lies are parasitic on truth, and so the habitual liar destroys the world of communication that they depend on; to the extent that community continues, it establishes communication lines that exclude the liar, who is fed back the lies that he projects. — unenlightened

So the US military, DoD, and government are a collection of honest, open individuals working toward collective goals? I don't buy it.

The US has managed to gain one of the most effective militaries in the world and it's done it via a system which is as corrupt, dishonest and individualist as any. It's done it because it wants to win, and anyone who wants to win (hubristic liar or not) will obtain the knowledge and equipment required for that purpose (to the extent they have the means to).

I get what you're saying about hubris and lies. Yes, it will ultimately destroy the system it creates, but the issue here is much more specific. It's a question of the exact mechanism in play - more like choosing which route to collapse.

I'm not saying it's implausible that Putin has this private imperialist agenda which he's somehow unable to adequately prepare for because he's been too hubristic to listen to advice. That makes some sense. But it doesn't make so much sense that all other interpretations are apologist fantasy... that's the point I'm making here.

He knows – through a successful cult of personality and a clever policy of information autocracy – that he has the people with him. He has made the fascist connection between leader and the led.

But the consequence of that is the state machinery has become too corrupt and inefficient to execute any war plan. — apokrisis

These are the two narratives I can't seem to square.

Putin has been in power for a long time. Against the wishes of the population (otherwise there'd be no need for the political suppression). That means either he's a useful puppet, or the military are on his side. In any other case he'd have been ousted.

So the idea of a leader hell bent (or even 70% bent) on imperial expansion, with a compliant military, being nonetheless unable to get it to make fairly simple training and strategic adjustments, stamp out a bit of corruption, and invest in the right kit... Seems absurd.

He can get the army to launch a full scale invasion even despite massive losses, but he can't get then to do some training?

He can pocket billions for himself out of the economy, but can't divert enough to buy the right tanks?

He can stamp out any political opposition, even in other countries, even to the point of murder, but he can't clean up a couple of incompetent generals and corrupt arms manufacturers?

It's not as if he even has a very high target. The US DoD is hardly a meritocracy is it?

All this against the alternative narrative that the Russian army is crap because Putin simply wasn't interested in using it to expanded his empire. And no one has yet given me any reason at all to reject that much simpler explanation.

What I do have, though is a reason to reject the 'hubristic imperialist' narrative. It's precisely the narrative the US arms manufacturers need to peddle to justify their lucrative drip feed of weapons. That alone counts strongly against such a narrative.

Maybe he acts in the belief that if he can just stir up enough chaos, then the worst that could happen is Europe also becomes brought down by it too. You don't need to roll your tanks into Latvia and Poland. You just need to wreck energy and food supply chains for one winter. Quite likely you will have economic collapse, hard right power grabs, a meltdown that cripples the EU. — apokrisis

This I can definitely see as being plausible. Like I said, I think he's an opportunist and Europe's twin reliance on Russian gas but also US foreign policy gave him ample opportunity. Let's not pretend the sanctions aren't crippling Europe too, but they have to also be 'all in' on any US venture. Again, none of this takes genius-level strategising, its stuff any half-competent political advisor would suggest.

But, importantly, this hypothesis doesn't have Putin aiming for total control over Ukraine either. It would just be a completely unnecessary headache. Kill Zelensky perhaps, that would sow a good bit of chaos, but take over the whole country...? To what end? He's already got the wealth-generating parts, he's made a big dint in EU stability, made America look more authoritarian than it would like... I can't think what he'd expect to gain additionally from more territory.


But...having said all that, I'm far less interested in the actual theories than I am in the social psychology around the way they're expressed. The in-group censorship, the exclusion of experts by laymen, the maintenance of inconsistent narratives, the suspension of critical thought... All this is going to have consequences, long after Russia finally hobbles home with Crimea and a puppet in Dombas.

My understanding of this war is that Putin, an opportunistic kleptocrat, saw an opportunity, in the machinations of US imperialism, to consolidate his power (and more importantly his wealth) by taking control over key strategic areas of Ukraine. He did this with an army that are neither saints nor monsters, one that is neither useless nor brilliant, but rather just exactly the kind of army we'd expect an ex-superpower to have left over - big, quite brutish, damaging, but perhaps not as sophisticated as the US military.

