| [ Main index » A critical look at reviews and human behaviour » Analysis of type of emails that I won't respond to in future: a manipulator | Dutch: alleen in het Engels... |
As part of psychological analysis (I'm almost done writing a book on manipulation, psychopaths and related topics), I'm adding a bit to what I briefly wrote in the news sections on my bicycle lighting pages. So here we have an email by Arnold Thompson (arnoldrt99@yahoo.com), sent to me on 2015-2-22. This is as the original, except I have highlighted in red where he writes 'should', and I have highlighted in green where he explicitly tries to manipulate me:
Gambiet,
I have been hit by a car. It was the car driver's fault. He did not notice me. So I can attest to the fact that safety is now my only concern. There are several things you should know about bicycling safety as it applies to all vehicles on the road, motorized or non-motorized.
1. Visibility cannot be equated as equal to being noticed. A bright visible taillight is not equal to an irritating flashing taillight. The irritating light has the advantage of not being run over, unnoticed.
2. Being distracted is what gets the attention of vehicle drivers. The driver becomes focused on the distraction. This is as it should be. I would rather you notice me on a bike than run over me.
Drivers daydream all the time. They do not focus all their attention on driving as they should. Only a visual or audible distraction will alert a driver to pay attention. This is the lesson learned by all emergency service vehicles and police cars. Yes, these distractions are annoying, but that is why they are effective. Vehicles on the road will respond more safely to confusing flashing lights and irritating sirens. That is the fact of the matter. You cannot argue otherwise. Otherwise, you would have to argue that all emergency vehicles have to get rid of their obnoxious lights and sirens.
Bicyclists should be required to have the same level of light distraction that a slow moving vehicle has. At the very least, we should be required this small safety level. A slow moving vehicle's taillights are bright and flashing. There is a distraction element to the lighting, a warning to other vehicles. This is how it should be. It is much safer for everyone.
Due to the limits of electric capacity on a bike, the only way to make up for the brightness a motor vehicle taillight has is to increase the distraction ability of bike lights. The flashing strobe taillight put a bicycle on equal footing with flashing motor vehicle taillights. Unless you want to sacrifice safety, I suggest you change your stance on flashing lights for bikes somewhat. As a cyclist, you are riding a slow moving vehicle and you should remember that. You are a possible hazard on the road just like a slow moving car or truck. You should also not underestimate the safety lessons learned by irritating emergency vehicles and police cars.
The more irritating the light, the safer everyone becomes. Why? Because drivers are paying attention to you on the bicycle. This is as it should be. Drivers are lax and often not paying attention while driving. You need something out of the ordinary to bring their focus back into driving safely around you.
3. This is the third thing you should know. Vision is not seen as a whole picture. The brain is wired to only notice something out of the ordinary, then your brain directs your vision to focus on only that part which is gathering all the attention.
There are several ways this happens. Cyclists will wear bright colors, colors that clash and are noticed. Also, movement will garner the attention immediately, like a rabbit darting across the road. Flashing taillights lights are a type of stationary movement (on/off) and a clash of colors (clashing red color maximized by brightness). The brain automatically focuses your vision on such an object. Whether you were paying attention to your driving or not, it gets your attention first, and then you see it. It is an automatic response. Drivers will respond to what they notice and see.
Sincerely,
Arnold Thompson
So the interesting thing is how he manipulates with using 'should' so many times (he tries to enforce his world view onto others) and the explicit manipulation, which might work with someone who hasn't seen such stuff before. The tactic "if you don't do this, then you don't care about that" is typical for manipulative psychopaths in politics (note that I don't make a distinction between psychopath and sociopath, and I am sure that this distinction by psychologists is wrong, but then the level of incompetence I've seen in psychology is staggering. More to come on this in a book that I've written, only final editing to be done).
