#STEM is often about creating a theory and then working out the logical means to test it | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

temple--ghost · 5 years ago

Text

SNK Chapter 133 - Levi on Eren’s Eventual Death

An analysis of Levi’s emotional state in SNK’s recent chapter.

___________________________________ Boring Disclaimer: I’m Ereri trash. However, in terms of Isayama’s intention for the series and these characters, I believe Isayama has sought to depict their relationship as one completely without romantic or sexual undertones.

However, there are enough "blank spaces" and "building blocks" in his work that a reader can conceptualize and read given scenarios in many ways. In aspects of film and media theory, characters and narratives are often treated as if they aren't just blots of ink hitting paper, but as a hypothetical reality in which to judge character morals and meaning. When we intake any piece of fictional media, the ideal is an engagement with the characters and the story. We can consider the author’s intent, while also acknowledging multiple, theoretical “realities” of this created world as it is portrayed to us using media-driven language.

That said: I cannot argue that there is a romantic undertone between these characters; instead, I believe there is a significant relationship here that is vague enough to be twisted by interpretation.

___________________________________

Introduction

This is where we begin:

Hanji has been left behind to die. Eren’s rumbling has slaughtered thousands. Countries and cultures have been left to ruin.

And, our group of protagonists are unsure how to stop Eren.

We have two crucial suggestions from Armin: try to talk with Eren and, as a last resort, kill Eren.

Coming off of Armin’s mention of this “last resort,” Levi says:

We know there are a multitude of reasons for Levi’s death-wish against Zeke,

So, in trying to understand his motivation here, I can see Levi’s words being read in two ways:

1. Going after Zeke in place of Eren may prove a simpler solution, while also fulfilling Levi’s desire to kill Zeke. Furthermore, if both Mikasa and Armin are hesitant in killing Eren, logically, Zeke could be the substitute. Levi’s suggestion is made out of intelligent convenience. His main priority with this suggestion is Zeke.

2. Replying directly to this “last resort,” Levi offers up an alternative TO this last resort. “I’m fine with us having a last resort BUT...” and he offers Zeke’s death in the place of Eren’s. Simply put: he, personally, does not want Eren to die.

My following argument and theory correlates to what is stated in #2:

Based on the way in which Levi is portrayed in chapter 133, it is clear he remains emotionally invested in Eren’s life.

And, notably, this is not the first time Levi has offered this solution...

Substitution

Chapter 112: the Jaegerists are uprising. Eren has now not only forced the Survey Corps into action by attacking Marley on his own, but has also begun an uprising within Paradis himself. Soldiers find Levi and relay the information; Levi is told of the plan to kill Eren.

His reaction...?

To offer up Zeke.

He goes on to admit:

“I don’t know if Eren’s really being controlled by Zeke or not. But we just need to end Zeke and they’re done for.”

There’s an obvious parallel to chapter 133, in which:

- Levi seems aware that Eren’s actions are likely his own. Eren is likely guilty in being a provocateur of destruction and yet...

- Levi acknowledges that Eren’s life is threatened. He offers Zeke to save Eren from death.

(For the sake of length, I’ve omitted a few panels. Eventually, I intend to address this entire moment in a future meta post, wherein I want to discuss if Levi’s desire to protect Eren stems from a personal attachment, or if his only concern is the concept of the “wasted” lives that have died for Eren’s sake).

Let’s return to chapter 133.

Eren’s Answer

Levi’s suggestion to kill Zeke with the help of the others prompts a discussion point from Reiner.

“Eren might want us to stop him, no?”

A scene change occurs soon after; our protagonists are transported to PATHS. Levi is the only character to realize:

In this moment, Levi acknowledges the possibility that Eren may have been listening and reacting to the idea that he (Eren) wants to have someone kill him. Levi is putting the pieces together -- Eren has heard them and this will be his response.

Our characters call out to Eren. Levi is the last to speak.

Somehow, in this moment, there’s still a sense of humor in Levi’s dialogue.

Despite Eren causing the deaths of thousands... despite the loss of Hanji, Levi’s comrades, and of the hope Eren was supposed bring... Levi’s greatest “threat” is to “let [Eren] off with an ass-kicking.”

Through the lens of the odd and physical nature of Eren and Levi’s relationship, the threat is sentimental, almost.

His final callout (”Why don’t you speak up for a change?”) brings to mind a fantastic meta done by @yaboylevi, in which they explore Eren’s process of verbally retreating from Levi and the others. As well as how, in multiple instances, Levi tries -- and seemingly fails -- to speak to and understand Eren, but Eren would not let him in.

Directly following Levi’s words, Eren appears -- seen first by Levi -- and Eren’s monologue begins.

This is it. Eren has heard and is responding directly to our protagnoists’ question. And it is here that Eren not only confirms but takes it a step further by threatening further destruction unless he is destroyed.

And it is only after this moment, after Eren has given them no other choice but to kill him, does Levi's knees hit the sand

The monologue continues. We see a close-up of Levi's face, while all of the others are in the background or not made purposely distinctive -- his is the face that sticks out.

Let’s talk about scene framing or, in a more common term used by those in media criticism: mise-en-scene.

Per Dictionary.com, we can define this term as:

The arrangement of scenery and stage properties; the setting of surroundings of an event or action.

In visual media, story-boarders and artists use the placement of characters to communicate messages to an audience. Mise-en-scene is often one of the first and most important concepts taught to those within the industry. Why? Because how these characters are placed within a frame manipulates an audience; there are, across all aspects of visual media, certain “tricks” a director or artist may use in order to convey a message through the visual representation of a scene.

If you wish to understand this aspect further, I highly suggest this article. But, let’s move on and apply this concept to Levi within this chapter.

I would argue that it’s significant that, within all the ‘PATHS panels,’ he is not only portrayed on the left-hand side, but also at a lower elevation than the rest of the characters. Characters portrayed at a lower elevation often intend to display ‘weakness, defeat, insecurity.’ The left side of the scene is also reserved for this indication. I’ll quote filepicker.io for this:

“Left: weaker side of the frame, reserved for villains, powerless or insignificant characters”

I want to bring up this page:

Where the others stand together in (what I see as) the same level of awe and shock, Levi’s differing in his placement and emotions is made purposely distinct.

With Levi in the foreground, he is made completely separate from the homogeny of the rest of the group. The reader's eyes go to him on the ‘weaker’ side of the frame. While all others stand and look at the same point, he is the only one sitting and staring downward, listening and in thought.

He feels weak. Defeated. Powerless. I read the downward tilt of his head and the slump of his body as conveying a deep and thoughtful sorrow.

The audience is told not only in Levi’s expression, but in the author’s entire use of framing, that what Eren has communicated in PATHS has a very significant effect on him and we, as an audience, are meant to see this.

Levi’s Response

Immediately after this page, we return to the plane.

Note Levi, whom remains in the similar crestfallen state as before -- still, obviously, in the same state of emotions and thoughts he was in just prior.

One panel later he states:

He is back on the other side. He has been told, by Eren himself, that Eren’s death is the only option.

He has been given a straight-forward answer. He has obviously ruminated on this. He must now have an inkling of doubt that killing Zeke will stop Eren. He must understand the further depth of terror that will happen should Eren not be stopped. He must understand the loss of lives lost in Eren’s wake.

And yet, his emotions remain tethered to Eren. Despite his original promise in chapter 19.

At this point, after all that has taken place between them, between then and now...

Once again…

“...Now what?”

He does not consider the option of killing Eren.

#snk meta #aot meta #ereri #snk chapter 133 #LEVI ACKERMAN #snk spoilers #aot spoilers #133 spoilers

207 notes · View notes

khali-shabd · 4 years ago

Text

Gender Theory

Readers, let us begin with a simple question- what is gender?

The Biological Theory Of Gender, and a majority of society, would say that gender is defined by biological sex, namely hormones and chromosomes. If you release estrogen and have XX chromosomes, you are female, and if you release testosterone and have XY chromosomes, you are male. However, this is an extremely flawed vision of gender for two reasons: one, that whatever proof of hormones altering gendered behaviour has been found only in lab rats1, which possibly will not exhibit the same extreme change in behaviour if the hormones were administered to them naturally in their own environment- and rats are not human- we have far too many differences as species for this study to be considered valid for homosapiens as well. And two, chromosomes are not strictly XX or XY- around 1 percent of the world population is intersex (and a similar percentage is redheaded, so its not inherently ‘anomalous’ or ‘unnatural’) , which means that they can have chromosomal variations such as XXY, X, XXXY etc, all of whom develop differently as compared to people with the traditional chromosome combinations.

Further, there are far more things that define ‘biological sex’, namely:

chromosomes

gonads

sex hormones

internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus)

external genitalia.

Out of these, in humans, genitalia and internal reproductive anatomy can be changed without there being a significant change in gendered behavior. Sex hormones, when administered to bodies change secondary sex characteristics more than any sort of behavior; with the exception of testosterone increasing sex drive and sometimes increasing ‘ego’. Every single part of this definition of binary biological sex is challenged by the existence of intersex people, henceforth proving that sex is not binary and never has been, unfounding the existence of a sex-based gender binary in itself. Further, transgender individuals have a completely different gender identity as compared to their biological sex, and it has been scientifically proved that this is because their brains develop in the same way the brains of the children of the gender they identify with do. That essentially means that the brain of a transgender woman develops similarly to the brain of a cisgender woman, and the brain of a transgender man develops in the same way the brain of a cisgender man develops. All in all, there are far too many differences in the experience of biological sex to confine it to a binary, hence unfounding the theory that gender is based on biological sex.

Then how do we define gender?

There are a number of theories, but the most logical one at the moment would be Judith Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity. Butler says that gender, as an abstract concept in itself, is nothing more than a performance. We ‘perform’ our gender by carrying out actions that we associate with it. They further say that this does not mean that it’s something we can stop altogether, rather something we’ve ingrained so deeply within us that it becomes a part of our identity, and it's the part of it we call gender identity. Gender, hence, is created by its own performance. Butler also implies that we do not base gender on sex, rather we define sex along the lines of established lines of binary gener, i.e. male and female- despite the fact that more than 10% of the population does not fall into this binary sex, and has some variation in their biological sex that does not ‘fit’ into either category. Gender in itself is so culturally constructed by western society that anyone who does not perform their assigned gender ‘correctly’ is punished- this applies to not only queer individuals but even men who do not ascribe to or criticise predefined ideals of masculinity. They are made social pariahs and excluded as outcasts, leaving them to find and create their own communities and safe spaces. This is shown in the way society ostracises queer-presenting individuals, makes fun of ‘soft’ men, and forcefully tries to ‘fix’ intersex children whose variations in biological sex cause no harm to them. I quote:

“Because there is neither an ‘essence’ that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis. The tacit collective agreement to perform, produce, and sustain discrete and polar genders as cultural fictions is obscured by the credibility of its own production. The authors of gender become entranced by their own fictions whereby the construction compels one’s belief in its necessity and naturalness.”

One of the criticisms of Butler’s theories is that it does not seem to apply to transgender individuals, whose innate gender identity is not the one that they have been assigned to perform at birth; whose brains develop the same way that their cisgender counterparts’ brains do from birth. Butler themselves have responded to this, saying:

“I do know that some people believe that I see gender as a “choice” rather than as an essential and firmly fixed sense of self. My view is actually not that. No matter whether one feels one’s gendered and sexed reality to be firmly fixed or less so, every person should have the right to determine the legal and linguistic terms of their embodied lives. So whether one wants to be free to live out a “hard-wired” sense of sex or a more fluid sense of gender, is less important than the right to be free to live it out, without discrimination, harassment, injury, pathologization or criminalization – and with full institutional and community support.”

Later on, Butler goes on to say that the main point of their theory is that identity is constructed, which means that it allows us to change how we view it as a concept. It leaves room for us to subvert gender roles, challenging the status quo on what it means to identify as someone of a particular gender, and re-structuring society such that we rally for change not along gender lines, rather on the basis of what’s right.

Further, if we combine the work of the psychologist Sigmund Freud with Butler’s theories, the latter does actually apply to transgender individuals. Freudian theory states that we internalize concepts of gender based on our parental figures at birth. That is, if you are born female, you begin to look towards the person who closest resembles your gender identity; which in this case would be your mother, to be your role model for your behavior as to how women are meant to act. Your mother would be your guide to how you perform your gender. If she crosses her legs, you cross your legs. If she dresses in a particular way, you would too, until you were exposed to the exterior world and allowed to develop your own sense of style. As such, you create your own gender identity within your mind, and perform that identity the way you have been taught to by your maternal figure. When you are transgender, you view yourself as innately as the gender you identify with, hence you base your gender identity off the parental figure of that particular gender. This means, if you are female to male trans, you would base your gender identity on your father, and accordingly perform your gender in that way.

Now the question arises: How do we create gender identity outside of gender roles? How do we identify anywhere on the gender spectrum while abandoning the performance that comes with that identity? Why is it important?

Well, the answer isn’t simple. For its importance, I allude, once again, to gender performativity theory- Butler even uses some evolutionary stances to support her views, saying that gender performance stems from gender roles which stem from the fundamental differences between the prominent male and female sex at the very beginning of evolution. Now that 'evolutionary' behaviors don't matter at this stage of societal, cultural, and psychological development, it renders gender roles and hence the performance of gender redundant. However, we still perpetuate these ideas regardless of their importance, or rather their lack of such. And in this process, we end up defining and segregating far too much on the basis of gender- from small things like friendships to even the feminist movement, which is majorly perpetuated and held up by people who identify as female. Other groups like men end up purposely excluding themselves from a movement that can benefit them as well(through deconstructing and eradicating ideas of toxic masculinity) just because of how strongly it is divided on the basis of gender lines. And as for how we create gender identity outside of gender roles; it takes a lot of work, at first, to unlearn all the biases you have internalized about what it means to be a certain gender. You have to actively work towards deconstructing what gender and gender identity means to you, and how much of it comes from societally misguided stances about the ‘role’ of a gender is. It may mean ridding yourselves of the school of thought that women belong in the kitchen and men belong in workplaces or even identifying and removing hidden biases such as those of toxic masculinity and/or toxic femininity. Lastly, it takes an understanding that often, gender expression is not the same as gender identity; and also that most gender expression is how people show how they feel the most comfortable viewing themselves. Once you’ve managed to deconstruct your biases, it’s just a matter of how you feel comfortable viewing and expressing yourself; and what label, among the myriad, you identify with the most. That would be your unique self-expression and identity.

