Before I get to the first word, I need to point out that some people who listened to the full chants were also guessing single words. Among them only one managed to identify that one of the words was part of the full chant and assign the same word as he assigned to it in the full chant. Because of that I decided to not remove these people from the results (including the guy who managed to guess).

So, first word. Here I must confess I did not manage to cut the word off properly, because I was trying very hard not to include the part I percieved as "m" in the clip, and I cut off also the part that I percieved as the "ng" sound (or maybe they were both just the same sound? considering 3. is a real option this might be the case). Anyway here we had more interesting results. Two people heard something beginning with "w", one of them even the "we" sound (although a different word). Nine people heard something starting with the "he" sound (ugh, not "he" as in "he", but "he" as in "hello", so what I meant by the "ha" sound in the original post; ugh, bloody english phonetics), three further people heard things that contained this sound. It's worth mentioning that one of the people claimed to hear the exact word I heard, but followed by another word, which seems like they were guessing, because I see no way in which they could have heard so much in this short clip. They were also one of the people who were aware of the chant (although strangely they claimed they heard the version I _did not_ hear in the full chant?!). And since I'm mentioning this, the person who claimed to have heard the "we" sound was also among the ones familiar with the chant. It is also worth pointing out that many (5/9 or 7/12) of the "he" guesses were variants of "hey" or "hello", towards which people might be biased.

The remaining six people heard mostly nonesense, although three of them also heard variants with some "h" sound.

The wide prevalence of the "h"/"he" sound is moderate evidence against 1, and about equally for 2 and 3.

The second word is apparently the least intelligible. Three people explicitly complained about unintelligibility, six made suggestions that made no sense. Four suggestions contained the "w" sound, but none of them in a way that would be compatible with one of the standard interpretations, and the only one beginning with "w" was someone incorrectly trying to guess which word from the full chant it was (lol). Three people heard the "n" sound – that's not "m", but phonetically very close, and it was always at the beginning of the word. Four people heard the "eye/I" sound as the vowel – interestingly this group is exclusive with the previous one.

This is mostly evidence for 3., but also against 1., since the phonetics align somewhat more with what I heard.

The third word is the strangest. Three people guessed that it was the third word from the chant (I missed them in the original toot where I claimed there was only one, oops... >.<), but they are almost the only people who have noticed the "(t)s" sound at the end – only two more have that sound. There is one explicit unintelligible and two terrible guesses. The remaining 12 people all correctly identified the vowel in the word we expect, but 9 of them also heard some variant of "hey", which should influence the evaluation of the first word (at least the "hey"/"hello" variants might be almost pure bias; note that there were still many others which had different h-words).

Since the "standard" interpretations agreed as to what word this is, people not recognizing it is definitely evidence for 3. On the other hand, this is not really evidence for 3 as applied to the previous two words, they might have been perfectly legible and this word only guessed from context, so it's not very strong evidence for 3 as applied to the problem we are trying to solve... And correctly identifying the vowel seems to be a pattern too...

Anyway, it seems that mostly I should assign much more weight to 3, bloody meatmech really needs an upgrade. On the other hand when the phonetic evidence pointed in a direction it was more in agreement with my interpretation. This is some evidence against me being insane, but it might also be the result of how I cut the chant into pieces?

To finish this up, the raw results I got:

* https://wuatek.tk/~timorl/dlaludzi/inne/transcripts_grouped.csv are the transcripts grouped by me as described in thee above toots.
* https://wuatek.tk/~timorl/dlaludzi/inne/transcripts_random.csv are in random order, went through shuf because I already modified the grouped file when I noticed this version would be useful <_<"

The links inside should be pointing to the files I used for the MTurk questions.

@freemo If you want to look through this yourself, you definitely want the **second** file. I know this is obvious, but stressing it to lower the chances of you accidentally biasing yourself more than needed by first looking at the first one.

Oh, and if you want to help me with all this investigation it might also be useful if you cut the chant into words the way you perceive them, preferably **before** listening to the cuts I made. I have a slight suspicion word boundaries might help me hear your version? I know this would take time though, so no pressure if you have better things to do.

@timorl Can you share the raw results before/along with your interpretation please? I think that would be useful for others to "peer review" your analysis.

@freemo Right, I'll definitely do that, I should've done this before writing my interpretations down, but I did not think of it. >.<

@timorl no worries, it is a lot harder to follow your interpritations or to evaluate them wtihout it is all.