My reply:
Arnold, > I have been hit by a car. It was the car driver's fault. */He did not > notice me/*. So I can attest to the fact that safety is now my only > concern. There are several things you should know about bicycling safety > as it applies to all vehicles on the road, motorized or non-motorized. > > 1. Visibility cannot be equated as equal to being noticed. A bright > visible taillight is not equal to an irritating flashing taillight. The > irritating light has the advantage of not being run over, /*unnoticed*/. Not so, as evidenced by accidents I read, for example one which was descirbed on I think mtbr.com, where a guy, even a group, with multiple taillamps (of all types, flashing too) was run into (sideswiped taking a right IIRC) by motorists... > 2. Being distracted is what gets the attention of vehicle drivers. The > driver becomes focused on the distraction. This is as it should be. I > would rather you notice me on a bike than run over me. And you would rather he hit someone else than you? Because distracting = taking attention away from everything else... > Drivers daydream all the time. They do not focus all their attention on > driving as they should. Only a visual or audible distraction will alert > a driver to pay attention. This is the lesson learned by all emergency > service vehicles and police cars. Yes, these distractions are annoying, > but that is why they are effective. Vehicles on the road will respond > more safely to confusing flashing lights and irritating sirens. That is > the fact of the matter. You cannot argue otherwise. Otherwise, you would > have to argue that all emergency vehicles have to get rid of their > obnoxious lights and sirens. No, the flashing light and sirens are to be noticed that a vehicle is coming which does not comply with normal driving procedures and that traffic should get out of the way! Also it's not true that this is always effective, es evidenced by the fact that ambulances and police cars get run into and the motorists then claim "they did not see them". As I wrote on my site: When someone is not paying attention in that way, then nothing will help. > Bicyclists should be required to have the same level of light > distraction that a slow moving vehicle has. At the very least, we should > be required this small safety level. A slow moving vehicle's taillights > are bright and flashing. There is a distraction element to the lighting, > a warning to other vehicles. This is how it should be. It is much safer > for everyone. It could help, but only in case of traffic with few slow moving vehicles, certainly not in NL, Germany, Belgium. Then the annoying and/or flashing taillamps would be everywhere which means back to square 1. If there are blinking lights everywhere, then they don't stand out any more. And in other countries like the UK the attitude of motorists is a big part of the problem. > Due to the limits of electric capacity on a bike, the only way to make > up for the brightness a motor vehicle taillight has is to increase the > distraction ability of bike lights. The flashing strobe taillight put a > bicycle on equal footing with flashing motor vehicle taillights. Unless > you want to sacrifice safety, I suggest you change your stance on > flashing lights for bikes somewhat. As a cyclist, you are riding a slow No, my stance on flashing is about safety. Your stand on attraction attention is that you don't get hit, which is selfish. You obviously don't care about anyone else nor that what you do makes the road less safe, as shown in what you write. > moving vehicle and you should remember that. You are a possible hazard > on the road just like a slow moving car or truck. You should also not > underestimate the safety lessons learned by irritating emergency > vehicles and police cars. See above... > The more irritating the light, the safer everyone becomes. No. > Why? Because > drivers are paying attention to you on the bicycle. This is as it should > be. Drivers are lax and often not paying attention while driving. You > need something out of the ordinary to bring their focus back into > driving safely around you. See above. > 3. This is the third thing you should know. Vision is not seen as a > whole picture. The brain is wired to only notice something out of the > ordinary, then your brain directs your vision to focus on only that part > which is gathering all the attention. You haven't told me anything that I don't know... The way this attention grabbing, in a mild way and therefore properly working way works, is with pedal reflectors... If something like that could be/would allowed to be used on bicycles as active lighting and be as visible and yet non-distracting nor too-attention grabbing, then perhaps it would be a good idea. > There are several ways this happens. Cyclists will wear bright colors, > colors that clash and are noticed. Also, movement will garner the > attention immediately, like a rabbit darting across the road. Flashing > taillights lights are a type of stationary movement (on/off) and a clash > of colors (clashing red color maximized by brightness). The brain > automatically focuses your vision on such an object. Whether you were > paying attention to your driving or not, it gets your attention first, > and then you see it. It is an automatic response. Drivers will respond > to what they notice and see. The problem then is not being able to estimate distance speed, nor actually being able to see properly what else is there in case of annoying point sources. And that means that it can give problems such as motorists taking a right thinking the cyclist is way back, because flashing = no speed indication = standing still in the mind of a motorist. The first thing that needs to be done, is to give proper light, from a large illuminated surface. Most bicycle taillamps are crap, and none have a proper large illuminating surface. Blinking and point sources are NOT a substitute for proper lighting and properly making oneself visible. Do you ride with pedal reflectors? How do you know that if you had ridden with annoying and/or blinking taillamp that that motorist would not have hit you in that case too? Further you must consider differences of roads. On shared roads where cars may drive only 60 km/h, speed differences are not enough to warrant anything more than normal good bike lighting. For higher speed differences and where motorists don't expect bicycles, something else may be needed as I mentioned on my site. But that means outside cities on large roads. Then a flashing indicator could perhaps be useful but only accompanied with a non-flashing light so there is some distance estimation possible. Wouter
He then wrote a response showing what an a-hole he is, and that he has not understood at all that:
1. flashing will not help if someone is not paying attention (as evidenced by motorists riding into ambulances and police cars with all emergency lights on, saying they didn't see them. Could be, if for example you are sleep deprived or doing something else (phone) while riding, then nothing will help.
2. What the lights are for on stopped or reversing vehicles, these are not red, but orange, and indicators of something out of the ordinary happening (doors may swing open, it may start to reverse etc.).
3. If all cyclists have flashing lights, then if there are many bikes, flashing is not an exception and not attention grabbing to that bike, everyone is then riding or driving in a sea of distractions, none of which grab attention.
4. I mentioned riding behind other cyclists and he talks of groups. This is nonsense! Here in NL there are a lot of cyclists, I don't ride in groups but I ride closely behind others whom I do not know because there are lot of cyclists! Should I go ask cyclists ahead of me to switch of their flashing taillamps? That will only work for perhaps a few 100m as we are unlikely to ride to the same destination!
I've not included all those cases and arguments in my reply to him, as there is no point. This is a blockhead who doesn't reason, but tries to enforce his world view. So, here is his 2nd email, included (quoted) in my final reply: