Battle of Manticore - am I the only one?

Dafmeister wrote:Hi Don,

I'll strip the quotes out this time, before we end up using a page per post

1) Tunnel vision is definitely part of the problem. What we seem to disagree about is whether that tunnel vision was understandable, which is driven by the rest of the discussion. So...

2) What Bardasano thinks isn't really pertinent here. We're not discussing what the Alignment would have done had they been able to do, we're discussing whether or not Manticore should have viewed Manpower (not the Alignment) as a suspect in the assasination of Webster, the attempt on Honor and the attack on Torch. For that, we have to restrict ourselves to what Manticore knew at the time, and they didn't know the Alignment existed, or that Bardasano was a senior member of it.

3) I agree that Webster was going after Manpower over Monica/Talbott, but again, I don't see that it was anything unusual. Manpower, Jessyk, Technodyne etc have done that sort of thing before, often as proxies for OFS. It's in that context that Webster is going after them - it's just the latest example of criminal behaviour by Manpower and its corporate cronies. Nothing the galaxy hasn't seen a dozen times before.

4) I don't the the Manticoran government assumed Haven was the culprit; they defaulted back to Haven, in spite of the oddities you've raised, for lack of a credible alternative. One of the things I like about the Honorverse is that sometimes people do things for reasons that other people don't understand, and the Manticoran government understands that; the fact that they don't understand why Haven would do something doesn't mean that Haven wouldn't do it. After all, they didn't understand why Haven would have tampered with the prewar diplomatic correspodence, but they 'knew' that Haven had done just that.

5) Your argument would make sense here if we had any textev of such a feud existing, but we don't (unless I've missed something). The nearest we have is Allison's kidnapping, and that was an attempt to subvert a BSC officer - the fact that he was a Benton-Ramirez y Chou was icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I don't recall seeing anything in the text of there being a history of Manpower/Mesan attacks on the descendants of those three families.

Hi Dafmeister,

Thanks for a nicely laid out post. Just a couple of things Im going to say further and as far as I am concerned call it a draw... or, who knows? Maybe you won the exchange!!!

I would stress that I wasn't ruling out Haven as a suspect. I am only saying they should have looked harder for the alternatives, looking back in retrospect.

You are right; there is no further textev on the feud to which I refered. And I'm not saying that there were other incidents beyond what was mentioned. But I would point out that we do have some at least indirect evidence of the antipathy (maybe antipathy is a better word than feud) to which I refered in Jacque's motivation to join the BSC and in Allison's conversation with her Emily over whether Emily wants to become a mom: she's a Benton Raimeriz y Chow, THAT family. Honor has imbibed her attitudes about genetic slavery from her mother's milk!!!

Nuff on this one. Again thanks. I enjoyed the exchange!

Don

Most of my Honorverse friends are Romanian doctors living in Bucharest. This topic interests them and their angle on it takes a clinical approach. What was submitted amongst the group as Exhibit A, and the basis for their discussion ...

Home » News » Psychology News » Why Do We Root for the Underdog?


Why Do We Root for the Underdog?
By PSYCH CENTRAL NEWS EDITOR
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on December 24, 2007
CrowdWhy do people root for the underdog and find underdogs appealing?

Researchers propose that those who are viewed as disadvantaged arouse people’s sense of fairness and justice — important principles to most people.

The researchers also found that people tend to believe that underdogs put forth more effort than top-dogs, but that favorable evaluation disappeared when the underdog status no longer applies, such as when people are expected to lose but have a lot of available resources.

In a series of studies, researchers Joseph A. Vandello, Nadav P. Goldschmied, and David A. R. Richards of the University of South Florida tested the scope of people’s support for those who are expected to lose. The researchers were seeking to understand why people are drawn to the Rocky Balboas and the Davids (versus Goliaths) of the world.

Using both sports and political examples, the researchers asked study participants to react to various scenarios presenting different competitors with an advantage or disadvantage. For instance, in one study using the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, the participants were given the same essay about the history of the area, but with different maps to reference — one showing Palestine as smaller than Israel (and thus, the underdog) and the other showing Israel as smaller.

No matter what scenario the participants were presented with, they consistently favored the underdog to win.

The article appears in the current issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

It is interesting that even within this thread are differing views on favoring sides, that possibly imply differing views, if even subconsciously, on the perceived underdog.

Who is the underdog? Is it Manticore with its limited resources, people and ships? Or is the underdog actually Haven, with its inferior education system and technology?

Apparently people assimilate it differently. It's an interesting discussion, what I caught of it. And this angle completely slipped by my radar. It allows a glimpse into the minds of the clinically challenged, I suppose.

Kudos to all of you, for adding the spice of intellectual variety.

Hi Cthia,

Again welcome back.

The breadth of characters that post here, who have all led dramatically different lives, that made each unique and so also their contributions, are crucial to what make these forums so stimulating, as I first found on the bar about ten years ago, after reading everything and desperate for any further word from the MWW, like his pearls.

I'm looking forward to more medical insights and humor from your friends and family.

Perhaps a thread might ask who is the underdog in the series to chart shifts, including how long have you felt that way, etc.

For me it would be Manticore from the beginning, and hasn't shifted since despite the great Haven characters, now gratefully all the good guys [with the exception of some FF and a couple OFS] are again all on the same side.

I suspect RFC will introduce worthy MAlign characters in the next book, we shall see.

L

cthia wrote:Most of my Honorverse friends are Romanian doctors living in Bucharest. This topic interests them and their angle on it takes a clinical approach. What was submitted amongst the group as Exhibit A, and the basis for their discussion ...

Home » News » Psychology News » Why Do We Root for the Underdog?


Why Do We Root for the Underdog?
By PSYCH CENTRAL NEWS EDITOR
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on December 24, 2007
CrowdWhy do people root for the underdog and find underdogs appealing?

Researchers propose that those who are viewed as disadvantaged arouse people’s sense of fairness and justice — important principles to most people.

The researchers also found that people tend to believe that underdogs put forth more effort than top-dogs, but that favorable evaluation disappeared when the underdog status no longer applies, such as when people are expected to lose but have a lot of available resources.

In a series of studies, researchers Joseph A. Vandello, Nadav P. Goldschmied, and David A. R. Richards of the University of South Florida tested the scope of people’s support for those who are expected to lose. The researchers were seeking to understand why people are drawn to the Rocky Balboas and the Davids (versus Goliaths) of the world.

Using both sports and political examples, the researchers asked study participants to react to various scenarios presenting different competitors with an advantage or disadvantage. For instance, in one study using the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, the participants were given the same essay about the history of the area, but with different maps to reference — one showing Palestine as smaller than Israel (and thus, the underdog) and the other showing Israel as smaller.

No matter what scenario the participants were presented with, they consistently favored the underdog to win.

The article appears in the current issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

It is interesting that even within this thread are differing views on favoring sides, that possibly imply differing views, if even subconsciously, on the perceived underdog.

Who is the underdog? Is it Manticore with its limited resources, people and ships? Or is the underdog actually Haven, with its inferior education system and technology?

Apparently people assimilate it differently. It's an interesting discussion, what I caught of it. And this angle completely slipped by my radar. It allows a glimpse into the minds of the clinically challenged, I suppose.

Kudos to all of you, for adding the spice of intellectual variety.

Dafmeister wrote:5) Your argument would make sense here if we had any textev of such a feud existing, but we don't (unless I've missed something). The nearest we have is Allison's kidnapping, and that was an attempt to subvert a BSC officer - the fact that he was a Benton-Ramirez y Chou was icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I don't recall seeing anything in the text of there being a history of Manpower/Mesan attacks on the descendants of those three families.

Also while Manpower might have a dislike for those 3 families for the long and prominent (and effective) anti-slavery stance, nothing had changed recently.

Sure the board of Manpower would probably feel some satisfaction to hear that a prominent member of any of those families had come to a bad end. But you have to ask what changed that assassination made sense now?
So I agree with you that there just isn't a strong case to suspect Manpower of particularly wanting to assassinate Honor then.


We come back to the fact that as far as we know Honor hasn't done or advocated anything recently to make herself a renewed thorn in the side for Manpower. And access to her was harder now that it had been in the past (when she had more recently performed direct anti-slavery operations).
If there had been and assassination attempt again Honor not long after she led the attack on the Casimir slave depot then Manpower would have been a leading suspect (even though, as far as we know, assassinating Manticoran Naval Captains isn't their normal MO - not even ones that shut down slave depots)

At that time they'd have had much more recent and direct injury, and she'd have been a relatively simple target. But attempting to assassinate her on her flagship in the middle of the most powerful fleet in the galaxy, when she hadn't recently done anything against Manpower?

For what you suggest is no better reason than general dislike for her family? Then why her, and not other more recently active anti-slavery activity members (like her uncle in the BSC), or less protected targets?
And if her, why then and not some time when they wouldn't have to break out and risk exposing crazy nanotech.



On the other hand, right then she was more critical than usual to Manticore's war effort against Haven. It was partly her reputation that was letting Manticore get away with their plan to use raids to divert and delay Haven long enough to get the python lump built; which could significantly close the combat power gap between Manticore and Haven. Eliminating Honor would be a direct blow to that strategy, both because it would almost certainly delay the next raids, but also because even with another skilled commander 8th fleet won't seem quite the boogyman. Haven should feel less pressure to stand on the defensive and try to be strong everywhere 8th fleet might attack.

