| Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. | Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. |
| Don’t set yourself on fire to keep others warm. | Put the shoe on the other foot. |
| Doubt is the beginning of wisdom. | Faith will move mountains. |
| Face is the index of mind. | Appearances are often deceptive. |
| Good things come to those who wait. Slow and steady wins the race. |
A stitch in time saves nine. Time and tide wait for none. |
| Great minds think alike. | Fools seldom differ. |
| Great starts make great finishes. | It ain’t over till it’s over. |
| Hold fast to the words of the ancestors. | Wise men make proverbs and fools repeat them. |
| If you want something, work for it. | If it’s meant to be, it will happen. |
| Just be yourself. | Fake it till you make it. |
| Laugh and the world laughs with you; weep and you weep alone. | Misery loves company. |
| Live as though today’s your last day. | There’s always tomorrow. |
| Look before you leap. | He who hesitates is lost. Strike while the iron is hot. |
| Nobody’s perfect. | You are perfect just the way you are. |
| Nothing ventured, nothing gained. | Better safe than sorry. |
| Opposites attract. | Birds of a feather flock together. |
| Practice makes (one) perfect. | All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. |
| Quitters never win and winners never quit. | Quit while you’re ahead. |
| Silence is golden. | The squeaky wheel gets the grease. |
| Something is better than nothing. | Half knowledge is a dangerous thing. |
| Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. | The pen is mightier than the sword. |
| The best things in life are free. | You get what you pay for. There is no such thing as a free lunch. |
| The early bird catches the worm. | The early worm gets eaten. The second mouse gets the cheese. Haste makes waste. |
| The more, the merrier. | Two’s company; three’s a crowd. |
| There are no stupid questions. | It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. |
| Too many cooks spoil the broth. | Many hands make light work. |
| What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. | One man’s meat is another man’s poison. |
| Winners never quit and quitters never win. | Quit while you’re ahead. |
| You are never too old to learn. | You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. |
| You only live once, so live your life to the fullest. | You only live once, so be careful and preserve your life. |
| I love quotations because it is a joy to find thoughts one might have, beautifully expressed with much authority by someone recognized wiser than oneself. (Marlene Dietrich) | I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. (Ralph Waldo Emerson) |
| If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. (American proverb) | If you can’t beat them, arrange to have them beaten. (George Carlin) |
| He who knows others is wise, but he who knows himself is enlightened. (Lao Tzu) | Only the shallow know themselves. (Oscar Wilde) |
| Don’t put off until tomorrow what you can do today. (Benjamin Franklin) | Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain) |
| Time is money. (Benjamin Franklin) | Time is a waste of money. (Oscar Wilde) |
| All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. (William Shakespeare) | If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting? (George Carlin) |
| To be, or not to be, that is the question: (William Shakespeare) | To be or not to be… Neither one nor the other. (Emile M Cioran) |
| The fishermen know that the sea is dangerous and the storm terrible, but they have never found these dangers sufficient reason for remaining ashore. (Vincent van Gogh) | Hug the shore; let others try the deep. (Virgil) |
| God is subtle (as well as slick, crafty and cunning) but not (so) malicious (as to build unpredictability into the basic laws). (Albert Einstein, as paraphrased by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ) | Much of the subatomic world is uncertain and probabilistic. (Quantum Physics, as worded by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ) |
| The [quantum] theory says a lot, but does not bring us any closer to the secrets of the ‘old one’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice. (Albert Einstein) God does not play dice with the universe. (Paraphrasing Einstein) |
So Einstein was wrong when he said, “God does not play dice.” Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen. (Stephen Hawking) |
Regardless of our own logics, beliefs or persuasions, the examples in the Table of Contradictory Quotations or Statements above exemplify that many quotations or statements that appear to be coherent and convincing actually have limited scope, reliability and validity, given that they are only meaningful, cogent or justifiable in certain contexts. As a corollary, we should be adequately aware of the risks and limits of subscribing to certain quotations or statements, in view of their dependencies on, or sensitivities to, contexts or milieus. Consequently, the contextual dependency of any quotation or statement requires us to be more diligent in availing ourselves of contextual information or contextual clues.
That either or both opposing quotations or statements can make sense, seem sensible or sound reasonable in the presence of contextual information or clues should not always be considered a sufficient condition for the full affirmation, total acceptance or complete endorsement of either or both contrary claims, given that the accuracy, authenticity or veracity, not just the scope, validity and generalizability, of either or both opposing quotations or statements, can only acquire substantial validation through the use of reliable logics, empirical data or scientific facts, plus other definitive methods, records or sources, if they exist.
Rather than cancelling each other out, contrary quotations or statements can indeed define each other’s existence and delineate one another’s validity, as well as promote a discourse between two or more people or parties holding differing viewpoints about a certain issue but wishing to establish a truth or truce via reasoned arguments, bilateral agreement, mutual understanding, compromise, negotiation, cooperation or synthesis, and in cases of ongoing dispute or conflict, via intercession, conciliation, adjudication, arbitration or settlement. After all, reality often abounds with stark contradictions and polar oppositions, many of which await resolutions, even potentially or eventually arriving at some form(s) of fusion, hybridity, syncretism, synergism, inclusivism, eclecticism or consilience. For example, vast wealth and power coexist alongside sheer poverty and misery, even though the former is supposed to (be able to) eradicate the latter. Such a severe degree of juxtaposition or polarization patently exposes, demarcates and foregrounds the contentious, provocative or confrontational issues flanked by the contrary quotations or statements. The stark juxtaposition of radically different viewpoints or realities may even highlight the arbitrary nature and historical contingency of one’s own values, convictions or claims by prompting one to realize that it is in some sense accidental that one happens to be having certain values, convictions or claims rather than their contrary kinds or opposing counterparts due to the upbringing, culture and social environment from which one has originated, and therefore one may begin to wonder whether there is indeed any (intrinsically good) reason or justification to believe that one’s values, convictions or claims are more likely to be right or valid than those of other individuals emerging from different upbringing, culture and social environment, let alone the subjectivity of those values, convictions or claims. In any case, the validity or viability of one(’s) position of concern can often be brought into sharper relief through contrast to what it is not, and what it precludes or excludes.
SoundEagle🦅 and SeaTurtle🐢 having opposing viewpoints and perspectives.
SoundEagle🦅: “We’re up at 9” versus SeaTurtle🐢: “Down by 6 am”
All in all, the ostensibly divergent or incompatible, and in some instances, diametrically opposed or outright antagonistic, quotations or statements in the Table of Contradictory Quotations or Statements above demonstrate that the scope, reliability and validity of any quotation or statement can be checked against, and contrasted with, those of its opposing form or contradictory counterpart, if the latter can be found or formulated. It is somewhat ironic or paradoxical that to ascertain the soundness of a certain quotation or statement is to involve knowing, recognizing or even appreciating its contrary kind, opposite exemplar, reversed archetype or antithetical equivalent. Herein lies an implicit but palpable lesson that we ought to be mindful of being overly confident about our understanding of, and adherence to, certain quotations or statements, and that we stand to gain better or extra perceptivenesses, perspectives and insights by being receptive and empathetic towards those conflicting quotations or clashing statements that seem to be (purveying the) oppugnant or irreconcilable, as the latter can potentially shed light on the validity, consistency, reliability and generalizability of our claims, positions or convictions. One way to measure the morality or validity of a quotation or statement is to determine how and why it enshrines, benefits or preserves the right, freedom, tradition or idea of its proponents as well as how and why it affects, curtails or infringes those of its opponents. Even if some or all proponents and opponents may not aspire or commit to achieving empathy, compromise, concession, conciliation, cooperation, agreement, fairness, magnanimity, or objectivity in value judgements, when two claims or beliefs contradict each other, the law of noncontradiction and the law of excluded middle dictate that they cannot both be right, and hence everyone involved in those claims or beliefs ought to be seeking out the right answer or better path to resolve the disagreement. The corollary of both laws is that people can avoid or reduce conflict and misunderstanding by refraining from being too quick to dismiss or denigrate other viewpoints without giving them full consideration and attempting to reach empathy, acceptance, settlement or common ground.
Polarization bounded by the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle
Given that proponents and opponents holding their respective contradictory claims, conflicting beliefs or countervailing opinions cannot both be correct in the same sense at the same time (to the extent that ‘nothing can both be and not be’ and ‘everything must either be or not be’), it behoves us to understand the differences and bridge the gaps that exist amongst people such that we may indeed be better informed of the pros and cons of the matters in contention with respect to the claims, positions or convictions involved, as influenced and constrained by (the nature of) our emotional hangups, psychological makeups, mental barriers and cognitive filters. It is not so much a logical matter as it is a psychological one to ignore or contradict the law of noncontradiction and the law of excluded middle, insofar as what an American educator, businessman, motivational author and keynote speaker, Stephen Richards Covey, proposes as the essential ingredient of synergy (for the purpose of achieving interaction or cooperation such that the combined effect or resulting whole is greater than the sum of its separate effects or parts) on page 277 or 289 (depending on the edition) of his seminal self-help book entitled “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change” as follows:
Valuing the differences is the essence of synergy—the mental, the emotional, the psychological differences between people. And the key to valuing those differences is to realize that all people see the world, not as it is, but as they are.
If I think I see the world as it is, why would I want to value the differences? Why would I even want to bother with someone who’s “off track”? My paradigm is that I am objective; I see the world as it is. Everyone else is buried by the minutiae, but I see the larger picture.…
If that’s my paradigm, then I will never be effectively interdependent, or even effectively independent, for that matter. I will be limited by the paradigms of my own conditioning.
The person who is truly effective has the humility and reverence to recognize his own perceptual limitations and to appreciate the rich resources available through interaction with the hearts and minds of other human beings. That person values the differences because those differences add to his knowledge, to his understanding of reality. When we’re left to our own experiences, we constantly suffer from a shortage of data.
Is it logical that two people can disagree and that both can be right? It’s not logical: it’s psychological. And it’s very real.
Even if we seldom find ourselves engaging in any polarizing situation in which our claims or beliefs are in opposition to or pitted against those of certain proponents or opponents, some unforeseen or unintended contradictions may still arise within ourselves or occur in our life trajectories. For instance, although our chances of causing discrepancy, contradiction, confusion or befuddlement, and subsequently, of inducing conflict, scepticism or incredulity as a result of committing unruly juxtapositions of opposing quotes or polarizing sayings are usually slim at the best of times (especially when sobriety and propriety are present), or at any point in time for that matter, our likelihoods of doing so over a larger span of time, and ultimately across our lifespan, are significantly higher if not inexorable or unpreventable, as we gradually or suddenly change our minds, goals, values, opinions, standpoints, convictions, allegiances, affiliations, aspirations, identities, lifestyles, careers and so on, particularly when our certain circumstances alter or evolve, never mind how and to what extent we can (hope, pretend or strive to) be feasibly independent of, or reasonably undeterred by, those circumstances. What is once (perceived or believed to be) a reasonable, equitable, justifiable, unbiased, agreeable, rational, logical or undebatable quotation or statement may no longer be valid, upheld or cherished; and conversely, what is once (considered or thought to be) unreasonable, antithetical, undesirable, objectionable or indefensible may gradually or suddenly be acceptable, defended or endorsed. Furthermore, such a large shift, reversal, defection, (de)conversion, turnaround, belief revision, or change of heart from one position, perspective or paradigm to another may also involve significant amounts of compromise and subjectivity, as discussed in the succeeding section below. Our faith, devotion, loyalty, adherence, patriotism and so on can often be conditional, varying in magnitude and dictated by emotion, at times even contradictory, waxing and waning, fervent here and wavering there, rigid or committed now and facile or flexible then. There are times in our lives when we defend or embrace certain quotations, statements, beliefs, traditions and authorities whilst explaining away counterexamples, and other times we doubt or reject them whilst drawing attention to counterexamples. All in all, even though our choice quotations, prime sayings and prize statements are fit to be scintillating gems capturing the fire and brilliance of certain ideas, claims or occasions, in time, we may doubt, regret, cringe at, be haunted by, or have various issues with, some of our past quotations, bygone sayings and former statements, since it can be forbiddingly difficult and soul-searchingly confronting to resolve critically the emotional travails of our lives as well as the trials and tribulations of our existence and conscience with the unyielding, impersonal dictates of Classical Logic: Laws of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle. Nevertheless, where we fall within a particular spectrum of opinion or line of thought that is diametrically framed or straddled by some opposing quotations or polarizing statements may indeed reveal to us the underlying risk, limit, pitfall, provision, contingency, peculiarity, changeability, fragility and fallibility (in relation to the validity and generalizability) of our claims, positions or convictions, whether or not we are indeed prepared to live and die by those quotations or statements, whose longevities and legitimacies are not even necessarily guaranteed with the passage of time and in the larger scheme of things, as Dr E John Winner, an expert in the Hegelian rhetoric and the philosophies of Buddhism, pragmatism and phenomenology, summarizes in his essay entitled “Exhaustion of the Dialectic as End of History” as follows:
Every field of human endeavor requires communication, and in communication, language generates ideas in the ordinary sense of that term (and sometimes in the technical philosophic senses of the term, as well). Since communication is a process, developing over time and in concrete contexts of social involvement, every idea has a history. Reviewing the history of any idea reveals that none receives universal acceptance by the first generation to be exposed to it. Rather, what we see is a narrative of conflict: disagreement, argument, counterargument, opposing ideas, criticism, rebuttal, appeals to differing authorities and differing procedures for justification. Eventually, the idea has been tested and comes to enjoy general (although rarely universal) agreement, or is displaced by a stronger idea, or gets subsumed into a better idea. Sometimes, as the context of its generation recedes into history, itself altered by changing economies, cultural formations, scientific discoveries, the idea simply fades from view.
Even those who have been very adept at being objective, logical and methodical in conducting research at the forefront of cutting-edge scientific discourses and discoveries would have to grapple with (what seemed to them to be) confounding dualities or polar(izing) opposites on certain occasions regarding specific matters, however unusual, unexpected, unresolved, confronting, disconcerting, counterintuitive or profound they could or might (turn out to) be, not to mention that some aspects of the subatomic world — as described in quantum mechanics, part of quantum field theory — (seem to) defy Classical Logic. For instance, Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, an Austrian theoretical physicist and one of the pioneers of quantum physics as well as a Nobel Prize winner, demonstrated “in the concluding section of his lecture on science and Western thought” his valiant attempt to reconcile the philosophical, epistemic and epistemological tensions engendered by the outstanding opposition between objective materialism and spiritual mysticism, by virtue of subscribing to a kind of dialectical process, psychophysical monism or reflexive monism as follows:
I believe, however, that to anyone for whom a narrow rationalism has lost its persuasiveness, and to whom the charm of a mystical attitude, experiencing the outer world in its oppressive multiplicity as illusory, is also not powerful enough, nothing else remains but to expose oneself in one way or another to these intensified oppositions and their conflicts. Precisely by doing so, the inquirer can also more or less consciously tread an inner path to salvation. Slowly there then emerge internal images, fantasies or Ideas to compensate the outer situation, and which show an approach to the poles of the antitheses to be possible. Warned by the miscarriage of all premature endeavors after unity in the history of human thought, I shall not venture to make predictions about the future. But, contrary to the strict division of the activity of the human spirit into separate departments—a division prevailing since the nineteenth century—I consider the ambition of overcoming opposites, including also a synthesis embracing both rational understanding and the mystical experience of unity, to be the mythos, spoken or unspoken, of our present day and age.
‘🥩’One man’s meaty statement is another man’s quoted poison.‘⚗️’
That there are plenty of conflicting or contrasting quotations and statements coexisting in a pluralistic environment conducive to social and cultural diversity such that a plethora of claims, opinions, interests and beliefs can flourish (with relative autonomy and impunity), should not convince any reasonable person that those quotations and statements are automatically or necessarily equal in quality, reliability and validity. Moreover, citing or asserting (the existence of) right, equality, entitlement or freedom of expression cannot constitute or qualify as a justification for using or upholding a quotation or statement, since whether one has (been granted particular) right, equality, entitlement or freedom of expression is irrelevant to whether (one’s opinion or assertion of) the quotation or statement is true or false. In other words, to assert (the existence of) the right or entitlement to an opinion is to fail to assert any justification for the opinion. Worse still, such an assertion, often in the form of “I’m entitled to my opinion.”, “Let’s agree to disagree.”, “My choice, not yours.”, “That’s your choice.”, “Each to their own.”, “It’s all subjective.”, “There is no right or wrong.”, “It’s just (a matter of) opinion or cultural difference.”, “Everyone is different.”, “Everyone is equal.”, or “Everybody or anybody is entitled to their choices, opinions and views.”, may function or masquerade as a defence mechanism to reaffirm a confirmation bias, or as a refusal to participate in logical discussions, reasoned arguments, efficacious adjudications, holistic assessments or constructive criticisms, especially when the assertion is expressed as, or accompanied by, some stereotype, platitude, truism, truthiness, bromide, red herring or thought-terminating cliché to sidetrack other spectra of opinion, to divert attention away from other lines of thought, or to mislead or distract (a project or debate) from a relevant, central or important issue. Whatever form such an assertion may take, it is indeed a very common tactic that can be frequently encountered in, or associated with, a range of social phenomena ranging from something as trifling as a ham-fisted game of misdirection to something as serious as a desperate plot or strenuous attempt to maintain or manufacture validity, credibility or legitimacy.
For example, the liberty, or rather, the flippancy by which a great number of regular folks are willing to defend or promote their positions, views or perspectives — when they knowingly circumvent much needed examination of, or justifiable objection to, their holding those positions, views or perspectives — by deploying such quotations or similar statements as “I’m entitled to my opinion.”, “Let’s agree to disagree.”, “My choice, not yours.”, “That’s your choice.”, “Each to their own.”, “It’s all subjective.”, “There is no right or wrong.”, “It’s just (a matter of) opinion or cultural difference.”, “Everyone is different.”, “Everyone is equal.” and “Everybody or anybody is entitled to their choices, opinions and views.”, is a very clear indication that those folks are in flagrant disregard or ignorance of the everyday reality that people’s choices, opinions, views and decisions are by no means (guaranteed to be) equal, equitable, acceptable, reasonable, justifiable, defensible, cogent, unproblematic, unselfish and so on, even when universal criteria or wholesale yardsticks can be established and agreed upon. After all, those who are decent and reasonable would have great difficulty in condoning or rationalizing the choices, opinions and views of sociopaths, psychopaths, tormentors, murderers, dictators, swindlers, rapists, bullies, simpletons, bigots, misogynists, racists, hatemongers, and other characters of disrepute. Choices, opinions, views, decisions and even moral concepts and values are only ever going to be cogent and meaningful when applied in relation to something, and when contexts are taken into account, since if all choices, opinions, views, decisions and values were indiscriminately allowed or arbitrarily deemed equal then there would be utter chaos. For instance, we can acknowledge and respect someone’s right to the opinion, assertion, viewpoint or belief that “The sun rises from the east because it revolves around the Earth.” without (any reason or obligation for) our holding such a claim or idea in high regard. However, the conflation of one’s right and one’s opinion can lead to the mistaken notion or conclusion that all ideas or opinions should be given or treated with high regard, equal approval or comparable acceptance, rather than just (the recognition of) the right to hold certain ideas or opinions. Of course, people are always going to have different opinions and views, which invariably inform, influence, shape or dictate their lives, decisions and actions. Illustrating this unavoidable fact of life very well is the Chinese idiom or proverb “議論紛紛，莫衷一是，然又引經據典，公有公理，婆有婆理。”, which means that there are plenty of arguments and no one is in agreement even after quoting scriptures and citing classics, much like a man or husband versus a woman or wife, each having their own reason, truth or logic. It goes without saying that a cat will think and do as a cat does, whereas a dog will likewise think and do as a dog does. It can be concluded that people who utter the abovementioned relativistic quotations or statements are essentially presenting hardly any (useful or helpful) information, considering that such blanket quotations or sweeping statements connote and signify very little about anything, being intrinsically devoid of insight and explanatory power, to the extent that their contents are as limited, deficient, commonplace, quotidian, vacuous or superfluous as those of an utterly well-known and invariant fact as “The sun rises from the east.” Not only do such quotations or statements contain little or no information, they also erroneously impart a false sense, or an arbitrary notion, of relativity, entitlement, democracy, arbitration, equality or fairness without qualification, discernment and distinction. In addition, the cogency and validity of such quotations or statements are (very likely to be or invariably) questionable due to false analogy, false equivalence or false balance.
The insidious problems and objectionable aspects of such quotations or statements can be demonstrated by the metaphorical analogy of three blind persons probing an elephant: one probing the leg insists that the elephant is like a pole; the other probing the tail contends that the elephant is like a string; and the one probing the ear asserts that the elephant is like a fan. Since they describe the elephant based on their limited experience, their descriptions of the elephant are therefore radically different from one another. As a result, they begin to suspect that the other persons are dishonest about their descriptions. Each claiming to have the truth and blaming the others for not telling the truth, they start arguing and fighting over their disagreement. The moral of the metaphorical analogy is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their rigid, limited and subjective experience, especially when they are ignorant of or impervious to the totality of truth. By logic and necessity, only the person who has probed the most or who is sighted can be regarded as the most informed, enlightened and correct about the elephant, which symbolizes the reality or truth. The parable or metaphorical analogy implies that whilst a person’s subjective experience can be (asserted to be) true locally, such an experience is inherently circumscribed by its exclusion of the full(er) picture or context that accounts for other truths or a totality of truth.
More broadly speaking, “the parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; … [it] has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields of contradicting theories, the need for deeper understanding, and respect for different perspectives on the same object of observation.” The parable thus demonstrates that it is wantonly irresponsible, peremptory, opinionated, disingenuous, vexatious or futile to continue to uphold such relativistic claims, statements or positions in the presence or service of partial truth, spurious claim, specious argument, fallacious thinking, fragmentary understanding, insular outlook, parochial attitude, hidebound culture, blinkered faction or bigoted practice, to the extent that anything can (seem to) be defensible or justifiable when people wilfully engage in any sort of reasoning or activity driven by subjective biases, misguided views, faulty beliefs or defective methodologies, as though, or especially when, they believe or demand that their opinions or claims, however unsound, problematic, misleading, erroneous, mistaken, prejudiced, irrational or unjustifiable, are entitled to be treated (more or less) on par with natural law, universal ideals, enlightened tenets, objective reality, verified knowledge, empirical facts or even absolute truths. Whenever views, opinions and beliefs rather than facts, proofs and evidence are persistently, disproportionately or overwhelmingly upheld, promoted and consumed by people on a presumption of truth(fulness) without regard or consideration for what careful examinations of reality have revealed about the putative claims, even ample availability and provision of factual (counter)evidence may not suffice to convince people of the falseness or hollowness of such claims, whose presumed truths are already deemed to be unassailable knowledge rather than firmly held notions, especially when they are also being embraced, normalized or legitimized by peers and supporters, thus collectively affecting how people view cultural norms, social situations and political affairs, such as who deserves blame or responsibility, and what should be implemented or legalized by whom and when.
Unfortunately, far too many people have come to rely on such inane quotations or fatuous statements as “I’m entitled to my opinion.”, “Let’s agree to disagree.”, “My choice, not yours.”, “That’s your choice.”, “Each to their own.”, “It’s all subjective.”, “There is no right or wrong.”, “It’s just (a matter of) opinion or cultural difference.”, “Everyone is different.”, “Everyone is equal.” and “Everybody or anybody is entitled to their choices, opinions and views.” to provide them with certain kinds or degrees of refuge, comfort zone, defence mechanism or self-protectionism with which to justify whatever they do and think in life, so that they can paper over any deficiencies in their character or gaps in their knowledge, so that they can sidestep (the fear, discomfort or effort of) confronting difficult issues or making important decisions, so that they may (more easily) evade responsibility, reckoning, criticism, soul-searching, sacrifice or changing for the better, and so that they can circumvent facing up to their flaws, oversights, shortcomings, ignorance or the like, and thereby be spared from meeting the rigours of living an examined life and being a wiser person equipped with critical thinking and superior judgement. There are also those who, upon acquiring vast knowledge and becoming eminent experts, have divorced themselves from prudence and humility, becoming proud, boastful, conceited, vainglorious or egotistical, steadfastly believing their ideas, positions or perspectives to be foolproof, absolute, invincible or irrefutable, not realizing that they have been figuratively grasping just certain parts of the proverbial elephant and thus seeing only fragments of the full picture.