I'm told this narrative is not only wrong, but so wrong that believing it makes me some kind of Putin apologist. I'm struggling to see how the information you're providing doesn't just fit that narrative perfectly.

What it doesn't seem to match is a powerful dictator with an imperialist ambition strong enough to drive his army to war, but somehow too weak to get them to look on the internet for tips on how to win.

The problem with being entirely dishonorable and untrustworthy is that you can't get your opponent to accept a cease fire, especially when they're on a roll — frank

That's bullshit. Were fucking selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. We've dealt with the most ruthless despots when it suits us. And there'd be a de facto Ukrainian ceasefire the very second we cut off the weapon supply. So any notion that the failure of negotiations is somehow all on Russia's unique lack of honour is blatant crap. They're all dishonourable, from Putin to Biden to Zelensky. Our own recent addition to the cabal is a fucking sociopath.

This also depends on the leadership recognizing that "taking the gloves of" and allowing their soldiers to engage in these behaviors isn't a winning strategy, because it has very deleterious effects on discipline. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, if you're publishing this information on a free internet forum, then presumably it's in the public domain. Do Russian generals not have internet access?

Russia's military spending is very high compared to the size of its economy (about the same as Spain). It's very low compared to the opponents it says it wants to be the peers of. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So 'empire-building on a budget', that's the narrative you're going with? Putin's prepared to make the entire country an international pariah, run it into the ground for his imperial ambitions, but he's going to do so with a keen eye on the purse strings because...

that this money was clearly largely stolen or misused. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly. Largely by the likes of Putin and his cronies (and enemies, of course). It's this notion that Putin is anything other than an opportunistic kleptocrat that I'm finding hard to reconcile with what you're telling me about their military failures.

Putin has created a kleptocracy. It's not the people themselves. — ssu

Then from whom, with whom and by whose permit was such a catastrophe of a state created. You guys really need to get your Putin story straight. A minute ago the man could barely see two steps ahead now he's singlehandedly running the entire Russian military, and somehow taken control of an entire nation against their will.

many Russians understand that they attacked Ukraine, a country which didn't threaten them in any way. The reaction from the Russian people and the fighting spirit of the Russian soldier would be different, if... — ssu

I don't see what morale has to do with military strategy from years ago, but notwithstanding, are the Russian soldiers ruthless thugs or reluctant pacifists? Half and half? Do any of them just mistakenly believe Putin, or are they all angels or devils?

The problem with authoritarian systems is that over time the leader often gets very disconnected from reality. I would not be surprised with the Russian command had no real idea how many men they've lost, nor that they lie to Put in about how many they think that figure truly is. The information he receives is going to be fair removed from reality. On top of that, he's an old man who supposedly has cancer and a degenerative brain disease. I'm not going to assume his decision making is entirely rational. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But this isn't about Putin, it's about basic military strategy and procurement. Do you seriously think Putin is directly in charge of what tanks to buy and how much ammunition to stick them with? One man can't micromanage an entire country.

Putin faces the nightmare scenerio for dictators, his interests in winning the war, even at extremely high costs, are rapidly becoming more divergent from Russia's national interests. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What on earth would his personal interests be here? Putin is going to retire on a fat pile of kleptocratic wealth no matter what. Why would he give a shit about Ukraine?

even if he wanted to have a strong military, the political organization he has fostered is not designed to create one. A strong military requires cutting edge technological innovation, which requires an open society and an ability for people to dissent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Go on... I can't see the mechanism here.

Developing good strategy and tactics also requires a meritocratic system and an ability for people to dissent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not at all, that much is unquestionable. Good tactics, in this case, requires only that he read the philosophy forum. Clearly this information is public knowledge, nothing more than an internet connection is required to obtain it.

Russia modernized and had a per capita GDP more in line with say Spain, it would be able to create a more effective military. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But Russia's military spending is really high isn't it? Why would more GDP be required?

Hence the theory isn't that Putin chose a crappy army. More like the crappy Russian system couldn't make it any better — ssu

Ah, that generalised Russian uselessness we hear so much about. An entire nation just generally a bit crap. A far more plausible explanation for Putin's crappy army than the alternative theory that Putin didn't put much effort into making an empire-conquering land invasion force because he had no major plans for any empire conquering.

