News:

PD.com: We occur at random among your children.

Main Menu

On the role of experts in creating personal belief systems.

Started by Kai, December 17, 2012, 12:07:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:53:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:47:11 PM
That's also true. Or shit like the Bering Land Bridge, which is a complete nonsense hypothesis with no foundation and yet is STILL widely believed to be true.

Clovis man took Jet Blue, maybe?   :?

Not arguing the point, really, I just never knew it was even in question, let alone being absolute crap.

Evidence points to boats, and to the settlement happening from south to north, not north to south. The mental acrobatics indulged in by people trying to defend the land bridge theory has been amusing... "well, the oldest settlements are way down south because.... um... because they came across the land bridge and walked to Central America, and then turned around and started forming settlements as they migrated back northward".

Clovis is so not at all the oldest known settlement anymore, either.

Ah.  I stopped following that sort of thing a while back, after the whole brouhaha with the Kennewick Man.  The fact that it went from "amazing and interesting archeological find" to "ridiculous 9 year long political football" sort of completely turned me off of the whole thing.

Funny thing is, he was apparently (most likely) Polynesian, and showed up in Washington State, which is evidence aplenty of widespread boat use as early as 7600 BCE.

Also, I checked wikipedia, and they're pretty sure the landbridge itself did occur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_land_bridge

Wikipedia? Dude. C'mon.

Anyway, the land bridge may indeed have occurred, but the evidence is against it being the conduit for human settlement of the Americas.

Article says as much.  Few, if any, people came across the landbridge, according to what DNA evidence they have.  Some megafauna almost undoubtably came across, and some hunters might have followed them, but there is almost no chance that the bulk of any precolumbian people of any time period crossed at the Bering Strait.

Which leaves A) Boats, and B) Vacation Jesus.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

It was probably Vacation Jesus, leading the Lost Tribes of Israel across the Atlantic on foot.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
It was probably Vacation Jesus, leading the Lost Tribes of Israel across the Atlantic on foot.

He does that just to show off.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 08:15:48 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
It was probably Vacation Jesus, leading the Lost Tribes of Israel across the Atlantic on foot.

He does that just to show off.

What a dick!
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."



Mesozoic Mister Nigel

"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


hunter s.durden

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)

Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.

This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.

Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
This space for rent.

Reginald Ret

Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)

Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.

This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.

Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)

Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.

This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.

Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.

I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)

Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.

This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.

Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.

I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.

Performers, definitely.
But for some reason an image of Van Gogh mailing his ear to a prostitute popped in my head. He could be an aberration, though.  :roll:
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 27, 2012, 07:46:32 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)

Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.

This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.

Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.

I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.

Performers, definitely.
But for some reason an image of Van Gogh mailing his ear to a prostitute popped in my head. He could be an aberration, though.  :roll:

I know very few performers, so I can't speak to their success in getting laid. I know artists; people who make art pieces (sculpture, paintings, etc.) for a living. Every single one of them is a neurotic motherfucker, and every single one of them gets mad laid. Mostly with each other. I had to put a moratorium on dating within the art community because I have a thing about social incest.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 08:13:11 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 27, 2012, 07:46:32 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)

Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.

This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.

Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.

I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.

Performers, definitely.
But for some reason an image of Van Gogh mailing his ear to a prostitute popped in my head. He could be an aberration, though.  :roll:

I know very few performers, so I can't speak to their success in getting laid. I know artists; people who make art pieces (sculpture, paintings, etc.) for a living. Every single one of them is a neurotic motherfucker, and every single one of them gets mad laid. Mostly with each other. I had to put a moratorium on dating within the art community because I have a thing about social incest.

Holy shit.  :lol:
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Cainad (dec.)

I recall there was a chart, not sure how legitimate, recording survey results for various college majors (not that a college art major is the same thing as a working artist, of course) on how often they got laid. I think the chart was based on what percentage of respondents had a sexual encounter in the previous six months or something like that. Art majors led the pack by a significant margin.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Well, artists tend to be more experiential and experimental, and have lower attachment to social propriety, so... yeah.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Cainad (dec.)

Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 10:48:06 PM
Well, artists tend to be more experiential and experimental, and have lower attachment to social propriety, so... yeah.

I thought the sciences just made everyone frumpy. Maybe that's just me.