Posts made by surreality

@Sunny Well, I'm not into calling @Arkandel a jerk, either, for what it's worth. (I don't think anyone in this conversation is, either, granted.)

I try not to start things off like that -- but I bet I probably have more than once over the years, whether I want to recall it or not. There are definitely subjects on which I will unapologetically come out swinging.

It tends to be because those things are things that tend to be pretty supremely important to me. For instance, if someone started a 'women exist exclusively to be broodmares' thread or something like that cropped up, you can bet I would come out swinging. This isn't my personal hill to die on, but because I know I have them? It's hard for me to not let my empathy kick me in the ass hard enough to remind me: "There but for the grace of Loki's whimsical sense of humor..."

@Arkandel Well, there's always The Punisher! I mean, technically, he's a crime fighter. Technically. Kinda if you squint.

(I have my own theory on aspects of that storyline, but they're pretty fucking out there and hard to explain, so I'mma just shut up and see how it all plays out.)

@Sunny I'm pretty middle road on these issues, and the treatment I get from a lot of hardcore skeptics when I attempt to discuss them is extraordinarily hostile, mocking, insulting, and deliberately cruel.

So, on some level, I get where she's coming from.

I'm not saying this or that is somehow magically acceptable when it otherwise wouldn't be because of this. It's pretty obvious it's not.

So I get where you're coming from, too, on that point.

I am simply not going to join in the dogpiling from either direction, and keep replying to @Arkandel's posts like I have been, because I have zero interest in the drama side of this conversation. To me, it's a waste of time even by the standards of a place where we're all pretty much doing precisely that.

I am trying to stay out of the emo drama portion of this thread, because I don't really think we need to be going there or prolonging any of that and the actual discussion is interesting to me even when it's frustrating.

Hopefully no one dies of anything due to this thread, obviously. Or loses any hair they're tearing out, or feels bad about anything in particular because this is a thread on a gaming board, or gets more than minor eye strain from rolling their eyes at any given perspective that's come up along the way (which is likely unavoidable in any thread here if we're being honest).

Part of the problem is, no, actually, to a lot of people, you will never prove to them that we went to the moon.

It doesn't matter what rock you show them that we brought back, because that could have been cooked up in a lab or dug out of someone's back yard.

It doesn't matter what film footage you show them; because we're capable of making a hollywood blockbuster where people fly through the air, no film footage or imagery can ever be trusted.

And so on.

Have people hoaxed videos or other 'evidence' of any number of things? Absolutely. That we know. Many have admitted as much, even. Sometimes it's a simple prank, sometimes it's to promote tourism to an area, sometimes it's to gain some kind of credibility -- there are a lot of reasons people actively make stuff up like this.

Unfortunately, this is also the problem. "It could be X" turns into "because it could be X, it must be X".

Debunking frauds is important.

Claiming "we have the capability to hoax this, therefore we can't ever trust that any evidence of <type> is not hoaxed, even without any confession or suggestion that it has been faked" is pretty foolish.

There's a difference between questioning what one experiences because it falls outside the boxes they expect that things should fit into, and dismissing what one experiences if it doesn't fit in an already understood box as not having happened, or insisting that it must actually fit in one of those boxes even if it actually doesn't at all.

Questioning is awesome. Dismissing and insisting, not so much. That way lies folly and ignorance, from my perspective, while the former? That is how we learn things.

@Ganymede said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@somasatori said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

It is very paranoid to think that we're watched all the time by spirits of the dead/floaty beings/whatever. I think people have guilty consciences about what they do, and they manifest those thoughts as belief in angels, demons, ghosts, and whatnot. Like I said, I've seen some weird shit, but in hindsight, it was probably all of the drugs and booze.

“People * * * like to invent monsters and monstrosities. Then they seem less monstrous themselves. When they get blind-drunk, cheat, steal, beat their wives, starve an old woman, when they kill a trapped fox with an axe or riddle the last existing unicorn with arrows, they like to think that the Bane entering cottages at daybreak is more monstrous than they are. They feel better then. They find it easier to live.”

God, I love Andrzej Sapkowski.

This is the double-edged sword I'm talking about, though.

The same logic applies thus: we don't want to believe in anything we don't understand or can't immediately explain, because then it is a danger to us. So we dismiss things, because we're afraid of the unknown. Knowing is power, and not knowing? We're not as comfortable with that, and even the wrong explanation can make us feel better, because it is an explanation.

We can't really claim that only one side of this particular coin exists.

@Arkandel I've seen as many if not more people who are as emotionally invested in 'not real' as I have people who insist 'yes real!', but somehow, it never seems to come up from that angle -- or, I've never seen it happen. You're exactly right that we shouldn't have sacred cows, but repeatedly, the investment in 'not real' is overlooked, which fosters an atmosphere of 'dismiss with a maybe' rather than 'find out'. There are examples in this thread of it, so I'm sure you can see what I'm talking about here -- lots of verdicts rendered without the legwork, essentially.

What you're describing about the poltergeist phenomena is pretty much spot-on in regard to the problem of testing. It's why I brought up the methane gas experiment video; it's a good parallel with a physical representation. They were eventually able to figure out how to perform the experiment -- which is frickin' neat -- but the factors involved there are things people already understand how to reproduce, work with, etc. enough that they're able to construct and conduct the experiment.

We don't always have that advantage. Knowing how methane gas disperses in water is key to making that experiment work.

We're talking about situations in which, following the parallel, we don't even know if it's gas, let alone whether it's methane or hydrogen.

Which is a problem. It makes the actual testing process considerably more complicated.

@faraday To be fair, we have not seen it here yet, but we used to see it all the time on WORA.

@Arkandel Here's the thing.

I've already pointed to one instance of "I don't like the inferred conclusion, so the experience must not have happened" thinking in this thread. Not, "I think there's a different explanation for that," but, "that experience is untrue because I disagree with the inferred conclusion."

Where is the testing of theories? Where is the examination of evidence? There isn't any, but there is a conclusion. It's not a conclusion about the experience at all, either, but one that dismisses the experience (which could have multiple explanations) as something that may never have occurred at all.

I think we're both likely to agree: that's not how you science.

I think I gave a pretty good example previously about how someone applied a scientific theory to an experience someone was having, an experience around which multiple people had formed theories regarding the cause. One person bothered to find out the actual cause and resolved the issue, and both of the others were wrong. I am so down with that, and it's an excellent example of what, I think, you're trying to describe as an experience being 'testable'.

But now let's look at how long we've been witnessing events people have ascribed to the supernatural, and think for a minute about just how broad that scope actually is. Pretty much every meteorological and geological event has, at some point in human history, been considered a supernatural event, from volcanic eruptions to a light drizzle.

These are things we understand now. Maybe not in full in some cases, but we generally know what they actually are.

That alone has caused our understanding of the world around us to explode with answers, and more questions. And here's the kicker: it's pretty fascinating stuff, but people have to ask the questions to find out. Too often, the question is not asked. The experience is not tested, but a conclusion is still yanked out because 'well, it could fit!' without testing that theory to see if it does or not.

Let's look at a classic: The Bermuda Triangle. An uncommonly high number of ships sink there, navigation goes wonky, and so on.

Well, 200 years ago, we knew a little about lodestones but we didn't understand electricity, and even less, naturally occurring electrical fields or consider that, "Hey, we know some rocks screw up our compasses, maybe there's something here that does the same thing!" Which, indeed, happens. Is it an angry god, ghosts, or aliens? Nope. Is it something that happens? It sure is.

High prevalence of sinkings? Oh, hey... they have a lot of methane pockets in that region, don't they. Another thing we didn't think of even 100 years ago, even if we understood the basic concept of density and buoyancy.

Notice that to recreate the effect in that video, they had to physically reproduce it. (That's something well outside the means of most individuals; let's be realistic here on that point right from the get-go.) But here's the thing about that: that shows that the theory is possible as a cause. While I personally think they're probably right, here's what it doesn't show:

• That it happens the same way in the natural environment at the same intensity.
• That any given incident ascribed to it happened that way.

What people are essentially doing, more often, is not even going as far as what's shown in the link. Let's say the person who observed the initial incident has no information other than, "I saw a lot of bubbles and then the ship went down," which would be the description someone could provide today as easily as they could have 200 years ago. They then sail out to the same spot, they sit there, and say, "That didn't and obviously can't happen because we're where you said this happened and we're not sinking and there are no bubbles."

