Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Hoaxes

  1. #1 Hoaxes 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Why do people feel the need to create hoaxes?


    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    That's a good question. Is it innate? What advantage then?

    Maybe it drove us to outwit our animal prey, setting traps and ambushes and whatever we could dream up. I admit sympathy for Wile. E. Coyote as he rubs his hands maniacally. The sympathy for his devious intent juxtaposed with certain disaster is hilarious.




    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That's a good question. Is it innate? What advantage then?

    Maybe it drove us to outwit our animal prey, setting traps and ambushes and whatever we could dream up. I admit sympathy for Wile. E. Coyote as he rubs his hands maniacally. The sympathy for his devious intent juxtaposed with certain disaster is hilarious.


    So you're saying that possibly hoaxing came out of survival instinct? That's an interesting hypothesis. But why do people do it when there is nothing as important as survival at stake?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    But why do people do it when there is nothing as important as survival at stake?
    We evolved a lot of canny and kickass instincts that work great with natural environment to express them in. Instincts want exercise and expression. But now our normal "environment" is human, not natural. So we treat the human environment as natural environment, and freely unload all our instincts within it. The concrete jungle, you know.

    When you are being hoaxed, you're being treated as an animal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Pong says "When you are being hoaxed, you're being treated as an animal"
    I'll buy that. Hoaxers have no respect for their victims. For example: When someone perpetrates a Bigfoot hoax, it wastes our time, energy, & resources. But if you are correct about why people hoax, why doesn't everybody do it? I've always figured people created hoaxes for one of two reasons:
    1)To get something. Like money, fame, or attention.
    2)To prove they are smarter than people think they are.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    i'm a historian and i have to admit the joy in hoaxing for me is first to understand the little mechanism that can be taken advantage of, as secondly watching people operate under the false assuption you plant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    i'm a historian and i have to admit the joy in hoaxing for me is first to understand the little mechanism that can be taken advantage of, as secondly watching people operate under the false assuption you plant
    And here you are confessing to being a hoaxer. Which proves my point that hoaxers like attention. You may be using a pseudonym on this board, but you had to register with some real info that somebody could use to find your true identity if they wish. I'm guessing the possibility of that happening was part of the fun in making this post. If you go to the trouble of understanding what you are trying to fake, you are better at it than a lot of people who hoax Bigfoot sightings or evidence
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    and what hoax did i admit to pulling? exactly, obscurity prevails
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    and what hoax did i admit to pulling? exactly, obscurity prevails
    If someone could figure out who you are, then they could figure out where you live. And then check news reports in the area & probablt figure it out from there.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    From the best of my knowledge I would assume that ther are many approaches to this argument. Although I will sterotype the best answer to the majority of people. For attention. Or B: To address light to a theory they have with some 'evidence' now apparant. Crop Circles for instance. They're very good at hoaxing them these days aren't they? Or am I wrong?


    When you are being hoaxed, you're being treated as an animal.
    That in relation to your other comments is very interesting. So it would seem that someone who creates a hoax is trying to attract your innate instincts, to trick them to get one up on you for one reason maybe? That reason being to get you to believe something that normally in the human enviorment would not be accepted? I can think of many where that is appliable:

    Magicians for instance, it looks real, you cannot prove there without the human knowledge he/she didn't disappear, you can't proove it. So accept it as magic, that at least it what ur ancestors would have done. I guess that can be tweaked to today also.

    ...Hoaxers have no respect for their victims. For example: When someone perpetrates a Bigfoot hoax, it wastes our time, energy, & resources.
    Yes, but it does give a forum the most posted and viewed thread within it to rival other large forums like Sciforums. .

    ...i'm a historian and i have to admit the joy in hoaxing for me is first to understand the little mechanism that can be taken advantage of, as secondly watching people operate under the false assuption you plant.

    As long as you don't con them into a false belief, that is very dangerous. As you know history has shown that.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    425 Chaotic Requisition said "Magicians for instance, it looks real, you cannot prove there without the human knowledge he/she didn't disappear, you can't proove it. So accept it as magic, that at least it what ur ancestors would have done. I guess that can be tweaked to today also.

