>>I mean, if you ignore the fact that humans have
>colonised the whole planet,
>are omnivores(and thus hunt other animals),
>can take tigers on 1-v-1 with minimal training,
>have badass endurance abilities that are geared towards chasing their prey,
>and usually hunt in packs(like true predators),
I suppose you could consider humans to be prey. But you would have to ignore quite a lot of things to do that.
>we did evolve from herbivore primates
Considering that Chimpanzees, who are the closest animal species to us, hunt other mon'keys, I find your lack of modern anthropological knowledge disturbing.
>Don't believe this ever happened, except possibly really strange circumstances.
Rite of ascension through puberty in the Maasai african tribe, which, in fact, didn't go extinct in one generation.
>humans don't have predatory instincts
I take it you have never been the "weird nerdy kid" at school, and thus never encountered this total lack of predatory instincts humans totally don't have?
>A smart scavenger might go "Hey, if we kill animals
Scavenger species are usually afraid of animals that are still twitching and alive, even if they could easilly kill them with little to no harm to themselves.
~~~
~~~
"Citation needed":
>dogs, when something runs away, they give chase automatically
That is not my experience with dogs. Citation needed.
>Predators are usually more confident in handling uncomfortable circumstances and pain. Humans need a strong will or training to say the same.
Where are you getting this stuff? Citation needed.
>us military uses small caliber rifles because it takes two out of the fight
It uses small caliber rifles because there is this thing called "Geneva convention". Citation needed.
>dogs crying in pain only when the pain is very severe
...citation needed?
>Humans also generally prefer direct confrontationm because human instinct about confrontation is built around social confrontation and defense against predators.
Literally the opposite of how humans hunt. Especially predators. When humans hunt predators, we are as underhanded as it gets. Because, guess what, not being underhanded gets you killed. Citation needed for this stuff you came up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm getting from this is... Mouse Guard can't exist as a game because mice can't kill cats as they are prey and inferior to cats, who are predators.
Imma go read some smut now.
What is your favourite brand of smut, Ashiel?
Tsc... I had a pun ready for posting when I noticed klara used the word "brand" rather than "breed", so my joke made no sense...
>:(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well he plays CoC so obviously he's a missionary for the sole purpose of procreation with a sheet with a hole in it between the partners kind of guy. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your favourite brand of smut, Ashiel?
Oh good lord, that's a lot to filter through. It would probably be easier to list stuff I don't really care much for, which would include (put politely): vore (eating people), guro (violence/bloodshed/killing; and I'm not fond of anything with an emphasis on inflicting pain), anything involving biological waste, etc.
Personal favorites subjects include gender-bender stories (like where a character is somehow flipped to another gender), futanari, and as a fan of CoC it's probably obvious that I enjoy fantasy scenarios involving dominance, reluctance, coercion, etc (preferably with with the protagonist being the one ending up in a submissive role). A common theme in CoC and a lot of H-games (it's a very specific kind of fetish, where your protagonist is taken advantage of by lewd villains but it's quite...amusing). Of course, I'm also a hopeless romantic and I'm a sucker for any sort of smut with lots of feels, smiles, and happy sentiments.
That said, I feel like smut is like a diet. A well balanced diet leads to a much more enjoyable life. You can have your favorites but refusing to eat anything but chocolate is probably a bad idea. Likewise, I can recognize even if I don't like something, someone else may, and vice-versa. For example, one of my friends is a big fan of vore, blood, vampires, lolis, and furries (she's kinda special), but that's what she likes and I can accept that (except the furries, heathens! ) so I'll send her stuff that I think she'll like. She usually does. :D
As far a medium, hard to say. Lately I've really enjoyed hentai games. They can be fun and entertaining and you can find translations for some of them, and there's a few good prospects in development on Patreon. Some of them mix fun gameplay, humor, plots, and of course, sexy action.
And drama! But thats mostly on the developer end than the games themselves :p.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And drama! But thats mostly on the developer end than the games themselves :p.
True that. :o
EDIT: I also recently beat the modded version of CoC (which has an ability to beat it, then begin new game+ runs) and I realized I'm a big softy. There a way to attempt to restore the souls of all the demons (including the BBEG) and redeem everyone. I took that path. It was happy. There were smiles. ^-^EDIT2: I beat it with a naga with stinging anemone hair, I have affectionately deemed a "gorgon" (similar to how what's-'er-face deemed herself a siren). Turns out that having poisonous venom that debuffs Str/Spd while afflicting L-damage, combos exceedingly well with the Naga's ability to constrict enemies (which seems to be affected by Str/Spd to determine if you grab or maintain). Once you've debuffed 'em a bit and grabbed 'em, it's over.