And then they're calling it science. That's not science, or if it is, it is the laziest science in the world. And the vast majority of the time, that's exactly what people are doing when they're seeking to prove -- or disprove! -- things currently in the 'supernatural' cluster. The sheer intellectual laziness of it is stunning and it is no wonder people aren't learning jack nor shit from these 'experiments'.

Now, human failings and weaknesses are a thing. We know this. They do not, however, only apply to one side of this particular debate. 'Trust the answer you think you know already' is one of them. 'Believe the thing it is more emotionally comfortable to believe', 'Believe the thing that you think makes you smarter/special/chosen/superior', the list really just keeps going on and on, but it's a double-edged sword. It doesn't just swing in one direction -- or objectively should not -- and yet, it appears that level of examination and criticism isn't something people are keen to apply to their own arguments. A shame, because it's helpful on all fronts. People only ever seem to want it to apply to the other guy, and often enough that seems to put their own blinders on in the process.

@Cobaltasaurus God, that beats my old video store stories. (It is really hard to beat the level of WTF of stories from working with your Dad at a Mom&Pop video store where 90% of what people rent, predictably, is porn, so that's pretty impressive!) I need to dig those up to share eventually, because... yeeeeeeeeeah, people are special. WOW.

@Tyche Dear Mr. Andronicus, thank you for the recipe booklet. I never considered myself the domestic type, but you never know what skills may some day come in handy.

@wanderer I've had the very mundane version somewhat often, probably because I just never have slept very well over my life; it really is pretty mundane. The first few times I can recall it happening? Were very scary -- and so I can see how some folks might attribute more alarming things to the wake-up lag effect and would be terrified by it.

The other, uh... yeeeeeeeah, we'll just say the house I grew up in was special. (Not actually my house, but my grandmother's house; she lived next door and babysat me when I was tiny and then I moved in there as a teen, etc.) Lots of weird things went down there with stunning frequency, enough that a lot of things that would flip out my friends never really phased me since I grew up with it.

I tend to be reasonably good at sending bad things packing off to somewhere else. (Ironic, considering how bad at it I am on games!) No real idea why, and there are some times I'm pretty dubious, but I've had friends ask me to come tell things to go away for them, and I see precisely zero harm in it even if it's one of the situations in which I am somewhat skeptical of what they're telling me. (Even if it's the placebo effect in those instances? That can still help them out. I'm OK with this.)

But needless to say, that isn't the kind of thing you do for very long without pissing something nasty off enough to sneak in and whallop you one. I'd apparently noped the house long enough that it happened. (I woke up after the 'this was different' with finger bruises on my wrists, the ward ripped off my door and physically broken, and aching like I'd been stretched on the rack. It was not fun.) I would have been real happy convincing myself that one was a dream or something else, but nope; I kinda count myself lucky it only ever happened the once, really. Was definitely a different thing than the medical stuff people describe as the body is trying to shake off REM sleep.

@wanderer I can see that -- and it looks like we're mostly on the same page -- but I don't necessarily think they're inherently both things that are going on at once in every case.

(Mainly, I note this because what you describe is much like the 'this was a different thing' experience I mentioned. The rest were more or less, 'gah, crap, wtf!!' which is not... the same.)

@Bobotron said in [Request] Policy Template:

I think there's a point where there's a bit of 'blinders' on the policy stuff, particularly in certain communities throughout MU*land.

I'm a detail person also, but for a somewhat different reason.

Namely, this is a hobby with a lot of 'understood' and 'unspoken' rules about manners, conduct, etc. Depending on what part of the hobby one is in, this also varies somewhat widely, which complicates everything further.

That is an enormous hurdle for new players to learn, and it is very easy for people to become alienated by innocent missteps before they hit their stride or adapt.

As @Sunny mentions, expectations must be clear -- also as a matter of simple fairness.

@wanderer Not sure if we're saying the same thing or not, quite.

The scientific explanation is, in fact, a thing that happens. It's not something else. It is its very own, very real, thing.

What I'm saying is: people probably are attributing more experiences to it than are likely actually that.

As in, 'there is an explanation for this thing, therefore all experiences similar to this must be that'.