#gender theory #gender #trans #trangender #lgbtq #judith butler #writing #essay #article #write #writers on tumblr #gender identity #theory #sociology #psychology

25 notes · View notes

tbtntrauma2550 · 4 years ago

Text

Trauma Theory: A Feminist Tool

By Emmy Wagner

In the field of feminist studies, scholars analyze the ways systems of power, such as white supremacy and heteropatriarchy, work together to form unique experiences of oppression. Because these systems of power have such influence on the lives of marginalized communities like people of color, the LGBTQ community, and immigrants, they live with constant stress due to the discrimination they face for their identities. Sometimes this discrimination can be small scale. For example, a white woman commenting on the texture of a black woman's hair, however, discrimination can be far more dangerous than that. The prejudice against black people that is held by many police officers has led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent men and women. These violent tragedies have created serious trauma which affects the entire black community scared and angry. The trauma of being targeted by authority figures is so severe that words cannot adequately describe the feeling. This is where trauma theory comes into play. Trauma studies explore the impact of life-altering experiences and can be a handy tool in the feminist scholar's toolbox.

To understand how trauma studies can be useful to the feminist scholar, it is important to have a clear understanding of the foundations. Trauma is defined as "a severely disruptive experience that profoundly impacts the self's emotional organization and perception of the external world" (Mambrol). Trauma can be on an individual basis, or large enough to affect an entire community, as with the case of regular police brutality throughout America. Trauma studies analyze the psychological, rhetorical, and cultural significance of the specific example of trauma as well as how it changes the individuals' comprehension of the world around them. This area of scholarly analysis developed in the 1990s and drew upon neurologist Sigmund Freud's theory of traumatic experiences on the human person. In his early work, Freud hypothesized that "traumatic hysteria" stems from an earlier, repressed, experience of sexual assault (Mambrol). Freud emphasizes the event itself was not traumatic, but it is the remembrance of or reflection upon the experience that is traumatic. This latency period "delays the effects and meaning of the past," but once a present event brings forth the memory of the traumatic event, the painful process of remembering, also known as "pathogenic reminiscence," ascribes value to said event (Mambrol). This can cause trauma-induced symptoms such as "exhaustion, confusion, sadness, anxiety, agitation, numbness, dissociation… and blunted affect" (Center). The relational process of remembering trauma can cause a splitting of the ego or dissociation, thus creating an abnormal state of consciousness. In his later work, Freud states that the "extensive breach being made in the protective shield against stimuli" is the cause of this traumatic neurosis. (Mambrol). Freud viewed the brain as an organism with many layers, one with an outer "protective shield," but when an individual unexpectantly goes into "fight" mode of "fight or flight," there is no anxiety to act as a defense mechanism. This lack of internal defense is what leaves the brain vulnerable to attack. Thus, trauma is both "an external agent that shocks the unprepared system and an internal action of defense" (Mambrol). One marker of traumatic neurosis is the "'compulsion to repeat' the memory" as a way to overcome and master the unpleasant feelings it evokes (Mambrol). Because our brain often reproduces memories in a way that is slightly off from the actual experience, Freud believes that the narrative of the event is crucial to recovery. As such, abreaction or talking about the event, is critical to allow the individual to gain a better understanding of the past (Mambrol).

Now that the foundations of trauma theory have been laid out, one can direct her attention to what is known as "the First Wave" of trauma studies. The first wave of trauma studies flourished in the 1990s with prominent scholars such as Cathy Caruth and Geoffrey Hartman at the forefront of the research. It popularized the notion that trauma is an "unrepresentable event" that reveals the inherent contradictions between language and experience (Mambrol). Because trauma is viewed as an event that splits the ego, it prevents easy articulation. This fragmentation or dissociation is seen as the direct cause of trauma, which supports the concept of transhistorical trauma; that is to say that the universality of trauma, past, present, and future, allows for the opportunity to connect individual and collective traumatic experiences (Mambrol). In the first wave, trauma studies analysts formed a model of trauma that says trauma creates a negative, persistent pathological effect on the consciousness and memory in a way that prevents it from being incorporated properly into one's life story. As a result of this model, trauma theorists emphasize the external stimuli as an event of suffering that brings about dysfunctional internal processes (Mambrol). Because the trauma creates a fractured ego, the experience is not able to be logically vocalized. Thus, a strange dichotomy of silence and chaos is created.

As a result, professor of English and Comparative Literature at Yale University, Cathy Caruth argues that experiences of trauma are never truly known directly, but instead are pieced together from the narratives of those willing to discuss the event. Furthermore, because trauma neurosis is defined by the delayed remembrance of a repressed traumatic event, Caruth says that trauma is not easily locatable, but is identified "in the way it is precisely not known in the first instance—returns to haunt the survivor later on" (Mambrol). Because traumatic events enter the psyche in a different way than a normal experience, an abnormal memory is formed, meaning this remembrance is only a particular recall and not definite knowledge. On a greater scale, Caruth writes "history, like trauma, is never simply one's own, that history is precisely the way we were implicated in each other's traumas" (Mambrol). This implies a shared responsibility across time and illustrates how trauma can be transhistorical and intergenerational. The experience of collective trauma is not easy to escape. It sends ripples out across the generations of families, marking an important event in that group's history. As a result, certain beliefs and responses are inherited by descendants which exposes them to knowledge that fosters a unique mindset in which the individual and collective view the world around them. The inherent irrepresentability of trauma highlights how history is not always a 100% accurate source.

Like most schools of thought, trauma theory continued to develop, and the second wave of trauma studies challenged the typical model of its predecessor. The Pluralistic model as it came to be known, challenges the notion that trauma is entirely unspeakable by analyzing the cultural dimensions of trauma and the diversity in narrative expression. It suggests that traumatic experience exposes new knowledge of the "relationships between experience, language, and knowledge that detail the social significance of trauma" (Mambrol). This model emphasizes how the reorientation of consciousness due to traumatic events creates diverse memories and meaning for different people. Furthermore, the pluralistic model focuses on the discernable values of trauma and challenges the importance of the demand for a complete dissociation and an altered point of reference regarding trauma (Mambrol). By relying upon the external stimuli that caused the trauma response, one can demonstrate how it occurs in specific people, periods, and geographical locations which influence the meaning of the event to the individual and the collective. This implies that the traumatic event in question is created and recreated anytime it is reflected upon, even by the same individual. The unique experiences of each human, their identities, and their view of the world shape how they think and behave. Therefore, what the survivors of trauma articulate, and what they do not articulate, can partly be attributed to their cultural context instead of the claim that trauma is inherently unspeakable (Mambrol). Because the pluralistic model challenges the unspeakability trope of trauma, it highlights how language can illustrate various meanings of traumatic experience and how shifting values over time inform the diverse understandings of said event.

The pluralistic model of trauma provides feminist scholars a great framework to analyze systems of power that create an environment where large-scale instances of injustice are interwoven in the fabric of our history. For example, the United States of America was built off the backs of black slaves. The white European settlers that enslaved, tortured, and many times killed their slaves did so on the grounds of supremacy. White supremacists believe that they are the ideal species of man and those who are not like them (white, male, cisgender, able-bodied, and educated) have less inherent human value. Up until the 1940s, science even "supported" this assumption that black people are less intelligent humans with scientists like Frances Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, who popularized eugenics in the United States and England. His eugenic practices aimed to create a "more suitable race" that was not plagued with human "defects." This goal was not achieved through genuine efforts to protect human life, such as regular water testing and treatment for example, but rather through the erasure of the people who embodied the characteristics heteropatriarchy and white supremacy saw as less than.

One way the endeavor to erase the presence of marginalized groups was carried out was through the unethical medical experiments that were conducted on black slaves. Black men and women were used as lab rats to test various hypotheses of curious white doctors and scientists. Women were under-went forced sterilization, oftentimes with little to no pain killers or anesthesia. This history of the forced sterilization of black women continued until the 1970's well into the evolution of medical practice and ethics. However, white supremacy is so deeply ingrained in our culture that doctors actually agreed that sterilizations should be conducted.

Despite all the efforts and lives that went into creating a more just world, prejudice within the U.S. medical system is still prevalent in 2021. Black and other women of color report negative experiences with doctors who dismiss their health concerns and, consequently, experience far greater infant and maternal mortality rates than white women. Out of every 1,000 black infants born, 11.3 will die, compared to only 4.9 white infants. For every 100,000 live births, 12.7 white women will not survive. In contrast, a grand some of 43.5 black women die after childbirth (Vox). This early history of physical, mental, and emotional trauma, combined with modern-day prejudice and bias against the black community, within the medical field has prevented black men and women alike from receiving the medical attention they need. The history of trauma for the black community by the hands of white perpetrators has created a viewpoint that recognizes the ways the United States has institutionalized racism and continues to act with flagrant disregard for black lives.

Trauma theory is a valuable asset to the feminist scholar in that it helps create a foundation for knowledge production. The irrepresentability of trauma is complex in that both hinders and improves our understanding of how trauma affects the minds of victims. Because it is so devastatingly disruptive, people have difficulty finding the right words to describe their thoughts and emotions.

2 notes · View notes

ahiddenpath · 5 years ago

Text

Kizuna Countdown #7

7.) Favorite Adventure Chosen Child (older six)

It’s like you don’t even know me... XD

I... don’t know if I have the constitution to explain my choice right now, but I will try below ze cut!

Before I get into it: here are some of my Koushiro headcanons!

Hmm... I feel like “Koushiro is my fave!” is kind of... one of the more difficult cases to defend. I’ve talked to a lot of fans and my fic readers over the years who basically said, “I mean, I like him, but he’s... He’s just, like, a geek trope character. How are you making such a full-fleshed character out of him/giving him so much love?”

I think some of this viewpoint stems from the Japanese Koushiro vs English dub Izzy issue that I explore here. I think most of it is people seeing Koushiro as an exposition/forward momentum machine, and having little to offer beyond that. And to be fair... Koushiro sometimes seems to think that he has little to offer beyond his technical skills! And because of his adoption and the misunderstandings stemming from it, Koushiro has more “backstory” than all of the other Chosen, except for Yamato and Takeru with the divorce/separation. There’s a lot more going on with him than is obvious from the many, many times he is shown onscreen with his face glued to a laptop.

I don’t know if I want this to turn into a full-fledged character analysis... But let me list the ways I love ya boi.

1.) Koushiro is open-minded and always ready to reevaluate

Humans have a strong tendency to search for evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs, often disregarding evidence to the contrary. This creates problems on the personal, interpersonal, and political level as people happily shut themselves in echo chambers.

Koushiro actively, eagerly collects data and shifts his theories in kind. He doesn’t allow his emotional attachment to certain ideas or theories to cloud his judgement (except for Izzy and aliens, sigh). He’s here for the truth, and there for the truth, and up at 3 AM for the truth. God, that’s refreshing.

2.) Koushiro is exceptionally generous with his time and talents

I probably don’t have to explain this one! Look at this Good Boi, always monitoring everything and working so hard and mentoring the 02 kids and hanging out in the elementary school computer lab every day to help them and staying up for three days straight in Tri and HE IS A GOOD BOI.

Like, there’s a reason Kou-chan has so many connections and online friends and everyone respects him and listens to him. He is? So helpful?? ALL THE TIME?! And he never asks for anything in return but basic respect. Like, all he wants is to earnestly help however he can?! I CRY!

Like, you know that cliche of a savant who is always, like... Too busy doing his genius savant stuff to really contribute? Not our boy!

3.) He’s almost comically, over the top talented, but HE IS SO HUMBLE?!

Actually, Koushiro suffers from low self-esteem (Izzy... not so much).

The basic idea is that Koushiro overheard his parents talking about his adoption when he was a young warthog. Sadly, he was too smol to know how to cope with this knowledge, and he decided that he was a burden to the Izumis. He retreated into his laptop in response to his sudden feelings of not belonging, and he tried to act like a perfect child to avoid adding more burdens to his adoptive parents. As a result, his social skills likely didn’t advance during crucial developmental periods.

He tends to think that all he can offer is his talent, but at the same time, he doesn’t seem to think his talents are worth much. The result is rare indeed: an actual genius, a total outlier in intelligence, who doesn’t think he’s special or gifted.

Now, low-self esteem is not a plus, and neither is underdeveloped social skills... But frankly, “humble super-genius” makes for a nice change in media. And I know that someday, Koushiro will grow from low-self esteem to actual humility.

4.) Koushiro’s introversion and comparatively weak social skills are approached with kindness in Digimon Adventure

The viewers are made aware that Koushiro’s logical attitude, paired with somewhat lacking social skills, can cause hurt feelings. We see this most often with Mimi, who is as emotional as Koushiro is logical. Their direct interactions tend to end in confusion and frustration, as seen in the labyrinth episode in Adventure and a few arguments in Tri.

Still, Koushiro isn’t portrayed as a jerk or a loser because of this. One of the great aspects of Adventure is that it places kids who rub each other the wrong way sometimes in close proximity, showing the viewer that sometimes, a fight isn’t about someone being right and someone being wrong. Sometimes, it’s just about a difference in view point.

One of my favorite moments in Adventure is when Koushiro says goodbye to Tentomon. He uses a formal expression to thank Tentomon for taking care of him, and Tentomon says, “After all this time, you’re going to be formal with me?!” Koushiro responds that he doesn’t know what else to say, and Tentomon accepts this openly. Koushiro is not punished for his introversion and his difficulty in expressing his emotions.

How often do you see this in media?! So beautiful.

5.) Koushiro is forgiving, nonviolent, and conscious of social issues

First, I realize that all of the Chosen get into digimon fights, so I’m referring to human to human violence here.

Koushiro refused to hit Taichi after Taichi got unfairly physical with him, even when Taichi asked him to take a swing as recompense (EDIT: This was the English dub, oops! I smear these things together all the time :/). He forgives easily, so long as he receives an apology (the Taichi/Koushiro apology in 02 is the first example that comes to mind). And it’s mentioned in promotional materials that Koushiro buys fair trade.

I can’t stress this enough: Koushiro is a sweetheart.

6.) Koushiro is a good listener!

He may not know what to say in return, but the Adventure characters tend to unload on him, especially Taichi. I bet he gives objective advice... That potentially pisses off his more emotional listeners! XD

7.) He’s a Mama’s boy and it is so cute?!

Koushiro is devoted to his parents and takes opportunities to show it, such as the fancy anniversary dinner that was rudely interrupted by Kuwagamon in Tri.

Okay, this is long and I am tired, but may I present this good and sweet Chosen to everyone!