Muahahaha. ($-$)
... It occurs to me that I also played a really pacifistic character now. I built her as a tank and defeated enemies with her nonlethal poisons and/or via constrict-teasing and was constantly merciful. I'm a badass warrior, I swear. D: (o//o)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer my smut to have a little, or even a lot, of plot, or relationships/emotion. Not a big fan of stories involving random people, but i don't avoid them. The only stuff I do avoid is scat, mutilation/gore, and netorare/cuckold.
Your need to argue just to argue is truly fascinating.
I find debate generally fun, as long as it doesn't devolve into petty namecalling.
Also, I see more into things than most. Many people come to an initial conclusion then stop thinking about it until there is some need to think further where their initial conclusion is insufficient. Of course, by nature the mind seeks to prove those initial conclusions true at all costs, sadly.
Also doesn't help that my comments are often interpreted differently than intended, often just a little but not always. For example, when I said that predators were better at handling pain, but that comment was taken as predators being comfortable with pain. A slight difference, but with significant impact on what is being said, and on how one would debate it.
"If you draw up anything that can be perceived as a weapon, animals immediately react."
It isn't a weapon the animals draw away from, it is the shift in energy that marks that you are not only ready to fight, but your confidence has improved. Those are the things sensed.
For example, while on a walk, this pack of dogs started hounding us. I had a stick and they didn't mind. I asked my mother if it was alright to beat them up. She said yes. Instantly I felt unleashed, ready to take out some pent up anger on the dogs. I didn't even finish taking a single step and those dogs were gone. The only change was my state, my energy, my excitement and willingness to beat the snot out of something. And lacking fear, I had absolute confidence.
It isn't the weapon, it is the energy.
Well it's still a pretty vague thing. How do you determine if they are "better" at handling pain? I mean let's be honest, I'd question the morality of anyone who went to the trouble of vigorously testing the pain thresholds of animals. We do have the tools to do it. We have a pain index, and we could just apply those listed pains to various animals and chart the reactions and so forth. But that'd be pretty horrible.
They might be exposed to pain a lot, but then again, I'd say herbivores are exposed to a lot more pain. What with being the primary targets of predators and such.
Also, some animals DO recognise tools. Crows can tell the diffrence between someone with a gun and not in regions where that's a thing. But crows are one of the smartest birds, near human level. And they're smart enough to use us as tools too.
This is unrelated but this is also really fascinating. http://thewire.in/54071/honeyguide-bush-hives-birds-mammals/
Also, predator and predatory instincts are different things.
We are predators, but we never really needed, and do not have, predatory instincts. We did and do still need prey instincts. An unprepared human does not have the ability to fend off an attack the way a natural predator does. Thus for us, prey instincts keep us alive. When we hunt, it is deliberate and thought out. We rely on our intellect so much, that predator instincts would not help us, and we never developed them.
So why do a number of herbivores fend of attacks with violence rather than simply being cowed?
Also, the shift of readiness has nothing to do with it. I've seen animals recoil from me simply because I picked up something that could be used as a club, while never making any threatening actions or there being any tension between us other than picking up the could be weapon.
I think a lot of animals are smart enough to recognize that we can beat the **** out of them with a stick. XD
Some of that is learned behavior. An animal struck before will recognize it as a possibility and respond to the similar stimuli. Crows learn about guns and are taught it. In places where they aren't shot at, they don't have that reaction.
But all animals react the same to pain and danger. Adrenaline. Fight or flight. It's not a factor of predator or prey, it's a chemical response to a danger stimuli.
It;s definitely true animals with more cortex function and size have less automated instincts. But they aren't gone. And it has to be considered that while we may think more about a topic like hunting, there has to be an impetus. And likely, predatory instinct is that impetus, we just choose how we perform it. We want to survive. That is food. We go get the food. The excitement on the hunt and such and the enjoyment most hunter's derive from the act can't be just some intellectual pursuit.
Mostly I am speaking from experience, what is learned in class, discussions with the teachers, etc.
