Nikki Owen is "a practitioner of neuro-linguistic programming and TV commentator who is described as Britain's leading charisma expert."
Let that sink in. You just know she's got to be an utterly astounding dingbat, and you wouldn't be wrong.
Anyway, she has made an incredible claim that is testable (that last bit is probably the most astonishing part of it all — these gomers usually run away from anything that can be evaluated as fast as their little legs will take them). Owen says that if you slice an apple in two and talk lovey-dovey to one half, and spiteful meanness to the other, the loved half will stay prettier longer…or the hated half will decay faster. And what's more, because faces are just like apples, you can make yourself prettier just by sweet-talking yourself in a mirror. Now I think that confidence and cheerfulness can improve your attractiveness, unsurprisingly, but this claim that it is a physical effect that can even impinge on non-sentient vegetables is a bit much.
Rebecca Watson is taking Nikki Owen on. She's going to replicate the experiment, with blind assessment and a control.
This is excellent. Some people are complaining about the deviation from the Owen protocol by the addition of mustaches on the jars, but that's irrelevant, since all of the jars get them — since we know already that mustaches make one youthful, lovely, and sexy, all they'll do is uniformly preserve all the apple slices for a bit longer. No worries.
Rebecca also has a facebook page on the experiment. You can join in!
I have to admit that I've been doing a slack variant of this experiment for a while. I've got this stash of consecrated crackers in a baggie, and every day I tell them how much I hate them, taunt them with a nail, and tempt them with dominion over the earth, and creepily, they have stayed exactly the same. Lo, behold the power of preservatives, or perhaps the complete absence of nutritional value. Not even bacteria or mold wants a bit out of Jesus.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Perhaps you have a strain of zeusophile molds or even worse your bacteria are Gram-negative...
My apologies to Christian Gram ;-)
Hey, there's a Nobel Prize here!
This guy's discovered the mechanism behind homeopathy.
Or maybe these people are just nutjobs.
The stuff is simply dry. :-|
?
http://nclaire.deviantart.com/art/Snow-Crash-Hiro-Protagonist-132297300…
Hiro would like to have a word with this woman.
W.T.F.
I've heard of doing something like this as some sort of personal ritual. Telling all the habits you want to get rid of to one half, and the good things to the other. Then eating the nice half of the apple. It's a psychological thing, really just to help focus on the thing you want to and remind yourself that the rest is not useful.
Similarly I could see arguing that a pep talk in the mirror might be helpful for some people to remember that negative things they think about themselves may be holding them back.
Buuuuuut.... this is taking a metaphor way too far.
Reminds me of that old science fair experiment with the plants and the music.
Aaaah... some one asked me to watch a video with that in it. The movie, I forgot the name, but they were all about it and wanted me to bring a friend of mine over who is a physicist.
I wasn't *about* to bring him over. I care about both of them! It would have been too painful.
Charisma expert? *facepalm*
Yeah, it's because of the water. This woman's expertise is worth exactly what she didn't pay for it.
Oh yeah, what I left out is that film is all about quantum woo. It's already hard enough when everyone thinks you study string theory, but it must be really painful to have your field constantly used as an excuse for complete drivel.
David Marjanović
Just a poor attempt at a play on Christian Gram's name and staining techniques. The implication that if the bacteria are Gram negative they are anti Xian therefore wouldn't be interested in feeding on a jebus cracker.
Pretty lame, I know.
I believe you're talking about that awful film "What the Bleep Do We Know Anyway?" I debunked a lot of its nonsense for a logic class. Dr. Emoto? He's a cherry-picker par example. He makes millions of snowflakes in a freezer, and then basically he picks out and photographs the two or three neat looking ones that looked how he predicted, and posts 'em along with a written subtitle of the word spoken to them or written on their test tube (eg. Halo, Demon, etc.) to ensure confirmation bias in the audience looking at his photos. "Oh yeah, that looks like a halo." Pure crackpot nuttery.
I threaten my face into being wonderful-looking.
Teach the controversy!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Perhaps Nikki Owen is herself a "non sentient vegetable." Then, if it works for her, it should work for an apple.
A friend cited Emoto's work last week and got royally pissed that I laughed at her after following her link to Emoto's ice crystal pseudoscience babble (which Randi has a standing offer for Emoto to prove his assertions and claim one miiiillyuuun dollars).
With so many artists as my friends, my life has become one facepalming incident of woo-centricity after another. They tend to just go dead behind the eyes when you try to get them to use logic and think critically. I'm beginning to realize that art for most artistes is really a denial of reality. The fairyland of magical thinking is so much more appealing to most "creative types" and reality is such a downer. Shaking my head, I just plug along at my easel anyway.
This Emoto person is a well known crackpot, who's been peddling his bullshit for at least a decade.
IaMoL:
Woah there. Speaking as an artist, who has been successful these last 25+ years, please don't lump me in the above category. While the artworld itself it filled with pretentious (and often brainless) gits, those people tend to not be the artists, for the most part. Sure, there are wacked out idjits who call themselves artists, but that doesn't mean we all are that way. You can find wacked out idjits in every field. I imagine I'm not the only artist on Pharyngula who would take exception, either. ;)
As a linguist, I cringe at the thought that the research I do may be associated by some people with the nuttery that is Nikki Owen... *shudder*
The crackers didn't go bad? That just means that the bacteria realized that they weren't in a state of grace, so they didn't take communion... 'cause I think that asexual reproduction is a sin.
That might even be true, although almost certainly not because of the content of what you're saying. Spitting on the apple slice because you're yelling at it will almost certainly cause it to decay faster. Whereas softer speech is likely going to produce less bacterial contamination. I'm pretty sure everyone here could probably guess at a good test to prove/disprove this.
Dont be so hasty.
This concept is true. When i was a teenager I was ugly and my face was covered in pimples. Everyday I looked in the mirror and I said, "You are beautiful you look great." Then around 18-19 I slowly started to look better, by my mid twenties I was gorgeous. That was the downfall for me. I quit telling myself how beautiful I was...now in my late 30's and I have backslide. I have wrinkles forming, and my skin isnt the smooth glorious thing of the past. Clearly it was my Mirror Speaking habits that made me beautiful- what else could it have been?
Pshaw!
Someone I thought was okay once recommended "What the Bleep Do We Know?" to all his friends, and once I saw it my opinion of him took a nosedive from which it has never recovered. This movie was so wretchedly BAD that I demanded my money back from the theater and got it!
It was made worse by the fact that one of my old physics professors (Fred Wolfe) was featured in it as the elfish-looking Einstein character who popped up now and then to make idiotic, woo-begone comments. Fred went to the dark side years ago "for the zeroes" (as Richard Burton would say as a way to defend his appearances in movies that were beneath his skills).
It all started in the sixties, when the choice was to either hang out with the hippies or the frat-rats, and I went for the sex/drugs/rock & roll faction. It was a clear line between fun and liberalism versus uptight, nasty, militaristic, drunken, money-grubbing, racist, misogynistic and usually fundamentalist conservatism, but the one big zit on the hippies' faces was their slack-jawed approval of every stupid newage piece of crap that came along. This conflicted mightily with my scientific major (astronomy) and resulted in lots of arguments where I became the bad guy for rejecting bald-faced bullshit!
To this day I am biased against almost all artistic types because they were the worst of the woo-botherers and still are, calling the least bit of skepticism "closed-minded" in the ironically puritannical way that they do.
Gotta love that passive voice: "is described as Britain's leading charisma expert" probably means she describes herself that way.
Or are we supposed to believe that, somewhere in Britain, there is a charisma expert expert, who can tell us which of the various charisma experts is "leading"?
@15
lol, No True Artist.
Granted, the only artist I know of fits IaMoL's description (and it would be pretty offensive to say she's not an artist), I know that I just don't know enough of them to make any sort of extrapolation to "most". Like most fields of study, the only ones you hear about are the truly brilliant or the crackpots. It's too small a sample to say where "most" lie when it comes to other attributes (like logic and critical thinking).
I actually caught said artist reading one of Dr. Emoto's books on how our feelings affect water crystals and such. She seemed pretty into it, but when I bluntly pointed out how it didn't make any sense she said she was just reading for the lulz.
Caine: I would Never lump you into that category. Notice that I said most artistes which makes room for the counter group by using most and my snarky use of the word artiste and all the pretension that word conveys.
Add to that a disproportionate number of actors/performers among my friends and you see where I'm coming from. Surely, you can't claim we're not a minority among those in the artistic community actually in any community other than those that are science centered ( I know... don't call you Shirley). Besides - Caine, my evil flower - you are unique by anyone's standards and that's a great compliment indeed.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, the stereotypes are a flyin'. This hippie artist photographer former (mostly) stoner who happens to be a skeptical atheist is getting damn cranky here.
Rebecca Watson tainted the experiment before it had a chance to begin. She cut that apple with malice. How can all of the parts of the apple help but to decay. I am also sure that all of her 'words of love' were said with sarcasm. All of that water must pick up on the bad vibrations.
Am I going to have to start singing this song everyday in the mirror as part of my new beauty regiment?
Was Seen And Not Seen by The Talking Heads really a cautionary tale?
That is why first impressions are often correct.
Don't worry, "Neuro Linguistic Programming" has nothing to do with linguistics, or neuroscience, or programming. It's a practice that teeters between basic psychology and flat-out bullshit. The name was made up when the founder was asked by a traffic cop for his profession.
This prolly verges on ad hominem, but I really think Nikki needs to say nicer things to her face.
Also, it's very inclusive of Watson to refer to a quarter apple as "Apple". I guess you could show an adverse effect by calling amputees "Stumpy".
This has tainted my view of charisma experts.
That being said I actually think the ice crystal idea could be a goldmine for some funny conceptual work.
hmmmm
Ewww. I hate apples. Among fruit, only bananas are more revolting.
No. No, I wouldn't claim we're not a minority, my dear Leprechaun. :) As for the airy arty farty artistes, I do feel the same as you. I really shouldn't try to do this morning thing. It's made me terribly grumpy. That and asinine clients.
*I'm now going to run off and blush. Charisma knows what that will do to my wrinkles!
Walton, this is not about what fruits you like or dislike. And, no, I do not want to know what you do like.
What a shame for you then.
Well I'm an artist, musician, writer, and general artistic type. In addition to holding down a job in IT. So whatever.
Then again I usually get insulted when some one calls me an "artistic type" because it implies they know jack about contemporary art.
An apple a day may keep the doctor away, but alas it seems to attract the crackpots.
But if you talk to your face in a mirror, isn't there the likelihood, given the nature of mirror images, that you'll be talking to the "wrong" side?
Otherwise, this sounds all very scientific to me.
BTW, can I do this while I'm shaving? I could kill two birds with one stone and save a little time as well.
The principle of crank magnetism guarantees that all woos and alties who dispute Ms. Owen will look just as ridiculous as if they accept her.
"What? You can't rot an apple by speaking hatefully to it, that's absurd! The rational, scientific approach is to align the quantum chakra correctly — says so in the Book of Mormon."
Don't lump y'all together, sayeth the Sophisticated Altie? I'll do that just as soon as you actually distinguish yourself in your epistemology.
Easy fix. Talk to yourself in a camera and then play it back for yourself. Bonus points for bringing a bunch of your friends over to watch you... uh... love yourself.
"The Apple of Indifference"! Man, Rebecca Watson has forgotten more about charisma than this "expert" ever knew.
While reading the Daily Mail article about her, I was overcome by the feeling that something was trying to eat my brain.
So I think she's a zombie, rather than a vegetable.
No, not really. I can back it up with tons o' evidence. As non-theists and skeptics we really do represent a very small percentage of the artistic community. I cannot tell you how many friends are now hidden in facebook due to constant Jebusisms and C.S. Lewis quotes. One quoted Mencken but quickly deleted it after I pointed out Mencken was godless AND a liberal.
I've got actors who moonlight as Tarot readers and actually convince themselves it's somewhat real. Almost every damned one of the painters/photographers and actors among my friends sees a chiropractor and takes herbal medicines, if not praying or chanting over a crystal or two. Almost all regularly quote some woo bullshit about the universe reflecting positive energy back, or some belief in a conscious universe power/force/cosmic intelligence which maybe God/maybe not. None of the artists are atheists but two claim to be agnostic. As to whether they're REALLY artists, that's a subjective call which has no bearing on their ideology as far as I'm concerned. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
I was just making an observation that art for a majority of artists is about denial of reality and manufacturing fantasy rather than embracing of reality. M agical Thinking defines their world for the most part. Since that doesn't seem to apply to you, I'm wondering why that angers you. Are most of your artist/actor/performer friends skeptics and nontheists?
My anecdote is bigger than your anecdote.
Nikki Owen is "a practitioner of neuro-linguistic programming ..."
... You just know she's got to be an utterly astounding dingbat...
Harrumph. Clearly our esteemed host knows nothing of the distinguished practice of Neuro-Linguistic Programming™.
Owens's credentials in NLP establish her as an explicit hustler. Her dingbattery is a distinctly extracurricular accomplishment in a separate field.
* runs off to set up alternative food preservation company. "Now hiring smiles!" *
What a wonderful world it would be. If only we could be so lucky.
IaMoL, that comment of mine was directed at #21, not you. I understand why people are saying such stuff, but it's coming off as thoughtless and offensive.
As for photographers, there are a lot of them here. And I've been on Moblog.net for over 3 years now and the bulk of people I know there are atheists. That might be because the majority of people are British, but it is an international site.
The very few American moderators (I'm one of them) had a hell of time getting a 'merican fundamentalist who joined up dealt with. He was driving people bugfuck crazy.
Yes, they are.
HTML fail in # 43 - but y'all knew that already...
Is it legal again here to say, "Aw, shit!"?
All articles in the Mail do that.
Wanna bet? ;-)
Caine: oh, I got lots o' photogs too, but commercial mostly, from designing sets for catalog houses. Only a few do art shots for a living. (One has been featured a few times in ZOOM). Intersting bunch of people, tend to be very pale...
Mythbusters already did it. Apparently plants like heavy metal.
Yep. In fact the person who actually got me to read this blog is a gallery artist whose name I will not kwok.
IaMoL, well, I am very pale. With freckles even. Perhaps if I look in the mirror and tell myself "you are tan! you are tan!"?
I'm having trouble with this experiment. If my apples are New Zealand Braeburns, do I have to speak to them in a NZ accent? What if they haven't been taught English (of any sort?). Will Esperanto do? (I'm thinking here that apples should understand some Esperanto, because, well, because they should). Or maybe I just start talking in tongues? Yeah, that'll do the trick...
I'm an artist and musician and a generally creative person and I have had similar experiences to most who have posted on the subject. Most of my arty friends believe a lot of bullshit. It's too bad.
The way I see it, our brains crave the impossible, the abstract, the fantastic, and the weird. For me, art is an outlet for that. I can get all my postmodern, surreal, and magical thoughts out in an appropriate venue. I wish more artists wouldn't let that flow over into their view of reality.
As I recall, the book I was looking at didn't even mention ice crystals. He simply said nice or mean things to bottled water, then took a picture against a background and tried to quantify if it looked angry or happy. He did use the word crystals though.
My memory could be slightly off, I just skimmed.
You seriously don't see how that's offensive? The only black people I know like playing basketball. Shall I declare that the majority of black people like basketball?
The art produced under such a concept would likely be out of touch. Also, it really doesn't sound like you know that many successful working artists.
That being said most of the artists I know are sculptors. Some painters, installation, "new media" (I freaking hate that term), almost no photographers. They tend to support themselves off of their art (no small feat for large sculpture). Either that or they write about art, usually with a specific focus. Almost all of them went to grad school in something if not art history or art. I'm the one who dropped out and seemingly walked away from art :/
The way I see it though if you're buying chanting crystals you aren't buying paint, and if you're praying you aren't making art.... that will hurt you in the long run.
Ol'Greg:
Word. I'm a painter; I also do pencil, nudes primarily. I've been successful for over 25 years. I've had plenty of gallery shows, I don't like doing them because of all the pretentious assholes, so I got out of that. I have a good clientele base.
I'm now beginning to make some money with photography (art-wise, not commercial).
I did not do a degree in art of any kind.
Me too, pale that is. Welsh and Irish, used to have very dark hair but it's very more-salt-than-pepper as I near 50. A few bouts of skin cancer has this guy covered from sun exposure in the Sun Belt of the Lone Star State.
My reference was to all those commercial product photogs shooting in blacked out studios with just modeling lighting to illuminate the cavernous warehouses or tabletop bays. A lot of catalog house workers suffer from SAD. The fashion guys and gals - not so much, fortunately for them.
IaMoL, my standard way of describing myself and my heritage is thus:
I don't do commercial stuff. Sorry to hear about the skin cancer. It's about time for my annual 'strip and get the once over', I'm considered high risk on that score, growing up in SoCal and getting regular severe sunburns.
Actually several of them are national artists regularly featured in some of the artists journals/magazines. Several of the actors have worked or are still working on Broadway and regional theater, or are working in television/film and a few on Opera stages. You actually probably know some of them by name, face or film/TV title. Many others are now just teaching and fending for themselves as best they can in the current economy.
I maintain pseudonyms for a reason and protect the privacy of my friends as well.
So that shoots your theory all to hell, doesn't it?
Quite frankly, that's complete nonsense. "Art" isn't a single homogeneous activity; it's a very broad term encompassing a vast range of human creative endeavours. If you think all of it is about "manufacturing fantasy", then you know very little about the arts, and have a very shallow view of humanity and human nature.
This is even more stupid than that other thread where some people (who were all profoundly ignorant of philosophy) were characterising all philosophy as "useless". News flash: crass generalisations about a whole field of human intellectual activity, especially from people who know little to nothing about said field, tend to be bullshit. This applies to the arts as much as it does to philosophy.
We're still measuring the size of our anecdotes? I thought Pharyngulans were above that sort of thing.
Apple and peanut butter?! Is Rebecca née Watson expecting a happy event?
says the goofball to the artist. I am a painter and an illustrator, Walton. I was talking about specific friends who are working actors, painters, singers, etc. It was an observation based on years of being in the arts. Don't fucking go postal on me with your pedantic cluelessness. If we have to suddenly come to a consensus on what YOU define art to be, then count me out. I personally don't give a fuckityfuck about your definition of art OR philosophy or do you claim some expertise in your limited existence that we are unaware of?
Oh boo hoo. You made a bold assertion based on your friend set and generalized that to an entire massive group of people on the internet. Hey, here's a thought for you. All those idiots are apparently the sort of people you run with. Now what does that say?
I started out as a performer for an Evangelistic church in my teens. I was going to be a music minister. I left the church, became an actor and singer touring with established stars and people who would become famous (and some who should be famous who are still working in film & TV but aren't) until my early thirties where I had to give it up to preserve my marriage. I have worked as a scenic painter, scenic designer, furniture designer, muralist, illustrator and fine artist since then.
Your turn.
It actually says more about you, Ol' Greg.
I am sad due to the lack of Snow Crash references.
Well, I think I'm going to leave the offended, No True Artist&trade debates. I'm gonna go outside and see what there is to shoot.
For what? To prove that I know more artists than you? Look, the very logic on which you based your assertion that artists are predisposed to woo is flawed. You're just being stupid now.
And no, it doesn't say anything about me. I'm not the one whining online about how dumb my friends are.
This actually a continuation of what Sastra and I discussed yesterday. It wasn't thrown out as a unchallengeable scientific assertion. It was a personal observation. Stop the ad hom bullshit and present evidence to the contrary, ol' Greg. Somehow, I get the feeling that you're just full of bluster and shit, ol boy.
Holy Crap, she watched a Lisa Nove 'affirmation girl' video and thought it was real
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akOs1WBhrDM
Wow. That Enzyte has really done wonders for your anecdote, hasn't it?
Yes I can give you names of films, designed by, made by, retrospectives at modern museums. Whatever the fuck you want but it doesn't matter because nothing in my life can explain or triumph the kind of painfully obvious thing that Paul has already pointed out above, that you seem to think your friend set corresponds to the entire fucking world.
Maybe it's just that it takes an hour of candle meditation to overcome the vapors after dealing with a jackass like yourself. Now shove the fuck off already.
#71. I wasn't talking to you Greg. That was for Walton, the wunderkind.
IaMoL:
One more thing before I head out the door: Ol'Greg, like myself, is on the distaff side. Not a male. Back to your regularly scheduled argument.
Eh... I'm just all wired up today.
IaMoL: I am fucking fed up of cheap shots like "wunderkind" and your snide reference to my "limited existence". Perhaps I was wrong to be honest and candid about my age and background, since you've now evidently decided you don't need to take anything I say seriously.
Fuck you.
*Laughs* Oh such the big man. Funny, I don't remember your name at the top of the blog. Bluster and shit and swagger. Have you moved out of your mom's basement yet, or are you still there now?
I think I clarified that it wasn't to be taken as some grand pronouncement, but the amateurs seem to be the progenitors of "No True Artist™" attack. I'll just keep laughing at your pathetic bluster though, you amuse me.
Attaboy, Walton. Give'em hell! Feel better now, wunderkind?
Having done both scientific research and poetry (with a flimsy, if at least extant, publication record in both) my experience is one of surprising similarity. What you're doing is taking a series of instances of things in the world and asking yourself what generalities you can derive from them. Of course, the methods are very different, but that sense of close observation and careful thought is there in both.
That said, when you're doing it right creative work can often feel, quite intensely, like it's coming from somewhere outside of you. In the absence of any commitment to reason and reality I can see how you might end up believing that was actually true...
1.) I'm female.
2.) I have no need to prove myself to you. You sound like you're out of touch and a few years behind the times.
3.) You're the one making a claim. Your evidence is your friends. That's shitty evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you. I think you're full of shit because bullshit is all you have for evidence.
4.) You extrapolated from too few data points. You broadcast that in public. People told you to fuck off. Nothing stunning there. Telling you to fuck off isn't an ad hom. If it were an ad hom I'd be using your responses now in another argument to show that you're too stupid to be correct in that case. Now that would be a fallacy. This? This is just insulting you to your face.
Ol'Greg. Wait. I'm not arguing with a distempered old rheumatic fat guy? (Not that gender/sex matters, it's just my mental picture sits at odds with the new info)
And Walton. If you'd just voiced your side instead of the high pitched PRONOUNCEMENT!!! We would be having a conversation, not a flame war.
I'm an artist, and I do see a lot of woo among the fellow artists, particularly New Age woo. I can't say for sure if it's more than the average, but I suspect it is. It may have to do with the entire load of baggage called "spirituality."
What is "spirituality?" It's being attuned to the aesthetics of art and music. It's a sense of appreciation, and sensitivity to nature. It's the creative power, and emotional experience. It's openness and movement, passion and awareness.
And, oh yeah, it's a lot of supernatural bullshit, too. Because it's all connected. Of course.
I think that when people choose to have "faith" in certain things, their underlying motivation is their desire to be, or become, the kind of person who has "faith" in those particular things. They mark you out, set you apart, as different from the herd. Believing that thoughts and feelings are real powers, and that symbols are forces which bind the cosmos together, makes you very spiritual, and hence very artsy-fartsy, even if you never pick up a brush. And if you do pick up a brush from time to time, it shows that you've the legitimate right.
I read somewhere that a higher-than-average proportion of artists/performers suffered from schizophrenia (or schizophrenia spectrum symptoms), and a higher-than-average proportion of scientists/mathematicians had obsessive-compulsive disorder (or similar issues, such as Aspergers). The author speculated that this had something to do with the different ways the brain approached reality, in art, vs. science. Maybe.
As for the experiment, they have it wrong. If you talk all lovey-dovey and sweet to someone else's face, they will start to look more beautiful. Maybe it's the smile...
Logic?
Then there's this overgeneralized, unsupportable claim:
and even a No True Artist fallacy. Yeah, that's great. (edited to make a stab at peace)
This is ridiculous to maintain, so do you want to continue to make everyone uncomfortable or do we drop this and move on?
Oh wait. I'm not talking to a washed up extra beating his chest because he worked on Alice in Wonderland or something?
I'll ignore the silly attempt at an insult and proffer a peaceful accord again.
This is not a no true artist fallacy any more than if you said women are predisposed to shopping it would be a no true woman fallacy.
This is an example of an idiot who makes broad generalizations from a limited set getting told so.
Cool story, bro!
I'll ignore the silly pretense of rationality and tell you to fuck right off on the dildo you rode in on.
Correction: This is not a no true artist fallacy any more than if you said women are predisposed to shopping it would be a no true woman fallacy to disagree with that statement.
The no true artist argument would be that what you are describing isn't really art.
That's two fucking fallacies you can't get right. Do you just like saying words for the sound of them?
"You're the one making a claim. Your evidence is your friends. That's shitty evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you. I think you're full of shit because bullshit is all you have for evidence."
@IaMoL;
It's kind of funny that you're even maintaining your assertions.
I mean heck, if you want to say it's your personal experience, fine -- but trying to pass it off as a general truth is just silly on a board dedicated in large part to science. Even if I fully agreed with you (I don't) on the likelihood of your assertion being true, I wouldn't claim it without. . . well, something other than weeble-wobble anecdotal evidence.
Maybe she wasn't aware that it can be tested. Or she dismissed the thought that somebody will test it. Or simply doesn't really care. After all, I don't think that when quacks make testable claims (and they do it quite often) they really expect skeptics to buy them; they're perfectly well aware there are tens of millions of people naive enough to buy their woo without giving it a second thought -- and it's those they target.
Davem, #53:
Hum... Esperanto? Did they go to school in San Marino?
legistech,
jeez people, did you not read where I said it wasn't some scientific pronouncement?
Did you read Sastra's reply? So just where do you garner evidence for everyday life? Do you just ignore trends you can identify? This was not supposed to be some major theory, it was an innocuous statement about how I run into woo believers in life and on the web and how I seem to be in a distinct minority when it comes to belief as compared to the overwhelming majority of artists (including actors, etc) I come into contact with. I too it to a seemingly innocuous conclusion and was met with condescension and people claiming my friends weren't artists. period.
I was snarky with Ol Greg, with my "that shoots down your theory" quip and then Walton wants to lecture me on ART & PHILOSOPHY, but really, the reaction is farcical. The pedantry and overreaction is really too much.
I hate to disturb you artists and artistes in your squabbling but I have a technical question. How is expertise in charisma measured? Ms. Owen "is described as Britain's leading charisma expert" but how is this determined?
* laughs* As I pointed out, it was not meant to be a scientific survey but you seem to be determined to play the pedant... and with no degree. Brava for your autodidacticism. Okay Ol'whatever, since you insist on maintaining yourself as the epitome of a jackass, then I'll keep laughing at you for all your pallid bluster, buster. Keep it up ol' whatever, you're certainly winning friends and influencing enemies with each and every passing post. Just how do you do it?
Oh the dildo joke * laughs* guess you told me. *wipes away tear* I guess my first mental image of you was correct after all.
Ask dear Ol'Greg, she's loaded with it.
Ok, so, if I understand correctly, the apples that were told nice things decayed slower than the other ones but still decayed.
So, notwithstanding that the experiment is complete BS, even if it was true, one couldn't conclude that telling yourself makes you more beautiful but only that you won't get ugly as fast...
@97
You're being a disingenuous jackass. #90 says it all. Are you going to cop to lying and shifting goalposts just to defend a stupid statement that you say doesn't even matter, or are you going to keep being smug and pretending we don't notice how full of shit you are?
Just wondering. You made a stupid statement based on a stupid extrapolation. Everyone's done it. The sad part is you didn't just retract it and move on when called on it. You look like a kid lying to their parents about pissing on the bedsheets.
IaMol... really? Ol'Whatever? You can't say my username because you found out I'm female or something?
Are you psychic? You can read people's minds here on the blog? Amazing!
I'll trust people here to make their own judgement about me thank you very much. As for your opinion. I guess you can probably surmise I don't care much about it.
Pardon me, I didn't realise I'd accidentally come to The Intersection.
Fuck you Paul. It wasn't ever meant to be anything other than a simple navel gazing observation.Ever. Actually it just became a conversation between Caine and I. You're not even a cut rate TruthMachine, so blow me asswipe.
I'm so hurt. (actually, the "whatever" wasn't meant to be typed twice) So whatever, Sister. I once had a tiff with SC on a simple misunderstanding. I apologized to her because I respected and valued her. Now here's the part when I could make a really cheap shot. I'll refrain. It also determines what kind of person you are. One last time, do you want to drop this and consider it a misunderstanding blown out of proportion or not?
I know a few French chefs who would be laughing hysterically and infuriated by the claim. Come to think of it - what chef doesn't know how to make the apple slices look prettier for longer? It sure doesn't involve talking to the apple slices.
Just in case someone doesn't know, I used No True Artist&trade as a joke. Okay, back from the photo walk 409 shots richer. Must edit now. Back to your arguing.
IaMoL, in this thread, I think you should be renamed IaMoA; I am my own asshole. This has become needlessly petty.
...you're certainly winning friends and influencing enemies with each and every passing post
Actually, in the relatively short time she has been active, she fits in quite well here. As you normally do. Cool off.
It doesn't take Truth Machine to point out you made a stupid unsubstantiated generalization based on your immediate surroundings, and actually tried to defend it when people pointed out you were full of shit. Funny how you switch back and forth between "simple navel gazing observation", "a personal observation", and actually trying to defend it as a defensible generalization ("I can back it up with tons o' evidence"). That's why I called you a disingenuous jackass. And you're still doing it.
*listens for echos, doesn't hear any* :)
I'm not pissed, Janine, but I'm getting there. Did anyone read #85?
"Fit in here"? WTF?
I have made 3 overtures to drop it and make nice. Now you and Paul(not Paul W.) go on the attack when there was simply no need. Wow.
I can tell you that your post didn't accomplish what you meant to accomplish.
read the entire post of # 41 again.
Armand K. #94 wrote:
I know several people who believe this happy words/bad words nonsense, and, based on my experience in challenging it, my guess is that this charismatic woman is making a testable claim because she thinks it has been tested, has been confirmed, and is now a scientific fact well within the mainstream of science. It's not particularly controversial.
But she also will agree that there are some entrenched pockets of curmudgeons who have closed their minds, and haven't yet taken in the discoveries of modern science. Naturally, these folks are pretty high up in their establishment hierarchies, and will probably remain there till they die off or get replaced, just like with all paradigm shifts. There are people for whom no amount of evidence is enough: why, Emoto has replicated his work a whole bunch.
I got into a heated exchange once with a woman who had taken some course for energy healing and claimed to have seen this happen with her own eyes because it was done on a stage in front of a huge crowd of student energy healers. The jars were held up and passed around, for all to see, before and after. When I asked why, if these results are so easy to get, there has been no Nobel Prize for this groundbreaking discovery, she shrugged. It was readily available to those who were ready. Clearly, I was not.
They don't get science; they don't understand the need for consensus, and they don't understand the need for consistency and coherency. To them, it's all little groups, on their own, separated by the nature of their sensitivity and openness.
Till the paradigm shift, of course. Then they'll be all gracious, and try not to laugh in the skeptic's faces.
No read # 60. Who's being an ass? I'll give you a hint:
Whatever. I'll shut up so the thread can stop looking like the Intersection.
IaMoL. Stop trying to control me. Stop trying to give me "options" and pretend I have to re-enter the fold by kissing and making up with you. You're just not dealing with a person who is going to be intimidated by that tactic so at the very least stop it because it isn't working and it's never going to.
No. You were wrong and that's just a fact. At most I want you to leave me alone.
I will base my opinion of you in the future on your behavior in the future.
I will determine my agreement or disagreement with each statement you make independently. I may agree with you in the future but it does not mean I agreed with you now. Agreement or disagreement, liking or disliking are things that are determined on a case to case basis and that change over time.
Speaking of "determine" your sentence containing that word seems meaningless to me and I don't know how to interpret it. How does your refraining from saying an insult determine anything about me? Or are you telling me you'll punish me if I'm naughty or reward me if I'm nice. I have no need for your approval.
I'm not trying to hurt you.
I think your responses are stupid. Your behavior, and the ridiculous claim you started with have not made a good impression.
I don't care about your opinion. Saying that isn't designed to hurt your feelings. It is another fact. I don't care if you respect me. It's great you patched things up with SC. But even if you and SC were best friends I wouldn't care if I ever earned your respect or not in that sense. If on some other topic you and I agreed with it I would implicitly assume you would be mature enough not to let your emotional distaste for me get in the way.
You seem to be incapable of thinking in that way. I simply don't have the emotional approval based center you seem to think I would. Frankly I see what you are considering overtures as much greater insults than calling me a fat old man or a charmless woman or whatever that post was meant to imply.
I wouldn't assume you care about my respect either.
Truthfully, no... I will continue to think of you as an ill informed sexist, a natural bigot, and the sort of person who thinks kissing your ass = being nice. That will only change if I see you be something else. There is not need for apology on that level. You seem not to think that your posts are public and viewable by everyone. You have no control over my mind or anyone else’s so stop pretending that you do. I called you on your bullshit and you don’t like it..
So no. I think you were wrong. You were told repeatedly how and why. You kept shifting. You got defensive and became a tremendous ass. Making up with you is not something I consider important. I believe we have now reached an impasse. I’m fine with that.
IaMoL, it was not meant as an attack. As for the WTF? bit, Ol'Greg did not show up here just to get into a silly argument with you. You were the one who made the silly crack about making friends. Too late on that, she has made friend here.
It didn't. What you want me to lie about how your words come across to me in order to keep your ego up?
Your statement was so stupid and ignorant that it made your whole premise sound implausible.
Sorry that hurt you so much.
Don't know why you had to jump down Walton's throat over it. Guess you don't like anyone challenging you.
That's fine. Just try not to be wrong in the future.
Well... like I said impasse. My SIWOTI got the better of me. It's tough sometimes.
Wouldn't a proper control, aka "The apple of indifference" mean you don't say *anything* to that apple...? Otherwise if you say something, the apple could (giggle) misinterpret your remark positively or negatively and skew the results.
#96:
Papers in peer-reviewed journals, perhaps? "Charisma" could be a legitimate topic of study in several disciplines. But something tells me we're not dealing with a Fellow of the Royal Society in this case...
You know, charisma's damn useful for anyone who wants to be in the public eye, so you'd think that Britain's leading charisma expert would be pretty well-known. So why have I never heard of her?
Sorry, absolutely final word on the matter.
Paul, if the o' in "tons o' evidence" wasn't a clue that I was being facetious in MY REPLY TO CAINE, then you have no sense of humor or irony. Yes, I knew it was anecdotal evidence. That's why the tone was light and why I've had such a difficult time trying to comprehend where all this pedant bullshit is coming from.
I'm not a scientist, I don't pretend to be a scientist and I wasn't postulating a major new theory, however the pretentious and condescending scoffs I was met with were ridiculous. I met fire with fire. So, I'm over it and you can spew all you like.
Aha! I see somebody already made the connection to Dr. Emoto's experiments that were featured in What The Bleep Do We Know? (BTW, I'm ashamed to admit that I saw What the Bleep the first time rather uncritically. I was newly launched from my old religion, and while I was headed towards the atheistically inclined branch of Buddhism, I got snagged by What the Bleep. Fortunately, I had somebody I respect tell me in short order why I should do more research on the movie, and I re-examined it again more critically.)
...
I should pipe up as I'm another artist in the atheist community who finds the stereotyping of all artistes as woo-mongers to be BS.
And I participate on a lot of art communities, and folks have YET to bring up CS. Lewis or evangelise. (In fact, nobody in my communities has bugged me when I mentioned my atheism tangential to a piece of art.)
I guess this is just anecdotal evidence, but so is the stuff that IaMoL is citing. IaMoL seems to dig the idea that art is about denial of reality and manufacturing fantasy rather than embracing of reality....but nowhere does it follow that enjoying the construction of fantasy and fiction means you embrace it. Peter Watts, for example, makes up stories about vampires, but he's ruthlessly committed to rational thought. I paint pictures of anthromorphised cities and death goddesses, but that doesn't mean I put faith in my creations. Flying Trilobyte uses science and fossils in particular as the inspiration for his art.
In fact, because of the act of creation, I think I (personally) am more skeptical. When Mormons go on about how Joseph Smith hadn't had much education, and look how complex the BoM history is, so this is proof that the Book of Mormon must have been translated via the power of God, I think, "Um, I was doing world creation when I was twelve, derived from the books I read. Why couldn't Joe do that?"
IaMoL: I'm not going to get into an argument about which artists are Real Artists--that's a BS discussion, highly subjective, I think, and a real red herring. But artists are people, and have roughly the same proportions of idiots and smart people as any other slice of humanity. Attributing one trait to ALL of them based on your anecdotal experience IS stereotyping. Give it up. You were caught with the sloppy thinking. Maybe other people instituted sloppy arguments against yours, but that doesn't make your initial statement about artists anything less than a bold-faced stereotype.
@120
It's great that you're at peace with making broad generalizations on insufficient evidence, failing to retract or support, and actively insulting people for the mere crime of pointing out you said something stupid. I hope you don't think that means you deserve any sort of respect.
Your Kwoking was funny, too. I swear, your defense of yourself in this thread reads like a mixture between Silver Fox (never actually address people's comments, just be insulting or act like detractors don't matter because you know the truth and they can't possibly) and Kwok (you've been name-dropping Pharyngula regulars to up your comment cred, and it's painful to watch. Like we give a fuck that you had a fight with SC and got over it, or that I'm not TM).
(As an aside, I'm not going to waste my perfectly good Fuji apple on this experiment. I think I'll just eat it.) Yum. Fuji apple.
Nicely said. My art is more of the writing and fire dancing variety, although I still dabble with charcoal/graphite/chalk pastels/watercolor when I have the time (which sadly isn't as much as I'd like). Fire dancing is an especially good outlet - it's hard not to feel like you're touching something magical when you're handling fire like that (and ok, having an audience going "oooooh!" when you're weaving light patterns with flame does incredible things for one's ego - but at least I can admit it, right?).
Many of the artists I know are part of the underground theater/Burning Man variety and there's definitely more than enough woo to go around. There are a lot of extremely talented artists, some successful, some not so successful, but I haven't observed embracing the woo being too much of a detriment to their careers - the bigger difference seems to be between those who refuse to "sell out" and those who are more pragmatic about the business of art (I have noticed though that the more flighty but successful artists at least had the sense to work with people who handle the more business-oriented aspects for them). Luck & talent does play a role in how successful an artist can be, but you're going to sniff about acknowledging the business end of art means you're not a "true artist" well, good luck making your living expenses.
The artists who I actually like and consider friends tend to be on the more rational side anyway. I do like being sociable and would prefer not to end up bruising my face because 90% of what I'm hearing is facepalm-worthy (and there was a lot of that when a several people were trying to convince me why doing a "Master Cleanse" was a good idea, I didn't even know what the damn thing was to begin with - yikes!).
I think Sastra's got a good point about how having "faith" in particular things is a huge part of marking your identity "unique" or "different." I think it also has to do with marking a person as part of a particular tribe/group.
I can see how it's easy for artists to embrace the whole "spiritual" mentality thing. For one thing, it can be very prevalent in the artsy-fartsy culture and there's always that subtle pressure to fit in, which I sometimes think is more internally generated than externally generated, but it can depend on particular group dynamics and the person involved - someone with a weaker sense of self is going to be more likely to adjust their beliefs to fit with the group if acceptance is of paramount importance to him or her, or that person could be convinced that he or she has to be "spiritual" in order to be a "real" artist. Which is complete bull of course.
I have visited other communities that cop the attitude that you're a poser if you're not into "expanding your consciousness" and "getting in touch with the Universe," but thankfully that type of attitude isn't the majority in the community I interact with. They tend to be pretty "live and let live" and the few times I've mentioned being an atheist has elicited nothing more than an "oh, ok." It's also fun to respond to the occasional "You're aura looks off today - have you been eating fried foods?" statement with the Spock eyebrow raise and "Now that you mention it, I could use an order of waffle fries. With cheese. Be right back."
Paul @ 122, I think that's going too far. People get into arguments all the fucking time here, and that particular kind of crap is simply not necessary. Argue your stance all you like; the crossroads and inappropriate comparisons are not required.
One thing about being in the artworld is you do tend to know people. That's brought up now and again on the endless threads. It's no crime to know people, and it doesn't make someone a kwak.
Oh for god ;'s sake . I DIDN"T MAKE THAT ASSERTION,Pixelfish. That was Ol Gregs assertion.
I said:
Fuck, you people have turned a simple off-handed correlation about some working artists I know into some major manifesto. If you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary like Caine, great! I'm not about to call you a liar or say your claims are unsupportable. I took issue with Ol'Gregs harrrumphing insult and Walton's lecture. reread it again.
No it wasn't.
I responded twice to that. My comment, response about the no true artist being taken seriously, and my reason for saying what I did are all above.
Stop lying.
You're lucky, mate, my ugly mug's beyond that.
But I have an ample supply of Fuji apples, and no fucking way are they to be experimented upon!
#128. You're right
was Caine's.
Yours was:
Of which I took offense, no matter who would have written it.
If you can't see how pretentious and demeaning that statement is...
@Caine
wtf? Can't you actually read my post before calling me out about not arguing my position? I didn't say he was a Kwok for knowing people in the art world. I said he was a Kwok for the gratuitous Pharyngula commenter references. This was explicit in my post. To wit:
What do SC and TM have to do with this conversation? Nothing. The artist friends were relevant, which I why I didn't say anything about referring to them.
IaMoL: Okay, I can see how you would think that I would be attributing that to you, but what I was doing was defining the scope of my comments, since OTHER folks had already brought No Real Artist up. Sorry if it read as if you had said that. (As an artist, I get really sick of people deciding what is and isn't art, and the Real Art question, and I pre-emptively was trying to say I didn't want to go off on that particular tangent.)
The rest of my statement stands.
IaMoL:
You know, I was thinking about that after I said it. It is true, the artists I know and spend any sort of time with, online or off, are skeptics and atheists. Well, there are a few agnostics. ;) That's because years ago, I walked away from the art world as I knew it. The pretentiousness really got to me, the people who came to my shows made me crazy, and of course, I had to keep my mouth shut, as they were potential buyers and clients.
I'm not a social person to begin with, that whole scene was a sort of agony for me. I left, and began to build a client base, which has happily expanded over the years. I can still do shows if I like, but I'm in a position where I don't need to do it, and I don't have to be present. That takes a lot of years to work out, and it's not for everyone. A lot of it, I suppose, is just how hungry you are to be known, to be famous. That was never important to me. I just wanted to do what I wanted and to not starve to death. I did have to do a fair amount of starving, I imagine that's part and parcel of it all; in the end, things have worked out for me and I surround myself with people I actually like. That's not always an option, I'm very fortunate.
Whatever. So now you'll be critiquing Sastra's assertions @#85, I suppose? Sorry, I'm not as clear as Sastra, but basically it's the same observation. So thanks for the reactionary dog pile without actually reading all the posts and what was directed at whom and when.
Paul, IaMoL brought up SC because they once had a major blow up and got over it. I got it, it's not difficult. I'm past tired of this whole argument, but if people want to keep going, fine. My point stands - there was absolutely no need whatsoever for you to start comparing people to crossroads personalities. From where I sit, it's over the line.
"I started out as a performer for an Evangelistic church in my teens." You don't happen to have had any of daddy's old homevids put on youtube now have you?:P
Did your pastor do the touchy touchy thingy btw?
@134
Sastra didn't say "art for a majority of artists is about denial of reality and manufacturing fantasy rather than embracing of reality."
She said "I'm an artist, and I do see a lot of woo among the fellow artists, particularly New Age woo. I can't say for sure if it's more than the average, but I suspect it is."
You seriously don't see the difference? Not to mention Sastra hasn't been waffling between "no, really, most artists are woo-filled" and "I didn't really mean it, I was just talking about my friends".
"Nikki Owen is a practitioner of neuro-linguistic programming..."
That's as far as I got with a straight face.
Scarily, I have come across this bit of quackery in person at least two or three times before, and every time it was in people who appeared completely ordinary. They're usually rhetorics or self-help experts - the warning signs are if they place unusual significance on "the power of your mind".
One time I was attending a workshop on public speaking and conflict management and out of nowhere the guy starts talking about exactly this crud - rotting apples by writing "hate" on them. I didn't think he was serious at first, but very soon had to get up and walk out because I couldn't take it any more.
@135
Kwok was on Pharyngula long before he was at the Intersection. I don't get this arbitrary "no comparison to THEM" rule. If the shoe fits it fits. It doesn't help that he decided to personally attack Ol'Greg repeatedly simply for calling him out on a stupid statement. He acts like the others are making this place look like the Intersection, but that was Intersection-grade rhetoric there. That's the only reason I kept re-iterating the point. He was being an unapologetic ass for no good reason.
Also, you didn't just make a simple correlation and let it go. You implied that it was a generally true observation.
Post13: "They tend to just go dead behind the eyes when you try to get them to use logic and think critically. I'm beginning to realize that art for most artistes is really a denial of reality. The fairyland of magical thinking is so much more appealing to most "creative types" and reality is such a downer."
Post24: "Surely, you can't claim we're not a minority among those in the artistic community..."
Folks provide anecdotal evidence and you say, "No, not really. I can back it up with tons o' evidence. As non-theists and skeptics we really do represent a very small percentage of the artistic community."
Let's say that atheists and skeptics are a small percentage of the artistic community as you posit. Where does it follow that the remaining percentage is Woo-Mongering...?
You can't correlate it to their being artists, because you've already admitted that atheists and skeptics ARE in fact part of the community. And as I stated in my prior post, because somebody enjoys creating a fantasy world, it doesn't necessarily follow that they embrace the fantastical as a reality to be preferred.
I'm not saying that woo-mongering ISN'T present in the artist's community, just that it doesn't follow that it is present because they are artistes or because they enjoy creative enterprise.
Which is why I think folks were saying, Whoa there.
As far as fine art there really isn't much call or interest right now in the things that shy away from the real world.
A lot of things are going on. Return to traditional aesthetics, street art, relational aesthetics, the end (so they keep saying) of postmodernism, the acceptance and matriculation of new media into traditional art fields, exoticism, new media backlash, renewed interest in figuration... lots o' crap. Most of it is pretty much dealing with the outside world.
Hell, pick up an Art Forum or something.
All I'm saying is that art that was based on that premise wouldn't fit in well with what seems to be going on in fine art right now.
Unless you're talking about movies like Avatar which is not what your original post suggested at all. You started talking about one sphere of art and then moved to another. You even got pissy when Walton made a statement about art not being relegated to one type of creative endeavor even though you just seamlessly shifted through a statement about high art, to the art world at large, to all arts and entertainment and then that increasingly moved towards "artsy types" being basically anyone who fits your description of an artsy type.
You can sell anything. If you mean I don't think they can make money you're mistaken. You can also sell desaturated pics of kids kissing on a scenic wharf with their bathing suits tinted pink. I don't see it getting into the bienalle.
I'm not calling it not art. I'm just suggesting it's crappy art.
Big difference.
What happened to the censorship? First reason ever to like this site, they just take it away..
SHIT! Two "n" one "l" and with that whatever...
I've got to go meet some friends for drinks and this is getting stupid.
Amazingly enough, Paul, I'm aware of that. I've been around a while.
Did I say it was a rule? I don't believe I did. You are a bit...consumed by what's going on over there at the moment. Fine, whatever is your cuppa. Obviously, you don't agree. That's fine too. As you don't seem to care for what I have to say, there's a simple solution - killfile me. Whatever you have to do, 'kay? I am not going to get into a worthless, asinine argument over this. I'll put it very simply: What it comes down to, for me, is what I said the first time - I think it was over the fucking line and an unfair comparison. That's it.
Apparently putting apples in your cheeks (the post, in case anybody recalls) is highly poisonous to critical self-examination, emotional control, and rationality, not to mention reader's sanity.
Calling it "over the line" with no justification other than "he's a crossroads poster" seemed like a rule. It's not like it's a reasoned position or anything, just an arbitrary proclamation.
Why would I do that? By and large I appreciate your posts. I just didn't understand why you jumped down my throat for making an apt comparison (which you for some reason misconstrued, even though I was explicit in my original post as to how I meant it). Feel free to killfile me if you feel I crossed a line. I don't think I did, and have heard no justification as to how (aside from "he's a crossroad personality", completely ignoring that he's very well-known on Pharyngula as well, specifically for the trait of meaningless name-dropping, which is what I was calling IaMoL out for in lieu of actually making a substantial point).
IaMoL-
Whoa there, that's an AWFULLY big brush you've using on that painting, Bub! I'm an artist, and run with a fabulous circle of free-thinking skeptical artists.
But I have run into my share of artistic woo-heads. My favorite (?) is a girl I've worked with in the past who has a hard time working when Mercury is in retrograde. *rolls eyes* And she used to be a stripper (which I actually think is cool).
But not all the artists out there have a hard time separating fantasy from reality.
Rummaging around my kitchen for a bit reveals that I have 2 kiwi fruit, but no apples. Kiwis look even less like faces than apples do...
... but they do look a hell of a lot like a ballsack when I hold both of them in the same hand.
Maybe I can use them to prove that if you're extra special nice to your testicles, they'll be less wrinkly and awkward.
RickR, save yourself some time and read all the posts - lots of argument. ;)
Pixelfish. I was making the observation out of one page of 147 friends and another with 893. Not PZ facebook numbers but significant.
Did you not catch were I told Caine that my use of artiste was facetious? You're quote mining and you still haven't addressed Sastra's claims.
Again, the "lots o' evidence" is tongue in cheek for Caine's benefit. I have threads and threads of those friends making woo claims. I shared the Jesus/Yogi levitation direct quote on another thread here. It was more of an "aha" moment for me and it gets turned into the fucking inquisition with a a post full of pretentious puffery pooh poohing my personal take on woo among many (most???)artists. Last time I checked even the aegis of non-religious was just 15%. And no, I personally have not found a large group of skeptics among all the (broad term) artists I know.
Paul: where did I namedrop? Tell me one name? I simply related my reality of having successful working artists actors as friends in rebuttal of:
Actually, if you work show business and the art world you can actually claim some as friends and they you. Just as PZ knows Richard Dawkins and other notable biologists and skeptics, I know some highly successful people in my chosen fields, it's incidental. It's not a Kwok moment, and FUCK YOU for even suggesting that. I am not going to be crucified for knowing people you don't. I fucking HATE name dropping because it doesn't impress me nor should it anyone else. That I know and have worked with some people considered to be celebrities is FACT ( that and ten bucks might get you a cup of coffee) but it does refute the assertion above that I do know many working, successful people in the arts. And most all are theists, and several believe in new age woo. If you have successful friends in the arts who are skeptics, then I'll repeat what I said to Caine:
By that time she had already countered that most of her friends are skeptics. No harm - no foul. I've fucking walked into Asperger's Central.
OurDeadSelves:
Now, that would be an experiment! :D
IaMoL, did you see my post @ 133? Just checking, because I think it's important on top of my earlier statement about my artist friends being skeptics and atheists. Gotta keep myself honest. :)
I'm glad your a skeptic Rick. Sincerely. I assume then that the majority of all the artists you know are skeptics too, then? Or are you just thin skinned that anyone makes any non-flattering comment about artists, even though the commenter is, in fact, an artist? Don't take the trouble to actually read the thread, few have. Just get a general feel and then pile on, everyone else has. And make sure you make a kneejerk reaction to defend someone just because she's a friend and then make accusations of sexism for extra points.
If only I had a banana, too...
OurDeadSelves:
Hahahahahahahahaha. :D :D :D
Thanks Caine. The issue was really never meant to be so damned polarizing. Hell, I LIKE you and find your posts refreshing. Hell, I like most people here. Most have steered clear of the brouhaha and one, in particular, tried to diffuse(defuse) the situation. Thank you Sastra, I always defer to you anyway. I jumped Walton a little too hard *my apologies Walton *but Ol'Greg - pomposity and pretension to the max.Rubbed the wrong way from the start no matter the gender. Then Janine attacks and then denies her attack (IaMoA) attack based on solidarity to Ol'Greg's... what.. she fits in?? (Janine, I know bullshit when I hear it) And then there's the incredibly grotesque allegations by Ol'Greg - I won't dignify it -but that shit is unforgivable. She's killfiled.
The dog piling shit by Paul, pixelfish and lex... I won't hold a grudge: it's pointless. I'll just be a little more selective in my posts and who I read from now on.
IaMoL, It's not easy being dogpiled, it's happened to me before. Makes a person all kinds of bristly. As for Janine, though, I think you got that one a bit wrong, she said you fit in here, too, which you do.
Eh, arguments happen, and people have been seriously pissy today, including myself. I swear, this getting up in the morning does not work for me at all, under any effing circumstances. I will happily going back to my nocturnal ways. I had to chat with a potential client today, who wanted to talk to me about having a nude of herself done. So it goes:
Client: I think I'd like a nude of myself.
Me: Okay, well, there are...
Client: but I want it done like you did XXXX's.
Me: [...] you mean the position? Well, ...
Client: No, I want it just like XXXX's, but me.
Me: I'm not sure I understand, that's her, her, face, her body and ...
Client: Yes, I know. I want it just like that, only me.
Me: I'm afraid I can't do that. My nudes are guaranteed to be one of kind pieces and ...
Client: yes, I know that. I want me, just exactly like XXXX's.
*sigh* So much for getting up in the godsdamned morning. Now, if we were discussing negative aspects about clients, boy oh boy, could I go on and on. ;D
Yeah, Caine, I wasted an entire day and didn't even get to start the next two canvases I'm supposed to deliver to a client in a few weeks.
It's the fucking kneejerk reaction to making any statement perceived to be negative about some iconic concept. No one wanted to take the statements and discuss them, just kill the messenger or make pronouncements just as absurd. "You obviously don't know any REAL artists" sniff sniff
As for Janine, the implied cronyism is more than I can take. Ol' Greg was being a brilliant pretentious asshole all by herself, she didn't need backup.
IaMoL: "Pixelfish. I was making the observation out of one page of 147 friends and another with 893. Not PZ facebook numbers but significant."
My experiences: My DevArt account which has roughly 150 watchers, a rather small artgroup of 50 folks from the old wallpaper/skinning communities, and another artists community, which has over 100,000 members, although probably only a tenth of that is active. From that second community, the subset of active members that I deal with is probably about another 200 people. Only one or two of those have evinced any religious belief whatsoever, and most of the ones that I know--primarily women, because we made a sub-community in the larger one to have conversations that weren't about art--tend to be rationally based. We've had conversations about evolution and vaccinations, and almost nobody hauled out the fuzzy feel-goods. These were communities that congregated first because of shared interests in art. I could make an observation from my experiences that artists were generally rational because of [insert generalisation about artists, ie, that they are liberal, or that they are forced to consider unique viewpoints or whatever] and it would be just as founded as your statement about artists being rooted in fantasy worlds.
Individual artists don't purvey woo solely because they are artists. Individual artists aren't rational because they artists. I'm not saying you haven't run into a wooful batch, or that you couldn't even extrapolate the first hypothesis "Woo follows from Art" from that observation. But after making that observation, you were immediately contradicted by folks whose experiences had differed from yours. The observation failed its first test. I'm not denying your experience, but I'm saying it's not an accurate or full picture. Self-selection provides one alternative why an art community skews either wooful or rational. I admit, if I went to an art community and found it full of people trying to emulate Thomas Kinkade or painting pictures of auras or constantly going on about which House I was in and if it was a propitious time to begin a new endeavour, I would probably have hightailed it out of there.
IaMoL: I am sorry you view my discussion with you as "dogpiling" as I tried to keep it discrete from Paul's or any other discussion--even trying to limit the scope of the conversation, although that was misconstrued. I haven't called you names, merely asserted how your experience and my experiences differ, and that your early statements were far to general. (I did say that such a stereotype was BS, but that's addressing your statement, not attacking you.)
You are suggesting Dev Art is an average sampling for ideological purposes? ReallY?!! DevART as in Deviant Art?? And no, this isn't a no true artist fallacy. I like many of the artists on DevArt, but come ON.
*headdesk*
That would be Caine's reply which I missed while I was posting. My response was simply out of sequence. I read her reply after I already posted.
And still you don't address Sastra's post. How telling.
You win, pixelfish, if it makes you feel better, by god, the day is yours and you can claim victory and dance about the field of battle. woo hoo. I'll ignore the 1000 people on my pages and personal experience and consider them anomalies. done. Artists everywhere will be overjoyed to know they're skeptics by default.
Sigh. That IS a no-true-artist fallacy. You REALLY can't wrap your head around the idea that I might be on DevArt and not have people pushing woo onto me? Or you really don't think they count as artists? Which is it? You're using FACEBOOK groups as evidence--why is DevArt right out?
There's no reason to address Sastra's post. She didn't claim she had evidence to back up her sweeping generalisations. She admitted from the start that her ideas about the woo in her art community were conjecture, not fact.
IaMoL@161 said: I'll ignore the 1000 people on my pages and personal experience and consider them anomalies. done. Artists everywhere will be overjoyed to know they're skeptics by default.
I said previously at 159: Individual artists don't purvey woo solely because they are artists. Individual artists aren't rational because they artists. I'm not saying you haven't run into a wooful batch, or that you couldn't even extrapolate the first hypothesis "Woo follows from Art" from that observation. But after making that observation, you were immediately contradicted by folks whose experiences had differed from yours. The observation failed its first test.
I didn't say we were throwing your information out. I said it was incomplete, and you were deriving your first hypothesis from incomplete information. My "evidence" is EQUALLY anecdotal which is the point I was trying to make.
I've been nice to my testicles (barring the vasectomy thing but that was so long ago I'm sure they don't hold it against me any more). I talk nicely to them, treat them gently, wash them regularly, wear specially made garments* to keep them close to me. But do my balls return my loving, tender care? Not them! They stay wrinkled as a prune.
*On the boxers or briefs issue I'm strongly in favor of briefs.
'Tis, perhaps you need to experiment with plums then. It might work, if you use plenty of charisma!
IaMoL... back from dinner. You know what? Reading through this it is obvious you haven't bothered to read anything I wrote or clarified.
Fuck off you idiotic pompous shitball. You are killfiled.
Goodbye.
Without having read any of the previous comments, only PZ's post, I can see how such a test could be rigged.
It is widely known that to keep the sliced surface of a sliced apple looking brand new and cheerful. just a bit of lemon juice is needed.
Beware anyone in the test drinking lemonade! They could breathe on chosen slices and possibly skew the results.
Maybe?
Crudely Wrott #167
That's why Watson put her apples into glass jars.
Then I discover that the thread is now concerned with artistic interpretation or something.
Didn't mean to barge in.
Oh, one more thing. Deviant art is no less art than your TV friends. It's pretty funny you're so quick to disparage pixel when you're talking about the motherfucking entertainment business!!!!
Thanks, Tis. I shall go back and read.
*whistles nonchalantly*
pixelfish: besides llewelly and I kiddingly quipping about anecdotal evidence. See the emoticon? Other than Ol Greg's "Pshaw" and Caine's no true artist™ (which turns out to be a joke) where was the refutation?
Deviant Art is fine. I NEVER FUCKING MADE THE NO TRUE ARTIST FALLACY. My point with DevArt is that you probably hav
Again, I'm not a scientist nor did I think what was a simple observation would turn into the equivalence of Creationism claims. Idid not say they were woo mongers BECAUSE THEY WERE ARTISTS. Actually, I would probably later conjectered that by being in the arts, rather than science, MANY had only a rudimentary grasp of science. I never claimed, oh just ficking forgey it. Ol'Greg is a bloviating pompous asshole - regardless of gender and you want to argue a formal hypothesis over offhand remarks about my personal experiences. NO discussion, just dismissal or outright attacks. Again, I WAS WRONG OBVIOUSLY. THERE IS NO CORRELATION. And I thought Greg Laden was being a jerk. Thanks pixelfish, you did just dandy.
Crudely: It is true we tangented rather violently at some point. But feel free to reintroduce thoughts on the original topic. :)
Ol'Greg: :D I laugh because I'm in the motherfucking entertainment industry, although not in TV. But I know lots of professional artists who have galleries and watchlists on DevArt, which is but one of the many artist communities I frequent. Guess IaMoL didn't read the bit about self-selection. Still my primary point was that my anecdotal evidence and his anecdotal evidence were roughly equivilant and neither could be used to support a general statement about artists.
So... you haven't been storing them in glass jars, then?
Whoah, that last post was fucked up. I understand, pixel. The point I was making was that there probably is a higher chance of finding skeptics at DevArt then other art forums. DevArt would skew the sample base.
Again, in just putting something out there, I won't fucking make that mistake again. I add you to the killfile but it would be pointless.
Ah. Now I see. We don't know what was in the jars before they became part of a scientific experiment, nor how they were prepared.
Three nice jars from "the local 99 cent store, a magical place."
Well, there you go.
Then there is the nature of the knife. Sharp? Single or double bevel? Hollow ground? New or repeatedly resharpened? If recently, sharpened how? Whetstone, steel, grinding wheel? Was it stropped? The way the knife parts the apple tissue would seem to be a point of interest and the particular blade and its sharpening protocol are no doubt salient factors. Not to ignore the question of what the knife had last cut. Kitchen science is fun and educational. Not much more useful, though.
And now it is a social media event. Send in your videos. That should help.
The big finish: "We shall see." Well, yes we shall. For her next experiment she should measure the influence of praise on the growth of slime molds. So many scientists just don't have the time for such fundamental research.
Hehe... I'm honestly not trying to put it down at all. It's just a different market. You know, it's funny to look back up and realize Walton was right.
No, Walton, that's not meant as an insult either. You know I adore you. It's just funny when a massive argument was really put into perspective within three posts.
@ 173:
Did that do it?
I hope so; I don't know anything about art save what I like.
As for Janine, the implied cronyism is more than I can take. Ol' Greg was being a brilliant pretentious asshole all by herself, she didn't need backup.
IaMoL, Caine explained to you what I meant. You have persisted to carry a stupid argument that you, at one point, had the wisdom to end. All I have to say it this, Fuck You.
Perhaps you are having a bad day. I do not know nor care. But you should have done what you said you were going to do.
Ol'Greg: Walton did boil the problem down pretty well at 61. More succinctly than I did.
Crudely: I considered your prior point about the lemonade. Does that actually do things to freshly cut apples? Maybe I will have to sacrifice a Fuji apple after all.
Pixelfish, yes. If you slice apples ahead of time, a way to keep them white and fresh is to use lemon juice.
Yes, Pixelfish. If you rub fresh cut apple slices with a wedge of lemon the apple will not darken for several hours at room temperatures.
There are just so many ways to rig this "experiment" that without a convincing number of confirming tests from independent and disinterested researchers there is really nothing here. Nor any here.
Caine and Crudely: Thank you for the culinary information. I was previously unaware. (I did know that you could prevent things from browning right away by sticking them in cold water, but the lemon juice I did not know.)
You are most entirely welcome.
The list of other things that I can authoritatively hold forth upon is woefully limited. I will nonetheless stand, however beleaguered, on the usefulness of lemon juice for preserving the appearance of sliced apple.
Put the apples in your cheeks? Isn't it easier to get a concussion from a prostitute whacking you over the head with her heel and then desert to Sweden?
That's a great trick, and it's surprising how few people know about it.
Josh:
Crudely Wrott brought it up, I just confirmed. :) I suppose I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that people don't know about it. I learned that one very young, from either my grandmother or one of my great grandmothers. Well, a grandma was responsible at any rate!
Not to rapidly change hats or anything but I'm sorta with ckitching up at #18 that there may even be actual possible contamination. I mean if I licked an apple slice I'd expect it to have bacteria from my mouth on it. I guess it depends on just how spiteful (well and also how... uh... loving) you are being towards the sliced fruit.
Oh well, hold up ppl. I gotta tell my scotch how gorgeous it looks tonight in that tumbler I poured it in. It's uh... for my health.
Well, aren't they always? Here's to grandmas and aunties!
Yes, absolutely! *clink* Josh, m'dear, you haven't been in the endless thread. Please see my #172 in response to you. (I know I got the bit about Carlie wrong, I wasn't awake. Really.)
Yes'm, reportin' for duty!
Ol'Greg,
Did you mean spiteful? ;)
But yeah, as I was watching the video I could not but note Rebecca put the cut surfaces on the cutting board, and in different places for different slices, as well.
Ol' Greg @188 sez,"
Certainly! That's how easy it is to contaminate a test sample. That's why I mentioned the jars with respect to what was previously in them. Pickles would leave a different spoor than lard.
It seems clear that every time you or I touch something there is an exchange of clues, actual bits of matter. This even while Einstein demonstrates that when you punch a wall or touch a beloved face it is only electric fields that collide or caress.
Because we sense so many things that we cannot make sense of (I'm sure you follow) we are wont to invent answers. No doubt more so when there are pesky children about demanding to know why something is.
*Really. Think about being a paleolithic parent. Days are grab and grasp, protect the kids. Nights are fire and diligent attention to the perimeter and the endless taunts and demands of the children. It's no wonder they made up horrible stories to scare the children into silence and cowering. Some stories stuck.*
There's a late-night product advert wherein a
melon of some kind doesn't get mold ergo using a face cream made out of that melon will keep you young and beautiful. It's the complete bunk.
Phew, what a thread. Mercury must be in retrograde.
I've tried really, but I just can't get myself to talk mean to a defenseless apple. I appologized, and promised to never do that again. Of course, then I ate it, but that's what an apple's for.
I love apples and peanut butter. I didn't even know such a combination existed before moving to New York and meeting my future bride. She picked it up in Boston.
So I gotta know - is this a New England thing? I thought RW was hot before, but man - an apple and peanut butter eater too?
JC
JackC, 197:
It's pretty common out here in the wild West, too. In Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho and Washington, anyway. Giggity.
Oh, by the way, fruit are reproductive organs. So, to find a perfect analogy, you shouldn't sweet-talk your mug in a mirror, but your private parts.
Christophe - I thought the nasty bits were the parts that (much like myself it seems) have already fallen off. Fruit isn't the organ, but the result. More like the placenta I would imagine. Some of which I probably smeared in my hair today. Yes, old, but I still have it on top.
co - wow - cool! I had been all over, known lots of folks, and apples and PB never made it into my consciousness until I settled in the North East. Weird. I feel I missed out on a major part of my childhood.
JC