@freemo Yup, I understand I'll write them down and post the file, so maybe don't read them beforehand if you still can? I'll tag you in the file-toot.

@timorl yea once i see the raw data ill read through your interpritation having that to compare with as i see your interpritation, and ill offer any counterpoints or agreements as I see them when i go through it.

@timorl Ok so not a big enough sample for me personally to do much with, but its a start. I would only use the full words.mp3 myself as a person needs context to pull out phrases in general.

How much did this cost you, I might be willing to throw in some money (if its cheap enough) to get a larger sample data on just the words.mp3

@freemo @timorl if its mturk you could probably get away with a couple cents per impression. jobs there are pathetically cheap.

@icedquinn Yup, I put 0.05$ per transcript, and I could have conceivably gone lower I believe.@freemo

@timorl @freemo i did some work there and transcription work ended up being something like 2$/hr, and people gave the worst quality audio imaginable.

@freemo

A bit more than 5 dollars, MTurk is terryfingly cheap.

I kind of disagree about the context helping, I would assume it increases biases (which means maybe I actually agree with your general point that it's easier for people to hear something specific with context?). I tried analyzing phonetics in the responses to specific words, which I thought from the start would give more useful results (see first toot, and some following ones where I explain parts of this reasoning).

On the other hand I really would like to hear your version of cutting the chant into separate words -- the only way I see context helping without just relying on increased biases is by making it easier to cut the phrase in a specific way, so if you suspect that is the case, then this could really help me hear your version.

@timorl Only way i could see it increasing bias is if it causes someone to identify the scene it came from and remember it. But we should already be rulling that out by asking explicitly if that is the case. Presuming, however, that they are unable to identify the setting in which the chant occured and never heard about it or saw the video then I cant see why it would increase bias.

But our brains need context to understand what is being said even in the best of circumstances. The "chinese telephone" example that is often done in schools is a great example of that, single words become distorted very quickly as they are passed on but phrases tend to remain intact and are understood and rarely become changed into something refelecting ones biases (though im sure it does happen).

@freemo There are pretty clear biases, for example expecting chants to start in a specific way (e.g. "We want..." is probably a more common way to start a chant than "Hang...", in a vacuum?) or expecting phrases to go together (e.g. maybe "Mike Pence" being more expected than "want Pence" in a vacuum?). And I still think we are in agreement here, just for some reason getting to different conclusions. It **is** easier for someone to feel they understood a phrase as a whole than a separate word, but this is precisely because of the biases they employ in interpreting the phrase. They have more context, and possibly more noise, to feed these biases, so they act strongly. In the case of separate words, the biases are still present and it's much less likely someone will be able to correctly recognize a word, but the biases will have to be based more closely on specific phonemes present, so they provide stronger evidence for these phonemes.

In other words in a longer phrase one catches a couple phonemes and treats the rest as noise to be filled by biases/priors, and the same happens in single words, but there are fewer phonemes so a smaller portion is ignored, because biases need _some_ input.

Also, if you don't want to do the cutting up of the chant (which is, as I said previously, definitely an understandable position!) I'd be grateful if you told me explicitly, so I might try finding someone else who hears what you hear and would be willing to do that.

@timorl yes but those biases dont work against what youa re testing they work for it. I remind you what your testing for from your OP:

> 1. I am so influenced by propaganda my basic senses are broken.
2. The above, but for the other participant.
3. This specific video is an auditory case of blue/black vs white/gold dress.

So you are trying to determine if people hear if we were hearing what we were hearing because its what the chant **sounded like** (not what it actually was) or if we were hearing what we were hearing due to our **personal political biases**

If you eliminate people who already know the context of the chant then you eliminated any chance of what someone hears is due to political bias, as they have no context for that. Therefore what you get when people hear the whole phrase will be what the average person, not viewing it within any politicial framework, is likely to hear "hang mike pence" or "we want pence".

If, as you say people who hear any chant are more likely to lean towards "we want pence" simply because that is a more common wording for a chant, then youa re arguing that me hearing "we want pence" is more likely **not** to be due to political bias than you hearing "hang mike pence" would be (since the latter is not what a non-political context bias would lean towards).

So in fact while the biases you describe are valid, they are also entierly in line with what you were testing for and not biases you would even want to eliminate.