#kizunacountdown #koushiro izumi #izzy izumi #kizuna #digimon kizuna

20 notes · View notes

cruciformity · 5 years ago

Text

Thanks for helping me pilot my faith through turbulence!

I previously wrote about how "if my faith was an airplane, then unfortunately it has flown into some turbulence lately". I am pleased to report that thanks to some incredibly helpful replies on various forums, my aircraft has passed through the turbulence unscathed and in fact with some new insights.

I had got caught up in an idea from a Christian book that identified fear of death as a major human driver. It drew upon the work of Ernest Becker who theorised that we invent hero systems in which we can be immortal to overcome our death anxiety. This lead me down a rabbit hole in which I began to wonder if we invent religions simply because we can't cope with the thought of dying.

So how did I get out of this hole with my faith still intact? A few comments pointed me in the right direction.

One of them pointed out a logical flaw in my reasoning - that it does not follow from our fear of death that any belief or theory that mitigates that fear is false. Becker himself does not say that all hero systems are inherently wrong (nor does he indicate which, if any, he thinks is correct). I did not recognise that there is another possibility - that God created us with a natural fear of death that draws us to search for the way of life - for God. It is therefore unsurprising that we might end up creating religions, but that does not imply that they are all false.

Important observations people made were that many ancient religions don't have an afterlife concept so don't really help with fear of death and that for many Christians death anxiety is replaced by fear of eternal torment. In other words, if Christianity was meant to be a solution to fear of death, it was a funny way to go about it by making something even more terrifying!

I was asked if death anxiety was really a motivator for my conversion from atheism and thinking back, I can't say it really was. If anything, it was more about finding purpose and meaning in life. Coming back to Becker's idea, perhaps it is too easy to make it a catch-all explanation for our thoughts and actions? If it can be the reason for all behaviours even when they seem to contradict, then in the end perhaps it doesn't add up as an explanation for religions.

Looking at Christianity specifically, in some ways it doesn't fit into Becker's "hero system" concept. If anything, it is anti-hero with calls to self denial and a tortured and murdered messiah - an inverted idea of power shown in weakness on the cross with believers not earning their way into heaven by their heroics, but by God's free gift of grace.

Several people kindly pointed me to the writings of Richard Beck, including his book "The Slavery of Death". I was aware of other works of his such as "Reviving Old Scratch" and his blog posts on fear of scarcity, but had not encountered his articles about the fear of death. Beck makes the case that Christians have often reversed the relationship between sin and death. "Death, not sin, is the primary predicament of the human condition. Death is the cause of sin. More properly, the fear of death produces most of the sin in our lives." Why? Because it drives us to compete over anything from scarce resources to job promotions. I posted an article a while back in which I proposed that selfishness is the root of all sins and it seems reasonable to me that death anxiety could lead to egocentric behaviour.

This dovetails neatly with the "atonement" theory I outlined in three posts starting with this one. Jesus came to bring God's unconditional mercy and forgiveness and was murdered because then as now, we are unwilling to accept God's free gift of grace. This stems from our self-centred desire to protect the status quo in which we perceive (rightly or wrongly) that we have an advantage over our neighbour, something that we would have to give up when we relinquish some of our sovereignty to God. That selfishness comes maybe in part or even in totality from fear of death.

I am very glad that I went through this exploration because it has strengthened my faith. If I had instead ignored or rejected the cognitive dissonance I felt, I would have left the issue to fester, perhaps to blow up in conjunction with other information at a later date. Instead I find myself on steadier ground than I was before.

Lastly I want to offer my heartfelt thanks to those who replied to me on various forums. In truth, I was confident that I would receive helpful advice and guidance and you did not let me down - God bless you all!

#Christ #Christianity #christlike #faith #jesus #cruciform #cruciformity #cruciform theology #Deconstruction #Death Anxiety

2 notes · View notes

l0stnerd-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Beyond heuristics and into empirical validity: A conceptual and empirical investigation of the Linda problem

Introduction

“My fear is that in another 25 years researchers will still be stuck with plausible yet nebulous proposals of the same type: that judgments of probability or frequency are sometimes influenced by what is similar (representativeness), comes easily to mind (availability), and comes first (anchoring).” (Gigerenzer, 1996, p.592). In the early 70s, Kahneman and Tversky (1973) began their “heuristics and biases” program, introducing the mental shortcuts we often resort to in estimating the likelihood of events. Defined as biases which “reduce the complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, p.1124), heuristics have paved the way to the contemporary study of errors and non-normative responses in probabilistic reasoning and have extended far beyond cognitive psychology, infiltrating law (Beecher-Monas, 2000), economics (Mullainathan & Thaler, 2000), medical diagnosis (Blumenthal-Barby & Krieger, 2015), and many other fields. Despite its soaring popularity, Kahneman and Tversky’s “heuristics and biases” program has occasionally been met with bold scepticism. Between 1991 and 1996, Kahneman, Tversky and Gigerenzer have fiercely criticised eachother’s theories in a battle of articles and postscripts, ultimately dividing the judgment and decision-making field into two, seemingly irreconcilable, sides. The dispute unfolds on two separate but interdependent levels, the conceptual and the empirical. To claim an individual has made an error in judgment in a specific single-event problem is to assume an existing, predefined norm. While Kahneman and Tversky argue this norm is easily defined and there can only be a single correct answer to a given single-event problem (Kahneman & Tversky, 1996), Gigerenzer argues there can be several correct answers and conceptually refutes the assumption of normative responses (Gigerenzer, 1991, 1996). Ending their public exchanges in short but bitter postscripts on the topic of modelling human responses in judgment and decision-making, the final discussion between some of the greatest pioneers of cognitive psychology and decision sciences is grimly cleaving, but equally inviting and challenging to a generation of researchers determined to unravel the underlying mechanisms of human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty. In an attempt to uncover the most fruitful direction for future research in the study of human judgement and decision-making we shall review one of the most famous single-event word problems created, the Linda problem. The study of the conjunction fallacy has revealed four methodological and empirical concerns that influence the conclusions that can be drawn from the conjunction fallacy. We will first explore the conceptual concern, followed by the empirical concerns, divided into how the type error, the type of analysis conducted and the type of design selected influence the conclusions researchers can reach with the Linda problem. Hopefully, we will be able to outline how an ideal paradigm might cohesively structure these elements in order to understand and possibly define, what constitutes a normative response in a single-event problem and most importantly, how to apply this within the Linda problem.

Conceptual concerns

Beyond heuristics

Gigerenzer’s quote at the beginning of this paper encompasses the purpose of the work he has been conducting over the last decades in better understanding human probabilistic reasoning. His main objection again Kahneman and Tversky’s “heuristics and bias” program is how it has progressively been used as a way to evaluate human reasoning - in a rather pessimistic light - rather than truly explaining it (Gigerenzer, 1991). His “fear” that the focus and uproar surrounding heuristics will only grow stronger within the scientific community and the media seems to still hold today. Gigerenzer has outlined three major concerns regarding heuristics, which may entice us to look further into the underlying mechanisms of our common judgment errors. Firstly, they appear to be “largely undefined concepts” (Gigerenzer, 1991, p.102) leading to misattribution and confusion. Secondly, stemming from this definition issue, heuristics have been characterised as “Rorschach inkblots” where researchers can “read into them what he or she wishes” (1996, p.). Thirdly, one of Gigerenzer’s most important findings and long lasting line or work has been demonstrating how the use of frequencies compared to percentages increases performance in word problems. In several of his studies, he and his colleagues have adapted Kahneman and Tversky’s paradigms switching to frequencies and have shown significant reduction in error (Fiedler, 1988 ; Gigerenzer, Hoffrage, & Kleinbölting, 1991 ; May, 1987). In light of these criticisms, we wish to explore the conjunction fallacy outside of its heuristic framework and through the four methodological and empirical arguments outlined during the introduction in order to tackle the heart of the debate: how does one study normative responses in single event word problems? We strongly believe that this question is essential to the study of human judgment and decision-making as it allows a deeper examination of the logics and pragmatics that guide researchers into developing paradigms that are empirically and ecologically valid.

The Linda problem

The conjunction fallacy is our ideal study case, as it demonstrates the effect of the representativeness heuristic violating the conjunction rule of probability theory. “Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations” (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982, p.297). In their initial study, this description was followed by a set of eight possible occupations including a conjunction (“Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement”, T&F) and its constituent (“Linda is a bank teller”, T). Kahneman and Tversky asked their participants to rank the presented statements by “the degree to which Linda resembles the typical member of that class.” We know that “the probability of a conjunction, P(A&B), cannot exceed the probabilities of its constituents, P(A) and P(B), because the extension (or the possibility set) of the conjunction is included in the extension of its constituents.” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983, p.). The charm of the Linda problem is that despite being fully aware of this rule, the conjunction still feels right, explaining why 88% of respondents rated it (T&F) as being more likely than its constituent (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982). Gigerenzer (1991, 1996) has argued that the processes and their results occurring during the Linda problem cannot solely be explained by the representativeness and availability heuristics.

Challenging norms

On the conceptual level, there is an implicit assumption that Gigerenzer points out as an erroneous postulate: rating the conjunction as more likely than its constituent is a direct violation of the conjunction rule, if and only if, we apply probability theory to this problem. Yet he explains that probability theory cannot be used in the case of single events (Gigerenzer, 1991, 1996). Indeed, he points out that within a frequentist framework, the application of probability theory is constrained to frequencies and does therefore not apply to the Linda problem. Responding to this criticism and acknowledging it as a “conceptual argument”, Kahneman and Tversky (1996) admit there is a “disagreement among statisticians and philosophers about the interpretation of probability” (p.582). On the other hand, if we willingly adopt a Bayesian approach, then we admit the possibility of assigning probabilities to single events, since it is a matter of subjective degrees of belief (Bayes, 1763 ; Laplace, 1785). This debate about how individuals conceptualise probabilities has been at the heart of probabilistic reasoning for many years (Friston, 2012). So far, the most emerging finding in this direction has been how the format of a word problem can facilitate estimation. In several studies, researchers have demonstrated how participants score significantly more accurately when presented with frequencies rather than percentages (Barbey & Sloman, 2007; Brase, 2002, 2008; Brase, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1998; Cosmides & Tooby, 1996; Evans et al., 2000; Gigerenzer, 1994; Gigerenzer & Hoffrage, 1995). Brase (2009), has even shown that the highest score of accuracy among participant is reached when the problem and the associated probabilities are represented in a pictorial way. Despite Gigerenzer’s claim that frequencies make the conjunction error “disappear” (Gigerenzer, 1991, p.86), no study has been able to demonstrate perfect accuracy among its participants. Heuristics and biases do have an undeniable effect on human judgment and decision-making, and just as they can be strengthened or promoted within a certain setting or context, they can also be significantly weakened. The Linda problem has been presented in a frequency format (Fiedler, 1988) and has indeed shown a considerable reduction, yet this means it has lost its single-event component. In our introduction we briefly mentioned the interdependence between the conceptual and the empirical concerns regarding the Linda problem and how they relate to the ecological and empirical validity of the paradigm. This has its importance in untangling the different components of the conceptual concern, which is mainly how we can assert with absolute confidence that there is a unique normative response to the Linda problem and that the conjunction is ultimately always an incorrect answer. We have seen how this has then led us to question the application of probability theory to single-event word problems and most importantly, how the slightest shifts in experimental procedure and format can have drastic effects on performance and therefore the conclusions that can be drawn. Following this thought, we can ultimately reflect on the experimental procedure of the Linda problem.

Empirical

Type of error

If Gigerenzer has struggled with understanding the selection of a normative answer for a given problem, we may also want to ask ourselves what constitutes an error. Within human reasoning, Kahneman and Tversky (1982) have distinguished between errors of comprehension and of application. An error of comprehension occurs when an individual has violated a rule they do not recognise as valid, while an error of application occurs when an individual fails to apply a rule they recognise as valid. Kahneman and Tversky have asserted that the conjunction error is undoubtedly an error of application (p.127), but only for “sophisticated subjects” (psychology postgraduates) which are more aware of probability theory than naive subjects. The latter “were much less impressed by normative arguments, and many remained committed to their initial responses, which had violated the conjunction rule”. The authors do not provide the exact verbal reports of naive participants, yet despite the vagueness of this statement we have reasons to doubt these participants have committed an error of application rather than comprehension. If this is the case, then we can study how this information combines with our conceptual concern detailed above. Is the conjunction rule not recognised as valid because participants do not seem keen to apply probability theory to single events or is it simply out of pure ignorance of the conjunction rule? Most importantly, how does shifting from an error of application to comprehension also shift the way we look at the Linda problem? Kahneman and Tversky have described two ways of testing knowledge of a rule: asking participants to agree or endorse a statement that recognises the rule or presenting them with a “general rule or an argument for or against a particular conclusion” (p.125). The Linda problem uses the first method, which also appears to be the most subjective one. It does not explicitly inform the participant whether a rule will be presented in the first place. Furthermore, it implies exclusivity, disregarding the situation where a participant might recognise the rule but find it contextually not dominant. The authors wondered whether the statement “Linda is a bank teller” may imply that she is also not a feminist. They tested this by asking participants to rate the likelihood of the conjunction and its constituent. The reasoning behind this protocol was that “it is sensible to rate probabilities even when one of the events includes the other”, supposedly eliminating the confusion. Nonetheless, the results still revealed the conjunction error. Some confusion still remains since their justification for their design is an assumption of how the participants have understood the statements. What would the results be if a ninth statement was included such as “Linda is a bank teller and not active in the feminist movement”? We could argue that with the three logical statements present (T&F, T, and T¬F), the conjunction rule is made recognisable and would therefore offer some better insight into the type of error that is occurring.