Apes, and chimps in particular, are pretty violent all around, but that doesn't equate with predatory instincts, nor does occasionally deciding to kill something.
Fighting tigers 1 on 1 with minimal training, I don't think rites of passage count here. For a rite of passage, you spend years expecting it, and when it happens, you are mentally prepared for it, and have likely seen or heard enough to have a few ideas about handling the situation. And perhaps most importantly in regards to the debate, a rite of passage is a lot more than simple instincts.
I've been around dogs my whole life, and mother has studied them quite a bit and has had them her whole life. Experience speaks quite well.
Military rifles, well I'm military, we could use 7.62 rounds but instead we use 5.56, the glorified .22. Even police use 9mm. Oh, and the conventions are not exactly followed very well. They don't even tell you about them in training. What they do teach in training is that injuring an enemy soldier, especially of the poorly trained guerrilla sort, is preferable as then another soldier will stop firing to help their fallen companion. We are also warned to not do that ourselves. It is also why we use 5.56 vs other perfectly acceptable options such as 7.62 used in AKs.
Humans for two reasons, food and sport. Those who hunt for food have no need for hunting difficult things. Those who hunt for sport are doing it for the same reason we play video games, the joy of overcoming challenges. Those folks are not out there because of instincts, they are out there for the thrill. Those folks are often the sort who want to have "the highest score" which is achieved by getting the biggest or most difficult kills, which because a matter of pride, which tends to override any qualms about "niceties" and "socially acceptable" and instead the only thing that ends up mattering is success. But what does society generally think about folks who place success as more important than how that success is achieved? Society finds them villainous and bad. Society loves to hate those who use underhanded tactics, regardless of what they are using those tactics for. Business is an excellent example. Successful business people are usually successful because they use underhanded tactics. Society sees successful business people in general as automatically corrupt. Same with politicians. They are folks who get where they are by using underhanded tactics, and they get hated for it, even when they shouldn't be. Now businessmen and politicians might be claimed that envy is the cause, but if you look at other cases, stereotypes generally do the same to any who are successful at anything via underhanded tactics.
So why do a number of herbivores fend of attacks with violence rather than simply being cowed?
Violence is not predatory. It is the simplist form of conflict resolution. Killing, the best protection against a particular enemy ever returning.
Well it's still a pretty vague thing. How do you determine if they are "better" at handling pain? I mean let's be honest, I'd question the morality of anyone who went to the trouble of vigorously testing the pain thresholds of animals. We do have the tools to do it. We have a pain index, and we could just apply those listed pains to various animals and chart the reactions and so forth. But that'd be pretty horrible.
They might be exposed to pain a lot, but then again, I'd say herbivores are exposed to a lot more pain. What with being the primary targets of predators and such.
Also, some animals DO recognise tools. Crows can tell the diffrence between someone with a gun and not in regions where that's a thing. But crows are one of the smartest birds, near human level. And they're smart enough to use us as tools too.
This is unrelated but this is also really fascinating. http://thewire.in/54071/honeyguide-bush-hives-birds-mammals/
Controlled experiments are certainly better, but observations work well enough. Ripped off claws, gashes, ripped off tumorous growths, all are things I've seen dogs deal with, without any intention on the part of humans required. Accidents are more than enough.
Also, the shift of readiness has nothing to do with it. I've seen animals recoil from me simply because I picked up something that could be used as a club, while never making any threatening actions or there being any tension between us other than picking up the could be weapon.
I think a lot of animals are smart enough to recognize that we can beat the **** out of them with a stick. XD
Just cause animals can feel your energy, doesn't mean they know where it is directed. That said, animals can learn too.
"there has to be an impetus."
I don't agree, at least not that predatory instinct must be it.
Candy crush for example, doesn't push any natural instincts. But anything that presents a challenge, when we succeed, our brains flood with dopamine, which not only feels good, but also reinforces neural connections. It is a major part of learning. It also affects addictions and habits.
Question Save: do you have any evidence or proof to back up your argument? I don't know if you've shared any, I mostly just skip your posts because you seem very close minded about your opinions. If you've already provided proof, I apologise and will look over your posts; but if you haven't, could you find some?
From what little I've paid attention to this argument, I've seen anecdotal evidence provided by Ashiel, but not even that provided by yourself. You have made claims that make no sense, like refuting the fact that human beings are arguably the best long distance runners on the planet. A trait theorized to have evolved over time as our ancestral hunters used their superior endurance to hunt down prey by running them into exhaustion. While not good enough for academia, Wikipedia is good enough for internet arguments.
