Everyone has an id. It tends to be a little too dominant though.
I remember how much people laughed at America for electing Bush II, then we go and essentially elect Dick Cheney three years later.
More like we Rumsfeld if you ask meā¦
Arenāt those the same guy? No? Enh, those old Republican hawks all look the same to me.
Sounds like you need to get sorted on your known unknowns and your unknown unknowns.
Something that has always frustrated me is that that unknown unknowns thing was probably the smartest thing that Rumsfeld ever said.
I never understood why he got all that flak for that. Itās a perfectly reasonable set of distinctions.
Known known: I know where my wallet is.
Known unknown: I know that I donāt know where @anon50609448 is.
Unknown unknown: I am completely unaware that @anon50609448 is plotting to take my wallet.
(Boy, are you in for a disappointment! Thereās nothing in there.)
That bank was incorrect to cite that as a reason.
How. Dare. You.
On the one hand the idea is parseable and makes sense abstracted away from context and contorted phrasing, in context the questioner was noting that there was no known direct link between the Iraqi government and terrorist orgs, and Rumsfeld was pulling out āunknown unknownsā as a justification for going to war as though ignorance of a threat justified an attack. In terms of formal risk analysis he was applying a useful tool, but the application was pure mendacity.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.