    I wouldn't really put magicians in the same category as hoaxers because when people attend a magic show, they are aware that whatever they see is merely an illusion & the real entertainment value is in trying to figure out how the illusion was achieved
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Today they do, but I was reffering to magicians roles back then to con people, as hoaxes are today. For instance, back then people would not go to:

    "attend a magic show, they are aware that whatever they see is merely an illusion & the real entertainment value is in trying to figure out how the illusion was achieved"
    They would actually go to see the unthinkable, the impossible happen. They did back then actually genuine beleive it was real, and some people didn't. The same can be said for hoaxes today:

    People will go to see the proof behind these hoaxes to see what they thought was unproovable happen. You under a brilliant hoax would believe it was real, then again some people would be skeptical and not believe it.

    When I refer to some things I am reffering relatively to the time periods in which I am reffering them to. Sorry if I did not make that more clearly previously.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I disagree. I think hoaxes are about manipulation and control. You are manipulating the beliefs and actions of others for your own benefit, whether it be as simple as amusement or to gain a feeling of superiority over those you are hoaxing, or even for monetary gain. If your goal is to feel superior then you may reveal yourself and get the above mentioned attention, but in other cases the whole point is to conduct the hoax so well that no one discovers the truth and you get away with whatever benefit you have gotten from the situation.

    In the case of bigfoot hoaxers, which I'm sure is what the OP is interested in, some of them are certainly done for amusement, as I've read of anthropology grad students putting the dupe on a small town and enjoying it immensely. Some are probably done for monetary gain, such as Roger Patterson who did his best to promote and profit from his film. Some are probably done by people who firmly believe in bigfoot, and reach the point of desperation where they're willing to fabricate evidence just to get someone to believe them and help them in their search.

    WVBIG, you yourself have lamented about the lack of interest and investment in bigfoot research; what better way to get a little monetary investment than to produce some kind of solid evidence? And if you haven't got any that will satisfy those with the money, then some are probably willing to fabricate some solid evidence for what they believe to be the greater good of the cause.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I disagree. I think hoaxes are about manipulation and control. You are manipulating the beliefs and actions of others for your own benefit, whether it be as simple as amusement or to gain a feeling of superiority over those you are hoaxing, or even for monetary gain. If your goal is to feel superior then you may reveal yourself and get the above mentioned attention, but in other cases the whole point is to conduct the hoax so well that no one discovers the truth and you get away with whatever benefit you have gotten from the situation.

    In the case of bigfoot hoaxers, which I'm sure is what the OP is interested in, some of them are certainly done for amusement, as I've read of anthropology grad students putting the dupe on a small town and enjoying it immensely. Some are probably done for monetary gain, such as Roger Patterson who did his best to promote and profit from his film. Some are probably done by people who firmly believe in bigfoot, and reach the point of desperation where they're willing to fabricate evidence just to get someone to believe them and help them in their search.

    WVBIG, you yourself have lamented about the lack of interest and investment in bigfoot research; what better way to get a little monetary investment than to produce some kind of solid evidence? And if you haven't got any that will satisfy those with the money, then some are probably willing to fabricate some solid evidence for what they believe to be the greater good of the cause.
    I believe T.B., who was the speaker at the news confrence about the Georgia Bigfoot body, probably justifies his hoaxes to himself that way. But "such as Roger Patterson who did his best to promote and profit from his film" indicates that the film has been proven to be a hoax when in fact, it has not. Even though people have been trying for 41 years. I grant you he definitely had motive, but so far, the film has never been conclusively debunked.
    Were those Anthropology students you mentioned successful in fooling experienced Bigfoot researchers or just the citizens of the area?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    But "such as Roger Patterson who did his best to promote and profit from his film" indicates that the film has been proven to be a hoax when in fact, it has not. Even though people have been trying for 41 years. I grant you he definitely had motive, but so far, the film has never been conclusively debunked.
    So, are you saying John Chambers didn't make the bigfoot suit in that film?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I am not going to get in a big argument about the validity of the film. You need not agree with all my statements, suffice it to say that Patterson did indeed attempt to profit from his film, which speaks to a motive for faking the film if that's what he did. Similarly, it should matter little to this particular conversation who fooled who. We're not talking about how hoaxes are contrived, only why. In any case, I don't see why you need to ask - I already said they duped people in a town. If I had meant anything different I would have said so.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    I think saying they do it for the money or for attention obscures the true complexity of such behaviour.