So there appear to be direct and immediate benefits to Haven if Honor was assassinated then; I have trouble seeing any matching benefits for Manpower.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:5) Your argument would make sense here if we had any textev of such a feud existing, but we don't (unless I've missed something). The nearest we have is Allison's kidnapping, and that was an attempt to subvert a BSC officer - the fact that he was a Benton-Ramirez y Chou was icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I don't recall seeing anything in the text of there being a history of Manpower/Mesan attacks on the descendants of those three families.

Also while Manpower might have a dislike for those 3 families for the long and prominent (and effective) anti-slavery stance, nothing had changed recently.

Sure the board of Manpower would probably feel some satisfaction to hear that a prominent member of any of those families had come to a bad end. But you have to ask what changed that assassination made sense now?
So I agree with you that there just isn't a strong case to suspect Manpower of particularly wanting to assassinate Honor then.


We come back to the fact that as far as we know Honor hasn't done or advocated anything recently to make herself a renewed thorn in the side for Manpower. And access to her was harder now that it had been in the past (when she had more recently performed direct anti-slavery operations).
If there had been and assassination attempt again Honor not long after she led the attack on the Casimir slave depot then Manpower would have been a leading suspect (even though, as far as we know, assassinating Manticoran Naval Captains isn't their normal MO - not even ones that shut down slave depots)

At that time they'd have had much more recent and direct injury, and she'd have been a relatively simple target. But attempting to assassinate her on her flagship in the middle of the most powerful fleet in the galaxy, when she hadn't recently done anything against Manpower?

For what you suggest is no better reason than general dislike for her family? Then why her, and not other more recently active anti-slavery activity members (like her uncle in the BSC), or less protected targets?
And if her, why then and not some time when they wouldn't have to break out and risk exposing crazy nanotech.



On the other hand, right then she was more critical than usual to Manticore's war effort against Haven. It was partly her reputation that was letting Manticore get away with their plan to use raids to divert and delay Haven long enough to get the python lump built; which could significantly close the combat power gap between Manticore and Haven. Eliminating Honor would be a direct blow to that strategy, both because it would almost certainly delay the next raids, but also because even with another skilled commander 8th fleet won't seem quite the boogyman. Haven should feel less pressure to stand on the defensive and try to be strong everywhere 8th fleet might attack.

So there appear to be direct and immediate benefits to Haven if Honor was assassinated then; I have trouble seeing any matching benefits for Manpower.

Good argumentation here all across the board, guys.

My basic thesis has been that Elizabeth and her government focused a bit too hard on Haven as the culprit in the Webster assassination and the attempt on Berry, thereby causing her to cancel the Torch summit.

Any one of the points I have made could be and have been debunked individually, perhaps not in the sense of being decisively refuted, but in the sense of casting valid doubt about.

Where it all comes together for me is when my points are considered as a whole. I think then that it becomes much stronger.

I would further note that I am not suggesting that Haven be eliminated as a suspect in this matter, but rather that other possibilities such as MESA/Manpower receive the consideration they deserve.

I would point out that others apart from the queen and the Alexander government have been doing exactly that, others such as Honor, Mike Henke for example.

Don

Honor's answer to that issue still stands: Having an agent who is the flag LT to a fleet commander is enormously more valuable than having her dead. It's literally a war winning advantage. Haven would have had Apollo specs, and known exactly when to hit Manticore when 8h fleet wasn't handy.

The sequence of events is important here. If memory serves, the assassination attempt on Honor was the first of the three attacks. If that attack was made by Haven, and according to the information Manticore had at the time there was no other likely candidate, then Haven was the one with the technology. Therefore, any other attacks using the same technology had to be by Haven as well.

Any halfway decent investigator would know better then that, or should have known better then that. If three attacks are launched using the same MO you shouldn't just pick who hates the first target the most and assume it was them you should look for someone, or in this case some organization with reason to target all of the victims.

I'm not saying the chain of logic was flawless, because it wasn't. However, Haven was the only credible suspect for the attack on Honor, and they were at least possible suspects for Webster and Torch. Any other suspect that could explain Webster and Torch wouldn't explain Honor. If Manpower had decided to get wildly ambitious and launch a triple attack on Manticoran (or Manticore-related) targets, Augustus Khumalo or Estelle Matsuko would have made more sense than Honor, not to mention probably being easier to get to.

Honor was pretty much harmless to Manpower at the time as she was completely committed to the war against Haven. Attacking her did nothing to improve Manpower's security, and would be pointless as a 'keep off the grass' warning since they didn't claim responsibility (because, of course, they didn't actually do it).

Except 1: Haven had absolutely no reason to attack Torch. 2: Manpower had a long grudge against Honor's family, and 3: Manpower had much more reason to attack Honor then Haven did to attack Torch.