Type of analysis

We have observed how defining which type of error is occurring can shift the way we present the Linda problem and introduces some of the hypotheses about its underlying mechanisms. This matter of perspective becomes even more relevant when considering positive and negative analyses. In decision-making under uncertainty, positive analyses focus on heuristics while negative analyses focus on “the difficulties of understanding and applying elementary rules of reasoning” (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982, p.135). If the Linda problem illustrates an error of application, then a negative analysis wishes to “identify the ways in which the coding of problems may mask the relevance of a rule that is known and accepted”, while if it actually is an error of comprehension, then the negative analysis “focuses on the obstacles that prevent people from discovering the relevant rule on their own, or from accepting simple explanations of it” (p.136). Negative analyses have not been conducted by the authors because they argue the conjunction fallacy can be mainly attributed to the representativeness and availability heuristic. Nonetheless, since the conjunction fallacy is also largely influenced by other factors such as the format of the word problem, one may wonder how a negative analysis may contribute to get a better understanding of either why people do not recognise the rule or why it is recognised but not used. Type of design

So far, we have approached the empirical concerns, from a rather analytical approach, trying to grasp how the same story can be told differently. Let us also look at the chosen experimental designs and examine how a within participant or between participant design also affect what the Linda problem truly reveals. Kahneman and Tversky (1996) have acknowledged that the type of design carries its load of “conversational implicatures” (p.) but have excluded “linguistic ambiguities” (see Tversky & Kahneman, 1983) as a culprit. The within-subject participants will typically receive more information than the between-participant group, which may lead them to not only uncover the researcher’s intent but also to learn from their errors and therefore unauthentically increase their performance. The type of design also echoes the empirical validity of the study and directs what the researchers can truly find out. They explain how it is best to use a between-subject design when wishing to focus on the “heuristic reasoning” and a within-subject design when studying the clashing of the rule with the heuristic. We seem to reach a handicapping situation where extending beyond the heuristic framework seems compromised. Both designs focus on the heuristic reasoning and for the one that also integrates the rule, we are not given any indication on how to successfully untangle and dissociate the mechanisms that are in play. Despite this, we may argue that within-subject design still seems preferable over the between-subject design. We will later see how combining what we have detailed so far within the paradigm may increase the focus on the reasoning of the rule rather than the heuristic.

Conclusion

We have explored how Kahneman, Tversky and Gigerenzer’s “research strategy” (Gigerenzer, 1996, p.596) differ and are central to their disagreement on the empirical validity of the conjunction fallacy in the Linda problem. Starting out with the conceptual concerns brought out by Gigerenzer (1991, 1996) we have explored how it might be tempting for future research to explore the Linda problem focusing more on the understanding and presentation of rules rather than exclusively through heuristics. With this desire in mind, we then attempted to address the empirical concerns Gigerenzer had outlined. Regarding the type of error, we cannot ignore the possibility of an error of comprehension in the Linda problem. By adding on to the original paradigm we may add clarity and limit possible confusion in terms of interpretation. Acknowledging that different populations (naive vs sophisticated) seem to make different types of error which are still expressed similarly (rating the conjunction as more likely than its constituent) also adds to our understanding of participant’s reasoning and possible applications or ignorance of probability in single event word problems. Experimenting with negative analyses may deepen our understanding of how participants respond to rules. Lastly, integrating this paradigm in a within-subject design seems to be the ideal strategy to optimise empirical validity in the Linda problem. Over 20 years ago, Gigerenzer expressed his motivation for the study of reasoning under uncertainty to extend beyond the investigation of heuristics. Exploring his argumentation, we have attempted to point out the many ways the Linda problem can be addressed without focusing on representativeness or availability. An important aspect of this work is its historical relevance. In order to successfully and confidently look into the future, we propose to look back at one of the most famous and popular problems in judgment and decision-making and see how we can expand it to amplify and extend its legacy.

References

Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 241-254.

Bayes, T. (1970). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability, 1, 134-153. Original work published, 1763.

Beecher-Monas, E. (2000). The heuristics of intellectual due process: a primer for triers of science. NYUL Rev., 75, 1563.

Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Krieger, H. (2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 539-557.

Brase, G. L. (2002). Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(5), 381-401.

Brase, G. L. (2008). Frequency interpretation of ambiguous statistical information facilitates Bayesian reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 284–289. http://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.284

Brase, G. L. (2009). Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 369-381.

Brase, G., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1998). Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: The role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 127(1), 3–21. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.3

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. cognition, 58(1), 1-73.

Evans, J. S. B. T., Handley, S. J., Perham, N., Over, D. E., & Thompson, V. a. (2000). Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems. Cognition, 77, 197–213. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00098-6

Friston, K. (2012). The history of the future of the Bayesian brain. NeuroImage, 62(2), 1230-1233.

Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases”. European review of social psychology, 2(1), 83-115. Gigerenzer, G. (1994). Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa). Subjective probability, 129-161.

Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky.

Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684–704. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684

Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological review, 98(4), 506.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological review, 80(4), 237.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11, 123-141.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions.

Laplace, P. D. (1785). Mémoire sur les approximations des formules qui sont fonctions de très grands nombres. Œuvres complètes X, Paris, 209-291.

Lerman, K. (2017, July). A Meme is Not a Virus: The Role of Cognitive Heuristics in Information Diffusion. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (pp. 1-1). ACM.

Mullainathan, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2000). Behavioral economics (No. w7948). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185,1124-1131.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological review, 90(4), 293.

#heuristics #psychology #cognitive science #cognition #daniel kahneman #gigerenzer #amos tversky #bias #linda problem

2 notes · View notes

paleblood-skyler · 7 years ago

Text

Understanding Bloodborne, Option A: Moon Presence is Oedon.

During my exhaustive observation of Bloodborne’s fantastic community (seriously, the friendliest and cleverest I’ve ever seen), a surprisingly limited amount of Big Picture theories and variations have ever come to my attention. They often work off of the ideas or assumptions presented by the more prominent “lorehunters,” and subsequently become rather homogeneous. Now I’d like to explore for myself what seem to be the most important ideas from which all others might branch. In an attempt to cover the most ground with the simplest conclusions, I’ll be using the identity of the Moon Presence to explore two major trains of thought, starting with the one that is bafflingly entertained the least (due to a single adjective that, with Kos as my witness, I will work around).

Note: The Old Hunters will temporarily be considered “optional content” for these Oedon-centric theories. The Hunter’s Nightmare elucidates a LOT of Truth of course, but I’ll be reserving it for future theory extensions which I’m greatly looking forward to.

So, Option A. The Moon Presence is Oedon. This was the conclusion I naturally came to back in 2015, before exposure to the online community. Option A has a lot of what I think is really compelling evidence, but keep in mind that each train of thought will reveal very different themes and takeaways for the overall story. You may prefer one theory over another not due to facts but because of what you feel the story is about. Regardless, here’s the reasoning and consequences for Option A.

“Human or no, the oozing blood is a medium of the highest grade, and the essence of the formless Great One, Oedon. Both Oedon, and Oedon’s inadvertent worshippers, surreptitiously seek the precious blood.” - Oedon Writhe Rune

Alright, let’s tackle the big question first. If Oedon is consistently referred to as the Formless Great One, how could he possibly be the moon-dwelling physical thing we brutalize with a [brutal hunter weapon]? “Formless” is the one detail that sticks out to people about Oedon, and the immediate discounting of this possible identity of the Moon Presence means that people miss an entire way to interpret the story. It’s incredibly important to entertain a shift in perspective here, an embrace of the dream logic that this game clearly operates on. According to the description above, Oedon is a presence. A force. He may traditionally be described as formless, but he’s still a legitimate Great One that is so powerful that he is considered to be everywhere and nowhere, with blood as his essence. A literal god of blood.

Consider Oedon Tomb where we find Gascoigne. This is a fully-realized tomb featuring a statue of a physical idea of Oedon, surrounded by gravestones. This is a graveyard, and it’s difficult to imagine a graveyard dedicated to a figure that’s still considered among the living. When paired with the ideas that Mergo is formless after stillbirth, persisting in voice, and the Wet Nurse is likely the formless spirit of a dead Great One (given the ghostly effects and siderite weapons), it may be extrapolated that Oedon is persisting in spirit after death. Given the statue and the nature of other Great Ones, it’s conceivable that Oedon once had a physical form, and if we learned anything about the dream, it’s that dead things can survive in it. (See: Micolash, Laurence, and Maria.)

“In the age of the Great Ones, wedlock was a blood contract, only permitted to those slated to bear a special child.” - Ring of Betrothal

“Every Great One loses its child, and then yearns for a surrogate, and Oedon, the formless Great One, is no different. To think, it was corrupted blood that began this eldritch liaison.” - One Third of Umbilical Cord (from Arianna’s celestial child)

Now if we have a god of blood, it’s important to know how exactly he has his power in the present age of Yharnam. Back in the Pthumerian days when eldritch contact was prevalent, Queen Yharnam was selected to bear a Child of Blood, a pairing with Oedon himself. This wasn’t just because she had a special ring, but because she would come to have compatible blood for bearing such a child. (See: Queen Annalise in the modern day attempting to bear a Child of Blood, imbibing countless blood dregs in an attempt to gain that compatible blood type.) However, every potential Great One child is lost, either due to death or separation, and Yharnam’s baby Mergo died in stillbirth, becoming formless like their father.

“Well, once a group of young Byrgenwerth scholars discovered a holy medium deep within the tomb. This led to the founding of the Healing Church, and the establishment of blood healing.” - Albert

And when Byrgenwerth eventually pillaged the ruins of Pthumeru like the fishing village before it, they found and bound the immortal remains of Yharnam, from whom they discovered and extracted Old Blood. The miraculous blood of Oedon which would lead to the founding of the Healing Church. Provost Willem foresaw the dangers of imbibing the blood of a dead god, turning his attention away from blood altogether and instead focusing on inner eyes, but this didn’t keep Laurence from leaving the college with Old Blood in tow.

“Runesmith Caryll, student of Byrgenwerth, transcribed the inhuman utterings of the Great Ones into what are now called Caryll Runes.” - Rune Workshop Tool

“The Great One Oedon, lacking form, exists only in voice...” - Formless Oedon Rune

So we have a Great One, a god of blood, who was at least at one time considered to be the greatest of the great (see: Oedon Chapel, the only place of worship dedicated to a single god), who now only exists in voice. His whispers echoing across the dreamlands, likely enhanced by the mass imbibing of his special medium, were heard the loudest by Caryll the Runesmith. This idea is strengthened by the fact that Oedon is the only Great One to have runes named after him, which only makes sense given that runes are “inhuman utterings” and Oedon is the most prominent vocal presence in the dream. In fact, with the power of that voice, it’s likely that many of Caryll’s runes were transcribed straight from Oedon’s own voice. These runes include the Hunter’s Mark itself, which a Great One used to brand us as hunters of the dream, as well as “several runes [that] relate to ‘Blood.’” This is important for what’s up ahead, a link between Oedon’s blood runes and the Moon.

“When the red moon hangs low, the line between man and beast is blurred. And when the Great Ones descend, a womb will be blessed with child.” - Note in Byrgenwerth

Okay, there’s a lot stemming from this one note. We have a few connections, including the first tangible connection between blood and the moon. This, paired with the fact that the Moon rune grants more blood echoes, gives the sense of some twisted relationship. And not only does this note reveal a causal relationship between the blood moon and outbreaks of the scourge of beasts, but also between the blood moon and invisible impregnation, made most obvious by Arianna’s fate. The nightmarish celestial child she gave birth to below Oedon Chapel was, in fact, one of many of Oedon’s attempts to create a surrogate child since losing Mergo (see: earlier Oedon-heavy description of the Third Cord from this child). And this came directly from the unveiling of the blood moon, a symbol we will see is synonymous with Oedon, and by extension, the Moon Presence. But first let’s unpack that earlier connection, between the blood moon and the scourge of beasts. This will involve the very origins of the dream, which will be much further explored in research on The Old Hunters.

“The nameless moon presence beckoned by Laurence and his associates. Paleblood.” - Note in the Lecture Building

First, about Paleblood. Now there are many dream-logic connections to be made between Oedon and Paleblood, but the clearest is a cause and effect seen at the very start and end of the game. “Seek Paleblood to transcend the hunt.” If transcending the hunt means becoming an infant Great One and earning humanity a new childhood, then seeking Paleblood is defined by our encounter with and the slaying of the Moon Presence-- i.e. the creature that comes from the blood moon, well-established as the symbol of Oedon. Beyond this cause and effect, we also have, “Behold! A Paleblood sky!” This Yahar’gul note becomes relevant once the blood moon appears, unmasked by Rom’s death. In a rare moment of director Hidetaka Miyazaki speaking on the story, he mentions that the idea behind Paleblood was the pale color of the sky as if it’d been drained of blood. And what could have drained the sky of blood? The looming blood moon, a celestial sponge now exuding its highest cosmic strength. So in this respect, Paleblood represents the absence of Oedon’s blood power, the blood having been drained from the sky as a manifestation of his greed. Thus, seeking Paleblood entails the defeat of Oedon, the elimination of his blood power, which would end the scourge of the beast and afford humanity its freedom, a new childhood. And now if we play along with the idea that the Moon Presence is Oedon, a lot of interesting consequences for the story arise.

“The Third Umbilical Cord precipitated the encounter with the pale moon, which beckoned the hunters and conceived the Hunter’s Dream.” - Third Umbilical Cord (from the Abandoned Old Workshop)

Notice that the moon wasn’t always a thing that would turn blood-red, not at least until after the dream was conceived. It was a pale presence, distant yet, from Laurence’s perspective, something to be contacted. With the Moon rune granting more blood echoes, it’s possible that Laurence, drunk on the power that the Old Blood and the Healing Church gave him, wanted to strike a deal with whatever formless presence hid in the moon to amass more power. Little did he know that this nameless thing was in fact Oedon himself. So it was very likely that Oedon, searching for a surrogate child while forever yearning for his beloved Mergo adrift in the nightmare, saw an opportunity in this encounter.

The game can never state it enough. “Every Great One loses its child, and then yearns for a surrogate.” Every single Great One that attempts to bear children somehow loses it. This plays into larger themes of knowledge, survival, and the cost of power but I’ll keep the discussion on Oedon and Mergo for now. Mergo, a formless child lost in the dreamlands, eternally crying out for their parents, is all alone in a brutal world where all other children have died. The grieving Great Ones yearn for a surrogate, and Mergo is the most tempting in any reality. We see Mergo’s cries as a magnet, Amygdalae converging on Yahar’gul when Mergo’s cries ring out from the nightmare. (Note: those Amygdalae weren’t there before the ritual was revealed, since no amount of insight will show them. They gravitated in direct response to the blood moon and the wailing.) There’s just one problem for the usual Great One, keeping them separate from their ideal surrogate: Mergo is dead, formless.