    The social structures we evolved in, and which have evolved and are still evolving with us, had a certain hierarchy which I think was much simpler compared to today. The groups we lived in were smaller and the different forms of social ladders to climb was more restricted. This hierarchy was pretty important, since often doing something that enhances your social standing was also beneficial for the group in both the short and the long term (more cunning/adept at finding/hunting food, better at inter-clan warfare, etc). Today those direct pressures are not as clearly defined. The ways of gaining an advantage over another (even if only in your own mind) has become legion. Gaining such an advantage/dominance over another is another reason behind hoaxery IMO, as already mentioned. The approval of others (your peers/fellow hoaxers or, if the hoax is later revealed, your subjects in this case) can be a very powerful motivator.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    But "such as Roger Patterson who did his best to promote and profit from his film" indicates that the film has been proven to be a hoax when in fact, it has not. Even though people have been trying for 41 years. I grant you he definitely had motive, but so far, the film has never been conclusively debunked.
    So, are you saying John Chambers didn't make the bigfoot suit in that film?
    Since he always denied it, right up to his death, yes that's what I'm saying
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Since he always denied it, right up to his death, yes that's what I'm saying
    Excellent, then you'll also take John Chambers and Tom Burmans word, who both worked together in 1967 on the Planet of the Apes film and viewed the Patterson film concluding that it was a person in a hokey suit, very unprofessional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I think saying they do it for the money or for attention obscures the true complexity of such behaviour.
    Obscures the deep origin of this urge too I think. Like, I mentioned Wile E. Coyote and it really can go so far. As in wolves feinting at their prey, anticipating and manipulating it, during a hunt. Intelligent hoaxing and theory of mind are inseparable, and I guess, hoaxing really drove our theory of mind capacity, not the other way around.

    When you meet a bear, and the bear seems nervous, you can raise your arms high to seem larger and more dangerous. What's happening here is a hoax. Then the bear gets up on hind legs. Again, a hoax. This hoaxing is instinctive, but it is also intensely sympathetic and dynamic - there's a real exchange going on especially if you make eye contact with the bear, shout at it when it growls at you, and so on.

    (Hostile hoaxing usually works on other mammals but sometimes backfires by the way!)

    What do others think? Which came first: theory of mind or hoaxing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    That's very difficult to say. When the bear stands up, is he thinking "If I stand up this human will think I'm bigger than I really am," or is he thinking "I feel threatened - I know that things who threaten me usually go away if I stand up." I'm of the opinion that many questions on theory of mind will not be answered until the actual neuromechanics of these cognitive abilities are understood and can be searched for in the brains humans and of other animals.

    To Kalster - I still maintain that hoaxes can primarily be explained as a method of manipulation. If you want to get into the deeper motivations of why you would want to manipulate someone, then this discussion could be endless. I merely provided a few examples of why you would want to manipulate someone.

    If you want to try and tie it to status acquisition then we could try and tie it all the way back to the ultimate goal of reproduction, and find many examples in nature unrelated to status. A cowbird manipulates a songbird by laying its own copycat egg in the songbird's nest, and flying away without a second thought, leaving the poor songbird to raise a baby cowbird that will eventually knock all of the songbird's chicks out of the nest. According to Pong, this too is a hoax. But it has nothing to do with status.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    To Kalster - I still maintain that hoaxes can primarily be explained as a method of manipulation. If you want to get into the deeper motivations of why you would want to manipulate someone, then this discussion could be endless. I merely provided a few examples of why you would want to manipulate someone.
    No doubt. I was just thinking a bit further into what we are supposed to gain from this manipulation. But you make a good point; taking everything right down to "for furthering our genes" doesn't help much.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    That's very difficult to say. When the bear stands up, is he thinking "If I stand up this human will think I'm bigger than I really am," or is he thinking "I feel threatened - I know that things who threaten me usually go away if I stand up." I'm of the opinion that many questions on theory of mind will not be answered until the actual neuromechanics of these cognitive abilities are understood and can be searched for in the brains humans and of other animals.
    I would say a "real devious" hoax is empathy's (evil) twin, and they both depend on sympathy. Together, as elaborations over simple sympathy, they describe theory of mind.