@freemo I understand your reasoning for this approach, but I would argue it does not solve the basic problem I am trying to solve, which is about perceiving reality. There is an underlying reality in the words the people are chanting, and it consist of phonemes which I am trying to determine. A politically unbiased person being more likely to hear one interpretation more than the other is mostly evidence that "default" (i.e. non-political in this case) bias points towards that phrase. This might mean that a person hearing a different thing is politically biased, but it might also mean they overcame the "default" bias and heard something closer to reality. In general, if possible, determining reality is the most useful thing one can do. I am arguing that the single word approach is better at that.

Although this whole reasoning suggests that even if they actually chanted "Hang Mike Pence" then _you_ might not be politically biased much and just hearing what you hear due to the "default" bias. This would be something that could conceivably be a useful result if the full chant approach showed that most people hear something starting with "We want...".

@timorl Then you are trying to test soemthing very different then what you said you were trying to test, and thats fine.. what you are trying to test is, what was most likely actually said. Thats fine and a great thing to test, but also wouldnt tell you, then, anything about which of us is politically biased.

@freemo It would, although the best results are from both tests combined -- as I said the full chant test also has some merit in restricting the hypothesis space. That's why I did both, and not just the words test, on MTurk. Hearing something different from what was actually said is some evidence of bias, political or otherwise, and hearing something different from what most people hear is evidence of a _different bias than most people_ maybe in political ways, maybe in others. Any of them separately should change your belief in the amount of political bias you are under and combined they provide even more evidence. If I'm interested in overcoming my biases, then the words test is more interesting to me, because it is closer to reality, but that is all.

@freemo After getting some proper sleep I think I can express this more clearly.

In my original statement you focused on the "propaganda" part, while I was mostly worried about the "my basic senses are broken" part. If political propaganda would strongly move me away from general consensus, but at the same time bring me closer to reality, that would be the opposite of a problem with my politics.

Obviously in practice this is rather unlikely, and estimating the strength of political bias compared to "default" bias will be a useful thing to do. But the reasoning highlights the fact that this approach is just a proxy for what I really want, which is having my beliefs aligned with reality. It's always better to check that as directly as possible.

@freemo Oh, and I would still like to know whether you might cut up the chant the way you hear it.

@timorl yes i would cut it up the way you cut it up, but would not have picked the snipped you picked to cut up (it is the least clear of all of them IMO)

@freemo Oh, sure, feel free to pick a different one, just not amont the couple first ones before the person recording gets outside the building, they seem the most muffled. Unless these are the ones that seemed clearer to you?

Many thanks!

@timorl ill look through it again when i have a chance

For now i will say the one you picked is actually the one I'd expect to be most likely to come across as "hang mike pence" only because it is the one where the "we" which is the most distinguishing characteristic is most muffled and "mike pence" and "want pence" have similar meter.

@timorl I'd be curious to see the specific responses given, but thats not surprising. When I heard it while it did seem to sound closest to "we want pence" it also wasnt the clearest audio. I noticed this more when i tried to listen for your version of the audio while i couldnt hear what you were hearing i could fool (or not fool as the case may be) my brain into hearing it as unintelligible in certain parts.

Well at least we settled the original issue that it was not a clear cut case of chanting for death.

@freemo Eh, since you brough up the previous discussion I was curious about one more thing, still related to the chant, I hope you don't mind me asking, but if you do maybe stop reading or feel free to ignore.

How does "We want Pence" make sense as a chant? The closest I see in the context is a thinly veiled threat, instead of an explicit one. Do you see something better or is this how you understood it?

Interestingly, one of the interpretations in the file imo makes more sense as a completely non-confrotational chant (and in general as a chant in the context) -- "We want best". It's a bit stretched, but "best" as a kind-of-nickname for Trump who often insisted on being best at many things does make some sense. On the other hand, his supporters rarely call him by anything other than his name, so ehhh... a bit stretched.

@timorl

> Eh, since you brough up the previous discussion I was curious about one more thing, still related to the chant, I hope you don't mind me asking, but if you do maybe stop reading or feel free to ignore.

I dont mind you asking, and in general I dont mind you casually bringing up points from it. I just didnt want to continue a point by point that was unproductive.

> How does "We want Pence" make sense as a chant? The closest I see in the context is a thinly veiled threat, instead of an explicit one. Do you see something better or is this how you understood it?

Hard to say, since as a group they didnt exhibit any violence towards people or politicians (as we covered), and that even when violence was done against them. In fact of the 5 people killed 4 of the were unarmed pro-trump protestors, the 5th was a cop who was actively beating the crowd with his baton when he was struck. So even the data we have from the day shows that they were not violent and were far more the victim than the aggressor in terms of engaging in human violence.

So with that said it paints a picture for me what the crowd likely would have done should Pence have shown up, probably surrounded him and yelled profanities at him until he slinked away out of sight, presuming the cops didn't escalate things, as they tend to do, and start shooting or beating even more people (at which point its hard to say if he would have remained safe).

they clearly didnt like pence though and they clearly wanted to let him know that face to face. I was not implying that it was a chant to show their **support** of pence, I was only claiming that it was not a chant of murder.

> Interestingly, one of the interpretations in the file imo makes more sense as a completely non-confrotational chant (and in general as a chant in the context) -- "We want best".

I personally would dismiss this as an explanation, too stretched.

@freemo Hm, so that's pretty much the same slight-threat interpretation as I had, makes sense.

And I think we still disagree what constitutes aggressive/threatening behaviour (and maybe still a bit about facts, considering the policeman being beaten with the flag(?)pole?), but I guess this is kind of beside the point for this discussion.

@timorl

This is the first time you refered to it as threatening/aggressive behavior rather than violence. That is a big difference in my eyes. There is a huge chasm between being physically violent towards a human being vs breaking a window, one I will call violence, the other I would agree is aggressive and even threatening, but isnt violence.

There is also the matter of considering who strikes a human first in an encounter of mutual violence to determine who is in the right in my mind.

So take the example of the police officer being beaten by the flagpole.. had he at any point earlier int he day beaten people in the crowd with his baton? Every single incident i saw where a police officer was even threatened (such as the one running through the halls as people chassed him while he periodically stopped to beat them a little with his baton)... in every case it can be seen the police officer initiating the violence by beating them with their baton or similar, and only after that (and usually repeated examples of that) did the crowd respond with any level of violence.

Even then those examples are very rare, in one case we have the officer who died who was reported and admitted to be actively beating the crowd with his baton before finally being struck, and in the other case with the flagpole, which we dont have video evidence to know, but seems possible he was doing the exact same thing.

Only other physical violence of any kind I know of from the events were explicitly non-lethal but also in like kind. For example they were being actively tear/pepper gassed by police and one protestor responded by pepper spraying the police in return.

REgardless overall it appears far more violence was done on them then they did in return, as is evidence by the death toll being almost exclusively trump supporters.

@freemo I still think they were violent, I would say trying to enter a building by brute force with people standing in your way is necessarily violent. They weren't violent only when they were not being opposed. The fact that they were aggressive/threatening follows from both the violence and the (explicit or implicit) threats.

Also, I saw you linked an article claiming that Twitter blocked the "Hang Mike Pence" hashtag -- do you happen to know if "We want Pence" was trending at the same time? This seems like relevant evidence as to what was being chanted, if we have the data.

@timorl depends on how they do it.. breaking a window isnt violence against a person, someone standing in your way and you simply walking past them anyway (pushing through them) also isnt violence...

Now if someone stands in your way and you beat them with a stick till they move, then that IS violence.

Ironically the only one (for the most part) being anyone with sticks were the cops.

I would say that they "physically overpowered" the cops, I would also say that a small number of people (the ones breaking glass) were "destructive of property"... but violence towards an individual is not something that is guaranteed as a matter of course simply by walking into a building you arent allowed or walking through a line of people standing in your way, particularly when no one actually struck a cop to do it

@freemo Differentiating "physically overpowered" and deliberately walking into someone from violence seems wrong to me. You think these are things to which one cannot respond with violence? In particular this principle applied to the former seems like it would put people initiating "phisical overpowering" at a very advantegeous position, while the victim of that overpowering in a dangerous one. And applied to the latter, especially in the case of crowds, it would make any kind of crowd control impossible.

And I think we might have gotten to the crux of our disagreement, strangely. I think the above paragraph pretty well explains why I think the whole debacle was so dangerous. The insurrectionists were trying to put themselves in positions in which they were physically advantaged over congresspeople through the fact that there were many of them (a whole mob in a room). I think that preventing angry entities (whether people or mobs) from ending up in positions in which their possible victims can no longer protect themselves even through violence, can be done using violence. I mentioned this once as a basic principle of policing in most modern countries, but this is also a general rule -- if a person is forcing themselves on another person I wouldnt wait for them to throw the first punch before attempting to stop them, and I would consider the latter person already a victim of violence.

@timorl In my view if i were walking down the street and you happened to be standing in my way and I said "move" and you didnt, and i walked through you, causing you to stumble to the side unharmed, then no that isnt violence, violence implies you have been harmed in some way. If you were to respond to taht by taking a baton and bashing me over the head then I would say you were the one initiating violence.

> . And applied to the latter, especially in the case of crowds, it would make any kind of crowd control impossible.

non violent crowd control is not just possible, its far more effective., you have pepper sprays, physical barriers, sound weapons, and a host of non-violent tools that are far far more effective than physical beatings.

Keep in mind I did say someone being pushed aside, such as a cop in this case is inappropriate, and wrong.. but it isnt violence.

Ultimately its about escalation, it is absolutely unacceptable to respond to one act with another significantly more violent act.. you do not repond to someone pushing through you by beating them over the head with a stick as they did, you do not shoot them to death when unarmed and havent struck anyone, as they did, etc.

We even uphold this principle in our own laws (though sadly as of late cops are above the law), it is the law of proportionality, you are allowed to defend yourself but only with similar force as that which you are threatened. so for example shooting an unarmed non violent protest dead for bashing in a window, however wrong that may be, is not proportional and makes YOU the bad guy, not them.

@freemo Then we clearly have a very different model of what constitutes violence, or rather when violence might be an appropriate response. (Whether you think a specific action is violence is just semantics, but the response criterion is crucial.) I believe in situations in which someone with more resources is doing things which lowers my chances of defending myself from unfairness I can respond disproportionately to their actions. Agh, I think I am a bit too tired to explain this properly with examples, because it's a delicate thing and definitely needs to be carefully defined to work. And my laptop batterry is running out, aaaa, see you tomorrow (written after the below obviously lol)

And I agree that escalations are not good in general, and better ways of crowd control exist. Unfortunately the policemen seemed to be extremely underprepared for what happened, and couldn't have employed less violent and more appropriate measures because of that. That's also why I was stressing multiple times that an investigation into why they were so underprepared is crucial -- were they better prepared, almost surely fewer people would have died.

@freemo And to express my thoughts a bit more clearly here too:

I wanted to write a very long post about general philosophy and sociology of law here, but I think it's a bit much for a toot (even with my love for creating walls of text). So the very short version is – we, as humanity, have worked very hard to figure out when escalations of violence (treated as a spectrum not a binary thing it this case; maybe aggression would be a better word? I hope you know what I mean) are a good thing to allow within a society. At this point it's relatively clear that in most cases it's much better to deescalate rather than escalate, but there are several relatively obvious exceptions. The clearest one is probably theft – it seems generally agreed upon that someone attempting to steal something can be stopped through violence, at least of the restraining kind. With pure proportional response, the only option would be to be allowed to steal something back, but a society in which such payback-stealing would be the only recourse for theft victims would not be a nice one to live in. And that's without even going into problems around the value of stolen items, and how it differs between the people involved.

Oh, and in most modern societies one of the roles of police is to handle all the cases where escalation was deemed appropriate, to prevent visious circles of escalation. Just a sidenote to avoid some confusion that might have appeared here.

To get closer to the problem at hand and clarify what my general positions on escalations in this case is, let me give an example. Say someone is trying to push through me while I'm standing in the door to my house. If that person is not stronger than me, I can just prevent them from entering by standing my ground, and this is the ideal situation – no escalation. If they are much weaker than me, I can even let them in to possibly deescalate and then figure out how to get them out later, possibly with use of some violence if necessary, but hopefully without much conflict at all. But if they are much stronger than me, then preventing them from entering becomes much more important – after they entered I (and additionally people present in my house) would be in an even worse position to do anything about that person. In such a case I would say escalating violence might be the correct course of action, depending on the difference in strength and the expected intentions of the pushing person – if I don't escalate now, the next time I could escalate I would not only be in a worse position, but also the person might already have done some damage. If that person already expressed anger at the people in my house, I would most likely feel justified in using violence to prevent them from entering. If they issued direct threats towards the people in my house the case is so clear cut it can probably be used to teach the art of jewelery making.

I would say the Capitol situation is pretty analogous at the very least to the anger case, up to the threat case, depending on what exactly they were chanting. The mob was big enough that it was stronger than the police, and so violent response was justified. It would _not_ have been justified if police presence was adequate, since this would have been analogous to the situation where I can just stand my ground, which is again why I am stressing why the investigation into _why_ the police presence was so low is so important.