News:

Testimonial: "It's just honestly sad that a place like this exists"

Main Menu

Uncurious monkeys

Started by Karapac, February 17, 2015, 04:07:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Karapac

(As an aside, I kind of dislike the use of "monkey" as shorthand for a degraded human being. I understand it and it makes sense, but it's insulting to monkeys. Monkeys, the furry, little ones, are clever, possessing an insatiable, thirsty curiosity. Plus, 100% of them are cute, which is more that can be said for some people. I generally don't like the use of animal names as pejoratives. Pigs are intelligent, clean creatures, dogs (female ones too) are loyal and kind, snakes are lazy and harmless if you don't bother them and aren't edible. I could maybe condone calling someone an amoeba as an insult to their intelligence, but hell, those fuckers have been around for millions of years before us, and will remain around for long after Homo sapiens suicides in one way or another. Just my tangential pet peeve.)

What prompted me to think about the subject of this rant was a very minor event, but it struck me surprisingly hard. I'm in vocational school for acting. We get our own very large room for the duration of the classes, with enough space to practice in peace, as well as its own toilets. In one of these there were muddy boot prints fairly high up on the wall right next to the toilet, left during what I imagine must have been one goddamned intense shitting session. Or... what? I have no idea what else could have happened there. I wanted to chat about it with the other folks, so I approached them.

As you could expect for such a girly thing to study, there's around twenty girls to a few guys. It doesn't, therefore, make sense, to leave the toilets gendered, else we'd be lining up for the Ladies while the Gents stood empty. Right? Simple. Well, dumbly arrogant people such as myself tend to assume everybody else has already come to the same conclusions as themselves. In my defense, I really wasn't the only one who used the toilets indiscriminately.

Still, when I said, "You know what I noticed in the gents' toilet?" I was immediately interrupted by the resident Unfunny Guy in that nasal teasing tone: "What were you doing in the gents'?"

"Toilet stuff. There's more girls, so it makes sense to use both. Anyway, there's boot marks high up on the walls. What happened there?"

"Ooh," he teased further, "look how observant you are."

The rest then only glanced at me blandly, then went back to talking about their day jobs (not exaggerating, that was the subject, and no, I hadn't interrupted anybody, there was a lull when I spoke).

Now, I wasn't expecting a riveting conversation, or to actually figure out what was the deal there, but I thought it was curious and interesting enough to wager a chuckle or a raised brow, at least. Something that broke up the monotony. And they snubbed me so hard.

Putting aside my feelsies being hurt, don't you agree that this is strange? Why are (adult) humans so very not curious? This is just a small example, but I'm sure you know how you expect somebody to investigate something past a Buzzfeed article and they don't lift a finger. Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why?? It drives me up the fucking wall, I'll admit. A monkey given a new thing will not cease until it is thoroughly sniffed, felt up, shred to pieces and chewed on. Even a fish is more curious! When you put something new in a betta's tank it will puzzle over it for hours, investigating it from every angle. And human children are the same. What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity? Is it a natural part of maturing for some reason, or is it the fault of modern school, either by the school itself killing every shred of inventiveness with it standardized teaching, or by the oppressively conformist society that forms when you force too many teenagers to spend all day together in what's basically lightweight prison? Am I blowing this out of proportion? Once I was collecting fruit off a tree in a park. The tree's branches were so obligingly arranged that I couldn't help but climb really high and ended up finding a comfortable seat. I spent at least half an hour there, just sitting, thinking and watching, and nobody, out of the numerous people who passed by there, noticed me (that I've seen). Nobody raised their head enough. Nobody paid enough attention to their surroundings. I could have pelted them with fruits/poop and they wouldn't have noticed. When something unusual appears in an animal's surroundings, it will lock on to that in seconds and try to get to the bottom of it. What happened to our species to make us blind? What happened to some of us to have avoided it? Is it necessarily wrong? Am I sounding superior? Is this post as whiny as I think it is upon rereading it? So many questions.