    Now we know sympathy - neuromechanically - is a mappable pattern transferred between brains. I'd like to see how the map differs, and especially if it continues to mirror, between hoaxed and hoaxer. I think you can imagine an experiment that compares the sympathetic neural activity of hoaxing and empathy scenarios between subjects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    and what hoax did i admit to pulling? exactly, obscurity prevails
    If someone could figure out who you are, then they could figure out where you live. And then check news reports in the area & probablt figure it out from there.
    hehe, but theres so many things in the news you could never find out
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    That's very difficult to say. When the bear stands up, is he thinking "If I stand up this human will think I'm bigger than I really am," or is he thinking "I feel threatened - I know that things who threaten me usually go away if I stand up." I'm of the opinion that many questions on theory of mind will not be answered until the actual neuromechanics of these cognitive abilities are understood and can be searched for in the brains humans and of other animals.
    I would say a "real devious" hoax is empathy's (evil) twin, and they both depend on sympathy. Together, as elaborations over simple sympathy, they describe theory of mind.

    Now we know sympathy - neuromechanically - is a mappable pattern transferred between brains. I'd like to see how the map differs, and especially if it continues to mirror, between hoaxed and hoaxer. I think you can imagine an experiment that compares the sympathetic neural activity of hoaxing and empathy scenarios between subjects.
    Of course. Realizing that you can manipulate what other individuals know is something of a double edged sword. It allows you to both deceive and teach.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    That is so totally mammalian. It's like having super powers. We rule!

    Cobra vs. mongoose. Pft.

    But we mammals turned these super powers on each other. And escalated, and we're still escalating.

    I watched gophers (prairie ground squirrels) and predatory dogs psyching each other. The gophers dig a network of holes and connecting tunnels to hide in - the dogs try to catch one. For each dog, are dozens of gophers. You'd think the gophers would just play it safe and duck whenever a dog approaches. But they wait, conspicuous. And the wise dog knows this is a game meant to frustrate and exhaust. So the dog meanders nonchalantly, it doesn't waste breath running. The dog also wants to frustrate and exhaust the gophers. If the dog turns away bored, a gopher snaps up with an irate screech: Turn around and pay attention! If the dog lies down, a gopher ventures forth, directly toward the dog, taunting. These animals can waste half a day just psyching each other. The predator-prey empathy is intense.

    Somehow humans turned this to broader application. One could say we've tilted the machine. And we're still escalating.

    Now our only worthy opponents are fellow humans. Evolution couldn't know we'd turn deception on our own species. Like on a Cold War scale. And who'd have guessed sweet empathy for dogs... or cats... or frikin' pet snakes. Perhaps this is the only way to keep growing our capacity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I watched gophers (prairie ground squirrels) and predatory dogs psyching each other. The gophers dig a network of holes and connecting tunnels to hide in - the dogs try to catch one. For each dog, are dozens of gophers. You'd think the gophers would just play it safe and duck whenever a dog approaches. But they wait, conspicuous. And the wise dog knows this is a game meant to frustrate and exhaust. So the dog meanders nonchalantly, it doesn't waste breath running. The dog also wants to frustrate and exhaust the gophers. If the dog turns away bored, a gopher snaps up with an irate screech: Turn around and pay attention! If the dog lies down, a gopher ventures forth, directly toward the dog, taunting. These animals can waste half a day just psyching each other. The predator-prey empathy is intense.
    There is a huge amount of anthropormorphization in that paragraph, Pong. As I've already said, we have yet to discover with certainty if other animals like dogs and gophers are aware of the mental states of others. Even as far as conjecture goes, I might give dogs a little credit, but I highly doubt gophers have any such cognitive ability.

    Somehow humans turned this to broader application. One could say we've tilted the machine. And we're still escalating.

    Now our only worthy opponents are fellow humans. Evolution couldn't know we'd turn deception on our own species. Like on a Cold War scale. And who'd have guessed sweet empathy for dogs... or cats... or frikin' pet snakes. Perhaps this is the only way to keep growing our capacity?
    Of course evolution doesn't "know" anything, but why are you surprised that we want to deceive each other? We are social animals, we need to interact with other individuals in order to achieve our ultimate goals of reproductive success. Just as a predator needs to interact with its prey in order to survive. As altering what the prey knows can be advantageous to the predator, so can altering what other members of our social group know be advantageous to us. If a behavior is advantageous it will be selected for.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    anthropormorphization
    I'm not thinking these animals are "like people". I'm thinking they have this mammal thing going on, which humans happen to share. For example prairie voles [belongs in love thread] pair-bond (for life) more intensely than humans - they hump and lick for weeks nonstop and drive their partner's hormones through the roof, way in excess of human capacity. Plainly, the voles are "making love". This is no more anthropomorphizing than if we compared the prairie vole "brain" to a human "brain". OK they have brains as well as we do, big deal. Use the same term. Sure their brains are puny and unsophisticated compared to ours, big deal. Use the same term. It is pretty obvious mammals have sympathy and engage on that level.

    I feel applying a different term for the same thing, because it's not human, less objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    why are you surprised?
    Well, I'm not really. I'm just expressing moral disquiet about our species folding over on itself. I'm sure however this works out they'll call it evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    anthropormorphization
    I'm not thinking these animals are "like people". I'm thinking they have this mammal thing going on, which humans happen to share. For example prairie voles [belongs in love thread] pair-bond (for life) more intensely than humans - they hump and lick for weeks nonstop and drive their partner's hormones through the roof, way in excess of human capacity. Plainly, the voles are "making love". This is no more anthropomorphizing than if we compared the prairie vole "brain" to a human "brain". OK they have brains as well as we do, big deal. Use the same term. Sure their brains are puny and unsophisticated compared to ours, big deal. Use the same term. It is pretty obvious mammals have sympathy and engage on that level.

    I feel applying a different term for the same thing, because it's not human, less objective.
    I'm not referring to the act of mating. I'm referring to, for example, the suggestion you made that the gophers' behavior in your example is purposely meant to frustrate and exhaust the dog. That implies an objective level of cognitive complexity (planning ahead, cooperative intent to deceive the dog) that I simply doubt gophers are capable of.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    why are you surprised?
    Well, I'm not really. I'm just expressing moral disquiet about our species folding over on itself. I'm sure however this works out they'll call it evolution.
    [/quote]

    Unless it results in a change in the gene frequencies of the human population, they (if by they you are referring to researchers of some kind) won't.