“Hunters of hunters dress as crows to suggest sky burial.” - Crowfeather Attire

“This red-smudged rune means ‘Hunter,’ and was adopted by the hunter of hunters oath. These watchmen admonish those who have become intoxicated with blood. Be they men or beasts, anyone who has antagonized the pledgers of the ‘Hunter’ oath surely has an issue with blood.” - Hunter Rune

It only makes sense, then, that the Great One that manages to swoop in and imprison Mergo is the ironically named Wet Nurse. When struck, it reacts the same way as all the other spirits and dead things do, with an unearthly noise and a puff of smoke. It’s formless beneath its hood, like dead Oedon and Mergo. Its feathered cloak is reminiscent of a crow, suggesting sky burial. And its siderite blades are sister weapons to the Burial Blade and Blade of Mercy, weapons forged from a mineral that fell from the heavens and specialize in the dealing of death to hunters. Finally, the music that plays is Mergo’s Lullaby, a tune that became popular in contemporary Yharnam. This combination of elements is incredibly suggestive of a hunter of hunters, one who has an issue with blood and those intoxicated by it. Depending on where your head is at, it would be equally easy to imagine two things: She was a human hunter who’d transcended the hunt, took issue with Oedon’s blood-drunkenness, and was killed for her transgression; or, she was an already-existent Great One killed by Oedon and her human worshippers created a Hunter of Hunters clan in her honor, vowing to hunt the blood-drunk. In either case (or any possibility involving these traits of hunter-hunters), her spirit would be absolutely opposed to Oedon, the most blood-drunk of all, and would be more than happy to take Mergo as her surrogate child. It’s unclear whether the Wet Nurse succeeded in taking Mergo because of her deathly state or the power granted by her vendetta against Oedon and the blood-drunk, but there we have two potentially valid reasons for her success. As such, the way we end what would become our night of the hunt is by freeing Mergo and quelling Oedon’s wrath. The nightmare is slain once the Wet Nurse is gone and Mergo has a few moments to calm down and escape the awful dream.

“Loran is a tragic land that was devoured by the sands. The tragedy that struck this ailing land of Loran is said to have its roots in the scourge of the beast.” - Ailing Loran Chalice

“There are trace remains of medical procedures in parts of ailing Loran. Whether these were attempts to control the scourge of the beast, or the cause of the outbreak, is unknown.” - Lower Loran Chalice

So this heavenly conflict of interest between Oedon and every Great One who yearns for a child surrogate is what leads to the dream and the scourge. In communicating with power-hungry hunters, Oedon did two things to get his way. For one, he began to do to Yharnam and its mortal plane what he did to Loran in the old days when they’d attempted to imbibe his blood and become Great Ones which would threaten his child. Essentially, he spiked the collective drink. All who imbibed in his Old Blood would go into a frenzy and devolve into mindless beasts who stood no chance at ascension, starting with Laurence who’d likely taken the blood from Queen Yharnam himself and lusted for power. The other thing Oedon did was conceive the Hunter’s Dream and contract hunters who’d become undying by the scent of the moon and the guidance of the messengers. These hunters were to hunt and kill to their hearts’ content, amassing power through blood which Oedon would absorb for himself by the night’s end. Their mission was to “Hunt the Great Ones. Hunt the Great Ones.” But one particular night of the hunt was more important than any other, and calls for a brief dip into Old Hunters content. So why The One Reborn and the Wet Nurse and Mensis on tonight of all nights?

“In his final years, Master Willem was fond of the lookout, and the rocking chair that he kept there for meditation. In the end, it is said, he left his secret with the lake.” - Lunarium Key

“Great volumes of water serve as a bulwark guarding sleep, and an augur of the eldritch Truth. Overcome this hindrance, and seek what is yours.” - Lake Runes

When Kos washed up on the coast of the fishing village, she was dead. She’d also been pregnant, and her orphan was taken by the likes of Gehrman during the Byrgenwerth raid. Willem had ordered it, having given up on the prospects of blood and instead turned to the idea of internal eyes, for which the villagers were forcibly searched. When the child was taken back to Byrgenwerth, they were assuredly dissected and their parts studied, especially the umbilical cord from Kos. It’s not immediately clear what they did with this cord at first, but I’m of the belief that Willem’s actions weren’t swift. He held onto the possibility of ascension through the rest of his teaching years, and the formative years of the Healing Church. And then, the trigger became clear. Once the scourge of the beast surfaced in Yharnam thanks to Laurence, Willem enlisted his student Rom for the most important experiment. Having foreseen the dangers of the Old Blood, he watched, waited, and he knew that the moon was a sort of window that allowed a nameless presence to operate in reality through the blood. With his Third Cord, through the power of dead Kos, Willem granted Rom eyes and elected to become the host of the dream they would create. With the Moonside Lake, their own shard of the dream, Willem and Kos became a bulwark guarding reality from the nightmare in an attempt to suppress Oedon’s power over the blood. The ritual meant Willem would finally achieve enlightenment through Rom, but would be unable to share it. Evidently, the hosts of dreams are somewhat shackled to the Great One that created it, and Rom would appear vacuous in her perpetual state of keeping the window between worlds muddied.

“Ahh, Kos. Or some say Kosm... Do you hear our prayers? As you once did for the vacuous Rom, Grant us eyes, grant us eyes.” - Micolash, Host of the Nightmare

“The Mensis Ritual must be stopped, lest we all become beasts.” “Madmen toil surreptitiously in rituals to beckon the moon. Uncover their secrets.” - Notes in Yahar’gul

Nights of the hunt would pass, and the Healing Church would split into its sects. The Choir, having found Ebrietas in Great Isz, would look to the sky, where the Pthumerians departed, for their chance at enlightenment. But the School of Mensis would look back to the sea, the “source of all greatness,” which would require the study of the dead. Having learned of Rom’s ascension through the power of Kos, the goal of Mensis would be to study the nightmare where dead things persist, in order to contact Kos. Penetrating the veil between worlds en masse would require the power of the moon, that window to the nightmare, even if it meant inviting the scourge of the beast.

“This Cord granted Mensis audience with Mergo, but resulted in the stillbirth of their brains.” - One Third of Umbilical Cord (from Mergo’s Wet Nurse)

“Nightmarish rituals crave a newborn. Find one and silence its harrowing cry.” - Note in Yahar’gul

It’s unclear where all of the Third Cords came from, but it could be tied to a certain cut item description. Instead of debating its canon here, I’ll move on with the clear knowledge that Mensis had a Cord and intended to use it to contact Mergo. It seems they hoped that by contacting the spirit of the much-desired infant, it would draw in many other wandering Great One spirits like, they hoped, Kos. And while the walls between realities were sufficiently shattered and they were pulled into the nightmare, their brains were “stillborn” as a result of their close contact with the dead child. A Great One spirit known as the Wet Nurse coveted Mergo atop her newly manufactured cathedral-cradles of dead servants, ready for Oedon’s retaliation; and Micolash, the new host of this nightmare, relished in Mergo’s cries while awaiting the arrival of the one who would finally grant him eyes. Indeed, this entrapment of Mergo as gruesome bait would be known as the Mensis Ritual, and Oedon’s wrath through the scourge would only get stronger. Thus would begin the longest night yet, and the most important of Oedon’s contracted hunters. Rom would still suppress the greater effects of the nightmare, but even Willem in his helpless state knew that someone would have to come and unmask the Ritual in order to enter the nightmare and end it. As for The One Reborn...

“Great old bell discovered in the underground labyrinth. Its ring resonates across worlds...” - Beckoning Bell

“When all is melted in blood, all is reborn.” - Ritual Blood

With the Unseen Village vacant and the longest night of the hunt beginning, mad Pthumerians with sinister bells and sacks for kidnapping wandered to the surface, preparing their own ghastly ritual. The remaining Pthumerians from the Tomb of the Gods were left behind by their ascendant brethren, lingering in the immortal madness wrought by the eldritch Truth. Whatever conscious drive they had in surfacing in Yharnam, it must have been a visceral sort of reasoning based on Great One worship. They likely felt the waxing power of the moon and decided to capitalize on its coming surge to please their gods. For the Pthumerians, especially the bell-ringers, enjoyed something like necromancy. They used inter-world resonances to manipulate blood itself, and shaped it into whatever they pleased. In the Unseen Village they would indeed find immense power in Oedon’s blood moon. So ritual materials were required. Kidnappers took people from throughout Yharnam and locked them in cells or caskets. Once Rom died and the Mensis Ritual was properly revealed, it seems Oedon’s power was greater than they’d anticipated, reanimated beasts and other horrors lashing out at everything that lived.

Still the bell-ringers summoned protection through the blood. Perhaps they knew that guarding the site of the Ritual would ensure that their beloved Amygdalae would continue to bless their skies. Or maybe they saw this as their own opportunity for death-fueled ascension, because once our hunter arrives at the Advent Plaza, bell-ringers summon through the nightmare what may in fact be their own attempt at reaching Kos with the body parts of captured Yharnamites and Mensis scholars. (See: translated lyrics for “Hail the Nightmare” express a desire to use the power of blood to reach the dead mother of the sea. And is that a half-born Orphan jutting out the top?) After all, it would make sense to call Kos “The One,” of all Great Ones. Were it not for her death and promise of ascension, great many tragedies wouldn’t have befallen the people of Yharnam and the fishing village.

“Both Oedon, and Oedon’s inadvertent worshippers, surreptitiously seek the precious blood.” - Oedon Runes

“Queen Annalise partakes in these blood dreg offerings, so that she may one day bear the Child of Blood, the next Vileblood heir.” - Blood Dreg

This was supposed to just brush on the larger aspects of the story so I won’t go into too much more detail here, but there are a couple more tidbits that make Option A a worthy approach. First, the runes directly named after Oedon enhance our hunters’ Quicksilver, which is infused with their powerful god-enhanced blood. This medium can then be translated through many tools via the arcane, strongly tying Oedon’s “oozing” blood to the unseen forces that weave between worlds. Second, there’s the appearance of the Moon Presence itself. Unlike any other Great One we find, it’s absolutely drenched in blood and utilizes the most unique blood powers, as if it’d been manufactured straight from the blood moon itself like The One Reborn. Like the avatar for a thing without form, a dead thing only given life in a dream. And finally, there’s Annalise, trying to recreate that union with Oedon in ancient Pthumeru. How curious that the blood artifact she requires, as pointed out by the community on multiple occasions, “appear in the blood of echo fiends” when embracing a Blood Rune (Corruption), the very sort of blood echoes so ravenously desired by our own Moon Presence... So yes, Option A is the route of guises and greed. “If I can’t have it, then no one can.” Dead gods peering in from realms of eternal sleep.

Many of these ideas may carry over to my exploration of Option B since they may hold up regardless of the identity of the Moon Presence, but perhaps by the time I get there, everything I thought I knew will seem ridiculous. Just writing this out, as few details as possible and keeping it to the big picture, I’ve had to challenge what I took for granted over the last three years. Maybe by putting this out there I can get some input and challenge it some more! And I also look forward to tackling The Old Hunters in depth as well as the little things that may later inform the big picture. But for now, I need a few sedatives...

#bloodborne #oedon #moon presence #story #lore #entry

43 notes · View notes

mindsage-blog · 7 years ago

Photo

Con-spiracies // #1: Mandela Effects

Most internet users have recently been troubled by the question, “do you remember it being Berenstein or Berenstain Bears?” Majority of people who grew up with those stories remember it as being Berenstein Bears, even though it has always been Berenstain. This predicament has recently been given a name – the Mandela effect.

The name was made popular by Fiona Broome, who claimed to remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the 1980s, even though he didn’t die until 2013. She found other people who remembered similar details, some even going as far as “remembering” news coverage of the funeral and riots in Africa. Broome started a website discussing the Mandela effect and had many responses from other internet users who listed other “memories” that may be considered Mandela effects. These include:

Sex IN the City or Sex AND the City?

Mirror, mirror or magic mirror?

Looney Tunes or Looney Toons?

“Luke, I am your father” or “No, I am your father”?

There are a few theories that have arisen with the popularity of this topic. The first, and probably the most discussed, is that these confusions stem from the multiverse theory. It is believed that people “slip” between different universes, where perhaps Nelson Mandela did die in prison, and then end up in a universe where he didn’t. Although scientists believe in the possibility of the existence of multiverses, in relation to the Mandela effect it doesn’t really make sense. If multiverses were real and we were able to slip between them, how do multiple people slip between the same universes to remember the same details? And why would something as insignificant as a letter in the name of a children’s book be changed?

Another theory is that we live in a simulation similar to the “Holodeck” in StarTrek. The Holodeck is an entertainment device that is similar to virtual reality devices. This theory claims that due to glitches in the software, we may misremember details, and that’s why multiple people remember certain things being different. Obviously, this theory is outrageous, but some people believe it to be valid.

There are countless other theories that have been thrown around relating to why these inconsistencies in memory occur. These include time travellers changing things in the past that result in tiny detail changes today, changes occurring due to Satan or black magic, and theories similar to that of the Matrix.

Although many people have been given logical explanations to these memory inconsistencies, those who believe in these bizarre theories often refuse to acknowledge them. This may be because people have a need to believe that something bigger than us exists out there that is mysterious and more exciting than life actually is. There’s nothing wrong with believing in multiverses or time travelling, but it implies that our brains work perfectly 100% of the time. In reality, memory is actually more complicated than it seems.

Memory is constructive, not reproductive, meaning that rather than playing back like a recording, memories are built from various pieces of information. Therefore, our memories may be influenced by other factors that happened during the time of the memory that distract us from the focus, our current knowledge of situations that have changed since the event, or outside influence (such as someone telling us that an event occurred a certain way). Many logical theories about the Mandela effect revolve around false memories (in which we create memories either unconsciously or subconsciously), to which there are many different factors.

Misinformation effect involves having your memory influenced by another person if you don’t have any solid memories or connections with the topic. For example, you may not have actually read the Berenstain Bears before, but your best friend as a kid loved them, so when someone claims they remember it as Berenstein Bears books you truly believe you do too. This is an example of how memories are constructive – you have bits and pieces of information in your memory but you don’t entirely remember the story so you have to fabricate some of it. The act of fabricating memories is known as confabulation.

Confirmation bias comes into play when people search for or remember information a particular way so that the memory coincides with their beliefs. This means that people who read about Mandela effects will be more likely to have their memories influenced by other people’s memories.

Another common memory fault is that of Cryptomnesia, which is when a person confuses imagination with a memory. This may occur when someone experiences a vivid dream and years later they recall it being an actual memory. For example, Fiona Broome may have had a dream that Nelson Mandela died in prison, and when she started talking about it, other people may have experienced a misinformation effect, resulting in a fabrication of Nelson Mandela’s death.

Jim Coan, a US professor of psychology, explains how Cryptomnesia exists using the “lost in the mall” procedure. Coan gave his family descriptions of memories from his childhood, one of which was fabricated. He told them that he remembered his brother getting lost in the mall when they were younger, which his brother actually claimed to remember. He even went as far as to make up details about the event in particular, even though it never actually happened. This describes Cryptomnesia, as well as the misinformation effect.

As mentioned before, the reason people believe in the Mandela effect is because they feel the need to believe that something exists out there bigger than themselves. This is referred to as a social reinforcement of beliefs. It involves feeling the need to have control over our lives and the world we live in as well as the desire to believe that we’re a part of something bigger. While believing in the Holodeck theory doesn’t hold much in terms of logic, it’s fun and interesting to believe in because it implies that there is a fascinating explanation behind simple memory failures.

Mandela effects are fun to discuss, especially when someone remembers something different to you, but there’s a very likely chance that it can all be pinned down to false memories. Multiverses and time travelling is a fun idea, but extremely unlikely, and even if these things existed, they don’t make much sense in terms of the Mandela effect. Below are a few theories for the reasons why we misremember certain things collectively.

Berenstein vs Berenstain: looking at the books, it’s easy to see why children may get the words confused. The title is written in almost cursive writing, and if you weren’t paying much attention to it, you could confuse the a with an e. Also, names ending with “stein” are far more common than those ending in “stain”, so the brain is bound to confuse the two due to assumption.

Mirror, mirror vs magic mirror: contrary to what most people believe, both of these sayings are actually correct. In Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the evil queen says “Mirror, mirror, on the wall.” However, the original story as told in the Grimm Brothers fairy tale, the evil queen says “Magic mirror on the wall.” Most Disney stories were inspired by fairy tales, obviously tweaking them to make them appropriate for children, and this is another example of how Disney has made the fairy tale their own. Even if Snow White is the only reason you know of the saying, many other things around us, such as toys or media, use the original saying.

Looney Tunes vs Looney Toons: most people remember this famous children’s show as being Looney Toons. This one is easily explained by the fact that the first word is spelled Looney, so it would make sense for the second word to use double o’s as well for similarity. Also, the show is a cartoon, so it would make more sense for it to be Toons. Alas, it is actually Looney Tunes.

Sex in the City vs Sex and the City: another easily explained Mandela effect. Most people use the unofficial “Sex in the City” perfumes as evidence that the word has been changed, when in fact the perfume had to be named something different to the show for copyright reasons. Also, to reference Captain Holt from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, the city is the fifth character in the series, so it has to be sex and the city.

“Luke, I am your father” vs “No, I am your father”: when referencing a movie or TV show, context is everything. For lengthy quotes, it would make sense to directly quote from the movie because someone who has seen it would make the connection. However, for something as short as “No, I am your father”, it doesn’t really make sense and few people would make the connection. Similar to “Houston, we have a problem”. Many people reference this and understand where the reference is from, but it wouldn’t hold the same context if it was just “We have a problem”. Therefore, more people relate to the quote if a name is mentioned in the quote.

References:

http://theconversation.com/the-mandela-effect-and-how-your-mind-is-playing-tricks-on-you-89544

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/07/24/the-mandela-effect/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/articles/200105/the-seven-sins-memory

http://www.debunkingmandelaeffects.com/common-explanations/

http://www.debunkingmandelaeffects.com/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall/

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-mandela-effect/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/814701/multiverse-proof-evidence-parallel-universe (photo)

5 notes · View notes

iaahillyer · 7 years ago

Text

To Future Women: Georgia Saxelby

Photo: Kate Warren

Georgia Saxelby is a Sydney-born, US-based installation artist and is currently an Artist-in-Residence at the art and social change incubator Halcyon Arts Lab in Washington, DC. Her interdisciplinary practice explores ritual and sacred space and their role in re-imagining and re-forming our cultural identities and value systems. Saxelby creates installations that are rooted in participatory and feminist practices and traverse sculpture, performance and architecture. While in Washington, DC, Saxelby is also a Visiting Scholar at the Sacred Space Concentration of the School of Architecture at Catholic University of America. In 2016-17, Saxelby worked with the renowned architecture studio Diller Scofidio + Renfro, and was awarded three prominent artist grants to undertake a series of international sacred space mentorships and residencies. Saxelby was chosen to speak at the ninth International Architecture, Culture and Spirituality Symposium in 2017 on her practice.

georgiasaxelby.com

Why did you decide to embark on this project?

My art practice plays at the intersection of art, architecture and performance and is primarily concerned with investigating the role and importance of ritual behaviour. I’m interested in the way we perform and embody our cultural value systems through ritual gestures, as well as the material and visual cultures that result from our collective symbolic activities. This project developed out of a particular line of questioning: in what ways can ritual become a powerful and unique vehicle for social change? What are women-driven methods of passing down cultural knowledge and skills? How can I, as an artist, contribute to a new kind of cultural heritage for tomorrow?

A central tenet of my practice is the acknowledgement that what we mark as special and significant reveals and defines who we are. Knowing that I would be in Washington, DC for the one year anniversary of the Women’s March, I wanted to create a work that would mark this occasion as significant. I wanted to do this through the platform of art because I’m interested in transforming artistic contexts into meaningful sites of symbolic action—platforms for rituals to take place that can ripple out to affect how we think and feel in our everyday lives.

History has a tendency of forgetting the contributions of women, and I wanted to make sure our stories were told by us—by anyone that has been impacted by the Women’s March and #MeToo movements or by anyone who wants to take part in this conversation. I wanted to re-activate cultural institutions and spaces that were used during the Women’s March, and invite them to play a role in guarding our stories for us.

One intention of this artwork was to shift the focus of the conversation for a moment on who we want to become as a culture in regards to our relationship to women. I think imagining futures is a very powerful exercise. By asking you what you want to say to future women, and what changes you would like to have taken place for the woman reading your letter, you must envision and articulate what that change actually looks like for you. Only then can we start to reverse engineer those possibilities and understand our role now in taking continuous steps towards making them a reality.

Photo: Kate Warren

Your work often engages with women's issues and feminism. Where does this interest stem from?

I’ve always had an urge to support women’s agency, self-determination and self-representation.

Through research, constant reflection and conversation, as well as Art Theory and Cultural Studies at university, I learned to better see the cultural structures at play which work to disempower or exclude women from decision-making at every level, and one cannot go back to unseeing. As a young woman brought up to see the world as my oyster, and then growing to observe and understand the limits the world would in fact place on me because I am a woman, I have a vested interest in transforming the way women are represented, perceived by others and by themselves. Women have been persistently represented as passive objects rather than transformative subjects in our culture and history. I am trying to exercise my own ability to transform my environment, as well as contribute to women being understood and treated as connected, active and unstoppable agents of change.

Have you written a letter yourself? Are you able to share some of what you wrote?

As the orchestrator of the experience, I’m always conscious of my involvement becoming didactic for others so tend to see my role as first and foremost holding space for other people’s engagement until the last moment or a private moment at the end of the piece. So, I will be writing my letter in July before the Washington archive is sealed and becomes a time capsule.

It must be surreal knowing that women - some of whom aren't even born yet - will be reading these letters in twenty years time. What do you hope that these women will gain from this?

I hope that in reading our letters future women may be able to understand not just the significant events occurring at this time but our feelings and internal thought processes in reaction to them. I hope our archive reveals the intimacies of history. Change comes slowly and is not a given or a linear progression. I hope these women will understand how desperately we want things to be different for them, and are reaping some of the rewards of the vows we have made to make that a reality for them.

Right now it feels more possible than ever to speak loudly about gender issues in mainstream platforms, but it hasn’t always been like that and it might not be again. So to capture our sentiments now, when we feel able to speak more openly, is important. I want the generation of women that will come after us to know that we were thinking of them, so that they may never doubt their place and role in this world.

Photo: Kate Warren

Why did you decide to do this via traditional letter writing and not a digital format?

There’s a specialness to letter writing. I wanted to elevate the experience of writing to future women to have a ritual significance, so that people took the time to unravel their thoughts and understand their reflections. I wanted to provide a platform of expression that was long-form, slow, in contrast to the abridged immediacy and crispness of social media in a digital information age.

The materiality of pen or pencil to paper, the rhythmic flow of capturing thoughts as we write—sometimes things come out of our pens that we didn’t even know we felt. There’s a privacy to the experience of writing a letter and a logic to the way someone approaches the page—they draw, underline or write larger or harder to emphasise a point. And there’s something so intimate about seeing someone else’s handwriting. There’s so much personality to it—you feel like you get a glimpse into someone.

Letters are so personal. They are messages sent from one person to another about a common concern. They are cross-cultural and ancient forms of communication, and they have a tradition of revealing alternative and intimate perspectives in history.

In 20 years time the screen will play an even larger role in our lives and cultural landscape, it will affect the way we process and understand the world, as it is already beginning to do. Museums, too, will play a different role. I think it will be so interesting in 2037 to experience these letters as physical artifacts, like relics.

The work champions the power of generational storytelling. Do you think that Western society has in some ways lost its methods of generational storytelling? i.e. indigenous cultures often use storytelling as a way to instil moral values, but this seems to be lacking in western culture.

Absolutely. I was recently reflecting on how as I grow older—or maybe because of everything that’s been happening—I feel increasingly drawn to seeking out and listening to the stories of older women. There have been times I was at The Phillips Collection checking on the installation and would wind up in conversations with visitors who would talk to me about their reaction to the piece or their experience of the Women’s March. I was lucky enough to have some incredibly personal conversations with older women who had so much wisdom to share, who have been through what I’m going through as a young woman contending with my culture.

The letters I’ve read from older women, and men, passing on advice, connecting their experiences from marches and movements in the 60s and 70s to what’s currently occurring, revealing what their hopes were then and analysing what has comes to pass, has been so touching, powerful and informative.

Certainly I think oral histories and intergenerational exchange are woefully undervalued in Western contemporary culture. Stories are intimate histories performed and relived. The act of sharing generational stories is crucial to processing and understanding where we’ve been, in order to know where we’re going.

Do you think that part of the value of the project is the cathartic process of actually writing the letter and what that means for each person? How so?

Yes of course. Seeing people in deep concentration as they’re writing their letters, in some cases being lucky enough to listen to them talk to me about everything it brought up for them afterwards, it can be an emotional and sometimes confronting process. The act of self-expression is powerful. The #MeToo movement, and the Women’s March, allowed for the expression of things previously inexpressible in a public setting with the knowledge that your expression would be supported and backed. This is the same thing - people know they can write freely in this setting, that its a safe space, that their letter - and therefore their act of expression, their point of view - will be respected and cared for for a very long time.

#georgiasaxelby #tofuturewomen #hillyer #artistinterviews #June2018

1 note · View note

bookwormguri · 7 years ago

Photo

I don’t normally do this, but I’m going to take a moment to gush about Re:Creators and why I think anyone who is a creator of art should watch it, while also not-so-subtly grumbling about the reception it’s gotten. I’ll try to remain as spoiler-free as possible.

First I want to talk about my grievances so it doesn't seem like I’m incapable of seeing the flaws of the series. Although, if you’ve read any reviews about it, nothing I say will be new info.

Pacing: The biggest issue I had was with the pacing of the series. Unlike some, I don’t think the story could have been told in 12 or 13 episodes. Doing so would have made the large cast seem extremely unwieldy and would have sacrificed characterization. However, it seemed very obvious in the middle part that they struggled with pacing.

For example, I practically marathoned the series, but when I saw the preview for the next episode was a hot springs episode I stopped watching for the night, convinced that an episode like that probably wouldn’t lend much to the plot (I was right). The hot springs episode was probably by far the largest annoyance, but there were many many scenes that could have been trimmed for fat. After Mamika left, almost any scene in the bad guy’s camp had me reaching for my phone to scroll through tumblr. Those scenes lacked depth after the moral compass Mamika was gone. They mostly amounted to getting a small glimpse of a new baddy and Altair brooding and being maniacal.

Altair’s Power: Which brings me to my second biggest gripe, Altair. I love her concept. The reason for her infinite power shows that the showrunners have their pulse to fandom. I know people harp on her because she’s basically a Hatsune Miku rip-off (which, if you’re pissy about characters in this show being similar to existing characters and franchises BOI do I have bad news for you about the entire concept of this show), but I don’t think that is where her weaknesses stem from.

Part of Altair’s being is that she in infinite, almost god-like in her own right. In the universe of Re:Creators this powerset makes perfect sense and plays well into the big questions the show is asking. However, the showrunners need to remember for as meta as Re:Creators is, it is still a show. Having Altair being a walking Deus Ex Machina and coming up with a new power to perfectly counter the heroes every time is dull and gives zero constraints to her. Basically, I mean there wasn’t an ending I could see our heroes beating Altair with her infinite number of reality-bending scores. That unknown is nice for some people, but for me, it just made me afraid they were going to pull out some power of friendship bullshit at the eleventh hour.

Altair’s Motivations: I think I’m in a small camp, but I LOVE Altair’s dialogue. In the beginning, she seems like a very complicated character, the kind of wickedly smart villain that happens once in a blue moon, the kind that makes you go, “Well, they aren’t wrong, but they’re going about it all wrong.” Unfortunately, this part of her characterization gets severely played down in the second half. She turns more into a one-note villain that means nothing to defeat. In addition, since we see so much less of her in the second half it makes her resolution mean less imo (I say this and someone who cried the whole time). I adore her speech at the end. I think it was a nice callback to the line she had said only an episode or so earlier:

“Clever logic is a slave to emotion.”

And that’s what I think defines Altair as a character. She is someone who has so much despair and anger, but she justifies it with logic and simplicity. And in the end, it’s also what becomes her end. The problem is, we don’t get to see the illogical and emotional side of her often enough. Clever audience members can infer it, but this pivotal part of her character isn’t given the spotlight it needed to avoid the finale feeling OOC of her to most.

Now that we’ve gotten those out of the way, I’m free to gush and rant as much as I please! First I want to address some common critiques I’ve seen on the series:

Sota: One of the most common issues people bring up is the blandness of the “main character” Sota, or rather, the audience insert. I won’t say he is not that, but for vastly different reasons than I think others would slap that “warning” on him.

Many people are quick to label Re:Creators and reverse-isekai show. Again, I won’t argue with the genre label, but I do think that out of all the genres and themes within the series, isekai is actually pretty insignificant. Re:Creators at its core is not about “what would you do if anime characters came to the REAL WORLD,” moreover it is tackling questions about the essence of creation, media and our relation to it. So how does this relate to Sota?

I think Sota is often written off as just a “self-insert” character because that is a staple of the isekai genre, the genre that I propose is not actually that prevalent, I estimate the same with Sota. Sota is passive, yes, but he also has his own story arc and despite him saying that he is only the narrator, I think the story of Re:Creators is really all about his struggle as an artist, something I think many audience members can relate to, making him their insert. It’s not because he’s Kirito and is amazing at everything, but rather his struggles mirror our own, much more so than the larger-than-life Creations.

(Also, I don’t stand for any BS about him being a Deus Ex Machina in the final battle. He followed Re:Creators inner world logic despite it being ‘cheating’. No foul.)

The scene in episode 9 with Sota and Magane is what I showed other people to get them into the show, to show this human character break down, hear some hard truths and get back up. Also, the fact that he was able to bring you-know-who back in the final battle shows that while he feels immense guilt, he doesn’t shy away from it. He could have very easily let his own guilt make him soften his final product, but no, he wanted something real and tangible, not something to make him feel better. To me, that shows his depth as a character.

This post here also encapsulated how I feel about Sota’s character.

Exposition: Another common critique I see is about the amount of dialogue and exposition in the series. Maybe it’s just the DM and lore-junkie in me, but I’ve never minded a lot of exposition and in Re:Creators I LOVED it. Even Meteor’s long-winded explanations. I liked them because the through them the show was promoting difficult questions, the kind that would have my old existentialism professor jumping with glee. I’ve debated sending him this series for his next film class actually, but I don’t want him to know I’m anime trash.

I think a lot of people take issue with the exposition because of its often theoretical in nature. Naturally, the audience wants some payoff for these big ideas any rarely gets any. Unfortunately, that’s how philosophy rolls, yo. But if you’re someone like me who finds joy in pondering about multiple-world theory, film tropes and subversion and meta, this show scratches an itch you didn’t know you had.

I know that shows like this that don’t give you all the answers, that are subtle in the execution often get ragged on for their supposedly “poor writing,” often are snubbed, but that doesn’t make me appreciate them any less.

Now the things that I love unabashedly:

Music: Hiroyuki Sawano. Those no other reason I fucking need. Even though Aldanoah Zero turned out to be a big dumpster fire, you bet your ass I have the whole soundtrack on my iPod. Those OSTs are some of my main background music fodder for writing. There’s nothing quite like Sawano’s music that can convey hype with such a heroic and hopeful feeling

Theme: This is a story that touches on a lot of issues, artist block, feelings of inadequacy, working together creatively and above all, the power of imagination. I love that this series shows there is no shame in the real emotional connections we have when interacting with media. I also goes out of its way to show the power and value the audience brings to creations. It is a hopeful story that I think many of us can relate to.

I saw this line in another post, but I want to repeat it here; If you are a creator, an artist, a writer, a crafter, cosplayer, anything, this show is for you. It will show you how special and how important you are, how your contributions are valued and how you should continue to create despite hardships. It is a story that needed to be told, it is an important story.

Thank you for reading my babble. Talk ReCre to me!

#re:creators #re creators #recreators #meta #media studies #nats gabs

20 notes · View notes

jungian-neuroscience · 7 years ago

Text

Cognitive Functions and Whole Brain Network Systems

So I just wanted to post some of my thoughts/theories on cognitive functions and their correlations with modern neuroscience developments. Especially how recent studies have started to see the brain working as whole brain network with a series of network systems rather than past beliefs of individual areas being strictly in charge of specific areas. What if the brain in order to be more efficient has built in preferences for these networks that result in our different personality types. So based on your genetics your brain will automatically prefer specific types of networks which each specialize in different thinking methods over others. That's not to say that some people only use these methods of thinking but rather everyone uses 8 different cognitive functions but balances their priorities in order to optimize certain behaviors but at the cost of being weaker in others. These functions are each paired so that your first most dominant function will have its pair at the end of the 4 valued functions which make up your type (ex. INFJ starts with Ni and ends with Se and an ESTJ starts with Te and ends with Fi). The functions themselves can be split into two categories, each with two pairs that are matched with their respected opposite attitude focusing on either the internal or the external environment. The perceiving functions are focused on gathering sensory information (Sensing) and categorizing them into subjective abstract systems(Intuition). This process itself is something everyone does seemingly instantly as part of the whole brain network, however your function stack determines which aspect your more likely to focus on and think about. So if your an intuitive thinker you'll focus on the abstract qualities of an object or "what it means" and if you're a sensor thinker you'll think about the physical qualities of it. Some studies have correlated flow states, where the brain is efficiently using low energy throughout the brain while doing a task in their expertise, to different tasks for different types. Si doms may go into this flow state while recalling a memory of a vivid experience while an Ni dom may go into this state when working on new novel tasks yet decrease this state of flow the more times they do the task. Se doms on the other hand enter this state when in a crisis situation as they rely on brain regions that help to quickly integrate body and sensory information which allow them to think quick on their feet. Ne types however struggle to get into this state of flow as their brains often bounce from different areas seemingly at random reacting to stimuli in unpredictable ways when compared to other types, they can still enter a flow state but often only with something that they are especially practiced at. The Judging Functions are the networks that process and make decisions, Feeling functions have to do with emotions, values and agreeableness while thinking functions are focused on logic, efficiency and conscientious thoughts. Fi doms are often great listeners, hearing what others say and than comparing it to their own subjective value systems, Ti doms however choose to focus on their own subjective logical systems. Te doms often have efficient brains that rely most heavily on left-brain regions for hearing, seeing, remembering, and deciding which give them great evidence-based decision makings skills. Fe doms are often very aware of and empathize with the emotions of their external environment, potentially using what has been known as "mirror neurons" where when we see something we use the same part of our brain as when we use it ourselves. When we see smiling faces it activates the part of our brain in charge of smiling whether or not we smile in return, and vice versa of when we smile even if you're not happy intentionally its likely to make you think more positively. Its important to note tho how each pair works in tandem with its pair, so you could think of Te-Fi as trying to create efficiency towards the outside world based on its internal values systems or Si-Ne using the experiences and memories of its internal sensations to contemplate the abstract possibilities that stem from them. These processes aren't as much step 1 2 3 way of thinking as much as they are a series of interconnected systems which allow them to pull information out and uses it in their preferred method. Maybe consciousness itself is the result of these constant feedback loops interacting with one another resulting in what feels like a "self" but in reality is more like pixar's inside out but with cognitive functions and not emotions. This also isn't to say that your type defines who you are as the brain is an incredibly adaptable machine that changes based off ones environment in real time, you aren't the same person that you were because your brain processes information based on the past experiences that shape you into who you are right now. I also have other theories of how some types may have higher likely-hood for different mental disorders which shouldn't even be classified that way but instead as different ways of thinking. ADHD for example divided into hyperactive, inattentive and mixed, maybe should be seen as less common ways of thinking that correlate with different type patterns. I'm just trying to put some of my thoughts out there and would love to hear what other people think.

31 notes · View notes

archivingspn · 4 years ago

Text

“Fandom At The Crossroads: Celebration, Shame and Fan/Producer Relationships” By Katherine Larsen and Lynn S. Zubernis

(217-222 pg) Of course, the people most often starring in fanfiction, both in character form and “real person” fiction, are Jared and Jensen. Fans spend a significant amount of time worrying about what the actors think of this particular fannish practice, as we’ve seen. Padalecki was surprised by how many fans liked to think about him and his costar together in a more than friendship way, but more amused than scandalized.

Padalecki: I was not expecting that. It’s so abundantly clear that we are not homosexual, that there’s anything wrong with those who are, but it’s so strange to me. … Platonically, I know they enjoy that we are great friends, because we ARE great friends, and that comes across, and that I can understand. I think you can tell when someone’s having fun on camera. That’s why Oceans 11 did so well, because it just looked like they were having such a fun time. They’re goofing around and it’s fun to watch and see people really laughing and having a good time. The other part, I don’t really understand so I have no theory other than, I don’t know, maybe boredom?

What about the analogous stereotype that guys find the idea of two good looking women together hot?

Padalecki: Sure, oh sure. I see. I can see that, but I think the reason it’s so funny is that it’s so far from reality. I’m just like what? But sure, you know, of course, yeah – to me it might be bizarre, but whatever floats their boat. I’m glad y’all asked me about that, because it’s one thing I don’t really understand, and not having any experience with the human mind, or the ins and outs, it’s bizarre, it’s one of the things you go “alright…”. I guess I will choose to take it as flattery.

It seems to be just that. After all, a significant number of SPN fans are bisexual or lesbian women, and they refer to Jared and Jensen as their 5% exception, which is a certainly a compliment.

Padalecki: I’ll take it (grinning). It makes a lot of sense if there are a lot of bisexual or gay or lesbian fans that they would sort of turn it into their world.

There followed a discussion of the difference between believing something is factual versus a nice fantasy, which is how most fans enjoy their version of J-Squared – a distinction that Padalecki understood completely. For example, the fans loved that Jared and Jensen were, at the time, living together.

Padalecki: (laughing) I guess I figured they would. And it’s great, we’re pretty similar guys. After a long day it’s like hey man, you want to go like grab a beer, or go to sleep? He’s a good buddy. When times are hard for me, or I’ve got something I’m going through, it’s nice to be like hey man, can I just rattle with you for a little bit, rap about some stuff, and he’s like sure, and vice versa.

Ackles was also amused and slightly mystified about why some fans love to imagine him and Jared as a couple. Like Padalecki, he recognized the “subtext” present in their real life friendship, and talked about the genuine affection the two have for each other.

Ackles: (laughing) It’s strange, because you know, being who I am and being who he is, it’s like, it’s just hard to kinda wrap our minds around. I mean, I’ve had, I need two hands to count the number of roommates I’ve had. Guys I’ve spent a lot of time with, like my best friends. I may not work with them, but we’re together at home and we’ll go out together, all the time and share each other’s problems. It’s affection, it’s a friendship that, for Jared and I – God, it’s a good friendship. I think with Jared and I, we knew right away it wasn’t going to work if we didn’t get along. The first season, I forget what episode it was, but we got heated on set and got in each other’s face and I mean, we went toe to toe. There were no fists thrown or anything like that, and he ended up taking a walk down the street and cooler heads prevailed, and when we got back to our trailers, I knocked on his door and sat down and I was like listen man, that can never happen again because if that’s the road we choose to go down, we are going to be living a different life. And it wasn’t just me, he was like actually on the same wavelength, like I’m glad you came by, I need to get this off my chest, we need to come together if we are going to make this show work, because we’re gonna be spending way too much time together to not have a friendship. And that’s the last fight we’ve ever had. We’ve got each other’s backs and I support him in the decisions he makes and will give him advice when he needs it, and he does the same for me. He went through a rocky thing this summer with his fiancee, and I was there for him for that. It almost turns into art imitating life, or life imitating art, we play brothers on screen but we’re kinda brothers off screen as well. It’s a brotherly love that he and I have.

Ackles too is well aware that fans can distinguish between fanfiction and reality, and don’t necessarily believe the costars share a sexual kind of love as well as a brotherly one. Like Kripke, he understands the existence of Wincest as a consequence of the passionate investment fans have in Sam and Dean’s relationship, and extends that to fans’ investment in the relationship he has with Jared in real life.

Ackles: I know they don’t (think it’s real) – it’s a hot fantasy. But I think, and you can probably help me out with this, that it might stem from their love of the two characters and how much they have invested in Sam and Dean, and there are really no other characters that they want coming into that realm. I think it’s their love for these two characters, they don’t want anyone to interfere. They want it to be just the two of them, all the time, and I think that’s where it stems from. I don’t think they really think we’re gay. So I really think it’s just the fact they are left with no other option when thinking of these two characters, and of course these guys are together. Though I wish that two guys can just be heterosexual males and still have a brotherly love. But that’s why it’s called fiction!

We asked Misha Collins about the other popular slash pairing in the fandom – the first Dean/Cas slash community was created 42 minutes after the character appeared.

Collins: (deadpans) Why do you think it took so long? Maybe the servers were down or something.

Collins is fine with the homoerotic vibe of parts of the fandom.

Collins: I certainly try not to be too homophobic in my real life and this is fiction on top of that, so it’s one degree further removed, so it’s easier.

Like the other actors who negotiate the boundaries between fiction and real life on a daily basis, Collins had no trouble understanding fan fiction as fiction. He would, however, like to turn the tables and incorporate fans, as he and his fellow actors have been incorporated.

Collins: I’ve been thinking about writing a story of my own about Dean and the fans and then I could post it out in the community.

(225-226pg)

Padalecki: I think the big thing that has drawn fans to the world of Supernatural is that each has turned it into their world. It’s no longer about guys on the road or hunting demons, it’s connected to some part of them that they might not even know exists. They’re like oh, it’s kinda like this! That’s one of the great things about mythology - the point is to reflect some part of your own life. So you start going Oh, Luke Skywalker kind of doesn’t know what he’s supposed to be, he’s kind of struggling, kind of like me, I’m having my own struggles.

The reading and writing of fanfiction as therapeutic resonated with Jared.

Padalecki: That makes plenty of sense. There’s no other logical reason. I don’t think any movie or show is that good to be so committed to it unless it’s sparked something in you.

In fact, Padalecki identifies the same desire for some healthy escape on the part of cast and crew as within the fandom watching and participating in the Show. That’s why so much laughing goes on between takes on the SPN set.

Padalecki: It’s almost like the same escapism that our fans are enjoying when they are watching, we are enjoying when we are filming. So it’s nice for them to call action and you just lose yourself for a minute.

[source]

#2011-Nov #2011:November15 #*CCTOF #Jared Padalecki #Jensen Ackles #Misha Collins #Fandom At The Crossroads: Celebration Shame and Fan/Producer Relationships #author: Katherine Larsen #author: Lynn Zubernis #*books

1 note · View note

queernuck · 7 years ago

Text

Becoming-Ecological in the Popular Philosophical

In the introduction to Being Ecological, Timothy Morton invites a sort of pop-philosophical audience into the work, offering a brief introduction both to Object-Oriented Ontology and more generally into a certain sort of English language continental tradition found in critical theory, literary criticism, film theory, and numerous sorts of writing on the social, the aesthetic, the individual or lack thereof. The purpose of this introduction is just that, to introduce in a certain fashion the sort of book that Being Ecological wishes to be. Morton proclaims it proudly to be “free of facts” and the book itself is rather thin, its size apt to sitting on a cash line display at a sufficiently sophisticated bookstore, unlikely to become a bestseller but likely to be the sort of book given to erudite twenty-somethings for a gift. There is a quote on the jacket from Jeff Vandermeer, whose Southern Reach trilogy specifically evokes the ecological and tension in the concept of “Nature” that Morton forwards in a fashion that very clearly puts the two texts in conversation. Morton’s tone is moderated, conversational, and in part that informs the sort of writing he seeks to participate in.

Morton notes that “we” is frequently seen as sloppy or lazy when deployed in the humanities, and the reasoning behind this is that Morton wishes to deploy a frequent usage of “we” once he has properly defined it. If Morton had simply taken to using “we” frequently in the text, it might have raised editorial questions, but likely would not have been remarked upon in such a fashion. It is, then, equally an epistemic and aesthetic choice, one that Morton uses to echo what is described as a fundamental question regarding the ecological: what is it, exactly, that “we” can do? Morton’s introduction is anecdotal, uses a story from his time teaching in California and a piece of Buddhist calligraphy that invites one to “CARE LESS” when approaching the meditative in order to illustrate a certain aspect of his approach to global warming (the term he seems to prefer) which points out the competing libidinal flows of performative activism and the trauma of understanding this activism, evoking the Freudian discussion of traumatic dreams in order to describe a certain influence in environmentalist activism. He describes how the creation of what can be named as an Oedipal (if not Oedipus itself, following the same triangulation) process of retraumatization is inflicted (and moreover embodied) by the act of dreaming the traumatic, the creation of a sense of “anticipation” of the trauma in which one returns to an imagined “before” that is unreachable, unimaginable specifically because of the incomprehensibility of the pre-traumatic given that it is defined by the trauma itself. In the same fashion, Morton describes how a certain concept of the natural apart from the civilized, a clean cleaving between the two, is part of what in fact contributes to the haziness of describing processes of ecological change and collapse, in that the ideation of Nature is a kind of libidinal pooling, a picaresque vision that itself provides a kind of false assurance of nature as a closed structure rather than open in its semiotic structure, subject to continuing processes of redefinition and restructuring.

Morton’s approach is remarkably effective (and affective) but to what end does it work, then? He describes the relatively unobjectionable claim that so long as neoliberalism dominates producing-production, ecological collapse is inevitable on a global scale, but compares this to an argument from 2008 that India should be exempt from certain limits on emissions due to underdevelopment: first, a certain series of changes regarding the producing-production within the nation must be taken, an ascendence to status as a nation that itself wields a certain colonial power, before it can in turn take the actions that other colonial powers advocate to reduce the semiotic structure that can be denoted as “emissions” and the resultant “carbon footprint” of a nation. While a liberal character in Morton’s comparison must be noted, it is part of a larger question regarding development and exactly how it is realized in relation to structures of coloniality. The notion that neoliberalism would be unable to sublimate a turn that superficially reverses its nature by preventing certain instances of ecological collapse is counter to the prevailing character of late capitalist development, how it has ossified Deleuzean schizophrenia into a new platform of exchange. Conversely, the realization of a post-neoliberal order does not imply that ecological collapse would be halted, let alone reversed: neoliberal violence has done damage on such a large scale that it can hardly be understood, it specifically defies understanding because of its nature as a hyperobject. Especially useful in Morton’s introduction is the succinct, evocative definition of a hyperobject, in that it is at once a relatively accessible definition of a term that drips with jargon, but additionally a fundamental claim about what sorts-of-things hyperobjects are. The concept of a hyperobject certainly can be said to exist, insofar as any of the concepts at hand in Morton’s introduction can be. Their relevance, their necessity (either in development or in dismissal) is part of a larger structure of development he lays out a course for, but the sense in which the hyperobjectual is discussed is laid out rather simply.

By setting out a relatively simple, accessible point of entry Morton provides a means of offering a much more difficult proposition, that of a discussion of ecological change that moves away from “facts” and facticity and itself deals with the concept of “factoids” and their repetition, differentiation, the creation and structure of such epistemic artifacts. Morton points out that the understanding of “science” as a prevailing, univocal force is one that is more common in application of an ideology of scientism rather than any specific scientific inquiry. Scientism, as a kind of ideological position, requires that one take on certain epistemic standpoints, enter into an identity-past-identification, a recourse to transcendental reason that itself denies the transcendental and instead refers to a tautological concept of reasoning as the basis of reason. While more than a bit difficult and dense, the exploration of logical causation in Badiou’s Being and Event is a fundamental part of his discursive relationship with science and the “fact” in that he explores certain contingencies regarding the most basic semiotic designations of logical syllogism in order to demonstrate a shift that eventually notes these sorts of contingencies as secondary, as part of a rising toward the construction of series-of-fictions as “truth” or “fact”. Morton’s amusing notion that OOO stems from a reading of Heidegger that asks what Heideggerian philosophy does, Heidegger himself be damned in influencing interpretation of it, is of a similar character in that it discusses the means by which interpretation and structure, phenomena and phenomenological experience, are not merely vital to relaying the factual, but in a certain fashion constitute it as a specific kind of relationship between objects. The rejection of “facts” as naked, unremarkable “things” that can be offered in abject neutrality is replaced, then, by the “factoid” that Morton offers.

The notion of the “factoid” is that it is a certain claim marked by “truthiness” and presented as such. Morton’s evocation of Stephen Colbert’s long-running caricature of meaning-making (as well as how this in turn evokes Žižek’s interpretation of the relationship between truth and falsity) describes the way in which a “factoid” is understood, the feeling of fact being the core quality of the factoid moreso than any relationship to a factual claim, an assemblage of data understood as a single fictional “fact” structured by a metanarrative of what exactly that fact constitutes. Acts of interpretation, of relaying and creating the nature of what is communicated as fact involves a process which, in cultural acts of interpolation, are often outdated by the time they can be understood. Morton’s insistence upon a “fact free” approach is notable specifically because it deals with the structures within which and upon which popular knowledges of the ecological are predicated. Morton points out that the changing structures of ecology, the hyperobject constituted by these processes of relation, involve actions that take place beyond the individual act, understood in terms that involve a negation of subjectivity, the notion that an individual act “matters” in its individual expression, but that conversely, the individual as part of a larger structure of action, habit, is part of something that will continue to repeat itself in a process of emergence that is constituted by flows of lower-order structure creating a higher-level organization out of itself. The individual effect of the factoid is in trauma, in the creation of a point which can then be looked upon in an effort of return, a kind of reaction to the trauma of the factoid, but as Morton remarks the process of retraumatization occurring alongside the traumatic simply creates a structure of repetition, rabattement, which cannot result in meaningful change because it instead relies on performative exhibition, in accepting a series of conditions and reading cataclysm onto them, not merely a critical pessimism but an ontology of it, an ontology which holds an ideal of a pretraumatic Nature to return to, one scarred forever by the human.

This involves, in turn, holding that the “human” is unique as a frame of reference and interaction beyond the construction of Nature, the creation of a distinction that involves the human being marked as-such, human becoming a means of denoting certain interactions with nature as well as being realized in colonial acts of distinction, specifically in relation to the codification of Nature and the Natural as separate from the human. The structures on which Morton’s “we” are predicated, as mentioned in the introduction, are specifically intended to recognize that the culmination of actions into emerging hyperobjects involves not forces beyond the Natural, entirely beyond it, but rather human participation in a vast assemblage of ecological structures and processes of emergence. The recognition of these as not caused by the exploited but rather in relation to individual actions, courses of actions, habits, one finds that in the concept of the individual, the larger “we” becomes clear. By deciding to define this “we” in a proactive sense, to posit it in a fashion that grasps at the question of ecological action, exactly what “we should do” and how such a question becomes meaningful, Morton describes the way in which OOO crosses from a specific ontological framework into the sort of means-of-understanding that can inform a popular philosophy book such as this.

1 note · View note

comrade-meow · 4 years ago

Link

"When someone tells you to 'educate yourself,' they are not telling you to actually learn the facts, figures, history, or logic of debate. They are telling you to agree with them. The idea that someone may be educated on an issue and yet still disagree with you on it is inconceivable to people who have been 'dis-educated.'"

Educate yourself. If you have ever stated an unpopular opinion online, especially about social issues, you’ve probably had this mantra thrown at you. If you’re new to being on the “wrong side” of a particular debate, being told you need to “educate yourself” can be really disorienting. The phrase implies that the speaker knows more than you, you’re undeniably in the wrong, and a little bit of reading will set you straight. But like many mantras on the left today, “educate yourself” has become a meaningless tagline devoid of any real connection to the actual text of the phrase.

A popular progressive Instagram account, @soyouwanttotalkabout (no affiliation with the book “So You Want To Talk About Race”), claims to help educate readers on issues such as race, gender, and politics. The account includes over 400 image slide posts of sound-bite style messages on all of the most popular issues in social justice today. “Choosing to educate ourselves is the first step in becoming allies,” says one post on being a trans ally. “With this education, you’ll be able to better support the trans and nonbinary folks in your lives, and help to create a safer, kinder and more accepting world.” The account also includes, without the slightest hint of self-awareness, a post describing “performative activism” (vs. “authentic activism”) as activism that is “Visible, Audience-driven, and Sustained by public consumption.”

There are pages of comments on these posts thanking the account for the content and helping them learn. The most popular comment, though, appears to be followers tagging in another user to the thread—presumably, to educate them.

“This was a good one for me to share with family & friends that just refuse to open their eyes & minds,” one user commented on a post titled “White Denial.”

“@[username] you should read this,” says another.

The @soyouwanttotalkabout account appears to exist almost entirely to give people a place to go when they need to “educate themselves,” or, when they want their friend to get educated.

But the posts themselves are superficial in depth, often repeat misinformation, and rarely cite sources except in the case of direct quotes. To be fair, Instagram does not lend itself to a more detailed, nuanced, or in-depth format for education—but this is exactly the problem. Well-meaning people who want to “be better” are turning to social media for an education on issues that are often complicated and have real consequences on the lives of others.

This account perfectly encapsulates the problems associated with demands to “educate yourself.” Education in this context doesn’t mean actually learning the breadth of information on the issue, but instead training yourself to parrot surface-level mantras. When questioned on the details of your stance, you don’t need to deepen your education—you just need to shut down debate and tell the other person to educate themselves. What’s happening is not education but rather, as Jones School of Law Professor Adam J. MacLeod put it, “dis-education.” In a 2017 speech to his first-year Law Students, MacLeod confronted his students over the growing trend of illiberalism among his students:

“Before I can teach you how to reason, I must first teach you how to rid yourself of unreason. For many of you have not yet been educated. You have been dis-educated. To put it bluntly, you have been indoctrinated. Before you learn how to think you must first learn how to stop unthinking.”

Today, the professor would probably face disciplinary action for this speech.

When we are told to “educate yourself,” what we are actually being told to do is to allow ourselves to be indoctrinated into a particular ideology. In reality, developing a deep understanding of all sides of the debate is unwelcome, and those providing the “education” are often very misinformed themselves. For example, in their post on being a Trans Ally, @soyouwanttotalkabout made several claims that are logically incomplete (such as creating a circular definition of “gender”), but actually didn’t even represent the critical gender theory ideological perspective accurately (the side they are claiming to educate us about).

Despite many people helpfully instructing me in the past few years to educate myself on trans issues, I was able to immediately spot problems with the thread from the gender theory perspective (such as their list of “common genders,” conflation of “gender” and “gender expression,” and the claim that gender identity “can change over time”). This is because, despite disagreeing with the ideology of gender theory, I am actually very well educated on the issue. I have spent the past three years now writing nearly exclusively about gender identity, I have personal experience with friends and family members transitioning, and I work for a nonprofit which largely focuses on the issue. I am, by nearly every measure imaginable, more educated on the issue than every person who has ever demanded I “educate yourself.”

When someone tells you to “educate yourself,” they are not telling you to actually learn the facts, figures, history, or logic of debate. They are telling you to agree with them. The idea that someone may be educated on an issue and yet still disagree with you on it is inconceivable to people who have been “dis-educated.”

Two people who are equally educated on an issue (imagine they have read all the same books and studies, spoken to the same experts, and listened to the same people with “lived experience”) may still come to a different conclusion.

How is this possible if all you need to be on the “right” side is to simply educate yourself?

The deciding factor in most of our political opinions is not the facts of the case, but rather the values we hold through which we interpret the meaning of these facts.

Most people, to at least some degree, hold many of the same values: individual liberty, societal equality, the sanctity of life, and the desire to reduce harm and suffering in the world. How we will position ourselves on certain issues often has less to do with the facts of the case, or even which values we hold, but in which order we prioritize these values.

To grossly oversimplify the culture war between the “woke” and the “unwoke,” critical theory tends to prioritize social equality over individual liberty (for example, by limiting which groups of people can use certain words or hairstyles to prevent the few instances of racism that could stem from individuals of these groups using them).

When someone disagrees with a value prioritization on issues where values compete (such as individual liberty vs. social equality), education based on your own values is not what is needed to change that person’s mind. The role of facts in changing someone’s stance is to inform them of whether or not a position they support is ultimately upholding their values. Sometimes people apply their values inconsistently, and pointing this out can be either met with defensiveness or provide an opportunity to change their opinion. However, what someone is unlikely to change through the knowledge of new facts is their underlying values and the priorities they assign them.

If we are to trust a definition provided by @soyouwanttotalkabout, intolerance is:

“Not being able to or willing to accept that someone’s ideas or lives are different from our own.”

The inherent intolerance in the “educate yourself” rhetoric is the assumption that someone can not hold or prioritize different values from you. Our values are borne in us from a combination of our genetics/personality and life experiences, and they are core to what makes us individuals. “Educate yourself” is a form of gaslighting—denying the facts we already know and rejecting our own perception of the moral implications of that reality. Unless the person repeating the command is a verified expert in the domain, they probably have no business demanding you to learn anything (see also: the Dunning-Kruger effect). If anything, the very use of this phrase is likely to signpost a person who is actually quite uneducated on the issue—or else they would have been able to engage with you in a more meaningful way.

The truth is, we probably could all stand to have more facts when evaluating our stances on important social issues. Facts help us decide when our values are being upheld or when they are being violated. But when someone tells you to “educate yourself,” they don’t mean engaging in the process of collecting facts and analysing their moral outcome as compared to your value priorities. They mean fall in line. Capitulate. Give up your own values, your own education, your own life experience and do what I tell you—or else.

#Anglo.txt

0 notes