LMNO

A human's focus does tend to become regimented, through various means, all of which often act against each other.
There's the heirarchy of needs, there's social signaling and status, there's operant conditioning, there are a stack of biases and heuristics in play, constantly... It's all pretty complicated.
It can be frustrating, but don't forget, you're a human also... so what is it you're unknowingly blocking out?

Karapac

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2015, 05:25:17 PM
A human's focus does tend to become regimented, through various means, all of which often act against each other.
There's the heirarchy of needs, there's social signaling and status, there's operant conditioning, there are a stack of biases and heuristics in play, constantly... It's all pretty complicated.
True. Could it be that there's simply too much going on in a human's head to constantly pay attention to the surroundings and take an active interest in it, like animals do? I suppose sapience would come with its price. But a hunter-gatherer cannot afford to zone out into a routine, can he? He either won't eat or get eaten himself. How could this have gotten selected for? Is it a more recent thing, come with the changes in society? It just seems so unnatural to me (as much as I try to avoid using that word, it fits here).

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2015, 05:25:17 PM
It can be frustrating, but don't forget, you're a human also... so what is it you're unknowingly blocking out?
I keep wondering about that.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

I like your thoughts on the monkey business.

I also think that the group of people approached makes a difference in how you interpret the scene, as does your inner monologue. Do you think a psychology class would have reacted differently? Is it possible that no one made much of you being in the tree, having noticed you from a distance, decided that you weren't a threat, and concluded that enjoying yourself in a tree is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in peace?



"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."


Karapac

Oh yeah, absolutely. For aspiring actors -- so artists, supposedly -- that bunch of people is the most normal bunch of people I've had the pleasure of interacting with in a good while. They're lovely, kind people, but they're the type who think Oppa Gangnam is not only funny, it's still funny.  :eek:  So yes, I think a different group of people would have reacted differently. A psychology class is probably filled with more curious people. What is it though that makes them more curious than others? Than most, even, I'd say?

As for the tree, a building being in the way makes in impossible to see from a larger distance from any side other than one. People approaching from that side, I can't account for, but the rest did not look up.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 10:04:07 PM
Oh yeah, absolutely. For aspiring actors -- so artists, supposedly -- that bunch of people is the most normal bunch of people I've had the pleasure of interacting with in a good while. They're lovely, kind people, but they're the type who think Oppa Gangnam is not only funny, it's still funny.  :eek:  So yes, I think a different group of people would have reacted differently. A psychology class is probably filled with more curious people. What is it though that makes them more curious than others? Than most, even, I'd say?

As for the tree, a building being in the way makes in impossible to see from a larger distance from any side other than one. People approaching from that side, I can't account for, but the rest did not look up.

Looking up is fairly unusual behavior for most large primates, as well as other large species, unless they are looking for fruit or something alerts them to danger. Take note of your own behavior as you walk to school or work or the store... how many times in a mile do you look directly up, as opposed to scanning from a distance? Do you look up every time you turn a corner?

I doubt it has much to do with lack of curiosity... consider that a geologist might consider a birdwatcher uninquisitive because they never bother to simply look down, at the ground, where the secrets of our earthly origins lie.
"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

As far as curiosity/openness to experience, that's a temperament trait, probably largely something you're born with, a result of your genetic and epigenetic blueprint, that tends to be stable over a life span.

"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."


Karapac

Personally I look all around all the time, but I could easily be an outlier.

Good point about the geologist vs bird watcher. Not everybody is interested in the same things (duh much). Still. General inquisitiveness is something that goes down with age in humans... no? Damn, now I'm remembering my old dog who was afraid of everything unknown. She had a traumatic past for an excuse, though.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#8
Quote from: Karapac on February 17, 2015, 10:50:38 PM
Personally I look all around all the time, but I could easily be an outlier.

Good point about the geologist vs bird watcher. Not everybody is interested in the same things (duh much). Still. General inquisitiveness is something that goes down with age in humans... no? Damn, now I'm remembering my old dog who was afraid of everything unknown. She had a traumatic past for an excuse, though.

Inquisitiveness tends to remain a stable personality trait over time. You may be confusing response to novel stimuli with curiosity. For children, more stimuli are novel, therefore there is more new stuff to explore and wonder about. As people get older, it starts to take more and more effort to seek out novel stimuli, as the things going on in one's immediate environment become more familiar. Some people are more likely to do so than others.

Someone in a tree might be very interesting to a child, but not very interesting to an adult, who has already explored why people might climb trees.

You might also be surprised how many things people register and dismiss as unimportant unconsciously, without appearing to notice them. This occurs in order to allow ordinary navigation of the world at a reasonable pace without a simple walk to the garden being an exhausting ordeal. Want to know what happens when you turn this filter off, forcing your brain to recognize all external stimuli as equally important and demanding of attention? Take a lot of mushrooms. Just don't try to get anything done that day.

"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

Look at older people who travel to unfamiliar places a lot, or are constantly trying new things. They do this because they have a high level of openness to experience, and enjoy novel stimuli. They aren't incurious about their hometowns -- they are merely familiar with them, and the familiar can never, biologically speaking, produce the thrill of new stimuli.
"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."


LMNO

Good example -- I'm a musician, and I'm always hearing sounds, background music, changes in ambient tones.  Often, quite often, i'll comment on it, and other people won't know what I'm talking about.  But at the same time, I'll be completely oblivious to other things in my environment.

Not to say either of us are less, or more, observant than the other.

axod

I'm rather partial to how Huxley likened the mind to a "reducing valve" of experience.  Kind of fits the feeling that there's always something I'm missing.  Preferably for good reason.  Because, in some way, I must always consider myself discerning in my capacity to discriminate meaningful differences.  In fact, some accuse me of making that a matter of amatorial pride.
just this

Karapac

Thank you, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Nigel, you're right in what I was getting mixed up. My tree example wasn't the best, perhaps, because it is a fairly mundane thing from some angles. I assure you though that adults climbing trees isn't an usual sight, not around here, where even children rarely climb trees. I would expect some glances at least - but I suppose it is a thing that may have warranted a glance if it hadn't been filed away as uninteresting by the unconscious filters and not noticed by the person themselves.

I know I would have noticed though. I'm pretty sure I would.

I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?

LMNO - I know what you mean, I always seem to notice things others don't. And some people I interact with certainly notice things I don't. It's just that it seems like most don't notice anything but the most broad generalities about their immediate surroundings, and when I point some detail out, or hell, even share something interesting I'd learned, I get odd looks or that obliging, amused smile that says "you're zany, but in a non-abrasive and sometimes entertaining way, so I'll tolerate it". It's not the reaction I have when on the other end, I'm endlessly fascinated by things I haven't seen, heard of, or noticed before. Why aren't others? A betta certainly is.
(I understand they may simply not be interested in novel things, don't consider them novel enough to warrant interest, or consider them too minute to. I'm just wondering why and how, since that mode of thought is so alien to me.)

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with doubt...

Reginald Ret

Quote from: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
Thank you, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. Nigel, you're right in what I was getting mixed up. My tree example wasn't the best, perhaps, because it is a fairly mundane thing from some angles. I assure you though that adults climbing trees isn't an usual sight, not around here, where even children rarely climb trees. I would expect some glances at least - but I suppose it is a thing that may have warranted a glance if it hadn't been filed away as uninteresting by the unconscious filters and not noticed by the person themselves.

I know I would have noticed though. I'm pretty sure I would.


Well, that is easy to figure out.
What is the rate at which trees cross your path?
How many times have you noticed that a tree was empty?

If you don't notice empty trees then your sampling method is biased and therefore suspect.

You've made me think about climbing trees.
This makes me like you, trees are some of my favourite things.
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: Karapac on February 18, 2015, 11:41:30 AM

I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?


You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think. These are nearly universal phenomena, and the latter is often experienced to an extreme degree by people with autism, who may have some differences in their brain circuitry that makes Theory of Mind a particularly challenging concept to fully grasp.

False uniqueness tends to peak in the teen years, something about developing self-consciousness being exaggerated during a developmental period blah blah blah.

"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."