Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

See, this is what bugs me. Nobody thinks this sort of behavior is good. Nobody. People already know that from observing degenerate cases like WW2 Germany and North Korea. So that isn’t anything earth-shattering to “learn” from the story. More to the point, since the story states right up front that it is “a famous scientific experiment”, we are led to believe (i.e., we “learn”) that this sort of thing is a normal part of animal and human social psychology, and presumably something to carefully guard against. But as we dig deeper we find that the experiment is largely fabricated, and the actual experiment on which the story is based actually observed different behavior. It turns out that what we were supposed to “learn” isn’t true. It’s just a meme that sounds clever.

In reality, this degree of behavior is probably not natural, and instead must be nurtured by power-hungry psychopaths like Hitler, the Kim’s, and possibly certain orange people (which wasn’t happening in the alleged study).

So I still claim that we haven’t learned anything from the story. At least nothing that is true. Unless anyone actually previously thought that sort of behavior was good, which is surely unlikely.

Jetrell Fo said:

darth_ender said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I already knew what I believe it to be teaching so I guess nothing.

Then I believe it would be best to share what you had reinforced in your mind, since most of us were just too stumped to get it.

Jetrell Fo said:

I am not saying my interpretation is the correct one. I could be wrong. It is just my general observation based on my own experience and what I gleaned from the story.

My apologies if anyone mistook what I said as me knowing better than anyone else but I did say the above.

I believe the story to be a social commentary. Humans and Monkeys are 2 separate species. Yet, as I read the story it shows us, that some of our own actions, can make us look inseparable. Monkey see, Monkey do … or the conditioned mob mentality as pictured in the story has no valid place in humans “evolved” sense of being, yet we exhibit this behavior just as brutally and easily as the monkey’s in the story do. The other side of the same coin is the humans who take over the experiment and do nothing to stop the monkeys. They apparently assume that this is the way things are and turn a blind eye to it.

This is what I saw in the story. No over analyzing, no wishful thinking, no going to google and finding words that make me sound smarter than the average bear. It was the only thing that came to mind when I saw the post.

Thanks for taking the time to share.
One last question… did you learn that this type of behavior is a bad thing -and/or- did you learn that it is actually what happens?

Since it is a “teaching” story, what did you learn from it?

I guess that by not falling in line I just disproved the story.

Oh, another of the things I find questionable about the story is the notion that somehow the monkeys are stupid sheep for keeping each other from climbing the stairs. Hey, if I see someone walk into a room and get his head lopped off, I sure am going to avoid walking in the room myself - and keep my friends from going in there. That’s just called “learning”. If later, someone is observed going in the room and NOT getting their head lopped off, the same learning will lead to me considering that maybe the danger has passed.

About the only significant example I can think of people continuing some antiquated behavior ad-infinitum despite longterm and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is religion. But that’s a debate for another day. 😃

Don’t feel bad - it went over my head too. Yeah, it’s clever-sounding and all, but honestly I still don’t know what its “point” is when its basis is mostly untrue and its content is mostly fabricated. It’s like so many other memes out there that seem cool at first, then unravel the closer you look at them.

moviefreakedmind said:

My main points was that I can’t think of any other culture that I’d rather live in. So far no one has even told me that they disagree with that.

But I’ll bet that is true for almost every culture. While it is true that many people are eager to come here, it probably is rarely because of our culture.

Anyone who spends a lot of time traveling around the world comes to realize that while there are many aspects of other cultures that are bad, there are also a number of areas where other cultures are better than ours. In my travels I’ve been struck by some areas where our U.S. culture is really bad compared to others. To wit:

• In most cultures, families care for their elderly relatives. We largely abandon our elderly.
• In most cultures, being uneducated in math or science is considered embarrassing. Here it is often a badge of honor.
• Most cultures know a LOT about what is going on in other countries. Here, we mostly have very little idea what is going on outside of the U.S.
• Most cultures have far less obesity than we do.
• Most cultures revere educators. Here, educators are routinely derided.
• Most cultures eat more vegetables and less sugar than we do.
• Most cultures drive far less than we do.
• In most cultures, everyone knows their neighbors.
• Most cultures revolve around small, local businesses. Here, Wal-Mart rules.
• Most cultures value money less than ours.
• Most cultures value art MUCH more highly than ours.
• Most cultures have less violent crime, and far fewer shootings than ours.