Of course, one can always retort or argue in the defence of (one’s opinions or assertions of) their quotations or statements (as proxies for their ideas, positions or perspectives), by special pleading or committing the relativist fallacy (also called the subjectivist fallacy), that:
- Specific quotes are “special cases” beyond scrutiny or immune to analysis.
- Some quotes are true for one person but not true for someone else.
- Particular quotes are always at the outer fringes of consensus or comprehension.
- Certain quotes are exceptions to generally accepted rules or principles even in the absence of reasonable explanations or valid justifications.
- Any statement by any person can be cited or quoted against any other statement on the basis that every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation or creative license.
- All quotes have their places in the (grand) scheme of things whether or not they are problematic, ambiguous, sensible, engaging, meaningful, logical, moral(istic), provocative, consequential, prejudicial, prejudiced, or otherwise.
- The “text is … a multi-dimensional space … a tissue [or fabric] of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture”, as opined by Roland Barthes.
- The meanings and currencies of quotes are always fluctuating as a result of being conditioned by culture and history, and thus are subject to biases and misinterpretations, even if rationality can be consistently strengthened or appealed to.
- Since people can only quote something that they have come across or thought about, their quotations thus comprise or constitute not reality (of quotees) but a version filtered through the lens and scope of their experiences as well as the contexts in which the quotations are presented.
- People are always at the mercy of their understanding and interpretation of quotations and their reaction to them because they are habitually or even tenaciously trapped by their perceptions and viewpoints as well as the contexts of their relationships with other human beings, all of which are filtered, underpinned or driven by their respective philosophy of life or conception of the world.
- Even if an idealized process of discourse is available to achieve consensus in people’s opinions on the meanings and currencies of quotes, their opinions may all be erroneous nonetheless, since those people can be ill-informed or misguided, whether or not they harbour biases and misinterpretations.
- A widely (up)held but unproven “truth” of a quote replete or imbued with a rich history of philosophical, metaphysical or theoretical interpretations may lose its intellectual value, introspective potential or spiritual potency by the time research has reduced it to a mere fact verified but removed from its sociocultural context.
- Since each epoch has its own knowledge system within which individuals are inescapably entangled, all quotes must be understood, framed and used within the worldview and sociocultural context in which they are created or sourced by the individuals. The value, usability and validity of quotes cannot be found by appeal to an external truth, but only within the confines of the norms and forms that phrase or formulate the quotes, and within the conventions used to decode them.
- The relevance and quality of quotes are fundamentally filtered and moulded by class structures, social stratifications, cultural reproductions and communication frameworks, and therefore cannot be unified neatly, explained fairly or understood impartially in any centralizing perspective or intellectual stance.
- Various quotes and their significances are rooted in social constructivism, social constructionism and symbolic interactionism to the extent that all quotations are socially manufactured viewpoints and historically embedded extracts arising from the active, creative, subjective, strategic and intentional aspects of human beings, agencies and constructive potentials, and therefore are neither products of pure observations nor representations of objective realities.
- The validities of quotes are inescapably constrained by, or contingent upon, contemporary modes of thought, standards of reasoning, epistemic principles, theoretical perspectives, ideological standpoints, leading paradigms, social conventions, cultural traditions, ethical frameworks, moral ideals and the like, which necessitate a postmodernist attitude of scepticism, irony or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism and various tenets of universalism, including universalist notions of truth, reason, science, language and morality, as well as contentious or divisive ideas about human nature, social progress, moral universalism, absolute truth and objective reality.
- Many quotes are not so much amenable (contextually, semantically, symbolically, metaphorically, stylistically, idiomatically, thematically, philosophically or otherwise) to any positivist-empiricist conception of science, mathematics, reason, logic or the laws of physics as they are to the pragmatic, utilitarian, emotional, psychological, existential, phenomenological, spiritual and metaphysical aspects of life, let alone the ontological and epistemological aspects of being and becoming.
Nevertheless, all things being equal, and excluding “the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory”, any quote that can also possess or exhibit scientific, mathematical, empirical and/or logical validity, verity or truth will tend to be more reliable, abiding, cogent, authentic, compelling, defensible, comprehensive and/or universal. However, if (one were to believe or insist that) scientific truth, or any truth for that matter, is merely one sort of truth and therefore not to be singularly believed, especially privileged or taken for granted, and if everything is a matter of opinion or view relative to differences or divergences in perception and consideration, then there can be no universal, objective truth or logical yardstick. Instead, each viewpoint holds its own truth or validity, to the extent that quotations often arise from the human predilection of presenting, promoting or asserting one’s cultural mores or social reality as universal, rather than unique expressions of time and place. In addition, the adoption of or immersion in such a relativistic stance or opinion-based milieu is tantamount to an admission or mandate that any factual data, empirical evidence, dependable verity, reliable benchmark, verifiable ideal or identifiable exemplar (should they exist or matter at all) is only as tenable as that which one may accept personally, evaluate subjectively, uphold arbitrarily or believe situationally according to one’s device, discretion or definition for the duration and purpose of any exercise or activity. Consequently and ultimately, there is not even going to be any room for one to be persuaded by or answerable to any person or principle when one can always uncritically deny or reject with impunity the outcome, validity and legitimacy of any competent expert or arbiter who successfully adjudicates and amicably resolves competing viewpoints or assertions (with empirical accuracy and ethical integrity). Hilary Whitehall Putnam, an American philosopher, mathematician and computer scientist with significant contributions to philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science, warns that those who adopt certain forms of relativism put themselves in a highly compromised and untenable position in which it is impossible to believe or admit that one is in error, since if there is no truth beyond one’s belief or opinion that something is true, then one cannot hold one’s beliefs or opinions to be false or mistaken, not to mention that relativizing truth to individuals demolishes the distinction between truth and belief. In other words, whilst the notion that anyone or everyone can have their own “take” on any quotation or statement may appear to be openly inviting, freely egalitarian and comfortingly democratic, it can also be flattening, stifling, stultifying and indiscriminating, insofar as such a permissive, accommodating, undiscerning and relativized notion tends to not only overlook, diminish or obliterate any intrinsic worth and objective reality of the quotation or statement, but also reduce or consign any “take” on the quotation or statement to an individual angle, a personal perspective, a subjective interiority, a peculiar observation, an idiosyncratic stance, a particular belief, or even a faith, in which anyone’s interpretation or understanding of any quotation or statement can never (be deemed to) be intrinsically better or worthier than that of someone else, even to the extent of eroding the distinction between an argument that is prudent, measured or reasoned, and a remark made off the cuff or off the top of one’s head. This can also undermine the incentive or rationale for people to refrain from producing or condoning unnecessarily vexatious contents, needlessly flippant remarks, tediously glib opinions, or gratuitously unreasonable claims, and to abstain from compromising or even nullifying reasonable standards of intellectual responsibility and honesty as well as empirical accuracy and ethical integrity.
The issue of sweeping relativism and rampant subjectivity is indeed a thorny one to confront insofar as the wholesale subscription to the relativisitc “take”, “gaze” or perspective mandates that there can be no universally accepted or valid (system of) value, knowledge or morality other than people’s individual “takes”, “gazes” or perspectives relativized to people’s experiences, standpoints, identities and interests. After all, if there is indeed no single valid “take” on any quotation or statement, but rather a diversity of individual angles, personal perspectives, peculiar observations, idiosyncratic stances, particular beliefs or even faiths, in which any quotation or statement is (regarded as) socially constructed and thereby socially relative and virtually devoid of any objective or universal reality and validity, then such sweeping relativism and constructivist epistemology are courting the charge of self-refutation: if what is to be regarded as a “take” or perspective is relative to a particular time, place or society, then this very conception of “take” or perspective must itself be only regarded as being true or valid at this particular time, place or society. At another time, place or society, this conception may well be false or invalid. In other words, the social constructivist claim about the truth or validity of any quotation or statement is itself as arbitrary or subjective as people’s respective “takes” or individual perspectives, and would thus become false or invalid at any different time, place or society. Furthermore, one can conclude that such an overarching, relativistic claim is self-refuting or self-defeating for being both true and false simultaneously, thus affecting its own consistency with self-contradiction forbidden by the law of noncontradiction, which dictates that contradictory quotations or conflicting statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time (‘Nothing can both be and not be’), as well as the law of excluded middle, which mandates that for any proposition in a quotation or statement, either that proposition is true or its negation is true (‘Everything must either be or not be’). After all, the assertion that everything is subjective and all experiences are subjective because human beings cannot know any objective truth can qualify as neither a subjective claim nor an objective truth if it is to avoid be(com)ing self-refuting or self-defeating.
The assumption or stipulation that all knowledge and viewpoints are socially constructed as well as culturally and historically bounded inevitably leads to an internal logical paradox in social constructionism, which is therefore also bounded and thus a transitory occurrence or temporary manifestation in the kaleidoscope of human knowledge and viewpoints. By the same token, if people are considered to be at the mercy of the arbitrary nature and historical contingency of their values, convictions or claims, then one can also conclude that it is random, accidental, adventitious or fortuitous and therefore not by design, agency or inherent nature that people happen to be having certain values, convictions or claims relative to their upbringing, culture and social environment. Under this relativistic scenario devoid of consensus reality, let alone deference to expert and appeal to authority, the different “takes” on any quotation or statement will be largely if not entirely different and incommensurate. This being the case, it is unfeasible or impossible to make comparative judgements and to conduct evaluative assessments on the different “takes” or perspectives, because the criteria of judgement and evaluation will themselves have to be based on some disparate values, convictions or claims rather than shared ones. Consequently, the relativistic framework of “each to their own take” invariably engenders vexing and troubling issues about how communication and adjudication between perspectives on (the truth or falsity of) any given quotation or statement could be established, especially when the framework leads to people denying or rejecting the possibility for, or the appeal to, truth and reason in addressing agency, integrity, civic duty and moral responsibility.
By extension, the inability or refusal to establish consensus reality, objective facts and universal values to promote or maintain basic ideals such as human rights, decency, liberty, equality, fraternity and democracy is as untenable as it is dangerous and precarious, leaving humans no conceivable or manoeuvrable (lee)way to determine or evaluate which claim, opinion, argument, position, viewpoint, alternative, interpretation or research finding is more valid, accurate, consistent, reliable or desirable, and thus leaving the door open for bigots, sexists, racists, xenophobes, hatemongers, disinformers, obscurantists, profiteers and malefactors as well as those who support, defend, practise or subscribe to demagoguery, ochlocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, kakistocracy and narcissistic leadership to disseminate or consolidate their views, interests, beliefs, agendas and actions, and to discredit, dismiss, denigrate, hijack, suppress or exclude those of others right out of hand.
There is even an underlying presupposition or implicit assumption in the relativistic realm of social constructivism that people’s values, convictions or claims severely constrain the minds and perspectives that people have about quotations or statements (and anything else for that matter) insofar as their minds and “takes” are not just socially “constructed” by their values, convictions or claims, but are literally “determined” by them. Herein lie two more contradictions: on the one hand, the relativistic stance of social constructivism is ironically predicated on a highly deterministic view or mindset about the influence and impact of people’s values, convictions or claims on their resultant minds and perspectives; on the other hand, advocates of sweeping relativism or social constructivism are somehow not similarly constrained by such influence and impact as other individuals have been in their capacity to transcend and see through (the influence and impact of) their own values, convictions or claims to arrive at the(ir) concept or doctrine of social constructivism, the effects and ramifications of which are nevertheless assumed to be universal.
In a nutshell, the relativistic framework of social constructivism encompasses an approach in which quotations and statements are (deemed to be) purely the result of people’s (de)constructive mental activities or socially constructed viewpoints that broadcast or signify individuality and belief to showcase or attest relativized perspectives shaped by (inter)subjectivity and defined by biases, interpretations, feelings and imaginings in a subjective world, rather than people’s cognitive outcomes, intellectual products or analytic activities that uphold or emancipate truth and reason to discover or confirm inherent patterns and fundamental principles claimed to exist in an objective reality. In other words, the ideological chassis of sweeping relativism and rampant subjectivity consigns quotations and statements to be mere views or perspectives born of the human mind, an inner, personal realm that has little or no basis in and corrrespondence with the objective reality and its deep properties, which can be revealed and applied. Regardless of the (ontological) possibility of the independent existence and epistemic validity of quotations and statements in an objective reality, the use and circulation of quotations and statements under the relativistic framework of social constructivism can be regarded as the formulation or application of internally consistent means for creating or realizing more mental constructs according to and resulting in people’s respective “takes” and individual perspectives on quotations and statements, as influenced or conditioned by people’s experiences, standpoints, identities and interests.
All in all, the uncompromising, uncritical, wayward or fractious elevation of subjectivity to defend or privilege personal feelings, beliefs, desires, discoveries or perspectives against those engendered from independent, objective viewpoints not only shields or divorces the subject from the rational scrutiny of any external or objective truth(s), but also entrenches or promulgates notions, positions or discourses that dismantle or discredit the existence and validity of natural law, universal ideals, enlightened tenets, objective reality, verified knowledge, empirical facts or absolute truths. Even if a fruitless, intractable or crumbling state of relativistic nihilism could be somehow circumvented from becoming overly disruptive or inimical to human interaction and social cohesion in the unruly, wayward, erratic or capricious realm of unbridled subjectivity, people of disparate persuasions would inescapably find themselves fraternizing with each other through temporary truces, (en)forced compromises, contingent agreements, conditional morality, situational standards and provisional norms that have to be improvised haphazardly or cobbled together on demand, so as to navigate or transcend their subjective differences, if not their mutual enmities. The broader refusal to exercise authority and establish standards with respect to empirical accuracy and ethical integrity further legitimizes and entrenches a social climate in which a large number of the human population have come to believe that emphasizing certain putative freedoms and rights at the expense of morality and responsibility, and defending the sanctity of subjective personal experiences, untrammelled self-expressions and even conspiratorial assertions that are incompatible with consensus reality, objective facts and universal values, are inalienable entitlements to be defended at all costs, especially when such people persistently fail to develop judgements and skills necessary for managing the concessions and trade-offs unavoidably imposed by an indifferent world that pitches desired relevance and preferential utility against naked truth and stark reality, thus ultimately leading them to deviate egregiously from basic ideals such as human rights, verity, decency, liberty, equality, fraternity and democracy; or eventually compelling them to gravitate towards joining or becoming actors and agents who manipulate the distribution of social, political or economic power by exerting chicanery, engineering subterfuge or devising intrigue via the uncurbed normalization of substituting facts, probity and reliability with falsity, perfidy, duplicity, hypocrisy, fabrication, falsification and prevarication in the name of self-interest and political expediency to amass power, influence and wealth by plotting control, conspiracy, exploitation, oppression, corruption and social polarization.
All in all, if everybody were entitled to their own (subjective) truth to the exclusion of common ground for debating issues and evaluating criticisms whilst using verifiable evidence from (objective) reality to defend claims and substantiate arguments, then everybody would be left with hardly any latitude and flexibility for improvement or compromise. In other words, if subjectivity were to trump or swamp objectivity to such an extent that there is little or no room (to allow) for what is independently true or truly independent beyond whatever people might prefer to believe, then there could be no baseline on which positions can be compared or justified. When common or shared references are always substituted with or subordinated to individual preferences, there is no longer a middleground that can be offered to those in disagreement other than an appeal to tribalism, thus weakening consensus and exacerbating division, conflict or partisanship — all the worse in an adversarial zero-sum game, winner-takes-all scenario, or one-size-fits-all strategy — unless people are willing to not merely respect what is true first and foremost but also put aside their tribal differences, by curtailing their defensive mechanisms and entrenched beliefs against any consensus or solutions.
Therefore, whether or not one comes to realize that many people, rightly or wrongly, often believe that they have found or acquired the(ir) truth or answer, one should critically beware of rampant relativism regardless of whether there is indeed right or wrong in matters of belief or opinion, and irrespective of why and how one could or should adjudicate such matters by way of, and to arrive at, dispassionate objectivity, transcendent wisdom, profound consilience or perspicacious erudition. In addition, whether or not there is (ever going to be) a perennially reliable (normative or absolute) standard in adjudicating matters of belief or opinion, we would do well to be not only more open-minded and tolerant towards others’ views but also more cognizant and critical of the limitations and fallibilities of our own views, thus availing us of the reason, impetus and opportunity to change for the better. To this end, the English philosopher, political economist and civil servant, John Stuart Mill, stated on pages 27 and 28 of his philosophical essay entitled “On Liberty” as follows:
In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.
SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ would like to encapsulate all of the abovementioned issues as well as the ensuing matters by coining a brand new term:
The Quotation Fallacy “💬” can be defined as any error or defect that weakens the construction, interpretation or treatment of a quotation as a consequence of invalid or faulty reasoning; intentional manipulation or misrepresentation; unintentional carelessness or ignorance; misleading notion or view; and mistaken belief or attribution.
Overall, the cognitive and social influences on forming judgements and making decisions in relation to interpreting and using quotations are far-reaching. Given that quotes are so often tossed around conversations, sprinkled in writings, and endlessly circulated in social media, the Quotation Fallacy is indeed very pervasive in everyday life and its concomitant human interactions, to the extent that people routinely and unintentionally commit this fallacy with impunity by being inadequately cognizant of, or accountable to, the effects and ramifications resulting from their desire to appropriate, perpetuate or reinforce particular views, sentiments or ideologies associated with certain quotes, which they render as status updates, social tweets, blog posts, personal flags, signature blocks, customized messages or memorable catchphrases to invoke inspirations or philosophical thoughts, and which they conscript as neologisms, truisms, dictums, epigrams, epigraphs, mottos, axioms, proverbs, mantras, slogans, shibboleths, manifestos or talking points to mobilize opinions, influence social dynamics, alter social discourses or bend social outcomes in countless situations, including those involving the media, academia, luminaries, dignitaries, celebrities, ideologues, politicians, pundits, stakeholders, advertisers, influencers, Internet users and bloggers. The Quotation Fallacy is thus as unrelentingly unavoidable as quotations are undeniably indispensable, given the main reasons for using quotations as summarized below:
Quotations are used for a variety of reasons: to illuminate the meaning or to support the arguments of the work in which it is being quoted, to provide direct information about the work being quoted (whether in order to discuss it, positively or negatively), to pay homage to the original work or author, to make the user of the quotation seem well-read, and/or to comply with copyright law. Quotations are also commonly printed as a means of inspiration and to invoke philosophical thoughts from the reader. Pragmatically speaking, quotations can also be used as language games (in the Wittgensteinian sense of the term) to manipulate social order and the structure of society.
⚠️Note: Hovering with a mouse cursor over a hyperlinked text in this post will bring up a tooltip showing descriptive information.
In the Quotation Fallacy, the causes, effects and ramifications of misusing, misjudging or misinterpreting quotations, however invisible, unchecked and unacknowledged they may have been, can also include those arising from various mental traps, thinking styles, behavioural patterns, psychological tendencies and cognitive biases in addition to those already discussed in previous sections, such as availability heuristic (also known as availability bias), ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism (also called humanocentrism, human supremacy or human exceptionalism), anthropomorphism, animistic fallacy, pathetic fallacy, reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness), ingroup favouritism (sometimes known as ingroup-outgroup bias, ingroup bias, intergroup bias or ingroup preference), confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias), bandwagon effect, illusory truth effect (also known as the truth effect, the illusion-of-truth effect, the reiteration effect, the validity effect, and the frequency-validity relationship), truth by consensus, false-consensus effect (or false-consensus bias), overconfidence effect, selective perception, selective exposure, Semmelweis reflex (or Semmelweis effect), anchoring (or focalism), conservatism (or conservatism bias), denialism, reactance, anecdotal evidence, fallacy of suppressed evidence, positivist fallacy, Everest fallacy, Texas sharpshooter fallacy, illusory correlation, irrelevant conclusion (also known as ignoratio elenchi, false conclusion or missing the point), faulty generalization, hasty generalization (also called hasty induction, blanket statement, leaping to a conclusion, illicit generalization, fallacy of insufficient sample or generalization from the particular), glittering generality (also known as glowing generality), weasel word (or anonymous authority), jumping to conclusions (officially the jumping conclusion bias, and also called the inference-observation confusion), questionable cause (also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa), fallacy of the single cause (also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism or reduction fallacy), correlation-causation fallacy (often termed “correlation does not imply causation” or the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc), implicit stereotype, fundamental attribution error (also called the correspondence bias or attribution effect), group attribution error, subjective validation (also known as personal validation effect), self-deception, self-serving bias (also called self-attribution bias), optimism bias (also known as unrealistic or comparative optimism), pessimism bias, positivity bias (or positivity effect), negativity bias (or negativity effect), hindsight bias (also called the knew-it-all-along phenomenon or creeping determinism), belief bias, belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism), illusion of validity, outcome bias, choice-supportive bias (also called post-purchase rationalization), sunk-cost fallacy, commitment bias (also known as escalation of commitment), historian’s fallacy, strawman fallacy, ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem), tu quoque (also called appeal to hypocrisy), quoting out of context (also known as contextomy or quote mining), cherry picking (also called card stacking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence), begging the question, circular reasoning, Bulverism, prooftexting, association fallacy (including guilt by association and honour by association), fallacy of illicit transference (including fallacy of composition and fallacy of division), slippery slope argument, continuum fallacy, splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking), argument from ignorance (also known as appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam), false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, or black-or-white fallacy), false analogy, false equivalence, false balance, divine fallacy (also known as argument from incredulity or personal incredulity), moralistic fallacy, naturalistic fallacy, appeal to nature, appeal to tradition (also called argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice), appeal to novelty (also known as argumentum ad novitatem), appeal to the majority (also called argumentum ad populum, appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi, argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”)) and appeal to the minority (a special form of which is second-option bias). Some of these can be found in the following Cognitive Bias Codex.
⚠️Notes: Use the following keyboard shortcuts for zooming in/out on the Codex, and for viewing in full screen. Alternatively, click the image to view it in a carousel slider.
Operation |
Windows & Linux |
Mac |
|---|---|---|
| Zoom In | Ctrl and + | ⌘ and + |
| Zoom Out | Ctrl and – | ⌘ and – |
| Zoom Original | Ctrl and 0 | ⌘ and 0 |
| Full-Screen Mode | F11 | ⌘ + Ctrl + F |
Cognitive biases can be organized into four categories: biases that arise from too much information, not enough meaning, the need to act quickly, and the limits of memory. For more information, consult the cognitive bias cheat sheet and the list of cognitive biases.
In short, the abovementioned heuristics, effects, biases, tendencies and fallacies stem from simple, intuitive, efficient rules, measures or schemas that people routinely use to judge and decide, insofar as they are mental shortcuts that largely involve concentrating on one facet of a complex problem and ignoring others, whilst filtering or filling the details with assumptions, approximations, constructs, prejudices, stereotypes and generalities that gel with people’s existing mental models. In other words, people characteristically fail to account for complexity and succumb to cognitive biases, since their perception of reality and understanding of the world comprise a small, narrow and ineludibly unrepresentative set of observations. Therefore, they are much more predisposed to concentrating on the pure, well-defined and easily discernible at the cost of disregarding the seemingly messier and intractable. As a result, people tend to gravitate towards the quicker, simpler, familiar, stereotyped or expected rather than the more important, challenging, complicated, unaccustomed or unpredictable, even if the latter ultimately results in better outcomes and processes, superior judgements and decisions, or worthier expenditures of time and resources. For example, people typically fall back on heuristics in such a way as to substitute judgement about something complex, partisan or contested (such as homophobia, xenophobia, racism, ageism, sexism, abortion, vaccination, genetic evolution, climate change, the environment, the economy, civil and political rights) with judgement about something simple, familiar or typecast (such as the perceived character, appearence, identity, status, wealth, profit(ability), authority, alliance or affiliation of those involved), especially when people are already deeply emotional about or committed to a certain cause, outcome, opinion, belief, dogma or myth, or are sorely deficient in the skill and expertise required to evaluate the validity and reliability of pertinent claims or issues, thus rendering them vulnerable to misleading information, fallacious arguments, erroneous assumptions and faulty conclusions. Consequently, whilst these heuristic rules or mental strategies may suffice under most circumstances, they can often lead people to commit systematic deviations from logic, probability, rationality, or even decency and morality, causing various errors in judgements and decisions, even more so when inhabiting or navigating a complex situation or environment calls for a sophisticated or taxing response. These errors can detrimentally affect not only people’s choices in their handling of quotations and information but also their choices in matters like valuing a house, marrying a spouse, evaluating a person, appraising a situation, choosing an investment, determining the outcome of a legal case, and (s)electing a legislative body, governing representative or political leader.
