Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is one of the most significant topics in philosophy. Reading is a human activity aimed at to first receive the solicited messages. Nevertheless, it is frequently claimed that people tend to get the unsolicited messages, and apart form the very fact that any given text can be manipulative, and can simply divert people by the message on the surface, while twisting their the ideas, confusing them with an underlying message -often called as subtext- people also akin to read selectively, in other words simply sift the messages, reorient the logical series, and construct one's own perceptional comprehension based on one's ideological tendencies. This may be attributed to a state of mind called "ideological blindness," if not an intentional manipulation.

Let me give you some examples:

1.A donkey is not a donkey, unless it behaves like an ass.

Despite its clear meaning, somebody will tend to read and comprehend only the first part of the sentence; i.e. "a donkey is not a donkey," and probably will blame the writer for being a headsucker.

If the reader does not suffer from any mental disability to prevent him from comprehending the entire text (i.e. also the phrase after the comma above), he will not have experience any difficulty in reading and thus receiving the quite clear message.

2. I will not leave Istanbul, if I can ever find a good job.

Here again if the reader sticks to the first phrase then he will certainly miss the meaning. And any conclusions he could have derived depending solely on the first part of the sentence will be premature and wrong, due to its disconnection with the premises.

Now let us take a little bit complex sentence:

2. These items include complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicle systems (including cruise missiles systems, target and reconnaissance drones) with capabilities exceeding a 300km/500kg range/payload threshold; production facilities for such systems; and major sub-systems including rocket stages, re-entry vehicles, rocket engines, guidance systems and warhead mechanisms.

Here again if the reader sticks to the first phrase, i.e. "These items include complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicle systems" then he will certainly miss the point. Since the very word "with" establishes a "condition" here, which most ideologically blind or attention deficit readers seem to have forgotten.

Let us analyze this sentence: Here the writer says (Category I) unmanned air vehicle systems (for the purposes of the MTCR guidelines) are

1. defined so as to include (i) cruise missiles systems, and (ii) target and reconnaissance drones;

2. with capabilities exceeding a 300km/500kg range/payload threshold.

Then in order for any UAV system to be classified under Category 1, it must comply with both paragraphs above, and especially with the second paragraph, which says it must both exceed the 300 km range, and have a minimum 500 kg payload.

Well sometimes some symbols may confuse us, such as the slash between 300km and 500 kg above. That time any reasonable and rational reader would remember the spirit of the text, the essentials, or further investigate it in order to clarify the symbol. A close search would yield that the text has an annex section, where the category 1 UAVs are clearly defined.

So if we say that a UAV with capabilities exceeding 300 km range or or exceeding 500 kg payload is classified under category 1 is wrong. Since the UAV must BOTH exceed 300 km range, AND 500 kg payload.

And if based on above misreading we attempt to blame any country (that is party to MTCR) having a UAV with capabilities exceeding 300 km range for violating the MTCR guidelines it would be wrong. Or alternatively if we blame country (that is party to MTCR) having a UAV with capabilities exceeding 500 kg payload for violating the MTCR guidelines it would be wrong. That signatory country can only be blamed if and only if it attempts to have a UAV having both >300 km range and >500 kg payload.

But if the reader is desperately trying to find any grounds, any excuses, any scintilla of BS in order to blame any given country, in other words the same does not read or search for having a message/info, but for trying to justify one's position, these kinds of misreading would very likely occur.

Whether from ignorance, or attention deficiency, or ideological blindness this reading comprehension problem is a grave threat to the civilized dialogue. We must pay more attention to develop our children's reading comprehension, and recover them from being sunk in a jelly ocean of ideological blindness.

My best regards
Hakan

P.S. 1: Any reference in above to natural persons whether in this forum or other is merely a coincidence. This forum is composed of people, who stick to merits of civilized dialogue and do not frequently castrate themselves off their reading skills in order just to play the role of antagonist.

P.S. 2: The 'complex' text is from
http://www.mtcr.info/english/guidelines.html, where any reader would find additional information.

There in the annex section (Article 1.A.2, p.10, in http://www.mtcr.info/english/Annex2005-001.doc) it says: Complete unmanned aerial vehicle systems (including cruise missile systems, target drones and reconnaissance drones) capable of delivering at least a 500 kg "payload" to a "range" of at least 300 km.

:lol: ;)

:applause:

Great post Hakan.. I had something like this in mind for a long time but you pulled the gun faster..

Wow great post indeed Hakan abi.

But abi if people cant read properly anymore, we always have the smilies to rely upon hehehhehe or I mean :lol:

I guess that Aristotle and I have been castrated...... :blink:

I find that taking on the role of the "antagonist" is more interesting then agreeing with the masses. After all, what good is and how stimulating is it to go along with the majority opinion. In fact, if one takes the opposite role, then he has to spend more mental capital to argue and sustain his point of view. Besides, how else is one going to get a more global (all around) view if one follows the beaten path?

For example......

"Getting rid of Saddam was a selfless and gracious act by the American's." Taking a stand like this in here will pit you against almost everyone. Sustaining this point of view requires far more "energy" and dare I say, much more "fun" then flowing with the masses.

On the other hand......

Taking the role of an antagonist is not for everyone. You need to have a tremendous amount of patience and self control because invariably, you will be debating your point of view against almost everyone else.

It comes to me that you're describing protagonist rather than antagonist. If we follow the Greek tragedy pattern, we'd have protagonist, antagonist, and the chorus. Chorus being the logos and ethos, and protagonist and antagonist playing the role of chaos and bios in a shifting fashion.

There is no evil in playing the role of antagonist, but here again the acts of antagonist must be in line with logos, and ethos, and especially the latter. The spirit of my post above was to underline that connection.