For your specific example, your argument isn't actually unreasonable! It just illustrates that certain elements can have multiple or divergent effects depending on their implementation.
Like you've got me fucked if you think I'm interested in categorizing different works as a single genre and only that genre as if genre is objective fact and not more or less arbitrary groupings, but I am indeed interested in looking at the components of genre and how they create emotional effect.
I'm not interested, for example, in the question "Is Mass Effect hard sci fi?" because the component elements of hard sci fi, the component elements of how Mass Effect constructs genre, the origins of each, the motivations of each, and the emotional impact created by each, are far more interesting to me. I vaguely disagree with the sentiment that it is hard sci fi, but that's more because I find the concept of actively categorizing any work as one genre to the exclusion of another is silly.
So you're thinking of it like that aspect ratio films are in, where people don't consciously notice it really, but people do it in parodies to make their TV show suddenly look more filmy
Yeah, basically.
Look I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to debate you on that front (though the implication that the answer to "why do I want to eat dishwasher packets?" isn't "their texture and bright color indicates that they're a berry" is one I'd probably disagree with on the grounds of why the hell else would it be that way and also it's funny) but I think the assorted elements that comprise the relatively recent invention of genre and the cultural awareness thereof are a bit more clear cut than the links between evolution and modern human behavior.
i don't want to debate evolutionary biology with you any more than you want to debate it with me.
if you think this is more clear cut than an actual science, why on earth did you tell me i'm thinking of it in overly scientific terms?
Clear cut was the wrong term. I meant that visual signifiers of genre are on the whole a lot less complicated than the field of evolutionary biology, and have a lot more answers that are more or less right.
Moreover the difference between something that is correct and something that is incorrect is a lot smaller in "soft" fields like genre taxonomy than in evolutionary biology where things have provable, measurable links to each other.
For your specific example, your argument isn't actually unreasonable! It just illustrates that certain elements can have multiple or divergent effects depending on their implementation.
If I understand "my argument" as being the simultaneous assertions that brown signifies sci-fi over fantasy and fantasy over sci-fi, then here you're working on an understanding of arguments as being about providing understandings of how people could possibly use or understand the same object (brown, here) in different ways, and thus one argument or another being "right" or "wrong" is not how things go.
Like you've got me fucked if you think I'm interested in categorizing different works as a single genre and only that genre as if genre is objective fact and not more or less arbitrary groupings, but I am indeed interested in looking at the components of genre and how they create emotional effect.
I'm not interested, for example, in the question "Is Mass Effect hard sci fi?" because the component elements of hard sci fi, the component elements of how Mass Effect constructs genre, the origins of each, the motivations of each, and the emotional impact created by each, are far more interesting to me. I vaguely disagree with the sentiment that it is hard sci fi, but that's more because I find the concept of actively categorizing any work as one genre to the exclusion of another is silly.
So you're thinking of it like that aspect ratio films are in, where people don't consciously notice it really, but people do it in parodies to make their TV show suddenly look more filmy
Yeah, basically.
Look I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to debate you on that front (though the implication that the answer to "why do I want to eat dishwasher packets?" isn't "their texture and bright color indicates that they're a berry" is one I'd probably disagree with on the grounds of why the hell else would it be that way and also it's funny) but I think the assorted elements that comprise the relatively recent invention of genre and the cultural awareness thereof are a bit more clear cut than the links between evolution and modern human behavior.
i don't want to debate evolutionary biology with you any more than you want to debate it with me.
if you think this is more clear cut than an actual science, why on earth did you tell me i'm thinking of it in overly scientific terms?
Clear cut was the wrong term. I meant that visual signifiers of genre are on the whole a lot less complicated than the field of evolutionary biology, and have a lot more answers that are more or less right.
and here you say that things are simple, and some arguments (for signifiers) are right, while presumably others are not.
like. i don't mind things being fluid. but don't try to switch back and forth between fluid and solid. it's irritating.
Moreover the difference between something that is correct and something that is incorrect is a lot smaller in "soft" fields like genre taxonomy than in evolutionary biology where things have provable, measurable links to each other.
This isn't related to this thread, but I want you to know that actual scientists have arguments over whether snakes are birds, or whether ancient apes with canines could meaningfully be considered proto-humans, or whether brontosaurs existed, that play out exactly like arguments about whether Mass Effect is sci-fi.
For your specific example, your argument isn't actually unreasonable! It just illustrates that certain elements can have multiple or divergent effects depending on their implementation.
If I understand "my argument" as being the simultaneous assertions that brown signifies sci-fi over fantasy and fantasy over sci-fi, then here you're working on an understanding of arguments as being about providing understandings of how people could possibly use or understand the same object (brown, here) in different ways, and thus one argument or another being "right" or "wrong" is not how things go.
You're looking at the wrong side of my statement. My point in saying that your intended-to-be-unreasonable position wasn't unreasonable wasn't literally "your deliberately impossible position that brown signifies fantasy more than sci fi simultaneously to it signifying sci fi more than fantasy is correct," my point was that your use of brown as a seemingly arbitrary and so-minute-as-to-cause-its-effect-to-be-negligible element in media was erroneous. Thus you using brown as an example of a genre signifier wasn't as unreasonable as you implied.
Also (on mobile so quoteblocking is hard) I'm not tryig to have it both ways. In this context I use the words right and wrong with the understanding that I mean (can be argued reasonably to be) right and (can be argued reasonably to be) wrong. In turn meaning that when I imply there are "correct" examples of what a genre signifier is, I mean that there are examples which are more able to be argued in favor of being a signifier without significant mental leaps. This division isn't clear, though, when examined closely, because every definition that could afford it clarity is rooted in a fluid concept.
And when I say "it's less complicated" I don't mean in the sense that the mechanisms by which genre signifiers affect the human brain are less complicated than the mechanisms by which evolution works, I mean that the mechanisms by which evolution works have a much wider scope and range of application than the mechanisms of genre.
Also also, I know scientists have silly taxonomical arguments because of my casual interest in numerous fields, and because I know that taxonomies are fluid. The difference is that taxonomies of hard sciences describe things that on the whole aren't affected by the act of categorizing them, while taxonomies of soft sciences describe things that are affected by the act of categorizing them.
And if you're going to follow this up by saying that measuring/categorizing things in hard sciences actually does affect them because idk Pluto's classification as a dwarf planet might have a long term effect on its colonization prospects or that something something quantum physics you LITERALLY cannot measure something without affecting it you are missing the point in a colossal way, so just know I'm aware that science is weird and most statements don't work if you examine them closely enough.
For your specific example, your argument isn't actually unreasonable! It just illustrates that certain elements can have multiple or divergent effects depending on their implementation.
If I understand "my argument" as being the simultaneous assertions that brown signifies sci-fi over fantasy and fantasy over sci-fi, then here you're working on an understanding of arguments as being about providing understandings of how people could possibly use or understand the same object (brown, here) in different ways, and thus one argument or another being "right" or "wrong" is not how things go.
Also (on mobile so quoteblocking is hard) I'm not tryig to have it both ways. In this context I use the words right and wrong with the understanding that I mean (can be argued reasonably to be) right and (can be argued reasonably to be) wrong. In turn meaning that when I imply there are "correct" examples of what a genre signifier is, I mean that there are examples which are more able to be argued in favor of being a signifier without significant mental leaps. This division isn't clear, though, when examined closely, because every definition that could afford it clarity is rooted in a fluid concept.
gonna level with you here. i have no idea what any of this means.
i'm trying. i'm staring at it. i've deleted three half written posts. i have to conclude i don't get shit.
but i wasn't arguing that brown isn't a signifier because you can argue both ways. i was arguing that you can argue that it signifiers, both ways, that either way is about as convincing as the initial short/fantasy thing, that you could just as well argue that short means sci-fi, and that this indicates that you've come up with a concept of signifier so impossible to discuss in a framework of things being more or less true than other things as to be worthless in such a framework.
also, this is all fairly peripheral to what i was initially concerned with, which is the idea that people work in such a way that short people mean fantasy because short people are on the fringes, which is still freud-level bullshit, as well as a basically objective statement about people in the world.
Fuck it, whatever, I don't know what to say at this point other than I'm full of shit, which you already seem to have realized and I have unsuccessfully argued against up to this point. Whatever.
And yet my frustration remains the same as it was initially: regardless of how thoroughly you've proven I'm wrong even in the most generous possible terms that I myself have laid out you still haven't really added anything constructive.
Whch I guess I can't really ask you to do so, whatever. Whatever whatever.
I don't think "you're full of shit". I think this particular thing you said (that is, the thing about how people think, not whether this thing signifies a genre, which is more up in the air) is wrong, and I expressed this very negatively just now because I have very negative associations with that idea which are largely not your fault.
I think that you are interested in obtaining a rational understanding of fiction, music, stuff, even in areas where you obviously can't be "rational" to the extent that you could be about fossils or something. I think this interest of yours and your pursuit of it is very admirable, and I try to help when I can like by offering advice on math and logic, which I'm much better at than fiction and music and stuff.
But at the same time, this interest can result in ideas similar in form to some dead people who essentially used mathematical and scientific logic to dress up charlatanry. You are not a charlatan, and I would really like you to continue not being a charlatan, so, well, I'm negative. Sometimes there is not much that can be constructed from an idea.
If you had just said "the idea that short people are somehow more marginal than others is one rooted in, like eugenics or something" that would've cut through a lot of the bullshit a lot quicker. If you're going to be negative lead with it in the clearest possible way.
But the thing is
I don't actually have much investment whatsoever in that idea, which is why I didn't argue it and honestly kind of forgot I made that point to begin with
It's not rooted in eugenics or anything. Anyway. I probably should have been able to identify that as peripheral. Sorry.
I mean by all means if you see me espousing a potentially malicious idea challenge it even if it's just on the periphery. But, like, stay on it? I got lost in the details because I didn't correctly see what was bugging you.
Although do note the whole small size = literal marginalization was a thought process I was applying to, like, fairies and gnomes and shit, not anything realistically human sized.
Are you saying that the idea that people consciously or subconsciously equate size with marginalization is a problematic way of looking at that kind of thing?
I've sort of TL;DR'd this conversation here but with regards to the hypothesis about the reasons why fantasy races are smaller while sci-fi races are bigger, I'd first like to ask for something to support the prerequisite hypothesis, that fantasy races are smaller while sci-fi races are bigger, in the first place.
It's more of a general observation really, but take a given work of fantasy or sci fi and see how many humanoid races there are, I would think the pattern leans slightly towards what I've suggested. Humans are often considered "tough and hardy" in fantasy and "soft and squishy" in sci fi. As for specific examples of that observation, I'd have a hard time
No. I'm saying that people don't operate by reacting to these simple-complex correlations. It doesn't have much to do with social justice or anything. I just thought evopsych might be something you'd heard of.
Like. Short = marginal. This is literally true in a simple sense in that there's less to see. However you then move from this limited sense of "marginal" to a complex and specific meaning in fantasy. Implications of fey hiding away from the world and suchlike. It doesn't really follow, but as a post hoc connection it seems believable.
Or, the largeness thing. Large creatures tower over you: obviously literally true. But then an analogy is introduced and the big creatures are a reflection of the bigness of space. Way less obvious. Space has all kinds of properties big bugs don't, like long distances, or being full of nothing. It's something you could come up with in English class and explain decently. Like if you said to someone, sandworms are big like space is big, they might go oh yeah, i can see that. But they probably wouldn't come up with it themselves.
They very definitely wouldn't act on this in some subtle subconscious way. That's why I mentioned indirect priming and Freud. You know Freud's deal to some extent I'm sure. But here's a particular example. He wrote this thing "Leonardo da Vinci and A Memory of His Childhood" where he tries to psychoanalyze da Vinci. There's this painting by him, The Virgin and Child with St. Anne
(highlights added of course) and Freud says okay, so there's a vulture. This is important because da Vinci wrote once about being attacked in his crib as a baby by a vulture. Freud says this memory is actually of sucking his mom's nipple. Further evidence: "He backed up his claim with the fact that Egyptian hieroglyphs represent the mother as a vulture, because the Egyptians believed that there are no male vultures and that the females of the species are impregnated by the wind."
which you will probably agree is a pretty fucking tenuous chain of logic for a baby to have apparently followed subconsciously. And it's tragically undone because Freud was working off a mistranslation, and the bird that attacked da Vinci was a kite. Too bad.
So there's this whole view of the human subconsciousness working by convoluted metaphors and people buy into it for whatever reason.
I was probably too extreme when I said yours was Freud level though. man, that guy.
The first specific observation I can think of is D&D but there you have both elves and orcs that are larger while dwarves are shorter but not exactly smaller and then you have halflings and gnomes that are smaller, and humans are seen as a default whose only trait is their versatility.
The "humans are soft and squishy in sci-fi" thing seems more plausible due to sci-fi that has other sentient species being set in space and other planets and such places being presumed to be both foreign and environmentally hazardous to humans while it's probably not hazardous to the locals (the same way we wouldn't live underwater without lots in the way of technological protections but fish are just fine). I'm not sure I know enough sci-fi to say whether humans tend to be shorter, though IIRC the stereotypical "grey alien" is shorter, and my impression of sci-fi with some assortment of races has been that humans are sort of middle-of-the-pack in stature as far as that goes too, with other characters often being fictional races that are sometimes short and sometimes taller.
The first specific observation I can think of is D&D but there you have both elves and orcs that are larger while dwarves are shorter but not exactly smaller and then you have halflings and gnomes that are smaller, and humans are seen as a default whose only trait is their versatility.
The "humans are soft and squishy in sci-fi" thing seems more plausible due to sci-fi that has other sentient species being set in space and other planets and such places being presumed to be both foreign and environmentally hazardous to humans while it's probably not hazardous to the locals (the same way we wouldn't live underwater without lots in the way of technological protections but fish are just fine). I'm not sure I know enough sci-fi to say whether humans tend to be shorter, though IIRC the stereotypical "grey alien" is shorter, and my impression of sci-fi with some assortment of races has been that humans are sort of middle-of-the-pack in stature as far as that goes too, with other characters often being fictional races that are sometimes short and sometimes taller.
This is where the clarification of it being about divisions between sizes makes the observation make more sense; how many orders of magnitude broader and taller can any playable race be to humans compared to how much shorter and narrower they can be?
Well, according to the game's handbooks, playable races are generally either "medium" or "small", both of which take up one grid square for the purpose of combat mechanics. "small" is for gnomes and halflings, naturally, and their base land speed is a little slower and their weapons slightly less damaging. but the key thing is that they function pretty much identically as far as combat mechanics go -- if you go beyond those two, you get to "large" where a thing takes up four grid squares, and "tiny" which takes up less than one grid square and is small enough to just enter the same square to attack something (and actually need to do that to attack and threaten an opponent).
Comments
like. i don't mind things being fluid. but don't try to switch back and forth between fluid and solid. it's irritating. This isn't related to this thread, but I want you to know that actual scientists have arguments over whether snakes are birds, or whether ancient apes with canines could meaningfully be considered proto-humans, or whether brontosaurs existed, that play out exactly like arguments about whether Mass Effect is sci-fi.
Also (on mobile so quoteblocking is hard) I'm not tryig to have it both ways. In this context I use the words right and wrong with the understanding that I mean (can be argued reasonably to be) right and (can be argued reasonably to be) wrong. In turn meaning that when I imply there are "correct" examples of what a genre signifier is, I mean that there are examples which are more able to be argued in favor of being a signifier without significant mental leaps. This division isn't clear, though, when examined closely, because every definition that could afford it clarity is rooted in a fluid concept.
And if you're going to follow this up by saying that measuring/categorizing things in hard sciences actually does affect them because idk Pluto's classification as a dwarf planet might have a long term effect on its colonization prospects or that something something quantum physics you LITERALLY cannot measure something without affecting it you are missing the point in a colossal way, so just know I'm aware that science is weird and most statements don't work if you examine them closely enough.
i'm trying. i'm staring at it. i've deleted three half written posts. i have to conclude i don't get shit.
but i wasn't arguing that brown isn't a signifier because you can argue both ways. i was arguing that you can argue that it signifiers, both ways, that either way is about as convincing as the initial short/fantasy thing, that you could just as well argue that short means sci-fi, and that this indicates that you've come up with a concept of signifier so impossible to discuss in a framework of things being more or less true than other things as to be worthless in such a framework.
also, this is all fairly peripheral to what i was initially concerned with, which is the idea that people work in such a way that short people mean fantasy because short people are on the fringes, which is still freud-level bullshit, as well as a basically objective statement about people in the world.
Whch I guess I can't really ask you to do so, whatever. Whatever whatever.
I think that you are interested in obtaining a rational understanding of fiction, music, stuff, even in areas where you obviously can't be "rational" to the extent that you could be about fossils or something. I think this interest of yours and your pursuit of it is very admirable, and I try to help when I can like by offering advice on math and logic, which I'm much better at than fiction and music and stuff.
But at the same time, this interest can result in ideas similar in form to some dead people who essentially used mathematical and scientific logic to dress up charlatanry. You are not a charlatan, and I would really like you to continue not being a charlatan, so, well, I'm negative. Sometimes there is not much that can be constructed from an idea.
But the thing is
I don't actually have much investment whatsoever in that idea, which is why I didn't argue it and honestly kind of forgot I made that point to begin with
Although do note the whole small size = literal marginalization was a thought process I was applying to, like, fairies and gnomes and shit, not anything realistically human sized.
Thatmakes the charlatan comment seem a little extreme, but details I guess.
Like. Short = marginal. This is literally true in a simple sense in that there's less to see. However you then move from this limited sense of "marginal" to a complex and specific meaning in fantasy. Implications of fey hiding away from the world and suchlike. It doesn't really follow, but as a post hoc connection it seems believable.
Or, the largeness thing. Large creatures tower over you: obviously literally true. But then an analogy is introduced and the big creatures are a reflection of the bigness of space. Way less obvious. Space has all kinds of properties big bugs don't, like long distances, or being full of nothing. It's something you could come up with in English class and explain decently. Like if you said to someone, sandworms are big like space is big, they might go oh yeah, i can see that. But they probably wouldn't come up with it themselves.
They very definitely wouldn't act on this in some subtle subconscious way. That's why I mentioned indirect priming and Freud. You know Freud's deal to some extent I'm sure. But here's a particular example. He wrote this thing "Leonardo da Vinci and A Memory of His Childhood" where he tries to psychoanalyze da Vinci. There's this painting by him, The Virgin and Child with St. Anne
(highlights added of course) and Freud says okay, so there's a vulture. This is important because da Vinci wrote once about being attacked in his crib as a baby by a vulture. Freud says this memory is actually of sucking his mom's nipple. Further evidence: "He backed up his claim with the fact that Egyptian hieroglyphs
represent the mother as a vulture, because the Egyptians believed that
there are no male vultures and that the females of the species are
impregnated by the wind."
which you will probably agree is a pretty fucking tenuous chain of logic for a baby to have apparently followed subconsciously. And it's tragically undone because Freud was working off a mistranslation, and the bird that attacked da Vinci was a kite. Too bad.
So there's this whole view of the human subconsciousness working by convoluted metaphors and people buy into it for whatever reason.
I was probably too extreme when I said yours was Freud level though. man, that guy.
The "humans are soft and squishy in sci-fi" thing seems more plausible due to sci-fi that has other sentient species being set in space and other planets and such places being presumed to be both foreign and environmentally hazardous to humans while it's probably not hazardous to the locals (the same way we wouldn't live underwater without lots in the way of technological protections but fish are just fine). I'm not sure I know enough sci-fi to say whether humans tend to be shorter, though IIRC the stereotypical "grey alien" is shorter, and my impression of sci-fi with some assortment of races has been that humans are sort of middle-of-the-pack in stature as far as that goes too, with other characters often being fictional races that are sometimes short and sometimes taller.
Alrighty fair enough