⚠️Notes: Use the following keyboard shortcuts for zooming in/out on the following images, and for viewing in full screen. Alternatively, click the images to see and comment on their larger versions in a carousel slider.
Operation |
Windows & Linux |
Mac |
|---|---|---|
| Zoom In | Ctrl and + | ⌘ and + |
| Zoom Out | Ctrl and – | ⌘ and – |
| Zoom Original | Ctrl and 0 | ⌘ and 0 |
| Full-Screen Mode | F11 | ⌘ + Ctrl + F |
In affecting the soundness of our perceptions and judgements, the Quotation Fallacy strains against the validity and reliability of our reasoning and processing of quotations or statements. Hence, even at the exalted moment of hearing, reading, writing, uttering or composing quotations or statements that appeal to us, let alone those that do not, we should be vigilant about our mental traps, thinking styles, behavioural patterns, psychological tendencies and cognitive biases as well as the formal fallacies (also called logical fallacies or deductive fallacies) and informal fallacies (also known as relevance fallacies, conceptual fallacies or soundness fallacies) contained in our judgements and in those quotations or statements, to the extent that the consequences, ramifications and corollaries of those biases and fallacies can often far exceed what we are able or willing to know, acknowledge, comprehend, control, curtail or circumvent. In that regard, let us promptly and unhesitatingly take a sobering look at the following rationale constructed by Owen M Williamson, a lecturer in developmental English, with trenchant but edifying words warning people against the lures and hazards of committing or contracting the identified fallacies, numbering nearly 150 and enumerated in alphabetical order in the Master List of Logical Fallacies, as if they are (persisting and replicating like) seductive memes, resurgent plagues, deep-seated infections, insidious contagions or communicable maladies capable of reaching pandemic proportions:
Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, “junk cognition,” that is, arguments that seem irrefutable but prove nothing. Fallacies often seem superficially sound and they far too often retain immense persuasive power even after being clearly exposed as false. Like epidemics, fallacies sometimes “burn through” entire populations, often with the most tragic results, before their power is diminished or lost. Fallacies are not always deliberate, but a good scholar’s purpose is always to identify and unmask fallacies in arguments.
Whether deliberate or not, many quotations can be so problematic that they themselves become fallacies proffering untenable or inconclusive arguments, (in addition to) being too tenuous, flawed or fallacious to prove or support certain (view)points, agendas or conclusions. Such quotations need not be confined to, associated with or characterized as sophisms, which are clever but unsound arguments used with the intention to deceive or mislead. Indeed, the intention is of secondary importance when those quotations by which people deceive or mislead themselves (as a result of reasoning flaws, wrong ideas, biased views, faulty judgements or mistaken beliefs) are much more dangerous, alarming, treacherous or undependable than the others, given that they are far more common than quoted sophistries. As a result, there has been a pandemic of misquotations, misinformation, false statements, misleading data, hasty generalization and glittering generality in the era and context of post-truth politics, fake news, disinformation, sensationalism, alternative facts, false reality, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, yellow journalism, astroturfing, historical negationism and anti-intellectualism, readily created, condoned, manipulated, exploited, disseminated, consumed, believed or touted by not just narrow-minded, prejudiced, ill-informed, illiberal or misguided individuals (ranging from certain politicians, marketers, advertisers, influencers, media personalities, publicity agents, niche bloggers and lifestyle promoters to special interest groups, climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists, cultish believers, pseudoscience peddlers and anti-vaccinators as well as bigots, sexists, racists, xenophobes, hatemongers, disinformers, obscurantists, profiteers, malefactors, trolls, scammers and scoundrels), but also those who support, defend, practise or subscribe to demagoguery, ochlocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, kakistocracy and narcissistic leadership, often much to the chagrin or exasperation of many conscientious scientists, trustworthy experts, fair-minded citizens and far-sighted persons.
Historically, people have relied on journalists, librarians, curators, content specialists and other information professionals (also called information specialists) such as archivists, information managers, information systems specialists and records managers (who collect, record, organize, store, preserve, retrieve and disseminate printed or digital information in private, public and academic institutions) to relay facts and truths. Whilst many different matters and issues contribute to miscommunication, the underlying factor is information literacy, defined by the Association of College & Research Libraries as “the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning.” The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) commences its explanation of information literacy under the banner of “Communication and Information” in bold: The Alexandria Proclamation of 2005 describes information literacy and lifelong learning as the “beacons of the Information Society, illuminating the courses to development, prosperity and freedom. Information literacy empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion in all nations.” That information literacy is crucial for the healthy functioning of a society whose citizens are well-informed by being both proactive and effective in availing themselves of high-quality, accurate information is beyond any reasonable doubt and increasingly indispensable. The outcomes of information literacy are related to and complemented by those of traditional literacy, computer literacy, research skills and critical thinking skills. In particular, since information is distributed by various means and via multiple channels and platforms, it is often beyond the ability of users and the patience of consumers to gauge the credibility of what they are seeing or perceiving, especially if they have not been bolstered by or inoculated with information literacy as well as media literacy.
The dramatic shift to a predominantly digital, mobile and platform-dominated media environment has not only empowered citizens with instant access to information and applications online through worldwide platforms such as search engines and social media, but also enabled the distribution of misquotations and disinformation from a vast range of different sources. To make matters worse, many users and consumers have come to depend on information sources not filtered or managed by information professionals, especially when opinion pieces trump factual reporting, when public respect for scientific authority wanes, and when entities proffering and preserving authoritative news and trustworthy information attenuate in number and influence as they are subject to adverse government meddling, sanction and even persecution, or are weakened by dwindling subscriptions and advertising revenues due to the ascendency of social media that allow original contents to be scraped from any sources and shared by users without permission or recompense. Even when information literacy and media literacy are not at issue, the quality, validity and reliability of information sources are themselves increasingly at risk of being undermined whenever media integrity and diversity have been tarnished or compromised by the concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or media convergence) and the formation of media oligopoly or monopoly, all of which can dent the ability of media outlets to serve the public interest and democratic process, to resist institutional corruption within the media system, to withstand economic influence, political clientelism and conflicts of interest, and to curtail excessive instrumentalization of the media for particular corporate demands, political goals, partisan strategies, sectarian ideologies or discriminatory biddings that are contrary to the democratic role of the media and detrimental to net(work) neutrality.
Media Landscape and Information Ecosystem Pollution
Polluting the terrains of information landscape and muddying the waters of social discourse, innumerable online sources of misquotations and disinformation use fraudulent techniques and unethical ways to fool users into thinking that dubious blogs, fake news websites, sockpuppet account, fake accounts, social bots, deepfakes, astroturfing operations and front organizations are legitimate and that the information generated is factual or unbiased. They also play significant roles in shaping (outcomes of) public opinion and social behaviour by acting as incessant and pertinacious influencers, manipulating people on social media platforms, supercharging memes and cultural trends, even limiting free speech, suppressing important messages, stoking animosity, dismantling trust and inducing chaos by creating a deluge of bogus accounts, fake identities, automated messages and social spams to deliver profanity, threats, hate speech, insults, damaging quotations, cyberbullying, clickbaiting, social hacking, malicious links, unsolicited content, misleading claims, fraudulent reviews, fabricated news and conspiracy theories.
The obstreperous clamours of the latest gossips, social fads, trendy factoids, propaganda machines and partisan conflicts have been intensified by tabloid journalism, lying press, fake news websites and social media accounts as well as biased broadcasting stations parading inaccurate news and revelling in the misrepresentation of individuals and situations, as they compete for people’s attention with bombardment techniques, tendentious claims, invidious judgements, inflammatory comments, sensational headlines, ridiculous storylines and explosive revelations involving misquotations, disinformation, ad hominem attacks and even outright fabrications or malicious hoaxes. Such news tends to spread much more than regular news due to the confluence of confirmation biases, sensationalism, bandwagon effect, grievance politics, media hypes, social media algorithms, and the lack of readers able or willing to fact-check, to exercise their reasoning, to read full articles rather than just headings before opining, recommending or sharing, and to prompt themselves and their friends to deliberate on (the accuracy of) what they read and share.
Misquotations and disinformation have increasingly functioned as the instruments, rhetoric, foot soldiers and trojan horses of unethical behaviours, reprehensible conducts, ignoble agendas, mendacious propagandas and unprincipled calculuses. On the whole, misquotations and disinformation have often been produced and disseminated by those who are motivated to court attention, sow doubt, shift blame, deflect criticism, distort information, commit fraud, cause controversy, create conflict, inflict reputational damage, attain political advantage or acquire monetary gain. Misquotations and disinformation are also the instruments for establishing, maintaining or concealing corruption, illegitimacy and criminality. Promulgating insidious falsehoods and pandering to people’s baser instincts en masse, misquotations and disinformation in pandemic proportions become the banes and blights of human societies, afflicting individuals, corporations and even whole nations to the detriment of sustaining civil discourse, human rights, democratic governance, social cohesion, community psychology, critical thinking, critical consciousness and sociopolitical development. As prodigiously revealed in the notable Quotation Checklist, there is indeed an astounding range of ways in which quotations can be misused or abused and thus rendered flawed, unreliable or invalid, becoming misquotations or constituting misinformation.
Even in the absence of malevolent, malicious or nefarious intent, misquotations and misinformation may easily abound as they can be spread by media users on the spur of the moment on multiple media, especially since advances in digital media and mass communication have democratized the sharing of information, though often without commensurate checks on the accuracy and veracity of such information. To account for the pervasive nature and global scale of such an information landscape, Dictionary.com has designated “misinformation” as the 2018 Word of the Year, defining it as “false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead”. Whether people are willing or unwitting participants in the transmission of problematic information, nowadays, media users are more or less given carte blanche on social platforms to commit misquotations and misinformation, the execution of which has become as expedient an act as copying, pasting, (re)posting, (re)hashing, (re)tweeting or (re)blogging, routinely done with impunity or even anonymity behind the cloaks of fake accounts or the smokescreens and sockpuppets of astroturfing operations and front organizations.
Facilitated by social media, the spread of misquotations and misinformation typically rides on people’s emotional drives, biased attitudes, cardinal urges, primal impulses and tribal instincts, and often hinges on people’s ignorance, credulity, volatility, grievance, perceived injustice, prejudice, fear, rumour and even paranoia. The spread can accelerate and become a viral phenomenon under the influences and confluences of sensationalism, peer pressure, homophily, confirmation bias, bandwagon effect, illusory truth effect, truth by consensus, false-consensus effect, overconfidence effect, selective perception and selective exposure.
Social platforms have not only usurped traditional news outlets and authoritative sources of information but also exerted significant control over what news and information reach people, insofar as their friends on social media have become the “arbiters” or “managing editors” deciding what others see, given that (social media algorithms usually dictate that) the more often an article is “liked”, commented on and shared by their friends, the more it appears on people’s news feeds, thus resulting in social amplification (also known as content amplification) to such an extent that social media have enormous potential to become problematic surrogates for, and present existential threats to, factual journalism, reliable publication and accurate information from reputable sources. There is no exaggeration in concluding that social media, in stifling journalism and perturbing democracy, have become not only sweeping gatekeepers of the information diets of billions of users worldwide, but also fertile platforms for conducting campaigns, propagandas, media manipulation, Internet manipulation and astroturfing operations, many of which routinely harbour misquotations, misinformation, disinformation, personal attacks (including ad hominem, damaging quotations, trolling and flaming), sensationalism, alternative facts, conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, all the more so when they are fanned by the ideological extremes, political polarizations and snowballing effects of people ranging from pundits, influencers, celebrities, ideologues, politicians and state actors to misinformants, disinformants, fanatics and conspiracy theorists using social platforms to magnify their causes, intensify their propaganda, or take fringe views into the mainstream, even conspiring with or resorting to the politics of grievance, paranoia, hypocrisy, mendacity, deception, collusion, misrepresentation, misdirection, obscurantism, obstructionism, misfeasance, impropriety, sedition, intimidation, discrimination, suppression and Machiavellianism as well as incendiary language, manufactured dissent and demagogic incitement.
Adding fuel to the fire, many websites, search engines and social media can wrap their users in a filter bubble by deploying algorithms or artificial intelligence that guess or predict selectively what information or webpages those users would like to access based on their personal data, such as geolocations, past click-behaviours, search histories, webpages visited, contents viewed, online shopping habits and social media activities. Consequently, users are largely presented with information that conforms to their likes, desires, objectives, expectations and aspirations, becoming increasingly divorced from information that diverges from their proclivities and viewpoints, thus isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles, and shrinking their personal ecosystem of information, if not further limiting their knowledge terrain and intellectual horizon. In its “Glossary of Newly Defined or Updated Terms Related To Misinformation”, Dictionary.com succinctly describes filter bubble as “a phenomenon that limits an individual’s exposure to a full spectrum of news and other information on the internet by algorithmically prioritizing content that matches a user’s demographic profile and online history or excluding content that does not”.
Moreover, people have often been their own worst enemies to the extent that they carry their very own filter bubbles formed by their cognitive biases, and in particular, their confirmation biases driven by their worldviews and upbringings, plus their inability to deal consistently with crucial matters regarding compromise and subjectivity as well as contradiction, context, scope, validity and generalizability bounded by the laws of noncontradiction and excluded middle, as discussed in previous sections. Driven persistently by their unconscious exercise in confirmation biases, people tend to predictably remember or selectively gather information that reinforces their extant beliefs and existing views to the point of amplifying polarization and extremism in their social lives and political involvements. By and large, the fragmenting media exposure and the personalized algorithms used to construct filter bubbles — along with the ever-present exertions of homophily and people’s engrained cognitive biases and confirmation biases — have engendered the echoing and homogenizing effects observed within innumerable social communities plugged into the fast and furious cyberspace awash in the virality of images, videos and (mis)information, causing the dramatic rise of closed epistemic networks, echo chambers and cultural tribalism, in which members and insiders are not only insulated from the validity of counterevidence but also encouraged to actively exclude and discredit counterarguments, and thus further inflaming rivalries, conflicts and polarizations between individuals, groups and nations. In summary, social media coupled with echo chambers have led to the pronounced fracturing of sociopolitical discourse and media landscape, where people’s decisions and viewpoints can become overly influenced or unduly dictated by their information diets, which are all too often stultifyingly framed by filter bubbles to resonate (even more) with people’s internalized logics, beliefs and narratives, thus depriving people of the much needed avenues and benefits of being exposed to and informed by better alternatives and diverse perspectives. Perpectuating closed-loop communication and system of information, echo chambers tend to have deleterious effects or ruinous outcomes on the social capital required for divergent citizens and heterogeneous groups to work together on shared problems, common issues and contentious matters. Reinforcing or entrenching people’s existing views, ideas, attitudes, habits and beliefs aside, echo chambers are prone to fostering or amplifying confirmation bias, social polarization, radicalization and extremism, whose rigid, intolerant and antagonistic nature not only renders people and organizations much more impervious to change, empathy, compromise and cooperation, but also increases the likelihood and severity of situations that incur protracted anguish, stress, trauma, chaos, anomie, enmity, conflict, violence, defiance, escalation and discrimination.
The intensification of sociocultural fracturing and the radicalization of sociopolitical issues across multiple groups and entities manifested in their respective social discourses, social identities and social realities as a result of intensive, large-scale digital mediations via algorithms and artificial intelligence deployed by websites, search engines and social media producing filter bubbles and echo chambers have not escaped the philosophical exploration, metaphysical scrutiny and existential appraisal by AJOwens in a post entitled “On Discourse” as follows:
The current fractured state of discourse, predicted by postmodernist theory as a result of intersecting but not completely congruent realms of meaning or language or significance, has become radically manifest in the political phenomena surrounding Facebook and other social media. We talk of “echo chambers” where isolated ideas are reinforced, and this is valid; but the deeper problem is the metaphysical or existential nature of the isolation itself — the increasing impossibility of communication between factions, owing to increasingly divergent sets of concepts, assumptions, and attendant or resulting world-views, the very vocabulary that defines a discourse. This development also underlies the internal fracturing of common interests known as “intersectionality.” We have developed personal vocabularies and personal worlds; and significantly, we are in a position to choose among them, based not on any common and testable “reality,” but on our own subjective position as a function of our interest in perpetuating our individual selves, and by extension, whatever conception of reality we feel most practically supports that interest.
Overall, the role of news outlets, social media and messaging apps in distributing misquotations, misinformation and other demonstrable falsehoods through virality; the lack of Internet gatekeepers and information professionals where and when they are most needed; the inability of media outlets and online platforms to moderate content with sufficient promptitude, foresight, transparency and accountability; the surfeit of inaccurate information, post-truth politics, fake news, disinformation, sensationalism and alternative facts from social accounts, media sources, troll farms, astroturfing operations and front organizations promoting a wide array of dubious ideas, biased views, fraudulent claims, erroneous arguments and illicit activities; the decline of community news, local journalism and regional media ecosystems affecting economic, political, social and cultural life; the prevalent competitions, grievances and acrimonies in news and (social) media; the escalating tensions and animosities expressed via or incited by a litany of complaints, accusations and averments couched in hyperpartisan rhetoric and conflicts plus the undermining of journalistic autonomy and integrity — amidst the demand of corporate interests, the hazard of improper political influence, the weaponization of falsity, the concealment of crime, the normalization of deviance, the mainstreaming of impropriety, the fallout of toxic governance, the erosion of civil liberties, democratic principles, civil societies and social norms, the cult of anti-expertise sentiment (fuelled by information democratization, intellectual egalitarianism and anti-intellectualism) manifesting as misguided distrust, dismissal and denigration of experts and established knowledge by those in the public and in office, the politicization of science for manipulating public policy and pushing ideological agendas, and the use of populism with brazen disregard for climacteric matters ranging from empirical accuracy and ethical integrity to social justice, public morality and national security by extremist groups, divisive parties, despotic rulers, charismatic figures, business oligarchs, dominant ideologues, strategic demagogues, vexatious contrarians, provocative shock jocks, opinionated pundits, rabid commentariats, fervid vigilantes, perfervid rabble-rousers, perverted patriots, perverse militias and pertinacious militants to stoke resentments, incite grievances, legitimize discriminations and unleash the basal instincts of the general population — have all compounded the abovementioned problems and intensified the resulting predicaments on a truly global scale.
There are indeed multiple connections between the misquotation pandemic, quotational intelligence, information literacy and media literacy as elaborated in the contexts of cognitive biases, formal fallacies and informal fallacies with all their concomitant social ills and their adverse social and civic outcomes impacting on community psychology (with respect to understanding and enhancing the quality of life of individuals within groups, organizations, institutions, communities and society through collaborative research and action), critical thinking (the rational, sceptical, unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence), critical consciousness (an in-depth understanding of the world, allowing for the perception and exposure of social and political contradictions as well as taking action against oppression), and sociopolitical development (defined as “the process by which individuals acquire the knowledge, analytical skills, emotional faculties, and the capacity for action in political and social systems necessary to interpret and resist oppression.… [it] is vital to human development and the creation of a just society”). In a nutshell, the psychological and sociopolitical saliencies of (mis)quotation and (mis)information within the media landscape and information ecosystem have considerable impacts on the functioning of societies and the welfare of citizens.
Exacerbated by fast-paced lifestyles, heavy workloads or digital addictions, people living in the highly polluted media landscape and information ecosystem can be significantly more prone to suffering from not just the fallout of misquotations and misinformation and the consequence of partisanship, sectarianism and cultural tribalism, but also the deleterious effects of chronic attention deficit, compassion fatigue, emotional erosion, psychological exhaustion, vicarious trauma, irritability, cynicism, depression or burnout, as they become overexposed, overburdened or overstimulated by the incessant streaming of the latest news via social media feeds, a large proportion of which manifest as attention-grabbing but misleading headlines, fraudulent assertions, dubious claims, biased reports, doctored stories, provocative exposés, scandalous gossips, knee-jerk tweetstorms, incendiary posts, overshared fads, recycled memes, viral videos and images as well as agitational or politically charged pictorial quotes and mordacious cartoons, all of which tend to be crafted specifically to grab public attention with intrigue, shock and outrage rather than depth, nuance and propriety. Inevitably, given the fast news cycles and the flawed consumption of largely piecemeal and uncritical information saturating contemporary life, many people have gravitated or succumbed to cursory understandings, episodic reactions, manufactured distrusts, conspiratorial views, power politics, inflammatory exchanges, blasé attitudes, frivolous trappings and vacuous distractions, thus diluting their capacity for and urgency in dealing with (coherent narratives, definitive accounts, expert indagations and scholarly analyses about) critical issues, worthwhile causes, pivotal matters, farsighted plans, comprehensive strategies and holistic implementations necessary for (re)examining and improving social interaction and human emancipation with respect to quotational intelligence, information literacy, media literacy, community psychology, critical thinking, critical consciousness and sociopolitical development.
In an increasingly populous world, the virulence of the aforementioned social ills and their adverse manifestations in the form of worsening (political) corruption, social polarization, structural inequality, epistemic injustice, endemic exploitation, social exclusion and even systematic persecution has continued to mirror and magnify the severity of anthropogenic impacts on nonhuman beings and the biosphere. Even in critical matters and existential issues beyond the sociocultural sphere of humanity, innumerable climate change deniers, non-renewable energy corporations, pseudoscientists, obscurantists, media presenters and shock jocks have had scant reservations in peddling numerous misquotations and misinformation plus other outright fabrications and demonstrable falsehoods to voice their misleading, misguided, fabricated or fraudulent cases. Analogous to environmental pollution and the global ecological crisis, the misquotation pandemic, disinformation warfare and the heavily polluted state of our global information ecosystem not only inject layers of complexity and intractability into the sociopolitical climate and sociocultural milieu that are already challenging for the public, the press and politics, but also warn of the real possibility or imminent danger of crossing the Rubicon, a (tipping) point of no return, beyond which humanity invalidates its own viability and forfeits the very prospect of its own survival.
Hence, it is very much as sobering as it is unfortunate that anyone can often quote or state just about anything without having to go through some peer review or vetting process aimed at weeding out any quotation or statement that is wrong, improper, substandard, dubious, misleading, unjustified or unsubstantiated; at determining whether a quotation or statement has been placed in proper context and correctly attributed; and at (providing people with a convenient and consistent way for) checking the validity and reliability of a quote using the abovementioned Quotation Checklist. More than ever, the realm of quotation is as richly swamped as it is poorly screened, even as the era of fact-checking, data mining, text mining, machine learning, artificial intelligence, synthetic media (also known as AI-generated media, generative media and personalized media, a class of which is deepfake), information engineering, natural language processing, social media analytics and intelligence analysis (management) has dawned. Without a set of viable, automated screening tools, the only effective and dependable vaccine against the Quotation Fallacy still steadfastly comes to us mostly in the form of human intellect that permits and champions critical thinking, which is all too frequently in short supply, as it seems to be not readily meshed with or manifested by human nature, even at the best of times, or at the most critical moments in history.
The dearth of critical thinking in the creation and reception of quotes is not without ramifications. There is seemingly a kind of ironic dependency, perpetual feedback, causal loop, recursive pattern, symbiotic nature or mutualism in our unending relationship with the Quotation Fallacy — our human flaws regularly contribute to the existence and characteristics of the Quotation Fallacy as we quote or are being quoted; and in turn, the Quotation Fallacy present in quotations or statements continues to stoke or stroke our human flaws — thus repeating, reaffirming and reinforcing this relationship. In many respects, the Quotation Fallacy qualifies as a crowning glory of human failings, foibles and follies rooted in irrationalities, biases, oversights, misjudgements, misrepresentations, vulnerabilities, unwarranted inferential leaps and faulty conclusions, whether they are intentional or not.
As human beings, we cannot imagine a life without quotations manifesting as the organized receptacles of human thoughts and ideas, usually unedited but selectively extracted for conveyance. They versatilely function as textual and verbal memes as well as musical and visual assemblages, chosen or recreated by miscellaneous quoters from all walks of life, to be replicated and transmitted in person or via media, to be used or fitted together in certain fashions and contexts, to be written, said, read, heard or seen in private or public, to be rendered more potent and persuasive by appeal to authority, logic, reason, emotion or even time and space — at the right, critical or opportune moment. Being the most recognized, celebrated, remembered and repeated parts culled from original or secondary sources, innumerous quotations have long etched or embedded themselves in human lives through various forms of communications and activities. Hence, the raison d’être of quotations is as portentous as it is pervasive, coming across as the familiar sayings or teachings by which a worldview or lifestyle is framed or followed; as the profound speeches dictated during ceremonies and rites of passage; as the solemn oaths of allegiance; as the promising declarations of goodwill; as the romantic reaffirmations of love; as the clarion calls to action or worship; as the tried and tested season’s greetings; as the well-trodden charm offensives; as the retold quips or rehashed punchlines in jokes, ditties and funny stories; and as the unforgettably well-quoted passages of prose, lines of poems, parts of lyrics, and titles of songs, thereby lending us verbatim voices with flair or fervour but without fear or favour, and thus giving us the indispensable means to support, honour, endorse, inhabit, emulate, illustrate and illuminate original ideas, works or authors and their roles and minds without reinventing the wheel. Indeed, quotations have brought and connect ideas, identities and ideologies to many people who would otherwise never know the sources in detail, or would only know them in outline. The finest answers to many questions are quotations, which can prompt and stimulate us to discover or approach the sources, to give us more ways and avenues to reach out to or connect with other ideas, works or authors. On the whole, quotations can deservedly claim extensive primacy in our intellectual, cultural and social lives.
Therefore, it is as unsurprising as it is fitting that Ruth Finnegan, a visiting research professor and emeritus professor in the faculty of social sciences at the Open University where she has been a founder member of the academic staff, commences chapter 8. Controlling Quotation: The Regulation of Others’ Words and Voices of her book entitled “Why Do We Quote? The Culture and History of Quotation” as follows:
Like any other human activity quoting is socially organised. The practices and ideologies surrounding its use have, as we have seen, been interwoven with changing preconceptions over who and what should be quoted, with the recognised but varying linguistic, visual or gestural signs for marking others’ words and voices, and with the particular selections of words for preservation and display across the centuries. They have linked too into the established resources and arrangements that have made possible the scintillating human artistries of quotations – pictorial, graphic and material as well as verbal – with their recurrent threads and their mutations over the years. Again and again the cases in this volume have illustrated what by now must seem a truism: that quotation, for all its importance, is no independent entity on its own but unavoidably intertwined with both the continuities and the changing specifics of human culture.
… Quoting has indeed been turned to valued purposes in many situations. People have used quotation to create beautiful literature, gathered wise and lovely sayings from the past, commented with insight or humour on the human condition – or on their fellows – and engaged reflectively in the processes of human living.…
However, as flawed human beings saddled with and conditioned by emotions, beliefs, desires, expectations, preconceptions and ignorances in perpetuity, we cannot imagine a life without the Quotation Fallacy manifesting as the unorganized receptacles of human biases and shortcomings; the cognitive cracks and fissures from which misconstructions and misconceptions wantonly escape or subconsciously elope; the litany of honed heuristics, emotional responses, basal instincts, inner promptings and primal inclinations that navigate routine transactions and prompt fight or flight in both the verbal and written realms; and indeed the true source of many misgivings and misunderstandings as well as conflicts and discriminations, controversies and contentions. Ultimately, as a flawed species causing and worsening (the existential risk of global catastrophe through) the information ecosystem pollution, the world ecological crisis and the sixth mass extinction, it is high time that human beings face the noise and music of the Quotation Fallacy, so that we may sort ourselves out in the larger scheme of things, and in the natural order. Humankind, the ultimate but flawed quoter as a whole and on the whole must share the burden and guilt for continually manifesting and festering the Quotation Fallacy, whose sobering Definition and Ramifications as well as involute Description, Scope and Corollaries represent indubitable indicators and fair warnings that humanity as a major force of Nature in the new but brief Anthropocene epoch has indeed lost its sense of proportion and its grasp on perspective to the point of accelerating its own terminal downfall and existential oblivion.
There can be no further hesitance or lingering doubt that a full and balanced understanding of the Quotation Fallacy requires the acknowledgement, identification and investigation of errors or defects pertaining to, and originating from, both humans and quotations. As can be gathered from all of the preceding discussions, the cognitive footprints, intellectual costs, analytical tolls and reasoning exactions of the Quotation Fallacy have been, by and large, not only impressively high, culturally consequential, socially influential, politically strategic and existentially far-reaching, but also often concealed, seldom acknowledged and rarely exempted in our daily lives. This stems from the sobering fact and irrevocable truth that whilst the Quotation Fallacy can prevent any quotation or statement from being cogent, reliable or logically valid, it cannot prevent the quotation or statement from swaying people’s minds and evoking some particularities of human nature, habit, intuition and emotion, which have been the major contributors to, or the main culprits of, the Quotation Fallacy, a volatile mix and heady blend of errors or defects eminently capable of leading people to being grievously wrong about reality, egregiously amiss about their assessments, or injudiciously awry about their judgements. Nevertheless, the better people understand the Quotation Fallacy, the better people can mitigate its effects, ramifications and consequences, reducing both their magnitudes and frequencies, and then the better people can improve the quality and autonomy of their critical thinking and decision making, thereby strengthening their mental and intellectual resilience as well as sharpening their independent reasoning and internal discipline.
At the very least, a proper understanding of the Quotation Fallacy should consistently lead to an increased discernment of the claim or argument carried by a quotation or statement under consideration, by virtue of people’s willingness and thoroughness in ascertaining the veracity and validity of the information as well as the vulnerability (as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity) of their emotions to any detectable form of persuasion or manipulation conducted via any overt or subtle appeal to emotion, especially if the claim or argument is fallacious (based on a mistaken belief), biased (unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something), misleading (giving the wrong idea or impression), misguided (having faulty judgement or reasoning), based on misquotation(s) or predicated on Appeal to Misquotation.
Moreover, understanding the chronological outcomes and longitudinal issues of a quotation caught in the prevalent web of the Quotation Fallacy should lead us to the realization that the providence of a quotation (in terms of soundness, usefulness, profundity or edification), no matter how compelling or trustworthy, does not automatically guarantee the provenance of the quotation. In other words, that a quotation is (thought or proven to be) compelling or trustworthy in its import and conveyance neither automatically equates to a prima facie evidence or a presumptive diagnosis of the true origin or ultimate meaning of the quotation, nor necessarily provides contextual and circumstantial evidence for the original context, initial production and subsequent evolution or adaptation of the quotation, considering that the quotation itself can undergo incarnations and alterations, waxing and waning in popularity depending on usage, circulation, circumstance, and other sociohistorical matters, regardless of how consistent and objective our current interpretation and treatment of the quotation may have been, not to mention that Quotation Mutation (whether one-off or accumulative, gradual or sudden) in a hitherto verbatim quotation can be precipitated by any intentional or unintentional human error (such as memory lapse, speech error, typo, miscopy, misprint, misattribution, mistranslation, mishearing, misinterpretation or negligence), thus resulting in one or more variant forms coexisting with the original or eventually eclipsing, usurping or replacing it. How ironic or paradoxical indeed to realize that even though the essential feature of any quote is that it has a recognizable and repeatable form, this very feature that is supposed to testify to the presence of an authentic copy and original intention also simultaneously sets up, via Quotation Mutation, the possibility, if not the inevitability, of an inauthentic copy, corrupted duplication, misinterpreted intention or even misattributed authorship!
Understanding the Quotation Fallacy also teaches us that in excogitation (thinking, devising or considering carefully and thoroughly), cerebration (the act or process of thinking or considering), and intellection (the action or process of understanding or using the intellect, as opposed to imagination) we shall find daily wisdom in fine quotations. Philosophy, cognitive science, logical inquiries, sound reasonings and self-appraisals can show us the pitfalls and misconceptions in not only how we live, choose, think and write but also how we quote, at least to the extent that our emotive, emotional, habitual, instinctual, soul-stirring or inspiriting response to a quotation should be judiciously counterbalanced, tempered, filtered or enriched by the vigilance and diligence of our intellectual faculty.
Although the use of choice quotations can be very effective or even fundamental in defining, delineating or defending a goal, idea, identity or outcome, there can often be the case that such quotations are actually chosen or tacitly contrived to appeal to the person(s) addressed more than to impartial reason or criterion; to assert a specific agendum rather than to reach a certain consensus or compromise; or to drive home a particular point rather than to arrive at some truth, truce or (re)solution. After all, people’s ability to appreciate, understand, utilize or even exploit the content, applicability and relevance of a quotation in question is contingent on and correlated with (the nature and extent of) people’s affiliations, allegiances, kinships, worldviews, outlooks, upbringings, cultural capitals, social conditionings, spirituality, (moral) constitutions and lifestyles, even more so with respect to the much needed openness and receptibility required towards whatever unaccustomed notion, potential, orientation or activity is associated with or prompted by any strikingly profound, unconventional, insightful, inspirational or thought-provoking quotation.
In conclusion, whilst we invariably gravitate towards choosing only certain quotations for their potency in representing, accentuating or validating our personalities, identities and beliefs so as to uphold or disseminate preferred views and favoured ideas, we should be aware that our opinions or reasonings involved in the selection and judgement of quotations can be imperfect and prone to the Quotation Fallacy. As a corollary, we can indeed do very well to appreciate and investigate the Quotation Fallacy reliably and responsibly, for doing so can inform us not just how to quote but also how to live, choose, think and write reliably and responsibly. Furthermore, apprehending the Quotation Fallacy can help us to study and develop the vocabulary and skills needed to better evaluate the claims and arguments of stakeholders and advertisers, media personalities and influencers, Internet users and bloggers, experts and gurus, leaders and politicians, ideologues and demagogues, cognoscenti and dilettanti, luminaries and dignitaries, celebrities and superstars, as well as historical figures or the like, both in the media and in person. It can also help us to better understand the human condition and human nature, so that we can better temper our quotational ignorance, assumptions and liabilities with quotational intelligence and maturity, which are essential for recognizing and affording the best of what quotations can contribute to our concerted efforts and determined actions to live a much more examined life. There should be no lingering doubt that fostering quotational excellence and consulting the Quotation Checklist can function as a reassuring antidote and dependable repellent to the inimical potentials and pernicious repercussions of the Quotation Fallacy waiting to afflict the unwary. After all, being long on quotational excellence and short on the Quotation Fallacy is still perennially required considering that quotations have had omnipresent influences in the lives of people across ages, and that they have continued to serve as some of the most effective tools of demonstration and argument, acclamation and validation, persuasion and edification, incitement and inspiration, and even coercion and conversion. The Quotation Fallacy calls for the reformation of our quotational practice and the transformation of our quotational behaviour so that quotation can consistently be a refined and reliable instrument for the betterment of our social and intellectual lives, even as we face greater challenges ahead.
There are resolutely compelling grounds and disturbingly pressing needs for the longstanding pantheon of those who champion the validity and reliability of Intelligence Quotient (IQ), and more recently, those who attest to the importance of Emotional Intelligence (EI), also known as Emotional Leadership (EL), Emotional Quotient (EQ) and Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EIQ), to recognize a further ingredient, namely Quotational Intelligence (QI), coined and defined by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ as the capacity to construct, interpret or treat quotations with or for logic, action, belief formation, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, decision making and problem solving. More generally, quotational intelligence is the ability to properly perceive or infer information from quotations, and to retain the information or quotations as knowledge or resources to be applied towards adaptive behaviours within an environment or context.
SoundEagle🦅 soaring with Quotational Intelligence (QI) as opposed to Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
Curating quotes to our own viewpoints and perspectives remains the cornerstone of quotations. Time and again, quotations are specifically chosen and purposefully presented because of the consequential value, communicative expediency and ideological resonance afforded by their being compacted, condensed or dramatized receptacles of potent ideas, influential views or persuasive claims. To understand a quotation and to be a fine quoter is to refuse to be intimidated or summarily impressed by its apparent prominence and supposed provenance. It also requires the exercise of due diligence in being sufficiently aware of the risks and pitfalls of (mis)interpretation and (mis)quotation. On the one hand, we should be mindful of the cultural dynamics and social mechanisms involved in those who purvey their ideas through (mis)quotations to pollute or confound our intellect. On the other hand, we shall welcome those who inspire or edify us via their compelling and insightful use of quotations. May the civilized thoughts of quotees continue to be funneled through and showcased by the quotational excellence of quoters who have judiciously cultivated quotational intelligence with the process of vetting themselves by duly knowing and heeding the Quotation Fallacy. May the consistent cultivation of mental vigilance and critical thinking of quoters and quote consumers in conjunction with the judicious exercise of their quotational intelligence both capacitate and facilitate their intellect to question the validity and reliability of quotation itself — the curated treasury from which we frequently and indispensably draw the reserves, wisdoms and lessons to understand, appreciate and endure (the trials and tribulations of) life.
In any case, one would hope that the foregoing multipronged investigations into the Quotation Fallacy, a term minted and defined by SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ specifically for these investigations, have provided some important, insightful, comprehensive, edificatory and multidisciplinary information aided by bespoke design and stylish presentation, and that the analytical discussions also venture into and beyond the perennial issues and common pitfalls in our daily lives and in how we process data, identify problems, explore issues, conduct research, evaluate evidence, cite sources, select viewpoints, interpret opinions, validate beliefs, formulate ideas, make judgements, draw conclusions, create decisions and consider implications, the outcomes of which invariably depend on how we deal with the quotations or statements involved.
The careful and introspective use of quotations can present transformative opportunities and constitute part of a concerted endeavour to re-examine and recalibrate one’s life and belief, by tapping into the clarity, sagacity or piquancy of particular quotations that serve to impart insight, courage and resolve with which to cast away former spiritual or intellectual cocoons and to overcome epistemological impasses, as one proceeds in the journey towards being an emancipated, wiser person. One of the most important aspects or ingredients of becoming a freethinker is the cultivation of critical thinking that permits the reliable recognition and coherent understanding of the Quotation Fallacy, which patently reveals that people are often their own worst enemies, being hampered, confined and stymied by their demons, beliefs, ignorance, inertias, mindsets, fears, bigotries, insecurities, follies and foibles, in spite of, or even because of, their humanity, culture and upbringing. Accordingly, this comprehensive post has cited numerous terms and examples that encapsulate some of the commonest pitfalls in human perceptions and behaviours, many of which routinely evade our attention and conscious control, even in the mere act of choosing, reading or using any quotation or statement. Hence, the Quotation Fallacy is always upon us, impinging on and seeping into our lives in manifold fashions. All in all, it is indeed quite difficult to live a well-examined life, which is neither a high priority nor an achievable goal for most folks, even though such a priority or goal has become more paramount and essential, considering the urgency of many mounting global issues. Notwithstanding, the symbolic efficacy of quotations (as opposed to the physical efficacy of actions) to effect change, to influence others, and to appropriate various ideas and techniques through quoting esteemed catchphrases, epigraphs, mottos, axioms, proverbs, mantras, slogans, shibboleths, manifestos, proclamations or talking points for attaining, engineering or facilitating some inspiring results, stirring developments, consequential outcomes and group cohesiveness can hardly be understated, underestimated or denied.
In accordance with what have been observed and described by some of the most avid quoters, the investigations have also laid bare the transformative, visceral, affectual, motivational and phenomenological experiences of choosing and crafting quotes, whilst not shying away from revealing the attendant pitfalls and caveats. Overall, these investigations have highlighted not only the engrossing complexities of what and how quotations can entail in and impact on many aspects of our lives, but also the unabating necessities to confront and expand what we know, so that we may revise and update what we thought we knew about quotation. Indeed, the goal of turning quotation into the object of inquiry is to obtain and benefit from the results of examining or analysing the corollaries and ramifications engendered by (the process or action of) quoting from texts, speeches, pieces of music, or works of art, to the extent that quotes are and have been distinctly capable of affecting the lives and legacies of quotees, quoters and quote consumers or dedicatees in multiple ways and domains, for better or worse.
On balance, who the quoter can or should be as well as when, where and how the quoter may deliver what quotation to whom are socially consequential, having long been interwoven with the etiquette, decorum, ethos, zeitgeist, praxis and cultural fabric of human existence across diverse epochs, whether tacitly or explicitly, loosely or rigidly, morally entailed or legally enforced. Accordingly, the iterability of quotation is neither a certitude automatically, nor to be taken for granted indiscriminately, inasmuch as the capacity of a quote to be repeatable in different contexts is both contingent (acceptable only if certain circumstances are the case) and circumscribed (restricted to certain roles or situations).
Therefore, there can be no denying that quotations are deeply braided into mythologies, histories and cultures in all their manifest diversities, contingencies and even controversies. Whether we explicitly acknowledge the presence and influence of quotations or not, they predominate in our lives to the present time and will continue to do so in the distant future, as long as human civilizations exist. As a readily available and versatile resource, quotations have (been strategically coopted to) become a social currency, driving force and principal means for branding via distinctive wording, quoting and design to promote a particular product, individual, party, company or cause, and for virtue signalling through publicly expressing opinions or sentiments with convincing or inspirational quotes to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue or cause. Well circulated in multiple (plat)forms, and increasingly cloaked in the visually oriented medium of pictorial quote in the form of quote-cum-image or text-on-photo, quotations have time and again proven to be as overwhelmingly abundant as they are indispensable manifestations of utilitarian tool, practical art or meme carrier, often thriving and striking a balance between being punchy and being digestible even to the minds of those whose power of comprehension and limit of concentration have been compromised by the addictive trappings of technology, digital life, virtual reality, gaming fantasy and other instantaneous online interactions through the (over)use of social media and mobile computing, in lieu of reading whole books, journals, papers, essays, writings and other forms of original publications from which plenty of the finest quotations have been sourced. Moreover, if the pace of population growth, social change, technological succession, information explosion and content oversaturation has caused everything to be even more likely to be cramped out of existence and to recede into the past, into oblivion, into irrelevance, into historical junkyards, then quotations have undoubtedly become the last noticeable vestiges and direct links to those sources, insofar as they function like the visible parts of some buried treasures waiting to be unearthed by sufficiently inquisitive individuals anytime, and by extraterrestrials or other forms of intelligent beings should humanity ever become extinct in the future.
On further reflection, we can and should be thankful that in civil, liberal and pluralistic societies, people are indeed fortunate, if not somewhat overindulged, in being able to categorically afford and wholeheartedly exercise their extant liberty and discretion to quote whatever they find to be significant and meaningful, for all intents and purposes, with impunity and without censorship. The capacity for attraction to quotation is one which is given in human beings if they have succeeded in developing their primary potentiality, namely to be related to life and ideas through the regular use and circulation of quotes as something which is interesting, joyful, inspiring, productive, and worthy of people’s emotional, learning, thinking, reasoning and creative faculties. The ability to quote well lends considerable weight, depth and credence to a great range of human endeavours ranging from personal opinion and spiritual advice to political speech and academic research. Given the ubiquity and centrality of quotations in our lives, the right or privilege to create, circulate and engage quotations in any context or situation must constitute one of the major prerequisites for living a functional, fulfilling and even bearable existence, unless we are content to emulate the rare or odd souls whose capacity, reason or incentive to find satisfaction in life is consistent with solitude, anhedonia, stupefaction, apathy, misanthropy, nihilism, oppression, repression or suppression, if not unambiguously an autonomous choice of radical self-sufficiency, a self-imposed ultra-minimalist way of being, a peculiar symptom of persistent and carefully guarded delusion, or a manner of living that is unconducive or antithetical to an emotionally appropriate, intellectually receptive, existentially purposive, spiritually significant and socially responsible mode of human life. Hence, we should examine and remind ourselves of our quotational privilege, in recognition of which we ought to remain wise, grateful and conscionable with respect to our freedom to quote, a freedom that we shall no longer take for granted as we strive to quote much more responsibly and intelligently, and as we become more adept at scaling the sheer cliff of Quotation Fallacy to reach the summit of quotational excellence.
Without further delay, SoundEagle🦅ೋღஜஇ hereby invites you to relish the following quotes in the hope that you will be much more careful when seeing, hearing or using quotes, even in the case of the most familiar or accepted kinds, so that you can consistently approach them with more reservations and deeper understanding, but with fewer encumbrances and misconceptions of any kind, including the sorts of mistakes in reasoning that arise from, or result in, the mishandling of the content and context of any quotation.
疾 風 知 勁 草
昏 日 辨 誠 臣
勇 夫 安 識 義
智 者 必 懷 仁
Only the strong and sincere can bear hardship and turmoil.
Only the wise and valiant can know righteousness and cherish benevolence.
Live a good life.
If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.
If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
We don’t see things as they are;
we see them as we are.
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
For those who do believe, no proof is necessary.
For those who don’t, no proof is possible.
What we do for ourselves dies with us.
What we do for others and the world, remains and is immortal.
A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses.
It is an idea that possesses the mind.
Ability is what you are capable of doing.
Motivation determines what you do.
Attitude determines how well you do it.
The farther backward you can look,
the farther forward you will see.
An ounce of prevention is better than ten pounds of cure.
Nothing is easier than self-deceit.
For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.
The method of science is to begin with questions, not with answers, least of all with value judgements.
Science is dispassionate inquiry and therefore cannot take over outright any ideologies “already formulated in everyday life”, since these are themselves inevitably traditional and normally tinged with emotional prejudice.
Sweeping all-or-none, black-and-white judgements are characteristic of totalitarian attitudes and have no place in science, whose very nature is inferential and judicial.
Philosophy, cognitive science, logical inquiries, sound reasonings and self-appraisals can show us the pitfalls and misconceptions in not only how we live, choose, think and write but also how we quote.
In excogitation, cerebration and intellection we shall find daily wisdom in fine quotations.
Menu
- Introduction: Fostering Quotational Excellence
- Misquotation: Improper Quoting, Sourcing, Context, Appropriation
- Emotions and Biases: Affect Heuristic, Stereotype, Attribution Bias
- Logic versus Fame: Formal Fallacy, Genetic Fallacy, Halo Effect
- Authority Bias and Author Bias: Expert Influence, Creator Persuasion
- Classical Logic: Contradiction, Context, Scope, Validity, Generalizability
- Compromise and Subjectivity: Special Pleading and Relativist Fallacy
- Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope and Corollaries
- Illustrated Quotations: Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes
Annotated GALLERY 🖼
⚠️Notes: Click the headings listed in the navigational Menu above to jump to different sections within the post.
Hovering with a mouse cursor over a hyperlinked text or image in this post will bring up a tooltip showing descriptive information or instruction.
Click or touch an image to enlarge or comment on it.
The Quotation Fallacy “💬” GALLERY
SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ 
WOW that’s a lot of GIFs lol. And work. I’d give you a like just for that! 😉
LikeLiked by 17 people
Hello Jason! Thank you for clicking the “Like” button and commenting on the graphics. Apart from what you term as “GIFs”, SoundEagle is quite curious to know what you thought of the textual parts of this post, which are just as plentiful and engaging.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m always impressed when someone can put that many in! It’s a busy work week, but the weekend is near!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thank you for your reply. SoundEagle hopes that you are impressed by not just the quantity but also the quality of the graphics. For your information, each of these graphics can be commented on by clicking or touching it to activate its own comment section, which will “float” on top of the post.
May you have a lovely weekend, Jason! SoundEagle looks forward to savouring your thoughts or comments on the textual portions of this post after a weekend of substantive incubation, rumination and/or rejuvenation. 😉
LikeLiked by 8 people
By the way, please be informed that SoundEagle has had the opportunity to visit your mother’s website bearing many of her oeuvres.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reblogged this on Philosophy 12 and commented:
Philosophy and logical inquiries can show us the pitfalls in not only how we live, think and write but also how we quote.