My point is, we may be “great”, but we’re not even close to perfect. We can learn a LOT from other cultures, and would benefit from adopting many aspects of other cultures. Which leads me to my final example - most cultures (with a couple of notable exceptions) aren’t as gol-darn stubbornly insistent that they are better than everyone else!!!

Her logic seems to be: It’s technically possible to do something, therefore Obama did it.

We’ve all observed the same. But the learned behavior is quickly unlearned as soon as someone tests it - which apparently was observed in the monkeys. So I’m still struggling to understand what is the point.

I too was surprised by the anti-TED verbiage.

Perhaps I’ve become too easily irked by made-up untrue stuff masquerading as something insightful, given the amount of it that has been dumped on us over the past year.

It’s just not clear to me what it is “teaching” the reader.

Except that it seems in the actual related experiment on which the parable is likely based, the monkeys didn’t behave as described in the “teaching” story.

Also, being a professor in a university myself, I can say with quite certainty that there is NO WAY funding would continue in such a situation. Research money is rare and precious, highly competitive, and must be re-justified regularly. I had a three-year NSF grant and had to fight to keep it each year. Worse, the story portrays internal university funding… that’s a joke because internal grant money is generally extremely small, on the order of 1K or 2K, not nearly enough to keep a project like this going for years.

What is the point of a “teaching” story that has no basis in reality?

Urban legend?
http://www.throwcase.com/2014/12/21/that-five-monkeys-and-a-banana-story-is-rubbish/

moviefreakedmind said:

Alderaan said:

You should probably look up the definition of the world “or”.

Again, I don’t even quite get what this is supposed to mean. I know what “or” means.

Computer scientists and electronic engineers are aware that there are two definitions of “or”… inclusive-or and exclusive-or. “OR” by itself is ambiguous, except in digital logic, wherein inclusive-or is assumed. To wit:

“you can have cake OR you can have candy” (exclusive or, both not an option)
“applicants must have a PhD OR equivalent experience” (inclusive or, both an option)

The interpretation of your earlier post depends on which “or” you intended, which presumably is why you were asked if “both” was an option.

There is an aspect to this Obamacare/repeal/replace effort that I haven’t seen discussed, so here goes:

Every time I talk to someone that is angry about Obamacare, their reason is simple: “my premiums went up”. Well, of course they went up. Requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions, and expanding health care for the previously uninsured was certain to raise premiums for those who previously were insured. How could it not?

Right now, a lot of reports seem to assume that if Obamacare is repealed, then the sudden loss of insurance for 20 million people will backfire on Trump and the Republicans. Hogwash! There are over 300 million people in the U.S., so by that math less than 10% of people would lose their insurance. Heck, if 100 million people lost their insurance, that would only be 33% of the people. And then what would happen?.. a huge majority of people will see their premiums go back down. All those people who complained that Obamacare caused their premiums to go up - surely the vast majority of Americans - will rejoice that Trump saved the day and their premiums went back down, “correcting” the wrong done by Obama.

All that is required to stay in power is to make the majority happy. How did slavery manage to last so long? Because most people vote their pocketbook. The republicans are going to be heros.

Language is an evolving thing. That’s just life, everything changes.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is the problem that they removed the t-shirt, or that they removed what you consider a non-racist t-shirt?

If the t-shirt included the n-word, would it be ok to remove it, or would it still be “sickening?”

If it contained the n-word, it should most definitely have been removed. As it was, I don’t know. Until yesterday I had no idea of any racial connotation behind the words “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe”, so I don’t know.

I’m generally in agreement, but I think of it the way I think of the game Smear the Queer. When I was a kid I played it and had no idea it could be considered offensive. Now that I know better, if I were playing that game again, I’d call it something else.

I’ve never heard of that game.

I remember it very well.

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Speech that is offensive is much more important to protect than non-offensive speech, as offensive speech is the only speech that is questioned anyway.

That is absolutely true. But it misses the point… nobody has said that the vendor shouldn’t have the right to sell the shirt. The vendor considered the evidence, and chose not to sell the shirt. You seem to be angry about that.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

I mean, acting like the nursery rhyme is inherently racist because of its history is a little silly, but if some people can’t help but see its unfortunate past and that makes them uncomfortable, I won’t begrudge them that.

I don’t begrudge people for that, but I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices. Eeny Meeny Miney Mo isn’t a common part of my lexicon believe it or not, but if I feel the need to say it, I’m going to say it. If someone is offended, then they’re just going to have to live with the fact that they don’t control me and what I say.

Ok, but you can’t imagine why that might not be a great approach in the sales/service industry?

Furthermore, where you and differ, is that if I were to inadvertently do something perceived as racist, I would hope someone would point it out to me so that I could consider not doing it in the future.

Wasn’t there a saying that went something like: first they came for the xxx’s and I didn’t speak up, then they came for the yyy’s and I didn’t speak up, then they came for me and there wasn’t anyone left to speak up for me? If someone is mistreating someone in another “group” (regardless of the degree), it’s part of being a member of a civilized society (not mention common decency) to defend them, and to find the mistreatment offensive.

Furthermore, whether or not YOU see the N word in the shirt, there is a significant group of people who DO see the N word in it (me being one of them - and I’m not even black).

I can’t imagine why the vendor should be castigated for erring on the side of being nice.

So when I was a kid and my friends were using the N word, I shouldn’t say anything?

And 19th century?? My friends were using it in the 1960s. I’m not THAT old!!

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:
You can’t just call everyone doing things you don’t like “political correctness.”

Right, just like how you dismiss everyone acting on what they believe to be politically correct as not being “political correctness”.

Sorry, I’ve just been trying to look at the topic through the prism of a set definition of the term. Other people (on both sides) love to twist the concept. This frustrates me, but I guess I can’t really do anything about it.

But you’ve never explained how anyone is twisting the concept. The reason PC can and does go too far is because it’s so broad.

I guess I just expect people to act within reason. “Eenie meenie miney mo” is an extremely common phrase that nowadays has essentially no racist component to it. Most people don’t know the history of it and most of those that do surely understand it’s use now. There’s no reasonable reason to think that it’s offense.

I had no idea of the history, but now that I know, I’m not going to tell a black person they shouldn’t be offended.

Except the offended party wasn’t even black.

You don’t have to be personally offended to find it offensive. I find it offensive when people use the N word, even though I’m not black.

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:
You can’t just call everyone doing things you don’t like “political correctness.”

Right, just like how you dismiss everyone acting on what they believe to be politically correct as not being “political correctness”.

Sorry, I’ve just been trying to look at the topic through the prism of a set definition of the term. Other people (on both sides) love to twist the concept. This frustrates me, but I guess I can’t really do anything about it.

But you’ve never explained how anyone is twisting the concept. The reason PC can and does go too far is because it’s so broad.

I guess I just expect people to act within reason. “Eenie meenie miney mo” is an extremely common phrase that nowadays has essentially no racist component to it. Most people don’t know the history of it and most of those that do surely understand it’s use now. There’s no reasonable reason to think that it’s offense.

I had no idea of the history, but now that I know, I’m not going to tell a black person they shouldn’t be offended.

I actually remember it from when I was a kid. It was already offensive then, but one of our neighbors was really racist and taught his kids such phrases deliberately. Those kids were two of my friends, and they’d spout off these phrases without even knowing what they were saying. When I said that was a mean word, they didn’t even know. So glad some such things have changed.

I think you guys are forgetting that this is a business decision. Companies tweak their product offerings all the time for all sorts of tiny, subtle reasons. What is so bad about a company considering whether or not a few people might be offended among the various factors in their decision-making? Or maybe they’d simply rather not offend anyone. Why would that make anyone mad? It’s not like people are being barred from wearing such a shirt, and nobody threatened the chain or told them that they couldn’t carry it. Geez people find the strangest things to get angry about.

Well, I could imagine that if the black and hispanic kids were uncomfortable and chose not to high-five the cops, then over time what could evolve is the cops high-five-ing only the white kids. Even though that wouldn’t have been the cops’ intent, the appearance could indeed make the program “ineffective”, to say the least. Maybe that’s what was happening?

I thought this Milo guy was the right’s superstar after Berkeley cancelled his talk.