I think it s worth noting that just because something is prey for one creature, does not mean it isn't a predator. For example, the lynx (or bobcat as they are called in the contiguous states) is a cat that hunts and kills animals, and is definitely a predator. Despite that, it will still avoid encounters with wolves, wolverines, moose or even deer as they all pose a threat to the approx. 25 pound cats.
Humans may not he the supreme creature when it comes to individual predatory instincts or physical capability, but that doesn't mean we aren't predators. Our intelligence, combined with our instinct lead to us dominating the animal world.
If you don't believe me? Look at many of the ape family. Many of them are far more intelligent than most other animals, some of them even eat meat. They also are capable, roughly, most things humans are, in a physical sense, yet they aren't predators. Certainly they aren't prey either.
Like so many things in life, predator and prey exist on a scale of shades of grey. Plankton may be prey to a fish, which is prey to seals, who are prey to sharks all of whom are prey to humans but humans are also prey to sharks.
Humans have predatory instincts, but unlike other predators, we don't have to rely on those instincts to be a predator. We have our intelligence, our ability to use tools and formulate plans to do things better than, or to enhance, our instincts.
One could also pose that because of Intelligence and the ability to override our instincts as AlicornSage suggests would mean that even if we did have a purely flight (not fight) instinctual response as "prey", it doesn't matter in the context of humans vs anything else because if we decide to go into "predator" mode then we would, unless we saw that as a bad idea. Of course, this is pretty much identical to any regular animal who decides between flight or fight when presented with a threat that's clearly dangerous to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dogs don't "sense the energy" of anyone! This is not DBZ or Rurouni Kenshin! No one is sensing each other's power level or "killing intent"! What animals do is recognize body language.
Saying humans aren't predators when we have been hunting and killing all sorts of animals for thousands of years is insane! What the hell do you even call "predatory instinct"? The impulse to hunt, kill and eat another animal? Because we do have those, as can be seen by thousands of years and billions of humans hunting, killing and eating other animals!!! Our species literally tracked and hunted animals from one continent to another!
Seriously, what the hell?!
Playing demon's advocate here, but-they can smell you, which is a sense. When dogs smell you, they can notice your elevated adrenaline levels in your sweat, which signifies agression. Smelling itself involves chemical analysis of the molecules in the air by whatever biological sensors dogs have in their noses. Those biological sensors likely work by analysing the results of some truly fascinating(I don't actually know how smell works, but this seems like a fair guess) electro-chemical reactions the molecules in the air triggered on the surface of those sensors. Those reactions, in part, depend on the various energies of those molecules-mainly the thermal energy and the energy of the intermolecular bonds, since those two affect pretty much everything related to chemical reactions.
This means that, in a very convoluted way, dogs can in fact detect your agression by sensing energy that came from your body.
Yes, they can also hear you shouting angrily at them. Waves are nothing but energy flux, so you can say they can tell you're angry by "sensing the energy" coming from your body...
Dogs can see you angrily waving your arms too! Photons are energy! Therefore they can tell you're angry by "sensing the energy" coming from your body...
¬¬'
Our species literally tracked and hunted animals from one continent to another!
As someone born and raised in Alaska, I should point out they also did this across an only-sometimes-there bridge between continents.
so your arguing by definition on the term demigods then? maybe you established why 20th level adventurers get called demigods somewhere and i missed it? This might be a Laynes law situation maybe you should define demigod more precisely because I don't consider 20th level PCs demigods in my games.The numbers say demigod, you just need to understand what the numbers actually mean. When you understand the numbers, no human that has ever lived has been higher than lvl 6, and frankly, lvl 6 is highly unlikely to have ever occurred.
For a much better response than I can write,
read http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-yo ur-expectations-2If the best humanity can achieve is lvl 5, than lvl 20 if four times better than humanity, therefore, lvl 20 is divine.
I dare you to find someone who can jump 51'.
this was bothering me and since debate is cool i'm going to address this statement now.
1. numbers in and of themselves mean nothing but what we assign to them2. ill give you most people don't get above in my mind what a level 5 dnd/pfcharacter could do i think in d-20 modern was one reason most of the classes stopped at 10 instead of 20
3. if you can find me someone who can cast a fireball ill give your 51 foot argument more credit but your arguing realism on a game with dragons and magic.
4. everyone game is unique to them and there group you can define it how you want cause its a pen and paper rpg if you want to say the baseline for your game is everyone starts at level 10 and get to 20 hey that is your business so 10 becomes normal w/e.
you can't expect everyone to play with the same expectations you have. for example demigods in my game are people with divine rank 0 ( from deities and demigods) otherwise I don't throw that term on something.
Thats why i feel your arguing by definition like ashiel said arguing semantics
@ Tels,
Two things,
A) I never claimed that humans were not predators, only that we didn't have a predator's instincts. When we are in a state of mind where we are not thinking but merely responding (and lack training for the situation like a soldier or martial artist might have), then people respond like prey.
B) I already said, this is primarily stuff I learned in class, after class discussions with my teachers, personal observation, and in the case of dogs, both my experience and the studying my mother has done of which I have learned from her. Haven't needed internet sources, thus no links.
I mostly talk about things I know something about. If I'm not sure, I rarely speak, and when I do, I say I'm not sure. (though in my experience, most people ignore that I said I wasn't sure when I do, thus contributing to me not saying much when unsure.) So I guess if it seems close minded, it is likely just because I am already sure from outside sources (I generally mark purely personal conclusions built on what I learned as "I figure..." or "In my opinion...". I had one such thing somewhere in this debate, I forget where.). Of course, my teachers might be wrong, but personal opinion won't sway me, and one thing I have noticed (personal observations and well known psychology) is that people latch on to concepts and go out of their way to prove themselves right. I have noticed that affects the scientific community as much as the common populace. Many of the experiments I have seen, especially in psychology, were clearly flawed but the flaws were unnoticed by those involved, despite being immediately obvious to me.
I have tested in the top 1% for IQ, and my autism screws up my ability to truly connect with people (a process that relies significantly on factors that can't simply be learned and replicated like a math equation). It would not surprise me if that colors my presentation in a way that I have yet to notice and resolve. I know I am fallible, I also know I see things on a level that contrasts the norm. I have constantly pushed my professors to the limits of their knowledge (and several of them are active in their fields and thus not suspect to the "if they can't do, they teach" argument). Being a smart person, knowing I see the universe in way others can only dream of, I'd imagine it would be hard to not sound closeminded even without the social deficiency associated with autism, no matter how much I understand that others can give me valuable insights knowledge. Of course, don't parents always seem closeminded to the child they are lecturing. Don't those children often grow up to learn their their parents were right after all. At least, I've heard that a dozen times from several places, but it might just be a trope.
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. -Socrates
<edit> just wanted to say I have a better understanding of where your coming from now. I would say being open-minded is the best way to go about it so much knowledge at the end of the day is subjective and I hate that personally myself I like the idea of universal truths but Its hard to find most of the time.
@Lemmy
"Dogs don't "sense the energy" of anyone!"
You watch too much tv.
Animals have electric fields. You can hook yourself up to a multimeter and notice the readings. It'll seem like static, but it is your static. To say that the field is not noticeable by others is just silly.
Ever meet someone able to give commands that feel like commands but without any of the vocal or "physical" force behind them? I have.
Or how about being able to feel someone staring at you?
The phenomena commonly referred to as the hairs pn your neck standing on end?
All that is energy. No, it isn't DBZ or some stupid fantasy and you don't go flipping things through walls with it, but it is a real, if very subtle, something dismissed by the common populace (mostly after the Judaism and derivitives took over, discounting such stuff as evil magic (which was more about destruction of opposing religions than anything true). It is the chi referred to in real martial arts. (The stuff about self discipline and control, not those silly self defense groups that pop up everywhere).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, gods... Not another condescending self-proclaimed "austistic savant" or whatever.
I really don't have the patience to debate with people like that, so... F$## it! I'm out! Another poster already exhausted my willingness to talk to anyone who claims they are smarter than everyone else.
Congratulations! Alicornsage you're better and smarter than everyone! Whoopie-dee-doo. Now excuse me while I add another name to the "list of people I shouldn't bother replying to".
Cheers.
DAMN SON
@Lemmy
"Dogs don't "sense the energy" of anyone!"
You watch too much tv.
Animals have electric fields. You can hook yourself up to a multimeter and notice the readings. It'll seem like static, but it is your static. To say that the field is not noticeable by others is just silly.
Ever meet someone able to give commands that feel like commands but without any of the vocal or "physical" force behind them? I have.
Or how about being able to feel someone staring at you?
The phenomena commonly referred to as the hairs pn your neck standing on end?
All that is energy. No, it isn't DBZ or some stupid fantasy and you don't go flipping things through walls with it, but it is a real, if very subtle, something dismissed by the common populace (mostly after the Judaism and derivitives took over, discounting such stuff as evil magic (which was more about destruction of opposing religions than anything true). It is the chi referred to in real martial arts. (The stuff about self discipline and control, not those silly self defense groups that pop up everywhere).
Sage, you are ignoring the whole "shades of grey" when it comes to predator instincts. Early humans hunted prey animal, rabbits, birds, fish, deer, etc. They were prey to more dangerous predators. As time passed, we learned tricks and used tools to fend off more dangerous predators and, eventually, began hunting them as well.
Our natural instinct put us in as predators to the more harmless prey, while our physical capability left us as prey to more dangerous predators. Our intelligence allowed us to enhance our instinct and our tools supported our physical capability to become predators to all creatures.
An untrained human will act like prey to a creature that is more dangerous to it. Just as any predator will do the same. A wolf will avoid a bear, or wolverine, a panther will avoid a lion or tiger, cheetahs will avoid a crocodile. Why? Because A is more dangerous to B, than B is to A.
Humans, like animals, will try and frighten off creatures first. They act big, wave their arms and make loud noises. If that doesn't work, and the animal is more dangerous, then they flee. Just like any other animal would.
That's how the animal world works. It's not black and white; it's not, "either you are apredator, or you're not". There are so many nuances and variances that there is no absolutes, only generalities.
dude... it's one thing to know you're smarter than other people and another to assume you're smarter than everyone you talk to. being smart isn't everything and certainly doesn't make you better than other people. and pointing out how smart you think you are almost never helps. so many moderately intelligent people think they're smarter than everyone else, but it's usually a sign that they're not as smart as they think they are when they have to point out how smart they are unsolicited.
High INT, low WIS and CHA.
Yeah I'm going to have to ask you guys to knock that off before it really delves into bullying. It's already toeing the line.
@ Tels,
Two things,
A) I never claimed that humans were not predators, only that we didn't have a predator's instincts. When we are in a state of mind where we are not thinking but merely responding (and lack training for the situation like a soldier or martial artist might have), then people respond like prey.B) I already said, this is primarily stuff I learned in class, after class discussions with my teachers, personal observation, and in the case of dogs, both my experience and the studying my mother has done of which I have learned from her. Haven't needed internet sources, thus no links.
I mostly talk about things I know something about. If I'm not sure, I rarely speak, and when I do, I say I'm not sure. (though in my experience, most people ignore that I said I wasn't sure when I do, thus contributing to me not saying much when unsure.) So I guess if it seems close minded, it is likely just because I am already sure from outside sources (I generally mark purely personal conclusions built on what I learned as "I figure..." or "In my opinion...". I had one such thing somewhere in this debate, I forget where.). Of course, my teachers might be wrong, but personal opinion won't sway me, and one thing I have noticed (personal observations and well known psychology) is that people latch on to concepts and go out of their way to prove themselves right. I have noticed that affects the scientific community as much as the common populace. Many of the experiments I have seen, especially in psychology, were clearly flawed but the flaws were unnoticed by those involved, despite being immediately obvious to me.
I have tested in the top 1% for IQ, and my autism screws up my ability to truly connect with people (a process that relies significantly on factors that can't simply be learned and replicated like a math equation). It would not surprise me if that colors my presentation in a way that I have yet to notice and resolve. I know I am fallible, I also know I see things on a level that contrasts the norm....
>I mostly talk about things I know something about. ...So I guess if it seems close minded, it is likely just because I am already sure from outside sources
>one thing I have noticed ... is that people latch on to concepts and go out of their way to prove themselves right.
O the irony.
~~
>Animals have electric fields. You can hook yourself up to a multimeter and notice the readings. It'll seem like static, but it is your static. To say that the field is not noticeable by others is just silly.
Okay, now it's personal. See, I don't particularily care about how dogs sense agression or wherever humans are prey or predators. It is somewhat amusing to discuss, but that's about it. But now you are going into physics, and that's actually my expertise. I get paid to do physics. And poor understanding of physics among the general populace hurts my salary.
So, please do give an actual link to a proper scientific study that shows that all animals generate significant electromagnetic fields and are capable of receiving signals through them. Because until you do, that is pure conjecture on your part.
Yeah I'm going to have to ask you guys to knock that off before it really delves into bullying. It's already toeing the line.
... what?
*snacks with the bag*
I might.
That's a good way to lose a hand. :P
On the subject of the animals, electric fields, energy, and UFOs (wait, no UFOs?)...
The funny thing is, I've seen animals instantly become wary of humans holding things that they could be struck with, even if they've never been struck by humans with tools, merely by picking them up and looking in the animal's direction. Key points here being, non-aggressive, and the animal hasn't been struck before. This could be something a simple as picking up a rake, or shovel, or hoe, or large knife, but I've seen multiple animals backpedal when the object is grasped and lifted. In many cases the animal, if confident you will not strike it, resume its normal activity and cease acting defensively (until you do something like raise the object or make some other gesture that makes it nervous once more).
I'm perfectly willing to concede that I cannot prove a particular reason for this heightened state of defensive posture. It could be instincts that have developed from ancestors, it could be simple awe, or it could be ignorantly recognizing something as becoming "more than it was before", viewing a human grasping and brandishing an object like some sort of biological Voltron that just formed a longer arm by merging with a piece of wood.
My personal theory, based on my own observation, is that animals aren't dumb, and they can recognize that humans are more dangerous when they're holding tools. I don't believe that it has to do with invisible fields, particular smells, or anything like that (partially because it generally doesn't seem to matter whether the object is wooden, stone, metal, or plastic; and I would think that the material composition would influence things like odor and energy conduction, yeah?). I think it's more an awareness that another creature can hit them, and the other creature just picked up something that could let them hit them harder.
I would liken their reaction to the reaction that I've seen humans make when they realize that a nearby human has a gun, large knife, or some other weapon that could be used but they weren't immediately expecting. At which point, threat is assessed, and if you're comfortable that the weapon isn't going to be used on you, then you return to ease. This is more or less identical to the reaction I've seen in a lot of animals, both domestic and wild. Your mileage may vary.
Animals are often more consciously aware of things that people give them credit for. They even have and display emotions, including things like petty spite. Our family had a cat that, when my mom upset the cat, the cat would do something to spite our mom. It usually involved breaking her decorative plates. To explain fully, if the cat wanted something (such as a particular place to lounge or wanted to eat all the food that she was preparing for dinner) and she shooed the cat away, he would usually try a couple of times and, upon repeated failure, climb the shelves to my mom's decorative plates. He would then place one paw on the top of the plate, meow very loudly to get her attention and when it was obtained...SMASH! He'd flip it right off the shelf and watch her get pissed. He'd usually make a run for it at this point to, only to show up later when she had cooled down.
I try to mimic this sort of basic intelligence with animals in my D&D games. Things like tigers aren't going to go for the heavily armored dudes with all the big weapons, and they'll often avoid going for the dudes carrying the big stick. They'll prefer going after those in little to no armor and not carrying any weapons and will attack from ambush (like the tiger's in the Sunderbans do). Predators and such in my games will rarely wreck somebody and stand around to fight their friends, preferring to grab the wounded prey and make off with it as quickly as it can. It usually feels very...right.
Again, YMMV.
dude... it's one thing to know you're smarter than other people and another to assume you're smarter than everyone you talk to. being smart isn't everything and certainly doesn't make you better than other people. and pointing out how smart you think you are almost never helps. so many moderately intelligent people think they're smarter than everyone else, but it's usually a sign that they're not as smart as they think they are when they have to point out how smart they are unsolicited.
This is part of my point. Being smarter doesn't make one better in general and smarts don't equal knowledge. My point was that knowing that doesn't make it obvious or easy to sound less like a smarty pants, especially when one has trouble with the whole communication thing to begin with.
Yeah I'm going to have to ask you guys to knock that off before it really delves into bullying. It's already toeing the line.
Don't confuse snark with bullying. The best way to point out unwanted behavior is to show how absurd it is. It's almost a parental thing.
High INT, low WIS and CHA.
Definitely low cha, not so sure about wis, but that might just be different ideas about the details.