LikeLiked by 11 people
[…] Posted by SoundEagle ⋅ October 18, 2017 ⋅ Leave a comment Filed Under Affect Heuristic, Author Bias, Cognitive Bias, Confirmation Bias, Genetic Fallacy, Halo Effect, Misquotation, Quotation Fallacy Philosophy and logical inquiries can show us the pitfalls in not only how we live, think and write b… […]
LikeLiked by 8 people
I totally agree with you. I have little to say considering how well this is written and just how much ground it covers. Most people aren’t critical thinkers, or they simply don’t want to think, there is some comfort in having certain perceptions and views and in some cases even examinaning those can make the individual feel like they are engaging in something that threatens their sense of identity or meaning. Auto-thinking/judging is also not that taxing on our mental resources, it fits in perfectly in our constantly busy and distracted lives, pragmatic so to speak but I wonder if it is for the best. I don’t think it is, little good can come from being not being critical thinkers I think. Thanks for referring me to your post, it was fun.
LikeLiked by 18 people
I totally agree with you. I have little to say considering how well this is written and just how much ground it covers. Most people aren’t critical thinkers, or they simply don’t want to think, there is some comfort in having certain perceptions and views and in some cases even examinaning those can make the individual feel like they are engaging in something that threatens their sense of identity or meaning. Auto-thinking/judging is also not that taxing on our mental resources, it fits in perfectly in our constantly busy and distracted lives, pragmatic so to speak but I wonder if it is for the best. I don’t think it is, little good can come from being not being critical thinkers I think. Thanks for referring me to your post, it was fun.z
LikeLiked by 7 people
Hello there! For some reason, your comment is duplicated. It seems that you have somehow submitted the comment twice. How keen of you!
Thank you, Macxermillio, for giving your feedback on some of the central issues discussed in this post. Your observation that “there is some comfort in having certain perceptions and views and in some cases even examining those can make the individual feel [as if] they are engaging in something that threatens their sense of identity or meaning” is particularly pertinent and resonating, at least to the extent that people are often their own worst enemies, being hampered, confined and stymied by their own demons, beliefs, ignorance, inertias, mindsets, fears, bigotries, insecurities, follies and foibles, in spite of, or even because of, their humanity, culture and upbringing. This very special post has cited many terms and examples that encapsulate some of the commonest pitfalls in human perceptions and behaviours, many of which routinely evade our attention and conscious control, even in the mere act of choosing, reading or using any quotation or statement. Hence, the Quotation Fallacy is always upon us, impinging and seeping into our lives in various ways. All in all, it is indeed quite difficult to live a well examined life, which is neither a high priority nor an achievable goal for most folks, even though such a priority or goal has become more paramount and essential, considering the urgency of many mounting global issues, which will be analysed and discussed in forthcoming posts.
Given your interests and penchants, SoundEagle would hereby like to recommend to you a related post published just prior to this post. It is a lengthy and multifaceted showcase of 👁 Optical Illusions 👁🗨❇️😵✳️👀 in their various forms and manifestations.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Yes, the state of the world now requires that prudence in thought. Sad that I seems to be declining, no encouraged, valued and cherished as it deserves. Will check it out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You just nailed it my friend 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
thanks for sharing this link – and wow – you are quite the scholar dear sound eagle – I only skimmed this and found it to be so interesting. Really like the image for the ongoing process of the sci method… and you are an artist too. whoa…. quite a mix of gifts you have.
And yes, I see what you mean about the straight layout.
LikeLiked by 17 people
Hello Y. Prior! Thank you for your feedback and compliment. May you find the leisure to relax or amuse yourself with the diverse styles and contents of SoundEagle’s website(s) in good time!
LikeLiked by 4 people
☺️👍
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent post. And always remember what Moe Howard once said to his brother and fellow Stooge, Curly: “Curly, if you quote me again without giving proper references, I’m gonna sue ya’, ya’ bastard, ya’!” 🙂
LikeLiked by 17 people
Thank you, Jeff, for providing your very first feedback over here. How well you remember the three stooges! Apart from the cartoon that reminds you of what Moe said to Curly, what do you think of the choice of quotes being presented in this post? Is there one that is particularly resonating with your ethos?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thanks SoundEagle. And you are writing a great blog 👍❤️👌
LikeLiked by 15 people
Hi TechFlax! Thank you for your visit and compliment, though it would be far more illuminating if you could clarify further as to what aspects of this blog you consider to be great. SoundEagle is greatly amused that we both clicked the button to follow each other’s blog almost at the same time (separated by less than one second).
Judging by the contents of your blog, you are certainly very savvy in certain aspects of computer technology. It is quite clear that your technological prowess is matched by your eagerness to help others and the clarity in your explanations via the posts published on your blog. Well done!
LikeLiked by 3 people
👌
LikeLiked by 13 people
A brilliant post, both informative and insightful. Even, or shall I say especially, the Bible has been the subject of misquotes. I love the Marcus Aurelius quote. Thank you for taking such care in putting it together.
LikeLiked by 15 people
Hi pjlazos! SoundEagle is delighted by your visit and compliment. Unless advised by you to the contrary, SoundEagle can safely assume from your previous feedback that the Marcus Aurelius quote is your most favourite of all the quotes contained in this post, which has become even longer and better.
You are very welcome to demonstrate in another comment how the Bible has been the subject of misquotations, which can be of considerable interests to some readers here.
Happy November to you very soon!
LikeLiked by 4 people
First, All the many iterations make it impossible that it has been interpreted correctly by everyone; second, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that information has systematically been removed (as in the 4th century during the Council of Nicene), especially the books by and references to women; and third, the Our Father was translated from the Aramaic in a way most favorable to men as the words in Aramaic translate to something more gender neutral. Just sayin’.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thank you, pjlazos, for your summary on the subject matters of biblical misquotations arising from versional iterations, factional politics, gender inequality, as well as translational errors and discrepancies.
Regardless of those issues, do you have your own favourite quotations from the Bible?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Love thy neighbor as thyself. 😘
LikeLiked by 4 people
Reblogged this on Die Erste Eslarner Zeitung – Aus und über Eslarn, sowie die bayerisch-tschechische Region!.
LikeLiked by 12 people
SoundEagle, how do you find the time to write so prolifically? This is such a long post! It’s very good though.
LikeLiked by 13 people
Hello Marie! I hope that you have been quite rejuvenated to face a new week in good spirit as 2017 ushers in November, the penultimate month.
As you are probably very well aware by now, SoundEagle tries to achieve a good synergy in presenting and balancing many diverse and complementary components, not just those pertaining to writing, as this website, whilst not lacking in textual information by any means, is also laden with graphics and multimedia as well as styling elements corresponding to thematic or topical requirements.
Please be informed that you may come across certain post or page in which a menu containing internal links is available so that you can click on the links to jump quickly to different sections of the post or page.
Hovering (with a mouse cursor or by other means) over a hyperlinked text or image may bring up a tool tip showing you additional information. So, it pays to hover on any item of interest to obtain extra information. Please enjoy to your heart’s content.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I am impressed that you are able to cover so much material on your blog. It just gets difficult to really enjoy it thoroughly because there is so much. Far be it from me to advise you on how to present material/topics, but I quite like short and sweet rather than long to the point where you end up skipping quite a lot of it, just to get to the end, and thereby perhaps missing something really interesting. I’m not criticising the way you present, as that’s entirely up to you (after all, it is your blog), but for me personally I would be more inclined to read every word if the posts were shorter. Your technical genius and knowledge cannot be challenged though. I hope you are not offended by anything I have said here because truly, none of what I have said was written to cause offence.:)
LikeLiked by 7 people
Hi Marie, SoundEagle is both delighted and reassured by your earnest feedback, which amply reveals your caring and thoughtful nature. Thank you! 🙂
It is inescapable but understandable that people have preferences regarding the purpose, design, layout and contents of a website or blog, especially a multidisciplinary one laden with multimedia and multitudinousness. Thus, one should not be surprised that the atypical platform rendered by SoundEagle might not be everybody’s cup of tea. Nevertheless, for those who care to explore this website with an open mind, they will be richly rewarded and even surprised. They will soon learn that there is considerable diversity in both style and content to satisfy a wide range of readers. For those who yearn for the short and sweet (but not the quick and dirty), they may opt for savouring SoundEagle’s poems concerning a variety of topics and accessible at https://soundeagle.wordpress.com/tag/poem/ before graduating or acclimatizing to something lengthier or weightier. Please enjoy! 🙂
LikeLiked by 7 people
Hi Marie! This post has become even longer since your last visit, because SoundEagle appended the following statements to a particularly dense paragraph to enhance and complete the discussion there:
LikeLiked by 4 people
I think people would do well to follow their own intuition as in my experience, it is nearly always right for them in their own situation. Quotations are great and form many ‘Aha!’ moments, but are not necessarily the way to go in any given situation. But they (quotes) can enlighten, clarify and even add deep insight to something that someone is grappling/struggling or even just wants a different take on – it doesn’t mean that they necessarily want to use it as a bargaining or a conclusive tool in house purchase, matrimonial matters or even trying to figure out someone’s personality.
As a matter of interest, why do you always refer to yourself in the 3rd person and never ‘I’? – Just curious, although my intuition tells me that you wish to remain something of a mystery.:))
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hello Marie! Thank you for your well-considered response. We are basically in agreement, though SoundEagle has detected a potential misreading of the newly appended statements, based on the presence of the sentence in your response: “it doesn’t mean that they necessarily want to use it [the quote] as a bargaining or a conclusive tool in house purchase, matrimonial matters or even trying to figure out someone’s personality.”
By rereading the newly appended statements (and if necessary, other portions of the post) more carefully, you will see that the heuristics, effects, biases, tendencies and fallacies stemming from people’s intuitions or mental shortcuts, not necessarily the quotes or quotations per se, can cause various errors in judgements and decisions affecting their choices in quotations and other matters in their lives. In other words, it is not so much their use or misuse of some quote(s) “as a bargaining or a conclusive tool in house purchase, matrimonial matters or even trying to figure out someone’s personality” that leads people astray. Rather, it is the cognitive and social influences on forming judgements and making decisions in conjunction with people’s susceptibility to the abovementioned heuristics, effects, biases, tendencies and fallacies that lead people astray.
As for the curious matter of SoundEagle addressing itself in the third person, a thorough reading of SoundEagle’s “About 🛅” page can throw some light on what kind of creature SoundEagle has been.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Happy November to you, Marie! Since you intimated that you “quite like short and sweet rather than long”, SoundEagle would like to provide a pithy response to your earlier comment. Extracted from the penultimate paragraph of this post, the following sentence can be regarded as the short and sweet version of SoundEagle’s much longer response:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hello SoundEagle! I can see you have been thinking about what I said, and I also think that you have been thinking about me, which is nice. I like that pithy sentence – it says a lot! 🙂
I hope you’re having a good day.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello Marie! SoundEagle has installed a nice present for you just below the pithy sentence in the previous comment. In addition, you can also enjoy the large version of the same at the end of the post itself, knowing that this new surprise for you is the short and sweet fruit born of our interactions here. Feel free to click on both the small and large versions to see what happens next. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
SilentSparrow, apologies, I meant SoundEagle, thank you so much for this innovative present which I shall take delight in opening over the following days. May I ask a personal question? 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 4 people
hahahahahaha …. I have looked on your ‘about’ page (as advised) to discover who or what you are, SoundEagle, and am none the wiser. So, the personal question is: who are you? Are you a person or a computer? Are you one or are you many? When you are not being SoundEagle, how would I recognise you? I realise that there are a few personal questions here, and hope that I get an answer to at least one of them.:)))) Please don’t be esoteric in your response, or I shall never visit you again …
LikeLiked by 5 people
Hello there, Marie! Please kindly click on both the small and large versions of the new graphic again to see what happens next, as SoundEagle has recently added some message there for you, in case the message was not yet available on your first visit. 🙂
LikeLiked by 6 people
Aww don’t be like that SoundEagle … :))
LikeLiked by 5 people
SoundEagle is one person.
Hence, at least two of your four questions have been answered. Please be reminded that this is at least twice the quantity originally intended by you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’ve only now seen the whole of your answer SoundEagle, I missed the top bit where you say you are one person first time round. Thanks for the information – you’re very kind. I was only joking about not visiting you again … you knew that, didn’t you? :)))
LikeLiked by 5 people
SoundEagle cannot be certain whether you were serious or joking for the reasons already mentioned, plus the fact that there is little or no indication of any sort that you have warmed to what you saw and read at SoundEagle’s “About 🛅” page, for you have neither clicked the ⭐️ Like button nor left any comment there, in conjunction with the fact that there is still no clear sign that you have clicked on both the small and large versions of the new graphic to reveal what SoundEagle has attentively installed for you in two different formats, where, hopefully, you will remember to scroll down to reveal everything, including the option to comment there. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m confused! I thought I had clicked on the ‘new graphic’ – but it seems I haven’t. Never mind – I really don’t know what to say. Ummm …I was joking – sorry if it wasn’t immediately apparent – things get lost in translation. Perhaps you’d like to spell it out for me what you’ve left, or if not, then that’s such a shame to miss out like that. Thanks!:)
LikeLiked by 5 people
As mentioned, Marie, it is a simple matter of clicking or touching (if you have a touch screen) both the small and large versions of the new graphic to reveal the linked contents in two different versions respectively. Remember to scroll vertically to reveal everything there since the presented contents cannot fit inside the whole screen. Even if you had indeed visited the two versions earlier, there are now extra information not hitherto available. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Got it!! 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
Good morning SoundEagle! How are you? 🙂 I can’t help but notice that you have visited a couple of my other blogs today – thank you so much for all those likes. That has made me very happy.❤❤
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good morning to you, Marie! It is delightful to be informed that you have been feeling upbeat after SoundEagle took the journey of visiting all of your blogs, especially the other two recently. Thank you for wishing SoundEagle a wonderful day. Let’s hope that you continue to feel happy throughout this weekend, and to have the mood or inspiration to find great satisfaction in whatever you choose to do or fulfil.
Indeed, having more than one blog is something else that we have in common, an indication that we have diverse interests. Should your time permit during this weekend, SoundEagle would like to invite you to visit and enjoy ✿❀ Queensland Orchid International ❀✿ to your heart’s content, where, hopefully, you can discover some lovely surprises and feel very happy.
Meanwhile, SoundEagle is in the process of getting a very significant post ready for publishing within a week. All will be revealed . . . . .
LikeLiked by 4 people
What a joy to hear from you SoundEagle! And all of what you wish me in your first paragraph, I wish the same for you.:) I’m all for feeling happy, and I will put aside some time to visit QOI this weekend.
A significant post huh? Intrigued – no less! :))
I hope the revelations won’t make me blush … :))))
LikeLiked by 3 people
In addition, SoundEagle has left you a special comment accessible only at the abovementioned linked contents, where you will find an entirely separate comment section in which to write your own comment(s) or reply to existing comment(s).
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thanks! 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good morning SoundEagle. I noticed that you’ve visited again and that was such a lovely surprise. Thank you and have a wonderful day! 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
You are very welcome, Marie! 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
The origins of lots of quotations are difficult to pinpoint. People like to attribute clever quotes to Einstein, Twain, Wilde, etc. since this would look better than attributing them to some unknown nobody. Even authoritative sources like Oxford and Bartlett’s contain a large number of mistakes. Quote Investigator (a website) is rather good since it tries to track down the origin of the quotes they investigate. Unfortunately, I have also found some errors there.
The biggest source of misinformation regarding quotes (and their origins) today is, of course, the Internet. You can find a huge number of misquotations and misattributions in social media and “quotes” websites
That’s why when I post quotes, I seldom use a “Quote” book or website as a reference. Normally, when I find an interesting passage from a book that I read, I’d quote it. Sometimes, when I see an interesting quote from a quote book, I try my best to find the original source. If I can’t find the original source, then I most likely won’t post it.
LikeLiked by 11 people
Hello Edmark! First of all, SoundEagle would like to wish you a very happy November!
Indeed, we both are quite bothered by the challenges and problems surrounding misquotations. Until the advent of some authoritative or definitive source(s) from which the public can reliably cite the sources of some quotations, the most reliable means for achieving responsible quoting is to obtain a desired quotation right from the horse’s mouth, to witness the quoted passage printed on the original published material, or better still, to have something to be quoted written and autographed by the writer, or to get it authenticated by the author or their representative agent.
Misquotation is only one of the many issues characterizing the Quotation Fallacy. Whilst misquotation is the one issue that can be treated by practicing due deligence in checking the source of a quotation, the other issues highlighted in this post are far more numerous and difficult to (re)solve.
Somehow, your full name or blog name, being Edmark M. Law, has prompted SoundEagle to coin another brand-new term:
You are cordially invited to read from the beginning of this post, which SoundEagle has recently improved and also incorporated a little surprise awaiting your discovery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a fantastic post. So much intelligent logic and critical analysis. So much wisdom. And colorful creativity too.
LikeLiked by 13 people
Hi Mathias! SoundEagle is delighted to hear from you as it has been quite a while since we last interacted. Meanwhile, rereading the start of this post is recommended, given that it has been improved and extended since your previous visit. Thank you for taking the time and effort to peruse and comment on the post. Should you have further thoughts or recommendations on any aspects of the post, please feel free to leave more comments. Besides, SoundEagle cannot help wondering which quote(s), from the ones stylishly presented above, you consider to be your favourite(s).
Please be informed that SoundEagle is very impressed by your Cooperatives in Japan (Article Series) dealing with the cooperative organizational form from the perspectives of social economy and industrial democracy. Happy November to you!
LikeLiked by 3 people
You have written exceptionally well, yup today quotes have become a craze, but the original source of the quote is misquoted. I write my own quotations and use them in my posts. I am also a quote lover. Love strong words…and now have started to make my own.
LikeLiked by 12 people
Happy November to you, Mariam! Thank you for bestowing on SoundEagle your visit and feedback.
Since you have confessed to being a lover of quotes and strong words, SoundEagle is keen to know which quote(s) in this post has or have the greatest impression or impact on you, and also which quote(s), whether created by you or other people, you consider to be your perennial favourite(s), unsurpassed by anything else.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I love quotes about life, lessons learned, true experiences , emotions and those quotes are best which give me motivation and inspiration to fight back and stand again.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I liked the quote…
What we do for ourselves dies with us…
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m a sucker for quotes and I like your style. 😉
LikeLiked by 11 people
Thank you, RhapsodyBoheme, for your visit and comment. Perhaps SoundEagle’s style significantly appeals to your rhapsodic audacity and bohemian sensibility! 🙂
By the way, which quote(s) in this post do you consider to be most appealing to you, and why?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well actually there are several and I relate to most. If I had to pick one that stands out and is relevant at this time, it would be “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world, remains and is immortal”.
I pick this one for several reasons and in a world that has become so fast paced, life is often survival of the fittest. This requires many to focus their attention to be placed on only themselves. It causes people to forget the bigger picture and be selfish. Not all learn that we receive so much more when we give and not all realize that there is a picture much greater than we. I could go on and on about the chain reaction and all the things set in motion by such behavior and what it leads to, but we each have to discover our own journey and find our own path when the time is right and we are ready to welcome the teacher,
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hi RhapsodyBoheme! This is SoundEagle🦅 wishing you a happy March and a joyful springtime to further nurture your rhapsodic audacity and bohemian sensibility during the new season of growth and rejuvenation! 🙂
Please kindly be informed that this post has been improved and extended with additional contents. Given its length, a navigational Menu containing internal links has been implemented to allow readers to jump instantly to different sections within the post. Each of the sections also comes with its own stylized heading. Please enjoy to your heart’s content!
More importantly, you are both right and observant in commenting on the hectic pace of modern life, the self-centredness and myopic visions as well as their ongoing ramifications on individuals and societies. In this regard, SoundEagle🦅 hopes that you will find or gain some valid insights, (re)solutions and antidotes in the multifaceted post entitled 🦅 SoundEagle in Best Moment Award from Moment Matters 🔖🏆.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lovely project and worth considering to become a co-author at my lifestyle magazine From Guestwriters.
As you say the best and secure quotes are those we get from our readings, selecting a passage from a book or writing of interest but also what we hear people saying themselves (e.g. on television). For that last one when people saying something freely in the media it is not always sure it are there own words but still represents their thoughts are beliefs.
Congratulations also for the pictures.
LikeLiked by 13 people
The ultra-articulate style and artistic talent of SoundEagle is
without a doubt lengthy, yet a pleasure to read 🙂 I’ve clicked
through on a few favourite quote/images. Also love the one
pertaining to the pertinence of science beginning with questions
instead of answers… Wonderful post! 🙂 💜 Jackie@KWH
LikeLiked by 12 people
Happy mid-November to you and your family!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thanks for the hearty unicorn, SoundEagle ❤ Wishing you a happy snOw-vember from my 53rd parallel N winter wonderland! 🙂 💜 Jackie@KWH
LikeLiked by 6 people
Happy December to you and your family!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Oh wOw… what a lovely post about snowflakes! Thank you so much for the link, SoundEagle ❤ Wishing you a happy December filled with much merriment 🙋🎉🎶🙏😍💜 Jackie@KWH
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello, Ms Jackie Loewen! Thank you for wishing SoundEagle much December merriment from your winter wonderland. Here is another very special post with 🎊 Season Greetings from SoundEagle: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Joyful Holiday 🎄🎅⛄ to you and your family!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for another snOwful link, SoundEagle ❤ The poem and graphics are lovely! 🙂 ❤ Jackie@KWH
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know the (alleged) Yogi Berra quote, “I didn’t say half the things I said”?
LikeLiked by 13 people
Hi Ellen! It is a rare sight and welcomed delight to find you here, quite unexpectedly. 🙂
Yogi Berra is certainly an interesting case with which to demonstrate misquotation, to the extent that the origin and date of first occurrence for most Yogiisms is indeterminate or unknown. In any case, you seem to be quite well-informed by, or well-versed in, Yogiisms, at least with respect to this particular one. Apart from the one you quoted as “I didn’t say half the things I said.”, there are at least five other variants, according to Quote Investigator:
A quotation in a foreign language adds another layer of complexity. Your disdain for machine translation is obvious when you stated “Do I distrust Google translations? You bet your mistranslated ass I do.” in your post about British food. Now, please kindly bear with SoundEagle to experience your new level of distrust or disdain after getting Google to translate the first quote in this post, which happens to be a Chinese poem: “疾風知勁草，昏日辨誠臣。勇夫安識義，智者必懷仁。” The result of the translation is as follows:
Do you know of any Chinese language expert who can properly translate the first quote? Perhaps the prospective expert could kindly leave the translation in the comment section of this post.
As a matter of curiosity, which quote(s) in this post do you consider to be most relevant or appealing to you, and why?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Do you read Robert Okaji’s blog, O at the Edges (https://robertokaji.com/author/robertokaji/)? If you’ll browse around in there for a while, you’ll find some absolutely gorgeously translated poetry. He works from machine translations. Somehow the garbled quality of the translation creates a space he’s able to inhabit beautifully.
The quote that stayed with me is the first one, “Strong wind knows tough grass.” It left me thinking of Okaji in the way it opened up more than one possibility. Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone I could recommend as a translator for the literal meaning.
When I simultaneously taught fiction writing and edited a writers magazine, a quote surfaced repeatedly (I think it was “kill your darlings”) and I saw it attributed to at least five different writers. I’ve always been a fan of absurdity, so I thought that was wonderful. I still don’t know who said it. Probably Yogi Berra.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Hello Ellen! SoundEagle is bearing good news about your favourite quote “疾風知勁草，昏日辨誠臣。勇夫安識義，智者必懷仁。”: It is now properly translated! Come and see for yourself.
May you have a wonderful festive season: 🎊 Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Joyful Holiday 🎄🎅⛄
LikeLiked by 4 people
I agree with this blog
LikeLiked by 14 people
Great article. I picked up a new word: tendentious, which could possibly be the word of the century.
LikeLiked by 12 people
Nice blog
LikeLiked by 10 people
This is way cool! Love it. Great blog!!!
LikeLiked by 11 people
Hey SoundEagle, just thought I’d send some of my UNKNOWN and UNFAMOUS quotes your way, and see if you’re interested in more. “I got a million of em.” (Jimmy Durante)
rawgod speaks:
1) The error in terror is the care in scare.
2) Do unto others only those things you are willing to allow others to do unto you. (revisiting the Golden Rule.)
3) Know thyself
Integrate thyself.
Be thyself
Be
(The formula for getting to be one, self.)
4) If one teach two we are thrice as many…
Patience, till we are the last.
5) If there is a god, he/she/it is an absentee landlord.
But there is no god, so live like you are trying to create one.
(Apparently a variation on the possible Marcus Aurelius quote mentioned in your
blog, but I don’t remember ever having heard that one before.)
Thanks for liking my comments. I myself avoid the “like” game most of the time. If I take the time to write a comment, the commentee will know if I like their words or not, lol.
LikeLiked by 13 people
Hello rawgod! It has been three months since you last commented on this post, which, as you will be surprised to find, has been dramatically improved in various ways!
Thank you for your comments and selected quotations. SoundEagle🦅 suspects that of all the choice quotes presented in this post coining a new term Quotation Fallacy, your favourite quotation is the one by Marcus Aurelius about living a good life with or without gods.
May you live a good life however raw or ripe a god you may indeed become! 😇
LikeLiked by 2 people
Congratulations on your award.
My attention is currently turned elsewhere, but I may be back when a need arises…
LikeLiked by 4 people
Oops, forgot one I wanted to offer you, and my computer shut down before I could add it:
Live every moment of every day to create memories you will not forget, or regret.
Only 999,994 to go, lol…
LikeLiked by 6 people
SoundEagle🦅 would like to resonate with, and elaborate on, your quote “Live every moment of every day to create memories you will not forget, or regret.” with a very special post entitled 🦅 SoundEagle in Best Moment Award from Moment Matters 🔖🏆.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love that “Dear readers and followers as well as lovers and collectors … ” – just love the ambiguity! So dish the dirt on the number of ‘lovers’ lol
LikeLiked by 8 people
Dirt as fodder for spawning a scandal tabloid or gossip column about fine quotes and their lovers and collectors?
LikeLiked by 4 people
No. Dirt as in the number of your ‘lovers’ who you are expecting to respond to your post! haha – you are funny!
LikeLiked by 3 people
💕 ♡
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hey there! Sorry it took a while to get back to you, always very busy with work on weekends. Great post by the way, and here is the translation of the Chinese poem according to my girlfriend. (I’m just going to copy and paste what she messaged me)
疾风知劲草 means (only) strong wind can distinguish the strong grass.
昏日辩忠臣 means (only) unstable/turbulent political situation can show the loyal minister/subordinate staff.
勇夫安知义 how can a simply bold and muscular man ever understand benevolence and righteousness
智者必怀仁 means only those with great wisdom have the merit of benevolence and righteousness
In relation to the last characters in the 3rd and 4th line.
义 and 仁. but when you translate them you should put them together. 仁义 is from Confucianism and means benevolence 仁慈 and righteousness 正义.
So it literally means only tough conditions can test how strong people are.
And people who are only masculine and bold can never understand 仁义, only people with great wisdom can.
Hope this helps and all the best!
LikeLiked by 9 people
Hello David! How delightful and helpful it is that you and your girlfriend have come to SoundEagle’s aid to shed some light on the finer meanings of the poem! Thank you very much to both of you. 🙂
As SoundEagle mentioned in your post, many Tang Dynasty poems can be difficult to translate properly, given that literal translations often cannot adequately do justice to their underlying, deeper meanings and messages, which your girlfriend has uncovered very well indeed.
After reading your excellent comment, SoundEagle has decided to translate “疾風知勁草，昏日辨誠臣。勇夫安識義，智者必懷仁。” as follows:
You can see that the translation has already been incorporated into the post, where the poem is first mentioned. Your feedback is welcome.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks a lot! Glad it helped! Even for modern Chinese, ancient Chinese is difficult due to the amount of meaning that is packed into a single character. The Tao Te Ching is a perfect example. I’ve shown the Chinese version to my girlfriend and other Chinese, and they hardly have a clue what it means!
Anyway, love the translation you’ve added as a result, gave it a nice poetic flair!
All the best
LikeLiked by 3 people
No recent updates or it’s my phone bugging..? 🤗
LikeLiked by 7 people
I use quotations almost daily on my blog to provide an “exclamation point” of sorts to my content. I verify the source first. If the quote serves the purpose but the author cannot be verified, I add the phrase “attributed to”. I do not use my post-ending quotes as validation of my message. They are there to be enjoyed or stimulate further thought.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Hello swabby429 (BlueJay)! It is illuminating to be informed of how you use and attribute quotes on your blog. 🙂
Assuming that SoundEagle has not misread part of your comment, there seems to be something unclear about your sentence “If the quote serves the purpose but the author cannot be verified, I add the phrase “attributed to”.”, to the extent that if the author cannot be verified, then there is simply nobody who can be “attributed to”. Perhaps you could elaborate further.
As stated at the end of a long comment on your excellent post entitled “Knave”, SoundEagle was hoping to receive your feedback on the coinage and definition of the Quotation Fallacy, which you can locate in the middle portion of this post. In other words, SoundEagle would like to have some indication(s) from you about how well or comprehensive the coinage and definition of the Quotation Fallacy have captured, represented or encapsulated the complex issues discussed in the post with respect to what you have read and your own insights into such matters. Thank you in anticipation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a terrific article, and thanks for spotlighting logical fallacies! Alas, in weak moments I sometimes wonder if my psychology degree (complete with a course in symbolic logic) is a blessing or a curse. I want to think clearly, but there are times (political arguments spring to mind) that it seems I am alone in this desire.
I quite like author quotes, although I use them more as inspirational rays of sunshine than premises for arguments. And I have noticed many things attributed to Tolkien that I’m pretty sure he never said. Some can be blamed on the success of the films, but that’s akin to watching the movie instead of reading the book for a school report. It’s distressing to see the same sloppy standards used so widely by adults.
At any rate, I try to use quotes to bring pleasure to people. There’s a beauty in a well-crafted sentence, and Tolkien, Chesterton, Twain, and Lewis (to name a few) had some pithy advice on both writing and living.
Thanks again for sharing this post. 🙂
LikeLiked by 7 people
Hi Cathleen! How have you been? It has been four and a half months since we last interacted here on Christmas eve. SoundEagle🦅 would like to wish you a most glorious time of the year with a special post at 🦅 SoundEagle in April Love and Dove, Art and Heart, Game and Puzzle, Music and Video 🕊💌💘, where you are welcome to enjoy many songs and to find a hidden poem awaiting your discovery!
Thank you for your previous visit and compliment, as well as for divulging your experiences of dealing with quotes, backed by your “psychology degree (complete with a course in symbolic logic)”. SoundEagle🦅 would like to inform you that this post entitled The Quotation Fallacy “💬” has been revamped, improved and extended from top to bottom with more critical analyses and perspectives straddling multiple disciplines, including those from behavioural and social sciences.
Have you finally found or identified your most favourite quote(s)? Are there any quotes from this post that particularly resonate with you?
SoundEagle🦅 hopes that you will come to like and use the new features provided by the stylish navigational Menu containing internal links, which you can use to jump instantly to different sections within the post.
In addition, you are cordially invited to join SoundEagle🦅 on a special journey through a motivational, existential, analytical and philosophical post entitled “🦅 SoundEagle in Best Moment Award from Moment Matters 🔖🏆”. Please hop on and fly with SoundEagle🦅 into the post to find your best moments!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post on an often misused issue
Nice range of quotes
LikeLiked by 5 people
Hello Prof. Andy Lowe,
SoundEagle🦅 wonders what your favourite quotation(s) might be. Thank you for your visit and brief comment three months ago, right on Christmas day.
SoundEagle🦅 would like to inform you that the Quotation Fallacy “💬” has been revamped, improved and extended with more critical analyses and perspectives straddling multiple disciplines, so much so that the post requires a navigational Menu containing internal links, which you can use to jump instantly to different sections within the post.
Hence, the Quotation Fallacy “💬”, another ubiquitous and sticky but somewhat furtive and poorly acknowledged aspect of life, has been methodically exposed, and then given a recognizable face and proper status by a terminological coinage with a full definition in a rigorous post discussing its manifestations, impacts and ramifications as well as antidotes and diagnoses.
Please feel free to critique and recommend at your discretion. Thank you in anticipation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your like of my post, “Love,” on Al Di La, on the words, “Beyond the beyond.” You are very kind.
LikeLiked by 5 people
A lot of work went into this – congrats!! Some great gifs. It will make me more wary of using the wrong quote, and hopefully less lazy by substituting a quote for my own words! Thanks!!
LikeLiked by 5 people
We learn this in school but I don’t think most of us care. However, this knowledge does allow me to view our “discussions” in Philosophy class with more humor. 😉 Seriously, though, it is sad that in this day and age when we have so much knowledge and the tools with which to understand it at our disposal…we generally just dispose *of* it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Hello! Should or could one address you here as “sarasamomx5”? Happy mid-January!
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. According to your views or observations, what factors or issues are contributing to or causing the problem(s) as you described in your comment?
By the way, please be informed that each of the images accompanying the quotations can be clicked or touched to reveal an entirely separate comment section in which to write your own comment(s) or reply to existing comment(s).
It would be very nice to know which quote(s) in this post has or have the greatest impression or impact on you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This was an interesting and informative post. I feel I will find myself coming back to fully explore further all the information on this subject, which Soundeagle has done a tremendous job explaining, and illustrating. It really digs deep into the subject that we, for the most part, take for granted. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Bonjour ou bonsoir mon AMI (ie)
Ce jour à n’importe quelle heure de la journée
J’ai besoin de t’ écrire un petit mot
Comme quoi je ne t’oublie pas
Et j’ai un peu de temps à t’accorder
Juste une minute pour te dire
Que je t’envoie un beau sourire
Et je t’accorde deux minutes pour te donner
Sur tes joues, deux Gros Bisous d’amitié
Et surtout quelques secondes pour
Te souhaiter une excellente journée ou soirée
Avec du soleil au cœur
Bernard
LikeLiked by 6 people
Hi Bernard! Thank you for your visit and special comment. SoundEagle🦅 gladly receives your warm regards, friendship and two big friendship kisses on the cheek.
This gif image containing the inflorescence of Phalaenopsis would be even more suitable for inclusion in the special post entitled Phalaenopsis: Novice’s Orchid, Mother’s Day Gift and woodlandgnome’s House Plant ✾💃🎁🏡, if you should later decide to visit and comment there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your website, your blog is so colourful, gorgeous. Wow!
LikeLiked by 6 people
I just came here to say thank you for following my blog sound eagle.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Hey totally loved your website! More power to you!
https://throughmymind.blog/ Do read my blogs too and would appreciate your feedbacks if any!
LikeLiked by 4 people
A prestigious piece of writing.
But please, don’t quote me.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Hi David! Thank you for your visit and compliment. SoundEagle🦅 has just finished adding a navigational Menu containing internal links, which you can use to jump to different sections within the post. Please enjoy to your heart’s content!
By the way, SoundEagle🦅 would like to wish you a wonderful Lunar New Year with a very special post entitled “🦅 SoundEagle in Chinese New Year Celebration, Spring Festival, Lion Dance, Traditional Culture and Architecture 🏮🎋🦁⛩”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I enjoy the efforts you have put in this, regards for all the great content .
LikeLiked by 4 people
You might enjoy this site:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/
He also wrote a book.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Had you read some or all of the comments, you would probably have noticed that Quote Investigator has already been mentioned and sourced by SoundEagle🦅 in this comment regarding Yogi Berra and Yogiisms.
As you can see, the Quotation Fallacy is indeed a very complex one to unpack, never mind the fact that the term has to be carefully coined and then succinctly and fully defined in the first place to capture, encompass and encapsulate the set of issues concerning such a ubiquitous, indispensable facet of life as quotation. Considering that you value rationality and write with considerable cogency and conviction, one wonders how the various discussions, analyses and recommendations presented in this post have resonated with you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry about that. I read a number of the comments but not all (maybe a third, jumping at random as I made my way down the list) since my brain was already taxed to the maximum from reading the post.
Had this been a normal week, I would have clicked on most of the links on the body of the post (the ones I’m not familiar with) and read all the comments, but as I’m under some pressure due to personal matters, I opted for a shorter immersion of the material.
Thank you for the graphic, although I’m more apt to howl at windmills than the Moon.
As for the post itself, permit me to summarize what I got out of it and do so with my inherent bias . . .
Namely, rather than rely on the intellectual laziness of pressing other people’s words into one’s service, it would behoove a person to formulate their own opinions based on research and the gained understanding of a given subject and then present not only said opinion, but the reasoned path one traveled in reaching it, and do so in their own words.
As for the pitfalls one must guard against, I’ve long been a fan of the awareness of various fallacies and guarding against both employing them in support of one’s own argument and in accepting them as having value when offered up by others.
I’ve tried to emulate the style and flavor of prose of the post, but it can also be summarized thus . . .
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passion a quotation. — Oscar Wilde (maybe)
A fine quotation is a diamond in the hand of a man of wit and a pebble in the hand of a fool. — Joseph Roux (maybe)
I always have a quotation for everything – it saves original thinking. — Dorothy L. Sayers (maybe)
LikeLiked by 3 people
SoundEagle🦅 is delighted to inform you that a new paragraph has been created to incorporate part of your comment into Authority Bias and Author Bias: Expert Influence, Creator Persuasion.
Moreover, of the three quotations that you offer, SoundEagle🦅 has creatively deployed the last two in the recently expanded Introduction: Fostering Quotational Excellence. For authenticity, the more accurately translated version of the quotation from abbé Joseph Roux is used. For precision, it is stated in the first paragraph of the Introduction that Lord Peter (Death Bredon) Wimsey, the fictional protagonist in a series of detective novels and short stories by Dorothy L Sayers, not the author herself, utters the quotation in Have His Carcase, her 1932 locked-room mystery, which is a subgenre of detective fiction.
Thank you for interacting with SoundEagle🦅 and familiarizing yourself with the intricacies of the Quotation Fallacy. It would indeed be quite illuminating to be informed of your understanding or interpretation of Compromise and Subjectivity: Special Pleading and Relativist Fallacy as well as Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope, Corollaries.
May you enjoy a wonderful week at the end of March!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The lone wolf, a quintessential disperser, will indeed have very compelling reason(s) to howl at the Moon upon savouring the post 🎴 If My Name Were Moon Tonight… 🌛🌝🎑🈷.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for being a friend. If you are not already doing so, please follow my Equipping blog too. It is a blog from which other of my posts originate. https://equippingblog.wordpress.com/
LikeLiked by 5 people
A great read and powerful post and so informative too.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thanks for being a friend and following my blog; you are very kind. Please keep up your good work.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I’m gathering you’ve read “Thinking Fast and Slow”, referencing a lot of Kahneman’s ideas. Not that he was the first to say most them of course. Also, I made errors in remembering lyrics of songs in my book. And even misattributed a song. I left them in SPECIFICALLY because that is human. I, a fan of these songs and band, screwed up. That is the way our memories work. Let the other fans point that out. A good way of getting a conversation started, I’ve rationalized.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Hello Mr W. Lance Hunt! Your gravatar depicting a stylized candle reminds SoundEagle of the late astrophysicist Carl Sagan’s book of 1995 entitled “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, which fits well with the aims and contents of this post. According to Wikipedia:
Your very first comment here is a delight to read. It seems that you are trying to convey that to err is human. Indeed, our memories can often be unreliable and even facile. It can be quite embarrassing to forget a name, or worse still, an appointment or anniversary.
Please be informed that SoundEagle enjoyed the rich contents of your blog and savoured reading your take on the relationship and connection between agency and one’s sense of self and control, as discussed in the post at Agency Pt. 1—Neurology, the Temporal Lobe and the Self: How Games Help Explain Today’s Headlines Con’t.
Unfortunately, repeated attempts at commenting on your posts were unsuccessful due to the following problem as reported by your blog:
You are clearly well-versed in psychology (and neurology) as a result of your having acquired a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology. Given your expertise and background, SoundEagle welcomes your feedback and suggestions on further improvements to any posts that you choose to visit and read. For example, a very special post relying on psychology, sociology, philosophy and other disciplines to present a multipronged journey through a series of motivational, existential and analytical accounts may whet your appetite. It is somewhat intriguingly entitled “🦅 SoundEagle in Best Moment Award from Moment Matters 🔖🏆”.
By the way, did you manage to celebrate Earth day a few days ago? Here is my comprehensive and special take on Earth Day at 🦅 SoundEagle in Earth Day 🌍🌎🌏 with the following mottos:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on e-Quips and commented:
Quotations and quoting from almost every angle. Take the time to read this lengthy blog post and you will be amazed, informed, and entertained.
LikeLiked by 5 people
This is all invaluable information — and you can quote me on that! 🙂
It will need revisiting to assimilate all of it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your quotes. We will add your quotational distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, what an interesting blog, with so much to take in!
LikeLiked by 5 people
In my younger days, I would edit Theses and MRP’s. This particular subject of quotations, leaves me with my eyeballs rolling backwards ti see my brain. I did have a giggle, I just say. I also wish I would have had this post to send to some of the “college” students who, still to this day, misuse quotations! Ha!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Greetings and a big HELLO to both of you from Bountiful, Utah!
SoundEagle🦅 is delighted that you find the post edifying and somewhat amusing to read. Given your background in editing academic works, please feel free to comment or contribute your opinions and expertise here, as the post has been further improved recently, specifically in the following four sections:
By the way, does MRP by any chance stand for Master of Regional Planning?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was one hell of a ride.
I like Thoreau’s quote (and writing) but I think I quote O.Wilde most often.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Greetings and HAPPY mid-JULY to you!
SoundEagle🦅 is both delighted and impressed that you managed to read the entire post, which you described as “one hell of a ride”. Perhaps you might have even waded through it in one seating. Do you find certain sections more to your liking or taste, and particular sections more stimulating or challenging than others?
SoundEagle🦅 also wonders what you thought of the included Illustrated Quotations: Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh my -when will I ever have time to read your incredible dissertation?! Love the text variations and the quotes with illustrations at the end. Thanks for your passion and effort. And thanks for commenting on a post of mine.
LikeLiked by 5 people
You are very welcome! Thank you for your cursory feedback. Let’s hope that you will eventually find the time to savour this “incredible dissertation”, as you put it so generously. The post has since been improved and extended further.
The background image of this comment accompanies one of the inspirational and thought-provoking quotes:
we see them as we are.
May you find this quotation insightful and somehow resonating with your journey and discovery documented so far in your inspirational memoir entitled “JOY RIDE: My One-Legged Journey to Self-Acceptance”!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great points made…. Your blog is unique 👌👍
But am not really a long read type, & to be honest, I didn’t read to the very end.
LikeLiked by 4 people
A mid-JULY big GREETINGS to you!
SoundEagle🦅 would like to welcome you here. Thank you for your visit and compliment. Whilst this post is formidable in length and scope, you are free to jump to any section of the post instantly using the navigational Menu located at the top and bottom of the post. To begin with, click this purple word Menu to jump over there now. Perhaps it may be more feasible to read (and also comment on) just one section per day or per week. Using this strategy of “divide and conquer”, you will be able to finish reading the post in slightly over a week or two months. Please enjoy the journey. . . .
May you continue to “have a passion for a blissful union”!
LikeLiked by 2 people
@SoundEagle thank you for continuously liking all my comments or reply and a few of my post…Btw I started following your blog!
LikeLiked by 4 people
A very detailed and long post indeed, SoundEagle, but very much worth reading and taking time to read and ‘take advantage’ of all the research you obviously put into it…not to mention how well you put it all together.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nice
LikeLiked by 4 people
Still reading this, in sections, due to time constraints. But enjoying the journey through some very interesting, pertinent and valid points. Thank you
LikeLiked by 4 people
Happy 2020 to you soon! ✨🎉🎊🎄☃️🌟. Thank you for taking the time to peruse this post, which has since been much improved and extended with new contents, and which has garnered nearly 550 likes and 185 comments. Given the length of this post, you have been very wise to read it in sections. You are welcome to use the navigational Menus located at the top and bottom of the post to jump instantly to different sections to resume reading from there.
By the way, SoundEagle🦅 has just made a detailed reply to Erika Kind, whose comment you have liked.
Wishing you the best in 2020 by belatedly sending you 🎊 Season’s Greetings: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Joyful Holiday 🎄🎅⛄!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Informative, educational and gladly received.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Love quotes. Hadn’t thought quite this thoroughly about how I use them. Thanks for bringing us some important points. Blessings.
LikeLiked by 4 people
A profound, instructive and eloquent article. Even well-educated people commit fallacies but it is our duty to expose and avoid them whenever possible. The discourse of humankind is beautiful yet flawed. You have done well to coin a new term here and at length emphasize an idea rarely addressed. And much to your credit, your thoroughness is very well accompanied by art!
LikeLiked by 5 people
A big December greeting to you is in order!
SoundEagle🦅 would very much like to welcome you (especially considering that you have just composed your very first comment here), and to thank you for your visit and compliment. It is delightful to know that your patience with the length and scope of this post has been fruitfully rewarded.
How deceptive and devious certain quotations can be! Perhaps they can be likened to trojan horses ready to invite, incite, invade or infect our minds with various potent ideas.
One wonders if you could kindly inform us as to which particular piece(s) of art and quotations you have found to be most resonating with your own ethos, spirit and experience. By the way, you would be pleased to know that even the art in this post can be commented on. Just click or touch any of the artful images in the post to reveal its own comment section, should you desire to leave some feedback on that particular image.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! All the art is well designed and of lively colors. There’s too much to comment on, but I find it artful in itself that you could comment on the art also! I like the choice of the eagle because it is the bird of Zeus. I think the characters here are Chinese, since I can recognize one (Tian-Heaven). As for the content, the table of contradictory quotes is ingenious and in my case as a polytheist, it seems to be an argument against the universality of “Truth” (note the capital letter) and the plurality of contexts and truths. The relativist fallacy in this respect is interesting to consider. On the one hand, relativism seems absurd where individual truths are concerned, but on the other hand, where groups of people believe in something, there must be some truth to it, hence the “truths” mentioned before. And if you think of it by extension, perhaps there should also be a positivist fallacy! But speaking of this topic, the chart with the logical fallacies is an extraordinary summary indeed. I have kept a copy of it for future reference, as also for the cognitive biases! Many thanks once again for this article and your reply.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Another December greeting from SoundEagle🦅, whom you can see more in the background image here this time!
Those are indeed Chinese characters. The one that you clearly recognized is 夫 (man), not 天 (sky or heaven). The complete translation (by SoundEagle🦅) of the Chinese poem as well as the whole image are available to you here.
You will be pleased to know that there are now two more fallacies being included in Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope, Corollaries, just after anecdotal evidence and fallacy of suppressed evidence.
The first is positivist fallacy, the implicit assumption that recorded data such as historical sources or archaeological remains refer to the most significant events in the past. Since there are many historical facts for which there is no evidence, the assumption leads people to focus on the facts for which positive evidence exists, and to ignore negative evidence (evidence for a theory provided by the non-occurrence or absence of something), hence the term “positivist fallacy”.
The second is Everest fallacy, a logical error that confuses the extreme with the normal; a tendency to illustrate a category by an exceptional example. The exceptional nature of the illustration is not clarified, and the illustration veils rather than reveals the normal. For example, Mount Everest is a typical mountain, Cicero a typical new man, Lepidus a typical noble. It is a problem for journalists and historians because sources (press releases or ancient authors) usually deal with the exceptional and the extreme, as the normal, standard and typical need not be recorded. Thus, summary statistics are the required antidotes.
Please feel free to mention additional fallacies, or for that matter, to introduce us to one or more quotations that you particularly like, for any rhyme or reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My apologies: I had forgotten to reply to you here. You are devoted to your readers and to their enjoyment. 🙂 How elegant is your conclusion and how persuasive in its argument! Here is a quote to the same effect “We must do what we can, when we cannot do what we would”–Epictetus. Many thanks for the addition of the two fallacies. The Everest one is particularly worthy to be mindful and careful of, although perhaps it can be detrimental to poetry!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Wishing you the best in 2020 by belatedly sending you 🎊 Season’s Greetings: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Joyful Holiday 🎄🎅⛄!
SoundEagle🦅 would like to invite you to peruse the conclusion, namely, the section entitled “Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope and Corollaries”, which is now far more comprehensive and much better articulated than it was when you last read it slightly more than a year ago. Looking forward to your feedback!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bonjour ou bonsoir mon Amie , ami
Un petit mot de tous les jours
Ça va, merci!!
C’est une marque de confiance , que je t’adresse
Avec du soleil en abondance ou une nuit remplit de sommeil
Pour moi
Ces petits gestes viennent du cœur
Je te fais aussi un clin d’œil que je puisse te faire sourire
C’est une bonne recette du bonheur
Gros bisous Bernard
LikeLiked by 5 people
Hey just started Following your Blog the Artworks are Amazing 😊 HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND A GREAT 2019!!
LikeLiked by 4 people
🎊 Season’s Greetings 🎄
Thank you for your goodwill. SoundEagle🦅 would also like to wish you the same with more artworks and a very special poem published in another post entitled 🎊 Season Greetings from SoundEagle: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Joyful Holiday 🎄🎅⛄
Thank you for your compliment. SoundEagle🦅 hopes that you have been just as impressed by the analytical discussions as by the artworks. You are very welcome to join our discussions at the comment sections of whatever posts and pages that you choose to visit and peruse. May you find them edifying and inspirational in one way or the other!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your write-up is really an eye-opener. You have taken pain in writing after a lot of research and browsing through so many sources. A herculean task indeed. Warm salute to you. Your website is really a treasure of information.
With regards,
HARBANS
LikeLiked by 5 people
❄ ❆❅❆❅ ❆ ❄
Season’s Greetings from
ჱܓSoundEagle
I am obviously impressed by the ocean of knowledge you have accumulated in your website – impressive to say the least.
Such is the presentation that even a person of average calibre like me gets something if I dive deep in your write-ups.
With regards,
HARBANS
Wishing you a wonderful festive season with a special post entitled 🎊 Season Greetings from SoundEagle: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Joyful Holiday 🎄🎅⛄!
LikeLiked by 3 people
My grateful thanks for your invaluable comments.
I shall peruse your special post too. sO NICE OF YOU.
regards
harbans
LikeLiked by 3 people
Beautiful image. Happy new year!! Thanks .
LikeLiked by 4 people
What an amazing indepth post.. Thank you for your New Year well wishes, and for the link, which via a few clicks led me to your amazing quotation page.. Which just blew my mind at the amount of work you have put in here.
Wishing you a wonderful Happy New Earth Year for 2019.. Sending Love and Blessings for a Peaceful Happy, Healthy year ahead..
Love ❤ Sue
LikeLiked by 5 people
❄ ❄ ❆❅❆❅ ❆ ❄ ❄ Greetings from SoundEagle🦅 with chocolate-coated snowflakes for Sue Dreamwalker! Happy New Year to you! ✨🎉🎊🎄☃️🌟. Thank you for your enthusiastic feedback and generous compliment! Therefore, SoundEagle🦅 is both honoured and delighted that you are as suitably impressed as you are considerably enthralled by this special post and the labour of love that engenders it.
If you would like to repeat having such a positive experience on your subsequent visit to SoundEagle🦅’s website, then the following posts could indeed make your day or even rock your socks off in their unique ways:
Please be informed that you might need to use a desktop or laptop computer with a large screen to view the rich multimedia contents available for heightening your multisensory enjoyment at my websites, some of which could be too powerful and feature-rich for iPad, iPhone, tablet or other portable devices to handle properly or adequately. A fast broadband connection is also helpful.
If your web browser can run Adobe Flash Player properly, then you will be able to play games, solve puzzles and/or see more animations on SoundEagle🦅’s website. Please enjoy the selected posts to your heart’s content!
Yours sincerely,
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] * https://soundeagle.wordpress.com/2017/10/18/the-quotation-fallacy/#Compromise_Subjectivity […]
LikeLiked by 4 people
Check out my approximately 1300 updated new quotes with wildlife pictures by Googling “quotes uldis sprogis” or ” topic uldis sprogis” and clicking on images. It is my attempt at making quotes more modern with less historical bias and more relevance to logical thinking. If you like quotes without pictures then read my book Updated New Quotes on Amazon.
My main objection to quotes is that there are often some or many exceptions to the stereotypic views of the world, especially the ones utilizing analogies and similes. Most quotes have some truth or much truth but they are usually biased subjectively and not very logical.
I blogged about THE TRUTH ABOUT QUOTES and I could probably expand the blog after reading what you wrote. But here it is as originally written-
Quotes are frequently generalizations which have quite a few circumstantial exceptions
Quotes by famous humans frequently have more validity for those with a potential to be great
There are thousands of quotes and most of them try to make emotional and rare logical connections between a few or handful of words
Quotes are motivational only if you agree with the statements based on your personal experience or have a belief in the wisdom of an authority figure whom you admire and respect
Quotes collected in categories are frequently more useful than reading a random list of them
Life is more complex than just a handful of quotes to live by
Quotes try to tell you what is good or bad but unfortunately are bad at filling in the details
A quote which makes sense by itself is more valuable than one which doesn’t make much sense and is followed by the name of an authority figure
Quotes followed by explanations are rare but necessary for neophytes who have had little exposure to real competitive life and a wide variety of flawed adult humans
Best wishes. Uldis
LikeLiked by 5 people
❄ ❆❅❆❅ ❆ ❄
New Year Greetings from
ჱܓSoundEagle
Thank you for quoting here your entire post entitled “THE TRUTH ABOUT QUOTES*”, which SoundEagle🦅 has savoured with satisfaction, as you have made some very good observations about the nature and functions of quotations. Nevertheless, some of your observations are more valid and impeccable than others, whilst a few require revisions.
For example, the validity or generalizability of your statement “Quotes try to tell you what is good or bad but unfortunately are bad at filling in the details” is rather limited since quotations can be of any length and quantity. If your statement were to be true, then quotations could never be (relied upon to be) the staples of academics and researchers who construct or compile expert demonstrations by means of quotational evidences, illustrative quotations, and arguments via quotations in lexicographical works, canonical texts, comprehensive anthologies, expansive encyclopaedias, scholarly publications and other authoritative sources, never mind the more casual, personal and less critical use of quotations by laypersons in everyday situations.
SoundEagle🦅 also notices that you have somehow omitted the full stop at the end of each of your one-line paragraphs concerning (your observations about) quotes.
SoundEagle🦅 hopes that you continue to do very well and find fulfillment in whatever you enjoy doing and savouring, especially through your new blog as a conduit and outlet to share and document your thoughts and opinions, and as a vehicle or medium to write about your “ongoing research on the internet” via your “pursuit of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.
Given your intellectual strengths and varied interests, SoundEagle🦅 is curious to know the following:
What is your most favourite quote?
Which sentence or paragraph of SoundEagle🦅 from this post or any post on this website will you turn into a notable quotation, and why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You had me at “Sreudian Flip.” I think I’m in love with your content. I wonder if you are familiar with Git/Github at all, and if you would like to check out taylorcate/MUDDLE on Github.com (https://github.com/taylorcate/MUDDLE), and maybe contribute, if you’re up for it. I’m not affiliated, other than the fact that they kindly asked me and others to contribute to their fun MUDDLE magazine project, and I love the concept (“a digital lit-mag devoted to celebrating the messiness of composition”). They are still taking contributors, with plans to publish in the spring. Either way, glad to have found your blog (via you liking my comment on one of Dr. Perry’s posts, thank you :)). It’s quite amazing. 🤩က
LikeLiked by 4 people
❄ ❆❅❆❅ ❆ ❄
Snowflakes Greetings from
ჱܓSoundEagle
SoundEagle🦅 is delighted that you are impressed, enamoured and captivated by your introduction to the Quotation Fallacy “💬”.
SoundEagle🦅 hopes that you will benefit in various ways from your understanding of the Quotation Fallacy “💬”.
Considering that you are in love with the content of this post, SoundEagle🦅 wonders how Nadine will answer the following:
What is your most favourite “Sreudian flip”?
Which sentence or paragraph of SoundEagle🦅 from this post or any post on this website will you turn into a notable quotation?
Of the nine sections shown in the navigational Menu located at the start and the end of this multi-sectional post, which is your favourite section?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your comment replies are visually spectacular! I’ll try my best to reply to your particular vernacular. 1) My favourite “Sreudian flip” was in fact the moniker for the same! 2) I fear that turning anything into “notable” may not be my game. However, I love the quote including “love.” It is the entire section called “Life a good life” that I love. And the accompanying animation well, “by Jove”… it’s as magical as a being with the soul of a dove. 3) “Eggcorns,” “Spoonerisms” and “Illustrated Quotes” are the sections that get my enthusiastic votes.
LikeLiked by 4 people
How delightful it is that you love the entire section called “Live a good life”!
The accompanying animation, which is duplicated here, and which you reckon to be “as magical as a being with the soul of a dove”, is also used in the special post Khai & Khim: For Always and Beyond Goodbye, specifically in one of SoundEagle🦅’s Compositions Dedicated to Khim, entitled Journey of Life, effectively a musical depiction matching the visual story of the said animation.
There are plenty of musical compositions and arrangements for you to relish in the multimedia presentation of Khai & Khim: For Always and Beyond Goodbye, should you be inclined to connect or resonate with SoundEagle🦅 in the sonic domain through the universal language of fine music.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This comment in itself, is a work of art… completely magical, with the two moving endless graphics, above and below… I myself can’t even figure out how to imbed links in comments. 😌(But I’m okay with that. Being a mom keeps me busy. 😊) Thank you SoundEagle for this bit of endless beauty… ✨🙏I’m sure your mother is smiling, from within your heart. 💛☯️∞⧜♾♡❦
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] perhaps even disliked) which is a gift that cannot be overrated. (I mean, that is underrated — Sreudian flip. Gosh-darned double negatives. Or negated positives. Or posated negatives. What do I mean? I hope […]
LikeLiked by 5 people
Very interesting and well thought-out. It would make a valuable text for a critical thinking class — and heaven knows we need more critical thinking in this society!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Happy New Year to you! ✨🎉🎊🎄☃️🌟. Thank you for taking the time to peruse this post, which you consider to be worthy of becoming “a valuable text for a critical thinking class”.
Let’s hope that your impression or assessment of the contents of this blog has substantially convinced you of the plausibility, desirability or validity of (having or conducting) further intellectual engagement with SoundEagle🦅, should you be sufficiently motivated to savour reading any posts of your choice, or rather, some or all of the following posts:
Looking forward to your finding something to your liking, something to jolt your memory, to pique your interest, to linger in your mind, to provoke a discussion, to question a paradigm, to gain new insights, to see from multiple perspectives, to become more holistic — something that provides the extra spark for Prof. Hugh Mercer Curtler and SoundEagle🦅 to be more enriched and consilient!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forgot not misquotes, even ones as innocuous of wanting my “15 minutes of fame”; Warhol never said that. He said that “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” So a comment about the future becomes a present demand, completely misunderstanding the context. Especially as there is evidence Warhol never said that in the first place. Warhol even said he never said that in 1980, yet it’s his most famous quote. How fun is that?
LikeLiked by 5 people
❄ ❄ ❆❅❆❅ ❆ ❄ ❄ Greetings from SoundEagle🦅 with chocolate-coated snowflakes for W. Lance Hunt! Happy 2019 to you! ✨🎉🎊🎄☃️🌟. Thank you for your second visit and comment. SoundEagle🦅 hopes that you have noticed and thoroughly enjoyed the various improvements and extensions on this post.
Regarding your mention of Warhol, there is a Wikipedia entry in the context of allusion as follows:
15 minutes of fame
Andy Warhol, a 20th-century American artist most famous for his pop-art images of Campbell soup cans and of Marilyn Monroe, commented on the explosion of media coverage by saying, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” Today, when someone receives a great deal of media attention for something fairly trivial, and he or she is said to be experiencing his or her “15 minutes of fame“, that is an allusion to Andy Warhol’s famous remark.
You are cordially invited by SoundEagle🦅 to savour the excellent videos and some short and sweet information about the January 2019 Lunar Eclipse manifesting as the Super Blood Wolf Moon in a special post entitled “🎴 If My Name Were Moon Tonight… 🌛🌝🎑🈷”. Please enjoy to your heart’s content!
Yours sincerely,
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
thamk you
LikeLiked by 4 people
it is an encyclopedia works
impressive
i pick your anti-proverbs
sorry do not be offended
LikeLiked by 3 people
[…] hot. What doesn’t kill you makes you stranger. Where there’s a will, there’s a lawsuit. from https://soundeagle.wordpress.com/2017/10/18/the-quotation-fallacy/ a very big an accurate work on thing we say and how it […]
LikeLiked by 3 people
Great article to the truth of fake news!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reblogged this on Craig's Quotes.
LikeLiked by 4 people
wow this is FAR too much to read but you obviously have a keen following 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
You are very welcome to read each of SoundEagle🦅’s long posts and pages over multiple sessions rather than one, so that you can pace yourself.
Moreover, most of SoundEagle🦅’s long posts and pages have navigational Menus to allow readers to jump to different sections instantly, so that they can go to any section and resume reading from there.
SoundEagle🦅 is confident that your patience is equally matched by your intellect, not to mention that the organizational structures and advanced stylings in SoundEagle🦅’s posts and pages will be guiding you all along.
In any case, one would hope that this blog post has provided some important, insightful, comprehensive, edificatory and multidisciplinary information aided by bespoke design and stylish presentation, and that the analytical discussions also venture into and beyond the perennial issues and common pitfalls in our daily lives and in how we process data, select viewpoints, interpret opinions, validate beliefs, formulate ideas, make judgements and draw conclusions.
Please be informed that most of the images and photographs in any one of SoundEagle🦅’s posts and pages can also be commented on by clicking or touching the image so that a larger version of the image and its comment field plus metadata will float above the post for you to insert your comment.
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
wow you really have too many talents, if that’s possible!
I will return as time permits … got loads of jobs on at this moment in my life 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
I had not thought that there is so much to say about quotes in general. I am impressed. I published a small collection of my own quotes 3 years ago and I am planning on publishing a sequel as soon as I can make some time. What I think is important is to mention the source of the quote. If I quote my friends I always link to their posts. I love sharing inspiration to hopefully reach someone who needed to read exactly that (regardless if the words are coming from me or from others). Thank you for your insights here.
LikeLiked by 6 people
SoundEagle🦅 has been very occupied with lovingly crafting and improving on a special eulogy entitled Khai & Khim: For Always and Beyond Goodbye ❀🌸🦢💮❀ೋღஜஇ💕ღೋ♡ࣰ⋆*ࣰ☀̤̣̈̇🏝☆⋆*ࣰ✻ණි❉˜҈”˜҈░░✲﴾۞ࣰ﴿ࣰ֍ࣰࣰමෙ as well as this post, and hence the delay in replying to you.
Please be informed that the reasons for the absence of attributions to the quotees in the section “Illustrated Quotations: Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes” have all along been provided by SoundEagle🦅 in the three sections “Misquotation: Improper Quoting, Sourcing, Context, Appropriation”, “Emotions and Biases: Affect Heuristic, Stereotype, Attribution Bias” and “Authority Bias and Author Bias: Expert Influence, Creator Persuasion”. It may be of some interest to you to know that the last two Illustrated Quotations are in fact quoting the very own words of SoundEagle🦅, who has not been spared from the applicability and enforcement of those reasons. Both of the two self-referential quotations are sourced from the same paragraph in the section “Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope and Corollaries”.
SoundEagle🦅 would hereby like to wish you all the best in 2020 by belatedly sending you 🎊 Season’s Greetings: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Joyful Holiday 🎄🎅⛄.
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 2 people
No problem at all! We all have a full agenda and our projects… I know that too well. Have a happy 2020!
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] of the pack, or the route to reach the top of social hierarchy. Countless supposedly inspirational quotations, slogans and even rules of life (as well as vast amounts of promotions and profits) have been […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totalement hallucinant ce blog!!!! Wow!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Wow, it’s a long way down to here. I just wanted to say, while I haven’t finished your thesis, I’m convinced, from what I’ve read thus far, it is a profound work. While the style may vary, it puts me to the mind of the wise old writers and philosophers. And me, I can use all the wisdom I can get. Thanks for sharing.
LikeLiked by 5 people
And it’s not just the message of the post. It’s the conveyance. As a former tinkerer in web development, I’m completely blown away by your HTML abilities, down to the decorated replies in the comment section. Fascinating.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for showing such an enthusiastic response and delivering your very first comments to SoundEagle🦅. You are welcome to add further comments in good time as you continue your epic reading of this post (and others) later.
By the way, certain posts and pages of this website can allow you to play games, solve puzzles or enjoy animations if your web browser can properly accommodate Adobe Flash Player. Please savour the interactive multimedia contents to your heart’s content!
It will be very illuminating to be informed by you later as to which sections resonate with you the most and why, as well as which Illustrated Quotations are your favourites.
SoundEagle🦅 has just made a detailed reply to Erika Kind, whose comment you have liked.
Yours sincerely,
LikeLiked by 3 people
Quoting, something I’ve once shamelessly taken for granted is now a subject of great conscientious reckoning. I’m often irked by someone—and myself in hindsight (although I don’t recall specifics, I’m sure I’m guilty)—for quoting a “revered authority” and disregarding the central tenet of said authority. I see this now, as something akin to using someone’s words out of context. Would the author approve of the use of their proverbs? And beginning now, I’ll look inward and ask myself this before quoting. I may still use the quote, but I’ll ask first: would the author approve. Again, I can’t recall specifics, but I remember times being irked at one quoting Mahatma Gandhi (he is much quoted) and ignoring what I consider his central tenet, that of peace and independence on every level. Not the shortsighted blah, blah, blah that includes only humanity. For one to quote Gandi, then sit down to have a ham sandwich (a hypothetical assumption) seems to me to defile the honor of intent. I don’t want to be that someone.
Your thesis is fascinatingly thought-provoking. It’s done me right. I’m glad our paths have crossed, selfishly for the betterment of myself. Someone once said something to the effect, to be successful (read wise) surround yourself with successful people. I like doing that. Conversely, attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” I mean nothing against dogs, mind. But I detest fleas. Yes, even as a vegan. 🙂
I will continue to read your work. I’m afraid, however, that you will outpace me. Realizing we all have 24 hours a day and a matter of how we spend them. I am both gifted and cursed with no desire to retire, work long hours, have a long commute, and insist on eight-plus hours of sleep each night beside my avocations. Rarely bored, oft overwhelmed.
I go now to read the extended, “Misquotation: Improper Quoting, Sourcing, Context, Appropriation.”
LikeLiked by 6 people
You might have sensed that SoundEagle🦅 must have been somewhat Gadarene-minded in spending so much time and thought on applying what may reasonably constitute a consilient approach characterised by methodological openness and interdisciplinary diversity with respect to a wide range of matters concerning quotations and misquotations to formulate a number of critical analyses from (inter)personal, linguistic, communicative, social, cultural, sociological, psychological, philosophical and existential perspectives.
Humans tend to have a wonted position or an automatic belief that something that has been quoted or stated must be generally true or accurate by default, especially when the quotee and what is quoted conform to expectation, insofar as people’s concept(ion) of reality is based on not only their perceptions but also their cognitive biases and fallacies, a great number of which come to be involved in how people routinely process statements or quotations in everyday life from all sources, whether or not they are consequential, commercial, scientific, religious or political. This perennial condition often fundamentally restricts people’s ability to reach better judgements and decisions.
By now, you would have realized that this comprehensive post or thesis (as you put it) might first appear to some readers to be dealing with the pitfalls of quotation (the Q word in this instance being the process or action of quoting), and with the rather wanton, problematic and indiscriminating ways in which many people use and share quotes. For those readers who persist in reading the post in its entirety, what ultimately appears at the end of the tunnel of a very well-formatted, book-length post entitled The Quotation Fallacy “💬” is the transformative spirit of, and the dogged quest for, critical thinking, in the aim of living a more examined life and cultivating a more sagacious mind, even in the midst of cultures or societies where critical thinkers are unwelcome, misunderstood or persecuted.
In any case, SoundEagle🦅 is delighted that this thesis, whether it is still a work in progress or largely completed, has satisfied you in the required or necessary way. Its length, scope and depth are definitely comparable to one semester’s worth of lecture notes. That you have even converted the thesis into mobi file format so that you can always carry it in your Kindle with you is another testament to your sustained commitment to learning for betterment or even transcendence.
Here’s a handy button for you to jump to the Quotation Checklist containing points to be considered when vetting any quotation or statement.
SoundEagle🦅 would like to have the pleasure of mirroring your quoting Benjamin Franklin’s statement “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” with the following:
However, the Year of the Pig🐖豬 Zhū has just been superseded by the Year of the Rat🐀鼠 Shǔ, according to the Chinese zodiac. In this regard, you are cordially invited to join 🦅 SoundEagle in Chinese New Year Celebration, Spring Festival, Lion Dance, Food, Ornaments, Traditional Culture and Architecture 🏮🎋🦁🥗🎐㊗️⛩. Happy Chinese New Year to you!
Yours sincerely,
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your work on quotes, their applications/mis-applications, profound role and effect on culture, society and personal development/perceptions – is absolutely in-depth and all encompassing. I am in agreement of a lot you say. The use and evolution of quotes has been a personal journey for me – and I am in reverence about how they are to be utilized with a certain integrity, be it while reading from others or creating our own. Thank you for leading me here – anything more I say would be a repetition 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
Greetings! Your highly anticipated comment is among some of the most pertinent and wise. Indeed, on visiting your excellent and refined “Inspiration Gallery”, SoundEagle🦅 can amply sense that “[t]he use and evolution of quotes ha[ve] been a personal journey for” you to express your especial insights and cherished thoughts.
Please be informed that the self-quotations presented in your “Inspiration Gallery” are in the form of Pictorial Quotes, the discussion of which has been greatly expanded by SoundEagle🦅 in this post since your previous visit, totalling nine paragraphs plus two demonstrative examples.
You are hereby cordially invited to peruse this much expanded discussion, which proposes a better alternative in the form of Illustrated Quotations for circumventing visual defacement and textual suppression whilst improving machine-readability and web accessibility to better benefit all and sundry.
Your feedback on or critique of this expansive discussion about Pictorial Quotes and Illustrated Quotations is very welcome, considering that you are an avid user of the former and a potential adopter of the latter.
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
WOW!! Thank you for mentioning my quote about our voices matters in this compelling post of yours! Although it was long for me to digest, I understood everything you were saying. I love how you broke down how quotations are used. Keep up the great work! 😀
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Quotation Fallacy “💬”
You ought to be highly commended if you have indeed perused and comprehended The Quotation Fallacy “💬” in its entirety. However, the post has been getting even longer since your last visit. There are now more detailed discussions on damaging quotations and pictorial quotes, plus the fresh introduction to citationality and intertextuality. In any case, SoundEagle🦅 is curious to know the following:
What is your most favourite quote?
Which sentence or paragraph of SoundEagle🦅 from this post or any post on this website will you turn into a notable quotation, and why?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What a wide range of thought provoking quotes!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hi SoundEagle, this is a superb body of work. It took me a while to get into your flow and get a hang of your writing style, but once I did, I can see why your blog posts are so successful. Your tongue-in-cheek humor is superb.
I will continue to read your post slowly (its quite lengthy). But from what I’ve read until now, I understand the reasoning behind you coining this term “quotation fallacy”.
We are surrounded by several quotes today, some authentic and some apocryphal, most often taken out of context. Some are certainly profound, but only when they are accompanied by relevant personal experiences or illustrations from the author’s point of view.
From my understanding, the gist of this fallacy is: we misrepresent/overuse a quotes to achieve our own needs/satisfy our own arguements, without considering the intention behind the quote from the original author. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
Great job again! I will be more mindful in the future.
Thank you for stopping by Eco-intelligent. Perhaps you’ll be interested in more posts like developing environmental accountability in our lives: https://bit.ly/3dtHDNA.
The idea of accountability is very similar to the idea you describe in this post, where we need to be accountable for the quotes we make.
Cheers!
P.S: I am also a Tamilian 😀
LikeLiked by 3 people
Also, I assumed you are Tamilian because of the Tamil script in your name. Please excuse if I am mistaken.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A bespoke acknowledgement is due to you for perusing and commenting on this book-length post, which will take a great deal of patience, intellect and soul-searching to digest fully. The importance of understanding Quotation Fallacy lies in the fact that humans use quotations and statements every day, whether verbally, textually, pictorially or graphically. SoundEagle🦅 has since added even more contents to this book-length post, particularly regarding the following:
You are welcome to add further comments in good time as you continue your epic reading of this post (and others) later.
It will be very illuminating to be informed by you later as to which sections resonate with you the most and why, as well as which Illustrated Quotations are your favourites.
Yours sincerely,
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok, I did as you ask and went through your HUGE article.
First of all – total KUDOS for your incredible comprehensive and intelligent collection of communication aspects which I will get back to for your pictures alone!
And one off-topic thought:
As someone who has a hard time reading long sermons I am really surprised how in times of an ADHD-generation you manage to get over 600 likes and tens of thousands of views with your book-long posts.
I am seriously puzzled, because I recently red a comment from a woman who said that she would walk out on any article with is longer than a couple of paragraphs.
I also work on becoming more concise myself because I sensed that I lost many readers by my long articles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This was an amazing read! I enjoyed the spoonerisms as well as all of the other interesting tidbits!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Fascinating analysis on quotes and their meanings as well as the many faults and misinterpretations with quotes.
I also love the aesthetic of your blog, I feel I am taking a little step back in time 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Quotation Fallacy “💬”
SoundEagle🦅 is delighted that you have derived both functional and aesthetic pleasures from your visit to this book-length post offering multipronged and multidisciplinary analyses on quotation.
Which sentence or paragraph of SoundEagle🦅 from this post or any post on this website will you turn into a notable quotation?
Of the ten sections (including the Quotation Checklist) shown in the navigational Menu located at the start and the end of this multi-sectional post, which is your favourite section?
May you discover as much as you can about Quotation Fallacy “💬” so as to foster Quotational Excellence and increase your Quotational Intelligence (QI)!
Given that you have been an avid quoter as exemplified by your gathering 20 of the Loveliest Mental Health Quotes, please be informed that the detailed and eye-opening discussions on pictorial quotes can definitely be of great interest to you. In addition, the comprehensive Quotation Checklist is a handy guide or template for those who deal with history, archival research, investigative journalism, media studies, social science, behavioural science, political science, law, (socio)linguistics, information science and information literacy.
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s Really Informative and Beautiful. That’s a Tough Thing To Do. Thanks for Sharing 🙏
LikeLiked by 3 people
Welcome to SoundEagle🦅’s intellectual home, sonic nest, musical den and artistic eyrie, where you can find plenty of Prose, Poetry, Art, Science, Graphics, Cartoons, Animations, Games, Puzzles, Music and Videos! SoundEagle🦅 has been very occupied with lovingly crafting and improving on a special eulogy entitled Khai & Khim: For Always and Beyond Goodbye ❀🌸🦢💮❀ೋღஜஇ💕ღೋ♡ࣰ⋆*ࣰ☀̤̣̈̇🏝☆⋆*ࣰ✻ණි❉˜҈”˜҈░░✲﴾۞ࣰ﴿ࣰ֍ࣰࣰමෙ, and hence the delay in replying to you.
SoundEagle🦅 wonders how much of The Quotation Fallacy “💬” you have managed to read, and which quotation(s) in the section “Illustrated Quotations: Inspirational and Thought-Provoking Quotes” appeal to you the most.
Thank you for complimenting the post on its being “Really Informative and Beautiful”, and for deeming the effort of producing such a post to be “a Tough Thing To Do”. Perhaps it is “a Much Tougher Thing To Do” for such an unorthodox and exotic species as SoundEagle🦅 to produce a post that is “Really Uninformative and Ugly”.
May you have a Wonderful and Productive week of blogging something “Really Informative and Beautiful”, whether or not it is going to be “a Tough Thing To Do”!
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
So much quality stuff here!
This must have taken a lot of time and effort to accomplish.
Such dedication and commitment is rare.
I also love the artistic feel that everything has.
Beautiful graphics.
I’m glad to have come to this rich reservoir of information that I might need to keep revisiting whenever I need some clarification.
Well done!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well researched blog! Really found it interesting. I will definitely go to the site link & see the pictures which allow quotes on it. I too enjoy quoting but have to find appropriate ones to be effective
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] Considering that “ 疾 風 知 勁 草 ” is a figurative idiom that already existed roughly at the start of the first millennium, more than 600 years before the poem was written, one is left with some trepidation about specifying the pedigree or provenance of a quotation, which in this case happens to be an ancient Chinese poem presenting the issue of partial indeterminacy or circumscribed accuracy of its origin(s) and authorship(s) to any quoter who wishes to credit the quotee. Another issue incurred by such a quotation is the challenge posed by translating idioms, where a literal word-by-word translation of an opaque, abstruse or inscrutable idiom will most probably fail to convey the same meaning in other languages. Indeed, any quotation presented with misattribution (attributed to the wrong person) or mistranslation (garbled in translation) qualifies as a misquotation, the variety and ramifications of which are discussed in great detail in the post entitled The Quotation Fallacy “💬”. […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I imagine your entire Blog is automated? I think I am right in saying that your articles are created by ML and your follows on other blogs are generated by Bots? I ask because I am working on Bots at present.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello! One wonders why or how you have come to such conclusions as stated in your previous comment.
In any case, a bespoke acknowledgement is due to you for visiting this book-length post, which will take a great deal of patience, intellect and soul-searching to digest fully. On the basis of the observed maturity and putative enthusiasm that you have seemingly exuded on your own blog, you are hereby encouraged to exercise your intellect by seeking out other posts and pages of interest to you so as to discover for yourself the various bespoke treasures lying within SoundEagle🦅’s multidisciplinary playground, intellectual home, sonic nest, musical den and artistic eyrie, where you can savour plenty of Prose, Poetry, Art, Science, Graphics, Cartoons, Animations, Games, Puzzles, Music and Videos.
You are very welcome to add further comments in good time as you continue your epic reading of this post (and others) later. Though the post is very long and encyclopaedic, the navigational menus located at both the top and bottom can help you to jump instantly to the major sections of the post.
It will be very illuminating to be informed by you later as to which section(s) of this post resonate with you the most and why, as well as which Illustrated Quotations are your favourites.
Yours sincerely,
LikeLiked by 2 people
Neuro linguistic programming has made great advances in recent years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please be informed that in education and the academic circle, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is regarded as a prime example of pseudoscience, which neither relates any phenomena to neural structures nor has anything in common with linguistics and programming, and which comprises anecdotes and personal testimony far removed from scientific understanding of neuroscience and linguistics. Inconsistent with current neurological theory and plaqued by numerous factual errors, NLP is based on outmoded metaphors and dubious assertions of how the brain works. Reviews and meta-analyses have revealed that all of the supportive research on NLP contain significant methodological flaws, and that there have been several times as many studies of a far superior quality that fail to reproduce and confirm the extraordinary claims made by Bandler, Grinder and other NLP practitioners.
In addition, academics such as sociologists, anthropologists and others have categorized NLP as a quasi-religion belonging to the New Age and Human Potential Movements, as well as a form of folk magic with symbolic efficacy as opposed to physical efficacy to effect change through nonspecific means such as placebo effects and group cohesiveness. Influenced by and appropriating ideas and techniques in shamanism, NLP manifests like a syncretic folk religion grafting the magic and charm of folk practice onto the science and status of professional medicine. The concern of some NLP proponents with lineage from an NLP guru also parallels the concern with guru lineage in some Eastern religions.
Yours sincerely,
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 2 people
How about natural language processing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may answer the question yourself in conjunction with being much more relevant by commenting on The Quotation Fallacy “💬” with impeccable taste and erudition. Thank you in anticipation.
Yours sincerely,
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you explain please?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The explanation for the said three-word term, namely “natural language processing”, is available in the section Definition and Ramifications: Description, Scope and Corollaries. Simply locate the term and hover your mouse cursor over it to reveal a tooltip containing the explanation.
Yours sincerely,
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 2 people
Are you an algo? Or do you sit all day typing out replies?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is apparent that your veiled but somewhat curious (if not humorous) attempts at applying the Turing test on SoundEagle🦅 have disrupted or interfered with your reading and understanding of The Quotation Fallacy “💬”.
You may avail yourself of a good glimpse of what the future might indeed hold for humanity and machines as well as their hybrids by perusing 🎧 Facing the Noise & Music: Playgrounds for Biophobic Citizens 🏗🌁🗼🏭, which is one of the posts belonging to Facing the Noise & Music category.
Yours sincerely,
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would you care to explain go me who you are and what exactly is the
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is the purpose of this blog and who are what exactly are you? I find it very difficult indeed to undertsand your purpose or that of your blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yours sincerely,
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the record, reading that post, I didn’t understand more. Sure, it’s interesting speculation but debatable. By the way, your formatting doesn’t play well with a dark theme in FireFox (via an add-on) which I use to avoid ocular headaches.
For me, simplicity and clarity are valued well above everything else and one of the pitfalls many writers fall prey to is the tendency to use a twenty-five cents word when a five-cents word would do.
Related to that is the (false) assumption that an abstruse (or maybe, crufty) sentence construction lends legitimacy — or, perhaps, perceived authority — to the argument made . . . argument that is often lost because of said recondite crafting.
Don’t take this as criticism; it’s merely an observation: I suspect whatever information you wish to impart on the public at large is potentially (probably) lost to the complexity of the propositional arguments and the length of the individual posts. I suspect few people get through them in their entirety (and, perhaps, that’s by design) and even when interested in what knowledge might be gained from reading them, the effort is such that only readers gifted with inhuman fortitude are likely to get through most posts . . . or, is that the argument and the point?
Regardless, cryptic answers and redirections don’t often play well. But then, you probably know this already. Sincerely . . . well, you know who.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SoundEagle🦅 is delighted that the lone wolf, a quintessential disperser, has spoken his mind. To be sure, by “that post”, you were indeed referring to the one entitled “🎧 Facing the Noise & Music: Playgrounds for Biophobic Citizens 🏗🌁🗼🏭”, unless stated otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, following your exchange with Garner.
Also for the record, since my comments on this post in 2018, I’ve been following subsequent comments and responses. Interesting which comments Sound Eagle chooses to respond to and which SE ignores.
More interesting is the superficiality of the responses. It lends credence to Garner’s question about who (what) is doing the responding.
But, I’ve probably said too much already. I always do . . . and it never works out, so I’ll stop and take my leave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your clarification. That you see or highlight “superficiality” in SoundEagle🦅’s numerous and diverse responses above all else, or rather, to the exclusion of all that can be characterized about them ostensibly, responsibly, analytically, philosophically, stylistically, aesthetically, intellectually, academically, intertextually, intersectionally, whimsically and playfully, is indeed very revealing. Hence, there is no wonder that your professed habit of saying “too much already … never works out”, as you conceded, but not as you have superficially, straightforwardly or ignorantly consigned as a chronic case of verbosity or garrulity; rather, it has often been a case of insufficient degree and depth in critical thinking, justification, cohesion, cogency, validity and profundity, not just here in your commenting but also in places within your own claims and writings, which nevertheless can still in part have their own charms and merits, even at times enjoyable and gratifying, albeit in a tangential manner.
In any case, SoundEagle🦅 will pay (much) more heed to not only “superficiality” but also “artificiality”, lest any sentient being, terrestrial or otherwise, should construe SoundEagle🦅 as, or conflate SoundEagle🦅 with, the technological embodiment or the supreme product of animated automaton, synthetic alterity, cybernetic chimera, artificial intelligence, autonomous programme, advanced android, humanoid robot and bioengineered replicant, the very target of blade runners. Thank you for stopping and taking your leave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] stakeholders, advertisers, influencers, Internet users and bloggers, particularly in the era of misquotations and disinformation, numerous instances of which seem to be intractably stoking people’s partial […]
LikeLike
It’s no exaggeration to say this post is overwhelming in its comprehensiveness. Lots of information here to process…
That acknowledged, I want to comment on the nature of visual quotations. Personally, I usually prefer simplicity–with a single image or background to support the text. Occasionally, I find a complex presentation appealing–when the various elements blend together to expand or deepen the text’s meaning.
I would guess that the preferences related to the complexity of a presentation could be related to one’s age. Being in my sixties, I tend to prefer texts in a single font, etc.
Really enjoy all the information you have amassed here. Well done.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Quotation Fallacy “💬”
Thank you for acknowledging the highly informative and exhaustive nature of this post. It would indeed be a tall order and significant endeavour to digest The Quotation Fallacy “💬” in its entirety.
Please be informed that “pictorial quotes” is a more appropriate term for “visual quotations”, the latter comprising visual representations, images and photographs ranging from simple juxtaposition, collage and assemblage to graphic illustration and digital manipulation in the domains of design, the visual arts or the spatial arts.
SoundEagle🦅 hopes that the style and complexity of this bespoke reply to your esteemed comment are appealing to you in certain ways.
In addition, SoundEagle🦅 would be delighted if you could kindly shed some light on the following matters:
Did you find where you are quoted in this post?
Are you satisfied with where and how you are quoted in this post?
Which sentence or paragraph of SoundEagle🦅 from this post or any post on this website will you turn into a notable quotation, and why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] misquotations + disinformation => severe consequences+ > argument from ignorance + false dilemma […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
You put a lot of work into these. Interesting stuff! I keep coming back to read more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
On the basis of the observed maturity and putative enthusiasm that you have exuded on your own blog, you are hereby encouraged to exercise your intellect by seeking out other 📑Posts and Pages📃 of interest to you so as to discover for yourself the various bespoke treasures lying within SoundEagle🦅’s multidisciplinary playground, intellectual home, sonic nest, musical den and artistic eyrie, where you can savour plenty of Prose, Poetry, Art, Science, Graphics, Cartoons, Animations, Games, Puzzles, Music and Videos.
Please feel free to add further comments in good time as you continue your epic reading of The Quotation Fallacy “💬” (and other 📑Posts and Pages📃) later. Although The Quotation Fallacy “💬” is very long and encyclopaedic, the navigational menus located at both the top and bottom can help you to jump instantly to the major sections of the post.
It will be very illuminating to be informed by you as to which section(s) of The Quotation Fallacy “💬” resonate with you the most and why, as well as which Illustrated Quotations are your favourites.
SoundEagle🦅’s latest post entitled 💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠 has been greatly extended, so much so that it is fittingly equipped with a new navigational menu containing twelve headings, which readers can click to instantly jump to any one of the twelve sections of the book-length post.
You are very welcome to peruse this said post offering analytical discussions about the various underlying problems and thorny issues facing the USA and also many other nations, including the cult of anti-expertise sentiment (fuelled by information democratization, intellectual egalitarianism and anti-intellectualism) manifesting as misguided distrust, dismissal and denigration of experts and established knowledge by those in the public and in office. SoundEagle🦅 would be delighted if you could kindly submit your comment to the post, considering that you have often displayed percipient insights into the increasingly pressing issues that many of us are facing, worsened all the more by mental pitfalls (or even mental health), social media, digital globalization, populism, Trumpism, illiberal democracy, and other behavioural and sociopolitical factors.
SoundEagle🦅 hopes to have the honour of quoting you, assuming that you intend to render your forthcoming comment compellingly superb in one way or the other — the very comment manifesting as both a recognition of and a chance for your piquant thoughts and crystalized wisdom to be distilled into a brilliant comment(ary) and immortalized as a profound quotation in the body proper of the post for posterity.
Yours sincerely,
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reblogged this on worldtraveller70.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for excellent information I was looking for this information for my mission.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello, Sound Eagle.I finally found the time to read this. I managed to read about half before my brain stopped working. This covid-19 foggy brain is a real pain. You may quote me on that. 😀
My predominant, recurring thought as I was reading this brilliant treatise was: “You can say that again!” You may quote me on that, too. Not that you need to, you have plenty of words of your own. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Simpy excellent
Thank you for sharing
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on muunyayo .
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] 2018 […]
LikeLike
[…] an age-old phenomenon. As highly interactive and social animals, human beings have long learnt to engineer or exploit many of their quotations and statements to efficaciously press the emotional buttons of their peers, readers and audiences for the purpose […]
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agree with you….very nice post….
Good luck…keep it up…
Hope u like my article as well…
https://srtnews.net/leadership-inspirational-quotes/
💓🙏
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] is definitely a good case of misquotation, as most of the quotations attributed to Spooner are apocryphal, the result of misattributions, […]
LikeLike
[…] In certain 📑Posts and Pages📃, you will find one or more navigational menu(s) containing internal links, which you can click to jump instantly to different sections of the particular 📑Post or Page📃. By using the navigational menu(s), you can more easily resume reading from any point of a long 📑Post or Page📃 over multiple sessions in your own time. The following presents an example of a navigational menu available at the top and bottom of the expansive 📑Post entitled The Quotation Fallacy “💬”: […]
LikeLike
IQ gets all the publicity but emotional and quotational intelligence seem to be just as important. I think Dorothy Parker said that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Welcome! SoundEagle🦅 can definitely sense your being facetious in your attributing Dorothy Parker as the quotee!
A bespoke acknowledgement is owe to you for visiting this book-length post, which will require considerable patience, intellect and soul-searching to digest fully. You are very welcome to add further comments in good time as you continue your epic reading of this post. Though the post is very long and encyclopaedic, the navigational menus located at both the top and bottom can help you to jump instantly to the major sections of the post.
It will be very illuminating to be informed by you later as to which section(s) of this post resonate with you the most and why, as well as which Illustrated Quotations are your favourites.
Yours sincerely,
LikeLiked by 1 person
So many powerful thoughts to choose from but I particularly like: “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a good choice indeed! In fact, this pithy and piquant statement “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.” has also been featured in SoundEagle🦅’s latest post entitled 🏛️⚖️ The Facile and Labile Nature of Law: Beyond the Supreme Court and Its Ruling on Controversial Matters 🗽🗳️🔫🤰🧑🤝🧑💉, which has been much expanded with even more thought-provoking materials since your last visit, especially in the Conclusions section, all awaiting your further scrutiny and feedback.
Yours sincerely,
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] The Quotation Fallacy “💬” […]
LikeLike
[…] The Quotation Fallacy “💬” […]
LikeLike
Wow indeed. My guilt amazes me, I am apprehended in my seat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Garry
Welcome to SoundEagle🦅’s intellectual home, sonic nest, musical den and artistic eyrie! Since this website is very feature-rich, alluringly complex and intricately engaging, SoundEagle🦅 has prepared a detailed User Guide for maximizing and optimizing your immersive experience and enjoyment. Clicking the button below will instantly transport you there:
🥳🪟🎖️How to Enjoy SoundEagle🦅 to the Utmost🥇🏢🍹
Given your professional background as “[a]n advocate for wildlife and nature conservation … writ[ing] about plants, animals, and natural landscapes”, SoundEagle🦅 would like to invite you to peruse the following:
As you will discover, the first post has ventured far beyond humanity in its overt emphasis on and dramatic depiction of nonhuman lives, for we humans are often too absorbed in our own affairs to notice two big elephants in the room: speciesism and anthropocentricism. Both are highly entrenched, and both are very widespread and often unacknowledged forms of prejudice, discrimination and bigotry. Despite years of fleshing out the (conceptual, philosophical, ethical, practical and/or social) framework in examining the possibility or plausibility of environmentalism meeting the needs and expectations of all humanity to help us to survive as a species, fundamental progress is still far too slow.
As you probably already know, we are already in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. As stated, the main issue is twofold: speciesism and anthropocentricism. Until we critically deal with the main issue, even environmentalism in all its diversity may not suffice to turn things around, as discussed in the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary post entitled Do Animals Create Art and Music? 🎵🐕🎶🐒🎹🐘🖼🐬🎨.
Being simultaneously witty and serious about a number of outstanding issues, the said post actually ventures far beyond whatever its title may suggest or mean to any reader, especially in the very long “Conclusions” section.
Like nonbinary sexual identity and transgender issues, interspecies interactions and communications are also very special in that they can and tend to transcend many boundaries and expectations imposed by human customs and belief systems. SoundEagle🦅 wonders whether you have heard of or studied such disciplines as zoo-anthropology, anthrozoology and biological anthropology.
One of the points being raised in the said post is that we are more likely to fail to comprehend the nature of our connection and relationship to animals and plants when such connection and relationship are predicated mostly or entirely on ownership and control. Perhaps what may potentially fascinate you the most is SoundEagle🦅’s ISEA model, which features the Instrumental, Spiritual, Pro-Environment and Pro-Animal/Plant perspectives.
There is also an interactive poll in which you can participate and view the results.
The second post is a very special and expansive tribute to the eminent scientist and writer Edward O Wilson who had passed away on Boxing Day in 2021. Of all the scientists and writers who have passed away in SoundEagle🦅’s lifetime, Wilson’s departure is of the most profound loss for your host here, who recently has attempted to clarify the nature and purpose of this very feature-rich, alluringly complex and intricately engaging website with a new post entitled
Looking forward to your perusing the aforementioned posts and welcoming your inputs and feedback, as SoundEagle🦅 is certainly very keen and curious about what you will make of them!
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
Personal commentary is needed when posting a quotation, otherwise, it is like displaying a hardback book without its dust cover!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I love your writings SoundEagle …. I am amazed at just how productive you are!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sound Eagle, I see this is your usual brief, sketchy covering of a topic: from every possible angle and a few more.
🙂
Bob
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dear Dr Bob Rich
Thank you, godfather, for granting your preliminary seal of approval in situ to this expansive, technically written book-length post entitled The Quotation Fallacy “💬” with your very own personal feedback after taking what manifestly amounts to a quick glance of the elaborate contents stylishly presented by SoundEagle🦅, whose holistic, multidisciplinary, consilient and penetrating approach to investigating pertinent subject matters academically can hardly constitute or be characterized as a “sketchy covering of a topic”, not to mention that SoundEagle🦅 has formally coined and thoroughly defined the eponymous term or title of the post.
Please be informed that well-formatted and in-depth discussions, analyses and conclusions aside, there are plenty of hyperlinks, tooltips, quotations, charts, tables, illustrations, animations, infographics, videos and bullet-point summaries as well as the navigational MENU and detailed Checklist in this book-length post simultaneously exhibiting the features and combining the functions of a long-form essay, investigative research, academic dissertation, scholarly monograph and dynamic web document. All in all, this multimedia publication is meant to be a versatile and comprehensive enchiridion or reference book, which you may enjoy to your heart’s content.
You are very welcome to add further comments in good time as you embark on your epic reading of this post. Though the post is very long and encyclopaedic, the navigational menus located at both the top and bottom can help you to jump instantly to the major sections of the post.
It will be very illuminating to be informed by you later as to which section(s) of this post resonate with you the most and why, as well as which Illustrated Quotations are your favourites.
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 2 people
My comment was what is technically referred to as an “Antiphrasis.”
Your post is all of what you say in your comment.
🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Dr Bob Rich
You are not only an avid quoter of George (Joshua Richard) Monbiot (who is a writer, investigative journalist, zoologist, environmentalist and political activist) but also the godfather of alternative comedy, antiphrasis, irony, euphemism and litotes.
Now, what other psychological surprises or rhetorical devices are hiding up your sleeves?
ჱܓSoundEagle🦅
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absoloodle nothing. Tomorrow, I have a 6-hour stint of handing out how to vote cards in the Vic. elections, so today is for absoloodle nothing to rest up body and mind and a few other components.
🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Soundeagle, having arrived here from your comment on Dr Bob’s post today, I find myself appalled by the lamentable lack of hours available to me to fully appreciate your marvellous offering. I have but skimmed it, and for that I apologise. But having done so, I believe I have the gist; and would appeal to you, as one who so clearly groks the subject, to craft a quote (and appropriate graphic, naturally) that summarises the message in Dr Bob’s post, as I believe that that is a worthy meme – perhaps, at this time, the most crucial one our species has ever needed. What say you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
O.0. I just left a comment, but it’s vanished without a trace. Can I appeal to you to check your spam, please, Soundeagle?
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] engaged with it in connection with one of its posts (LINK — be aware that it is a very, very long […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] The ease of deploying text layout apps or graphic design software to create custom-made pictorial quotes. […]
LikeLike
[…] The ease of deploying text layout apps or graphic design software to create custom-made pictorial quotes. […]
LikeLike