    Remember that not only can we deceive, but we can teach. That is how our species has been able to achieve such levels of technological advancement, by teaching each successive generation everything the previous gen has discovered, and not forcing them to discover it completely anew on their own. There's no reason why this can't be done for social interactions (between people, groups, or nations) as well.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Since he always denied it, right up to his death, yes that's what I'm saying
    Excellent, then you'll also take John Chambers and Tom Burmans word, who both worked together in 1967 on the Planet of the Apes film and viewed the Patterson film concluding that it was a person in a hokey suit, very unprofessional.
    I hadn't heard of Tom Burmans. I'll have to see what info I can find on him to try to form an opinion on whether or not he may have made "the suit" if that is indeed what it is. Jonas Projaska(sp?) also was asked to look at the film because he made his living portraying apes in movies & tv, etc... since 1939. His opinion was that he didn't think it was a man in a suit. The motive of making money was particularly strong for Patterson because supposedly he was broke. But that also works against the notion of it being a hoax since if it was a guy in a costume, the costume had to be very sophisticated & presumably expensive for the film to survive over 40 years of scrutinization
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    There is nothing on Tom Burman's IMDB resume before the 1970's & that's the only result I got from Google for a Tom Burmans who is a makeup or special effects artist
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Paralith said "That's very difficult to say. When the bear stands up, is he thinking "If I stand up this human will think I'm bigger than I really am," or is he thinking "I feel threatened - I know that things who threaten me usually go away if I stand up." I'm of the opinion that many questions on theory of mind will not be answered until the actual neuromechanics of these cognitive abilities are understood and can be searched for in the brains humans and of other animals"
    I think bears more often stand up when they come into a clearing to survey it for danger than to try to intimidate something
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Paralith said "That's very difficult to say. When the bear stands up, is he thinking "If I stand up this human will think I'm bigger than I really am," or is he thinking "I feel threatened - I know that things who threaten me usually go away if I stand up." I'm of the opinion that many questions on theory of mind will not be answered until the actual neuromechanics of these cognitive abilities are understood and can be searched for in the brains humans and of other animals"
    I think bears more often stand up when they come into a clearing to survey it for danger than to try to intimidate something
    That may be. But the context of the conversation was in the case, though it may be an uncommon one, where a bear does stand up in response to a perceived threat
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Paralith said "That's very difficult to say. When the bear stands up, is he thinking "If I stand up this human will think I'm bigger than I really am," or is he thinking "I feel threatened - I know that things who threaten me usually go away if I stand up." I'm of the opinion that many questions on theory of mind will not be answered until the actual neuromechanics of these cognitive abilities are understood and can be searched for in the brains humans and of other animals"
    I think bears more often stand up when they come into a clearing to survey it for danger than to try to intimidate something
    That may be. But the context of the conversation was in the case, though it may be an uncommon one, where a bear does stand up in response to a perceived threat
    I don't think posturing is quite the same thing as a hoax/bluff since a bear or any other animal for that matter, will fight to protect their territory
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Paralith said "That's very difficult to say. When the bear stands up, is he thinking "If I stand up this human will think I'm bigger than I really am," or is he thinking "I feel threatened - I know that things who threaten me usually go away if I stand up." I'm of the opinion that many questions on theory of mind will not be answered until the actual neuromechanics of these cognitive abilities are understood and can be searched for in the brains humans and of other animals"
    I think bears more often stand up when they come into a clearing to survey it for danger than to try to intimidate something
    That may be. But the context of the conversation was in the case, though it may be an uncommon one, where a bear does stand up in response to a perceived threat
    I don't think posturing is quite the same thing as a hoax/bluff since a bear or any other animal for that matter, will fight to protect their territory
    She's not disagreeing with you. The point is that it rears up for more than one reason and one of those could be for faking out a threat. It is much cheaper energy wise to be able to scare away threats without having to fight them. Ever seen a cat have its hair stand on end? Why do you think it does that? To make itself look bigger than it really is and to hopefully fake it's way into escaping.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I hadn't heard of Tom Burmans. I'll have to see what info I can find on him to try to form an opinion on whether or not he may have made "the suit" if that is indeed what it is. Jonas Projaska(sp?) also was asked to look at the film because he made his living portraying apes in movies & tv, etc... since 1939. His opinion was that he didn't think it was a man in a suit. The motive of making money was particularly strong for Patterson because supposedly he was broke. But that also works against the notion of it being a hoax since if it was a guy in a costume, the costume had to be very sophisticated & presumably expensive for the film to survive over 40 years of scrutinization
    Tom worked with John on making the ape suits for the Planet of the Apes film. They laughed when they saw the Patterson film and stated the suit was "hokey" and very "unprofessional."

    Please feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    There is nothing on Tom Burman's IMDB resume before the 1970's & that's the only result I got from Google for a Tom Burmans who is a makeup or special effects artist
    Then, you haven't done your homework.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    C'mon, guys. If you want to continue the bigfoot debate do it in the bigfoot thread. This one is about the nature of hoaxes in general.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    C'mon, guys. If you want to continue the bigfoot debate do it in the bigfoot thread. This one is about the nature of hoaxes in general.
    Sorry, but I believe Steve opened up the floor on it. I'm suspect he probably started this thread for that very reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Thanks Paralith.

    Despite what he's reasons were for opening this thread, it has stimulated some interesting discussion. I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, so yes please, let's stick to the motivations behind hoaxing in general.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    the suggestion you made that the gophers' behavior in your example is purposely meant to frustrate and exhaust the dog. That implies an objective level of cognitive complexity (planning ahead, cooperative intent to deceive the dog) that I simply doubt gophers are capable of.
    Well, the prey is going out of its way to goad the predator, in a manner that requires exquisite judgment, and I think, "a kind of" empathy. Creeping toward the dog and drawing its attention seems like a dangerous gamble to us, and inconsistent with survival, but the gopher is predicting the dog's behaviour and I've never seen a gopher caught at it. You can observe other prey species playing this game too. The classic obverse is kitty toying with a live mouse. I don't believe she's doing it methodically, or to educate herself, rather I think she's driven by a twisted empathy for the mouse. In other words the cat has this capacity to model the mouse's mind, anticipate it, and thwart it. Like the gopher, she enjoys exercising that part of her brain, so, like the gopher, she seeks the interaction and acts to prolong it.