Just remind me again why that's the more plausible theory... (assuming, of course, the fact that it just so happens to better enrich one of the most influential industries in the world is just a coincidence).

And just to drag us out of your Wikipedia-polluted mire back to the point...the argument was actually about a strategic decision (too much ammunition in tanks). I was asking why the Russians continued with a tactic that is widely known to be wrong. I suppose that's to do with their genetic uselessness too? Poor Russians.

You'll have to fill in a few blanks for me. The theory is that an almost complete autocrat obsessed with expanding his empire has, nevertheless, knowingly let his army decay to the point of malfunction and lets them use military strategies that even the denizens of an internet philosophy forum know are flawed? He's chosen this strategy above say, using his autocratic power to build up the best military possible for his expansionist plans?

Your theory as to why he's chosen this 'crappy army' approach to imperial expansion...? A cunning bluff, perhaps?

Everybody agrees with that. The majority also believe that Putin is ideologically committed to expanding the Russian empire. :smirk: — ssu

So what, he's going to do so by stealth? Steal Latvia while they're all out?

Because Russian arms manufacturers are incompetent and tests likely get rigged. There is plenty of other evidence for this. Putin is pounding the table about nuclear war and mobilizing old men, yet the Su-57 and T-14 are nowhere to be seen except parades. This implies they don't actually work. Why would you be using T-62s if you have functional stealth super tanks? — Count Timothy von Icarus

So you're not on board with the idea that Putin is ideologically committed to expanding the Russian empire militarily?

It's not exactly classified that there is a trade off between how many munitions you pack into any vehicle and how likely it is to suffer catastrophic cook off if it is hit by an explosive. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's not your claim though is it? Your claim was that they packed too much, not that they made an informed decision about the trade off between pros and cons. I'm asking why they didn't know it was too much if you, and apparently the rest of the world knew.

Well, now what? — jorndoe

Nothing whatsoever I should think...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/13/oil-gas-producers-first-quarter-2022-profits

Do you see any reason there why anyone in power would want to for anything at all about this situation?

Russia just tends to stock their stuff with too much ammunition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. So, if you know this, and you're not committing treason by openly saying it on the internet, then how is it that Russian generals don't know it too?

What mechanism is in place whereby you can freely talk about this tactical insight on a public internet forum yet the information somehow remains hidden from one of the larger intelligence agencies in the world?

Fucks sake man. You complain about strawmanning then you go ahead and treat...

Russian language and culture suppression ... is likely to attract the Kremlins attention — boethius

...as...

Russian language and culture suppression made Putin do it!!! — ssu

Come on! Nowhere in the argument laid out is there even the slightest hint that these factors in any way compelled Putin to act. If you guys really can't come up with any more serious objection than this lame attempt to make any Western-critical analysis sound pro-Putin then it really is pointless your taking part in a discussion forum on the topic. If all you want is an echo chamber, try Facebook.

Has anyone done any sums yet? — unenlightened

The place will be empty by next Thursday. All 145 million of them citing the fact that they suddenly realised that killing innocent people is bad. Most said they had no idea until they read some earnest Westerners clarifying the matter for them on Twitter.

Of course I wouldn't dream of doing any actual factual analysis about war crimes before the most important matters are dealt with. I'd get straight on to social media without delay and make sure everyone knew just how very much I thought war crimes were bad...

...then I'd get the calculator out...

They all tell the same story: not interested in committing war crimes, thank you very much. I thought they would say they are saving their skin, but it seems they primarily don't want to take part in what they rightly see as a crime. — Olivier5

Wow. According to my back of the envelope calculations; with a 1% margin of error, to 99% confidence you'd need a sample of 15556 to be able to make such a claim of 250,000 people. You have been busy haven't you!

I've been meaning to ask you as an actual professional of these things what would need to be proven for a judge to consider an actor "irrational". — boethius

It's not often used that way, but in terms of 'capacity' it's largely to do with the retention and repetition of relevant data rather then the outcomes or methods. If someone can be shown to repeatedly fail to recall, or make use of, information that is clearly consequential to the outcome of a decision, then they may be said to lack the capacity to make that decision rationally. They can get it 'wrong' as often as they like, it doesn't really enter into the legal framework.