What I'm saying is: 'there is an explanation for a specific experience; some similar experiences may or may not be that, but not all similar experiences are that, and we risk overlooking other real issues if we simply lump them all together and stop examining the details of individual experiences because we think we have an explanation that more or less fits if you stand on your head and squint a little'.

Basically, there's room for both to exist: the scientific brain processes, and something else.

What you're describing isn't actually sleep paralysis, but some of the things people also attribute to it. Sleep paralysis is it's own, real thing. It's just a different thing.

Probably the best way to describe what I mean here is to use a basic analogy: I can have $5 made up of a single $5 bill, five $1 bills, or any random assortment of coinage and so on. I still have $5 (the broad category of experience). How I came to have $5 (the explanation for the experience) can be different, but there are a lot of valid means of having $5; there are a number of specific, and sometimes vastly different, experiences under that broader umbrella (the experience of having a $5 bill, the experience of having 20 quarters, etc.).

@wanderer To be fair, sleep paralysis is a thing. It's an understood thing, even.

That is not to say all the things people attribute to being sleep paralysis are actually that.

I've had it on and off through my life. I've also had a distinct, different-but-similar experience that people love to ascribe to it that was, uh, I will just say, "having the actual experiential basis for comparison, these things were very much not the same".

Considering the experience, I really, really wish I could believe it was 'just sleep paralysis' (which in itself is awful and Very Much Not Fun).

@Tat said in [Request] Policy Template:

• Don't be polite. This is informative, not social. Don't say 'please' and 'thank you'.

This is also important because it gives people the idea that it is optional.

"Please take out the trash tonight." <-- implies this optional, with zero consequences for not doing it.

"Take out the trash tonight." <-- not optional.

@vanderlylle said in Retail "Horror" Stories:

'if I have to have someone in this area for a few hours, this person is marginally better than a dead body.'

Some days, I wonder if this is how a lot of M* staff jobs get filled on places that require umpteensquillion staffers.

@Apu They've actually run statistics on this, which is interesting. It's more common than you think it ever could be even as random chance.

That, however... doesn't explain it away, either, IMHO.

"Statistically more common than you'd ever think that it's random," is still not "this is random and nothing strange has occurred." It could be is not the same as it is and that's kinda the crux of the problem of any unusual experience.

I've known people to which this has happened many times (many people in my family experience this particular weirdness repeatedly, which changes those statistics somewhat, but also makes me wonder about confirmation bias and echo chamber effects), however, so I'm not as comfortable with the 'it's just random' explanation as I might be otherwise.

For instance, I cared for my grandmother in the years leading up to her death. Some nights, rarely, she would scream in her sleep all through the night. Every time, we'd find out later some relative of ours had died that day. It happened enough I started marking it down when she'd be screaming (I was always up through the night and slept during the day at the time) and, yep, eleven more times with no misses. It lined up. But how the hell else would one even test that? Start killing people? So it's anecdotal, and I don't expect it to convince anyone else, but to me, that was enough to make me leery of the 'it's just random because the statistics are higher than you think' explanation.

@ThatGuyThere said in Retail "Horror" Stories:

then tell my manager if I am scheduled for a Monday again I am done. That Friday we get the schedule for the next week.

I had one of these at a (different!) department store the first year I was in college.

Semesters change, my availability changes. My (snotty, classic mean girl breed) manager calls me into her office and says, "You are going to need to think long and hard about what's important to you, college, or your job," while making it clear she thought working as a part-time contigent in a crappy department store trumps a college education in some universal order of importance.

She was also aware I'd moved all the way across the country to attend said college, so this was especially funny to me for some reason even now.

There is still a part of me that wishes I had managed to somehow get a pic of her face when I just nodded emphatically and without missing a beat said, "We have department stores back in Delaware, actually, so I'm afraid it's going to have to be the college," and she really did just splutter, baffled, until she came to her senses just enough to, deflated, say, "Well, I guess you can go, then... " and I smiled and nodded and walked out without a worry in the world.

I did not move my ass across the country to work at a regional Macy's chain, lady. Holy jeez. Still makes me giggle.

Quitting that job got me six months of best job ever, though, so less than zero on the regret scale. (Other than not being able to get a picture of her face.)