[gjm11]

The first linked paper defines a ritual as "(a) predefined sequences that are characterized by rigidity, formality and repetition that are (b) embedded in a larger system of symbolism and meaning, but (c) contain elements that lack direct instrumental purpose".

Doing ctrl-alt-delete to get the attention of a Windows computer certainly fits (a) but it doesn't fit (b) without a considerable stretch and it doesn't fit (c) at all.

(The second linked paper quotes the first paper's definition, or something basically indistinguishable from it; the paper itself isn't about saying what rituals are, it's about exploring why they exist. Very little of what it says about that is applicable to ctrl-alt-delete.)

It's absolutely true that "ritual" doesn't just mean religious ritual. But it's also not as broad as "anything that people repeatedly do in more or less the same way".

[mlyle]

You replied to me and I didn't advance CTRL-ALT-DEL as an example of a ritual. But, I'll bite.

A ritual doesn't need to be ineffective for it to be a ritual. Indeed, a whole lot of rituals have an indirect purpose that is attained because of social convention.

CTRL-ALT-DEL is arbitrary. The reasons for their existence (can't be accomplished by one hand or unlikely to be activate on accident) are no longer meaningful. The individual keys are meaningful, but they have no direct instrumental purpose. Because of convention, they do something.

Now, technical legacy makes some weird things stick. And I will say that technical legacy is a bit different of a thing than other types of social convention, so that's the one piece that makes CTRL-ALT-DEL feel different.

[gjm11]

(chongli used CAD as an example of a ritual. now__what asked "is that really what ritual means?". You said yes. Of course you are not obliged to agree with chongli, but I thought that was what you were doing by saying yes.)

I didn't claim that a ritual has to be ineffective; only that (1) it needs to have symbolic significance, which CAD plainly does not, and that (2) it needs to have elements that are there for purposes other than what they actually do, which I claim CAD also plainly does not.

(Sure, the keys could have been different, but what of it? The individual letters in the word "keys" could have been different too -- it could have been spelt "kees" or "quays" or whatever -- and those letters, taken individually, "have no direct instrumental purpose" just as if you separate out CTRL from ALT and DEL you can't identify a separate purpose that key has in the gesture -- but that doesn't mean that writing the word "keys" is a ritual.

[mlyle]

> (chongli used CAD as an example of a ritual. now__what asked "is that really what ritual means?". You said yes.

It was one of two examples, being the latter one after "heck" which indicates it's probably not a perfect fit. It was the weakest but it still works.

> I didn't claim that a ritual has to be ineffective; only that (1) it needs to have symbolic significance

It does. Perhaps less now. You mash these keys when your computer isn't doing what you want.

> it needs to have elements that are there for purposes other than what they actually do

It used to be something that the BIOS would perform a soft reset in response to a keyboard interrupt and those keys being down. It was chosen to be across the keyboard (to prevent activation by mistake). All of the functional aspects of it are dead and the original meaning is gone (including the location of keys). For unclear reasons this ritual got appropriated for other purposes (the original reasons for it don't relate to the new uses).

[gjm11]

If "you mash these keys when your computer isn't doing what you want" counts as "symbolic significance" then so does anything you do for any reason. You turn this knob when you feel thirsty and want to drink water! You turn this lever and push on this thing when it's too warm and you want to let air in from outside! You say these syllables when someone's asked you a question and you want to answer in the affirmative!

The components of the CAD gesture are still there for the purpose of what they do: you hit those keys because those are the ones Windows recognizes as indicating that you want to get its attention. Yes, the reason why those particular keys is kinda arbitrary these days, but (1) that isn't what the authors of that paper meant by "lacking overt instrumental purpose" -- of course there's an overt instrumental purpose: you hit those keys to get the OS's attention in ways that let you do particular things -- and (2) "there are elements that are kinda arbitrary" does not a ritual make because, again, everything has elements that are kinda arbitrary.

I don't want to claim that the use of the term "ritual" to describe hitting C-A-D is 100% indefensible. Only like 99.5%. If you generalize "ritual" far enough then eventually it will cover this case. Along with writing the word "duck", opening a window, or eating breakfast cereal. I don't think a generalization that goes that far is useful: the things that are "at least as ritual-like as C-A-D" are too broad a class to say much about that's useful, and the class isn't much different from that of "all human actions that recur at all".

[mlyle]

> The components of the CAD gesture are still there for the purpose of what they do: you hit those keys because those are the ones Windows recognizes as indicating that you want to get its attention. Yes, the reason why those particular keys is kinda arbitrary these days

How would you feel about it if the only way were to get the computer's attention was to enter the Lord's Prayer?