    You're right to criticize my saying animals "want to" frustrate and exhaust competing species. They come to do this because it's effective strategy.

    Anyway, you'd agree many mammals show a kind of empathy (I mean insight not compassion) for other species? Doesn't empathy require sympathy at some deeper level? Otherwise the empathy must be rather conscious right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    There is nothing on Tom Burman's IMDB resume before the 1970's & that's the only result I got from Google for a Tom Burmans who is a makeup or special effects artist
    Then, you haven't done your homework.
    I can't find search results that don't exist can I? Oh wait! Maybe your claim about this person working with Chambers is itself a hoax
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I hadn't heard of Tom Burmans. I'll have to see what info I can find on him to try to form an opinion on whether or not he may have made "the suit" if that is indeed what it is. Jonas Projaska(sp?) also was asked to look at the film because he made his living portraying apes in movies & tv, etc... since 1939. His opinion was that he didn't think it was a man in a suit. The motive of making money was particularly strong for Patterson because supposedly he was broke. But that also works against the notion of it being a hoax since if it was a guy in a costume, the costume had to be very sophisticated & presumably expensive for the film to survive over 40 years of scrutinization
    Tom worked with John on making the ape suits for the Planet of the Apes film. They laughed when they saw the Patterson film and stated the suit was "hokey" and very "unprofessional."

    Please feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.
    There were no ape "suits" in those movies. The apes wore clothing. So there were only masks, hands, & makeup. Of course just because there were none doesn't mean he wasn't capable of making them
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Hoaxes 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    It has occured to me that one valid reason for hoaxing Bigfoot or some other cryptid would be if there were a scientist involved who is widely believed to be infallable. In that case, one might attempt to hoax him or her as a test. But this would be risky because either the hoax wouldn't work & he or she would brand you a hoaxer or it would work. In which case you would be obligated to inform people that the person can be fooled & everybody would brand you a hoaxer
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Pong says "When you are being hoaxed, you're being treated as an animal"
    I'll buy that. Hoaxers have no respect for their victims. For example: When someone perpetrates a Bigfoot hoax, it wastes our time, energy, & resources. But if you are correct about why people hoax, why doesn't everybody do it? I've always figured people created hoaxes for one of two reasons:
    1)To get something. Like money, fame, or attention.
    2)To prove they are smarter than people think they are.
    How about to test a pet theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Pong says "When you are being hoaxed, you're being treated as an animal"
    I'll buy that. Hoaxers have no respect for their victims. For example: When someone perpetrates a Bigfoot hoax, it wastes our time, energy, & resources. But if you are correct about why people hoax, why doesn't everybody do it? I've always figured people created hoaxes for one of two reasons:
    1)To get something. Like money, fame, or attention.
    2)To prove they are smarter than people think they are.
    How about to test a pet theory.
    Do you mean like a pet theory that someone is gullible?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,055
    I just remembered a "ghost" photo I made a few years ago. I did it purely to see how hard it would be to do a convincing one. But this, like the last reason I cited, requires the hoax be divulged. So I stand by my opinion that hoaxes generally get exposed quickly. Sometimes out of necessity
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Pong says "When you are being hoaxed, you're being treated as an animal"
    I'll buy that. Hoaxers have no respect for their victims. For example: When someone perpetrates a Bigfoot hoax, it wastes our time, energy, & resources. But if you are correct about why people hoax, why doesn't everybody do it? I've always figured people created hoaxes for one of two reasons:
    1)To get something. Like money, fame, or attention.
    2)To prove they are smarter than people think they are.
    How about to test a pet theory.
    Do you mean like a pet theory that someone is gullible?
    Rather a pet theory that X is more believable than Y. Human psychology and all that. But yours applies as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •