We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Yes! max19 - how to think for yourself.
Yes! Baldy, I am an ageing hippy and we all know more than we think we do, but perhaps the universe is stretching it a little.
Basically it's similar to what one of my best teacher told me more than once, "people have to learn how learn in order to be successful "....
Love that phrase.
I had a hippy physics teacher who had a theory that we were all born knowing everything about the Universe, so it was 'just' a case of re-learning what we already knew. Perhaps a version of 'unknown knowns'....or just too many magic mushrooms!!
Unknowns to some are knowns to others.
Everyone ignores 'known knowns' when they are uncomfortable to admit - whether investors or governments - but I'm not sure they can be classified as 'unknown knowns'. They are often facts that are ignored for a reason....eg governments choose to ignore that the Crown Saudi Prince had someone murdered or that China has Uighur concentration camps. It is often just easier to ignore the 'known' facts....it doesn't make them 'unknown'. Similarly investors often cherry pick the 'known' facts to suit an agenda...whether short or long. It is what people do.
Not entirely silly bald_eagle,
Taking known facts and trying to force them back into the shadows, where they remain unknowable and undiscussable, is a central tactic of corrupt governments.
Many institutions are guilty of a sort of ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ in relation to pretending that they don’t have an overwhelming crisis on their hands regarding abuses of power, harassment, discrimination, and serious health and safety breaches.
Perhaps the attempts to cover up dirty secrets are where known knowns are 'whitewashed' into becoming unknowns.
Tremor is a bit of an unknown at the moment, let's hope it's not being 'whitewashed'.
Come on Tremor - you can do it!
"The demise of Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas on February 1'st 2003, was the result of a hole in one of its wings that filled with hot gas, a hole that had been caused by a piece of insulating foam that fell off the fuel tank. But five days later, NASA still didn't think that the foam was to blame—it simply couldn't be, was the thinking." [original idea by Paul Wiltshire, MD at CityIQ]
- Everyone knew that foam had fallen from the shuttle...so there were 'known knowns'
- Some engineers thought the foam could have seriously damaged the shuttle...so they had ' known unknowns'. They knew there could be damage but they weren't certain. They kept silent
- NASA management knew nothing about the potential damage...so they had 'unknown unknowns'
At no point were there any 'unknown knowns' (it is a silly concept). The problem was made catastrophic when engineers didn't try to resolve their 'known unknowns' by asking NASA management to look for damage. Simples!
"Unrealized = unknown until the penny drops through time, using reasoning, after demonstration of the facts."
=====================================================
?? You seem to be using a different language to me. If you had written the above in Urdu it would probably have made more sense (to me).
bald_eagle,
My original post, honest or otherwise, was not a typo and neither was it a Rumsfeld quote, although strangely enough there was a U.S. documentary film 'The Unknown known' featuring, you guessed, Donald Rumsfeld.
I can absolutely understand that you only like to see things in black and white and I have admitted that logically (and axiomatically), you are quite correct in that a statement and its opposite cannot both be true - at the same time and place.
I am willing, in all humility to say that I should (with hindsight) have said there are 'unrealized' knowns, as per my previous explanations, which should stand to common reason.
This puts the difference between unknown and unrealized into some sort of context.
Unrealized = unknown until the penny drops through time, using reasoning, after demonstration of the facts.
The time factor is the only part I am willing to admit failure on, but the rest I defend 'to the hilt.
Bald_eagle,
"you seemingly cannot admit that you made an honest mistake. There comes a point when one is in a hole it is advisable to stop digging!!"
lol... agree, I know how you feel..
It's not the 1st time either. He's not called Tricky for no reason.
:-)
Tricky_D, you're not Paul Wiltshire, MD of CityIQ, are you?
"In the O.J. Simpson case the blood-stained gloves were known to exist but their inability to fit the alleged culprit's hands was an unknown until he was asked to try them on.
That was not a known unknown until demonstrated - it was an unknown known."
========================================
Don't they call that 'clutching at straws'....is it so hard to admit that your original post of 'unknown knowns' was a typo? That there is 'obviously' no such thing as an 'unkown known'. But you seem to want to double down (in a very Trumpian way) because you seemingly cannot admit that you made an honest mistake. There comes a point when one is in a hole it is advisable to stop digging!!
Life is teeming with unknown knowns:
In the O.J. Simpson case the blood-stained gloves were known to exist but their inability to fit the alleged culprit's hands was an unknown until he was asked to try them on.
That was not a known unknown until demonstrated - it was an unknown known.
Tricky_D, I think we can agree to disagree!
Although I'm not sure the 'dodgy dossier' was a 'Known' by those 'in the know'...it was a sexed up document created with the sole purpose of getting Parliament to agree to the Iraq war, so that Blair could deliver on his promise to Bush (Walker) in the aftermath of 911. So I'm not sure 'Spin' or 'fake news' (the modern parlance) can be classified as a 'Known'.
From bald_eagle:
"There is no such thing as 'Unknown knowns', for if something is 'known' it cannot be 'unknown'.
True on the face of it as a logical construct but if something (a fact) is known it does not mean that it is believed.
As Rumsfeld pointed out, when you don't see something that fits with your previous knowledge base, you might be likely to dismiss it.
The demise of Space Shuttle Columbia over Texas on February 1'st 2003, was the result of a hole in one of its wings that filled with hot gas, a hole that had been caused by a piece of insulating foam that fell off the fuel tank. But five days later, NASA still didn't think that the foam was to blame—it simply couldn't be, was the thinking.
The U.S. and the U.K. went to war with Iraq on the unknown, but widely promoted belief that weapons of mass destruction existed (i.e. were taken as a known) but later evidence overturned the supposed known.
Let us agree to differ, bald_eagle, or are you indeed Carson, the head butler from 'Downton' Abbey' and always right?
"... slow impeachment of life..."
========================================
Milhous, you've got impeachment on your mind...let's hope there isn't a smoking gun.
Never seen a better example of someone trying to justify a simple mistake, probably because they cannot admit they are ever wrong....very Trumpian.
Milhous, you miss my point. There is no such thing as 'Unknown knowns', for if something is 'known' it cannot be 'unknown'.
Yes and no bald_eagle,
Yes if you are talking logically about one thing in particular.
But if we are talking about, for example, a teacher who can't explain a mathematical solution to a student and becomes very irritated and punishes the unfortunate novice.
The poor teacher does not grasp his/her own unknown knowns.
They may (by the slow impeachment of life) know something that they do not know that they know (fail to put it across) and hence are blind to understand why the poor student struggles.
The Wizard of Oz illustrates the attributes that the characters sought after were within them all along. The journey on the yellow brick road simply cleared their blind spots and helped them see their unknown knowns.
"A deadly virus attack may present an unknown risk, yet it is known to be out there."
================================================================
An example of a 'Known unknown'!
Milhous, you miss my point. There is no such thing as 'Unknown knowns', for if something is 'known' it cannot be 'unknown'.
Henry in his popularised quote never mentioned 'Unknown knowns' because it doesn't make sense. Hopefully you aren't trying to defend an honest mistake you made, because that would be silly.
bald_eagle stated 'unknown knowns' - 'no such thing'.
The quote re- 'unknown knowns' (popularised by D. Rumsfeld, or otherwise) is absolutely valid and has to be factored into, for example, insurance risk.
The specific result of a accident may be unknown but it is known for sure that accidents will happen - hence the premiums.
A deadly virus attack may present an unknown risk, yet it is known to be out there.
A massive meteor strike on earth is currently unknown to be just around the corner, yet it is still a known possibility.
As for stt1, who is both wilful and ignorant in order to fire up an agenda of hatred towards this particular company, that is so all-consuming that many errors of fact and evidence are overridden for all to see.
Many times have I shown stt1's arguments to be way off the mark.
So way off indeed that a child could do better.
I am unsure why the sudden 'unknown' warmth by bald_eagle toward sst1, it's 'known' to be questionable from my point of view alone.
Eagle on speculators....point made and taken, but there are different degrees of speculation.
I try to keep mine somewhat manageable.
I believe Stt1 may be correct for once...congratulations!!
Aren't investors also known as speculators?!....unless you've found a way to only invest in 'sure things'!
Even Edward made a mistake with Tesco!!
Stevie
"14p in old money"
No. The rthm/Tap merger was 28/33, so the rthm equivalent sp is 11.8p, old money.
Best to read the company newsflow, follow the industry newsflow.
Milhous,
Dude, I am with you on that one. To each their own, but to me speculation is a total waste of time and energy.
Your glass of water will be bored.