It's complicated and qualitative. There's not a quantitative test for "ritual." There's all kinds of things that are very much ritualized (the motions a batter makes when at-bat; the changing of the guard), but they still have purpose. They are read by others as social cues; they are used to show membership in tribe; etc. They just don't have a direct instrumental purpose and have taken on a rigid form.

[gjm11]

I would be extremely annoyed if the only way to get the computer's attention were to enter the Lord's Prayer (or any other text of similar length) :-). I might well express my annoyance using the word "ritual". But it would still feel much much less ritual-y than if I were using the Lord's Prayer in a more conventional manner, because there would still be no element of psychological/spiritual/social significance to the person performing the action.

(And, although it would still be the case that you have to enter all those words in order to get the computer's attention, and therefore they have instrumental purpose, it seems to me like that's a harder argument to make with a straight face when the arbitrary complexity of the actions you're taking becomes very large.)

I agree (of course) that it's complicated, and not an all-or-nothing affair. As I said, I consider C-A-D only about 99.5% not a ritual. The Lord's Prayer version might be only 90% not a ritual.

Curiously, in one respect using the Lord's Prayer to try to get God's attention is less ritual-y than using it to try to get a computer's: everything in that prayer is there for an actual instrumental purpose! Someone praying it sincerely isn't just saying "forgive us our sins" because those are the traditionally mandated words[1], but also because they would like their sins forgiven and they at-least-kinda-think that saying those words will make that happen a bit more reliably.

[1] Well, depending on what sort of traditional you want to be you might have to say "trespasses" instead.

[chongli]

Ctrl-alt-delete definitely fits (b). The larger system of symbolism and meaning would be the complete set of keyboard shortcuts (and other commands) for the operating system. It also fits (c) because of the presence of the delete key. Nothing about the ctrl-alt-delete combo has anything to do with deleting something! The choice of the delete key for this shortcut was arbitrary, it could have been ctrl-alt-insert instead, so I would call it an element that lacks "direct instrumental purpose."

[gjm11]

I don't agree with any part of that.

Before I go into any detail about why, note that to whatever extent your argument here justifies called CAD a ritual, it likewise justifies calling writing the word "duck" a ritual. The word is part of a larger system of symbolism and meaning, namely the whole English language. The letter "c" in the word is technically unnecessary in at least as strong a sense as that in which the DEL key in CAD is. It could have been omitted, or the "k" could have been, or the word could have been something like "ducq". Just as much arbitrariness.

And of course that all goes for pretty much any word at all.

A definition of "ritual" according to which everyone is performing a ritual every time they write any word is too broad. If everything is a ritual, then calling something a ritual tells you nothing interesting about it.

OK, so that's why I want your arguments to be wrong :-). Where are the actual disagreements? Well, on (b) I claim that that's not the sort of symbolism the paper is talking about.

"In rituals, the most ordinary of actions and gestures become transformed into symbolic expressions, their meaning reinforced each time they are performed". The symbolism of a ritual is supposed to have psychological or spiritual significance for the participant(s). The fact that CAD is one of a number of other keyboard shortcuts recognized by Windows is simply not an example of this.

The words I quoted a moment ago are followed by a few examples. Compare them with the alleged "symbolism and meaning" of CAD. "The repeated kneeling and bowing of religious prayer signals commitment to God and provides solace" (it signals an important fact about the person doing it, and it has a psychological effect on them); "a team's pregame ritual of putting equipment on from left-to-right (and not right-to-left) empowers athletes to perform at their best" (it has a psychological effect on them); "marriage rites during the wedding ceremony seal the bond between two people" (it constitutes a commitment they are making and it has a psychological effect on them). The so-called ritual of CAD has nothing in it that parallels any of this.

(If someone has a computer that frequently gets wedged, and has adopted a specific procedure where they first hold down CTRL and ALT, then say loudly and clearly "F### you, Microsoft", then hit DEL three times rhythmically, in order to express their hatred -- then that, for sure, is a ritual. It expresses something that matters to them and it has the psychological effect of helping them let off steam.)

So much for (b). What about (c)? Here's another quotation from the paper. "That is, rituals either lack overt instrumental purpose, or their constitutive actions themselves are not immediately causally linked to the stated goal of the ritual." Doing CAD has an overt instrumental purpose: it gets Windows into a particular state that you may find useful. Its constitutive actions -- holding down CTRL, holding down ALT, hitting DEL -- are immediately causally linked to the stated goal: if you do all those things, then Windows will (barring bugs, hardware failure, etc.) do what you are telling it to do; if you omit any of those things, it will not.

(In my example above of how someone could perform the CAD gesture in a manner that is ritualistic, note that I suggested that they hit DEL three times in rhythm. That's an unnecessary constitutive action. You only need to hit DEL once to get the effect; if you choose to do it multiple times, what happens doesn't depend on whether you do it rhythmically.)