Mistakes are, as you say, very difficult to judge. This is especially true of an autocrat like Putin. He's not the state, he's a person, which means he'll have his own agenda which may or may not have anything to do with the perpetuation of the Russian state.

I think this is right, but there might be limits. There's nothing algorithmic about the phrase "put the kettle on" which somehow forces my brain to understand the request. Someone standing next to the hob at around 4 o'clock and saying "put the cat on" would do the same job, or if they Yoda-like decided to say "the kettle put you on". Id' still get it, despite the weird grammar. But if they said "the sun is bright", I might not think they mean for me to put the kettle on no matter what the contextual clues.

So the question (I think) is whether the language provides certainty or uncertainty in that scenario. Does some expression like "put the kettle on" clue me in to what's going on, or did I know what was going on anyway but an expression like "the sun's bright" would throw me off, make me doubt. My feeling is generally the latter, not the former. It's difficult to see how we could enter a perceptual environment without expectations (perception doesn't really work without expectations, including aural perception - it's a mess without it). So, given we have expectations about what's going to be said, what's expected of us, how all the components of a scene are going to behave, we're simply then in the business of harvesting data from the most pertinent sources to confirm the hypothesis. With speech, we're going to be listening for key words and vocal tones, we're not going to even be taking in the rest of the sentence, it's wasted processing power.

As such, I don't see much of a role for externally specific patterns governing the meaning of speech, it seems a completely superfluous layer of specificity, it's just not required for the job.

by continuing to do what it has done now — ssu

...and then?

Ukraine continues to win back territory as it has been doing, rebutting Russian advances as it has been. Go on with your story...What does Russia do next in your version of 'How Ukraine Wins'?

This also reads like fiction.

I really think people here have a tendency to extrapolate all sorts of stories from a minimum of facts. — Benkei

To be fair to @boethius, the question he was answering was a request for...

a geopolitical account by which [Putin] might be understood as a rational actor.

...not necessarily a wholesale agreement with such an assessment. The point is to show how it's a perfectly plausible theory, and it does indeed has many plausible aspects.

One bit of rhetoric that seems to linger even in critiques is this idea that things like sensible long-term strategies, plans B (or C, or D), feints, bluffs, preparations etc require some kind of strategic mastermind. They don't. They're all quite normal tools in any governments tool-box. It would be a surprise to find them absent from Russian planning, it's not remotely a surprise to find them there.

Putin can be a mediocre autocrat and still have more than one reserve plan, he can be clouded by ambition and still think strategically a few years ahead, these aren't difficult tasks.

It's part of the Western propaganda to paint a prepared Russia as being implausible so as to maintain the 'victory is just around the corner' spin we hear so many here obediently regurgitating. To further that end, this narrative had been spread that anyone suggesting Russia is prepared must think Putin is a genius (and therefore must be a Putin supporter!). It doesn't take a genius to adequately prepare for war. It takes a mid-level bureaucrat with a modicum of facilities at his disposal.

when it's Russian leaders not keeping their promises and mobilizing their reservists, nope, he hasn't got anything to say. — ssu

No one has presented any arguments to the contrary. There's nothing to say.

What is this obsession with having every thought committed to social media? Do you also find it odd that I haven't declared to the world how I feel about my breakfast?

Someone wrote an OP on conscription in Ukraine. I responded. I presume that's what people expect when they write an OP.

If you want to discuss the Russian conscription, write a post about it. If I disagree with you, I'll respond.

Otherwise, could you and @Olivier5 please desist from trying to divine what I think based on what I don't write. This is a discussion forum, not my fucking diary.

Oh, and just for @Jamal here's the report about Zelensky's prisoner release in Ukrainian (linked to directly as a source in the Grayzone article, but we'll skip over the completely unjustified and unsubstantiated accusations of reliance on english language propaganda).

https://focus.ua/uk/amp/ukraine/521825-osuzhdennyy-za-pytki-byvshiy-kombat-tornado-onishchenko-vyshel-na-svobodu-eks-nardep

I translated it using a little known facility called Google Translate. Of course I had to infiltrate a Liberal Democrat conference to find out about this obscure tool, but I made it out alive to bring this new magic called 'translation' to us tankies. Vive La Revolution!

That wasn't what I asked. I asked about your derogatory use of the term 'Putinists'. Does it apply to Gabuev when he concludes that the protests are too small to be much of a threat, or only to us?

We're been out of the loop Isaac, to comment on geopolitics one must know every single living language, as well as all the dead ones for context. — boethius

Ha! Yes. Lucky for those fluent Russian speakers we have here that the issue of the day is to do with Russia. I wondered why there was so little talk of what's going on in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Venezuela, Brazil...

Little did I realise everyone is wisely refraining from comment from not knowing the native language.

Isaac is going to tell us how criminal such a decision was, any moment now. — Olivier5

Unlike your good self, I don't feel the need to use discussion forums just to tell the world how I feel about things. If someone wants to put forward a proposal that what Putin's doing is fine and normal, I'll happily critique it, but no, as yet I don't have this narcissistic driving passion to inform the world at large how I feel about every damn thing happening in it.

On the international left, almost nobody knows Russian, and even less Ukrainian — Zbigniew Kowalewski

What a bizarre critique. Does your source go on to say why Centrists know more Russian? Is it just Russian? Do leftists know more Swahili than Centrists? Are the Right Wing mysteriously fluent in Turkish, but haven't a clue what's being said in Hebrew?

According to our Putinists, No Problem! — ssu

So you'd include Gabuev as a Putinist then? Interesting assessment...

the scale of resistance is too small to present a real danger to Putin. — Alexander Gabuev

...or is it only Putinist when we say it?

More 'anecdotal' videos... — ssu

There's no need for the scares quotes, they are literally anecdotal videos.

Do you think Gabuev is wrong then, when he says...

the scale of resistance is too small to present a real danger to Putin.

...?

Interesting article. Fairly typical of the western response trying to tie itself in knots. So...

These actions are unlikely to deliver victory

Phew! Incompetent, stupid Russians can just be left to fail embarrassingly, should be good for a laugh. Except, for some reason these manifestly failure-ridden actions...

increase the risk of a potential collision between Russia and Nato.

Struggling to see why on earth NATO would get involved against actions so manifestly destined to fail anyway. Still, moving on...

The Kremlin hopes that this combination of annexation and nuclear blackmail will make the US and European leaders rein in their military support for Ukraine

...which won't happen, of course... what with Putin's stupid plan destined for failure and all. Same with the strategy to...

continue to attack random targets in Ukraine with the single goal of preventing the country’s reconstruction.

...not going to actually work, so no cause for alarm yet... Although, myself, I must admit, I'm struggling to see how a country that's being simultaneously destroyed and threatened with nuclear weapons is in the clear. Maybe it's the immanent downfall of Russia internally the author's got in mind?

the scale of resistance is too small to present a real danger to Putin.

Nope. Not that then. Ah ha! We finally have the answer, the reason Putins' idiotic plans are all destined for failure. It's those plucky Ukrainians, of course...

The reality, however, is that Ukraine has both agency as a highly-motivated fighting force and nearly unlimited moral capital in the west. Not only will the Ukrainian army not vacate the territories annexed by Moscow, it is very likely to redouble its efforts to liberate more territory before the Russian reinforcements arrive.

The author here is a little shy on details. It's not quite made clear how the heroism of Ukrainian armies are going to fend off...

use of tactical nuclear weapons.

...nor do anything at all, once...

the US and European leaders rein in their military support for Ukraine

...but we are, by the end of the article, reassured that we can rest easy in our beds, assured that the bumbling incompetence of the Russian bullying is no match for the plucky heroism of the Ukrainian army. Phew!

Only...

we enter the most frightening chapter of this crisis yet, Nato leaders face difficult choices.

Hang on! I thought we were barely involved. Isn't it those super independent Ukrainians who face the difficult choices? What choices NATO leaders face is left something of a mystery for a war we're barely involved in and couldn't do anything about anyway (what with all the Ukrainian agency and all).

Perhaps it's all in the

minutiae — ssu

...?

You criticise a source by posting an unsourced criticism of that source? — boethius

I found it. It's Wikipedia, for evidence citing a Times article about the BBC pursuit of Tim Hayward (who cited Grayzone). A pursuit for which they later had to offer a full apology after complaints of bias.

It writes itself...

And this is the Websites Isaac uses: — ssu

Ha! Thought you'd like that one (of course the news was reported in major British newspapers like the Telegraph too, but the Grayzone version's more punk)

Very partisan. Not like your "well-respected think tank" CSIS, with their...

funding from defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and General Atomics.[36]

Significant funding has come from the governments of Japan, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates. — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies

With Wagner group searching jails for volunteers, I think this is very typical how Russians have organized these wars: chaotic and unprepared. — ssu

Uh huh. Whereas this...

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/07/30/zelensky-militants-convicted-child-rape-torture-military/

...is presumably a genius move from a well organised war machine?

Every (philosophical) discussion on TPF becomes the same discussion, if it has enough time to get there. It’s kinda depressing, to be honest. — Srap Tasmaner

That's not depressing, it's brilliant. You've discovered the attractor of philosophical discourse.

I meant them both the way I said. The 'should' part is a statement of how things ought to be. The latter statement was one about how things (correctly) are — noAxioms

I see. I'm struggling to see the moral imperative for a non-owner to have no input deciding where the profits are allocated. Is there some harm you foresee arising from such an input? Or is there some virtue being neglected if a non-owner has an input?

A tiny majority? Let's see what that "tiny majority" is like? — ssu

Yes, let's see...

estimated

expected

some

...oh well, maybe later, eh?

I think it's likely we can determine when it is badly executed e.g., when people make calls on life decisions based on someone's hair color or on numerology, or on what a clairvoyant tells them. — Tom Storm

I agree. I think this is where relevant expertise comes in - not that 'relevance' isn't a judgement in itself, but this comes down to what you say here...

To me it seems to be about a web of information which comes together to provide a kind of coherence and satisfaction. — Tom Storm

Matters like relevance, qualification, trustworthiness... all rely on a web of prior beliefs (that qualification is a measure of likelihood of being right, that universities fairly accurately measure that qualification, that subject matters in institutions are well-delineated... etc). The notion here is that any proposition can be seen as being at the end of a very, very long sentence (a Ramsey sentence), that starts with "If...." - followed by all the priors.

Do you have a tentative model for identifying when judgements are likely to be well founded? — Tom Storm

Much as yours it seems. I think there's actually a very wide range of factors we take into account, but that including them all become a sort of habit such that when we're clear-headed, we follow this 'habit' and it leads to more successful beliefs on average.

The problem with explicating this habit further is that it doesn't seem to be able to escape from the circularity of judgement. We could say it involved coherence, lack of bias, open-mindedness... but you can see all those properties are also themselves judgements. Two people (or even one person from day-to-day) are unlikely to fully agree as to what to beliefs cohere, whether bias applies, how 'open' one's mind need be etc.

It seems to me the most we can say is that when a judgement is wrong, it's likely to be wrong because of one of those factors (there's probably a few others too), but we can't compare two judgements and say which will be right by looking at those measures.

I do find though, in my experience, that people generally can tell the difference between a clear-headed judgement and one that has been made by, for example, following the crowd, or relying on tradition, something like that. The difference seems to be that people can rarely provide reasoning for the latter types of judgement. I'm not, myself, convinced that judgements are the result of these reasons, but being able to provide them, even if post hoc, seems to be a distinguishing feature of the more clear-headed decisions.

Thanks. One of the aspects of psychology I'm interested in is how people make judgments like that, particularly ones which seem to inform beliefs. I think people often take for granted the idea that some process is taking place which has some hook into the real world (such that following it is more likely to yield truer beliefs than not doing so would), but I find very few people can explain what they think that mechanism is nor how it works.

Some arguments just seem to sound more 'convincing' than others, but without being able to put a finger on exactly why.

Take the so-called many worlds theory versus the Copenhagen interpretation. In this instance it's a case of buggered if I know. But I do know on judgement I am more likely to accept Sean Carroll than Deepak Chopra. — Tom Storm

Yes, I feel much the same way. Partly expertise, partly a gut feeling that Chopra is somehow 'selling' something in a way I don't like. But also in there is the fact that accepting Chopra's version pulls on the threads of my other beliefs in a way that Carroll's version doesn't. I simply have to do less work to believe Carroll.