site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   2549 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for June 23, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fun article I found: East Asians rarely have imaginary friends as children, whereas Westerners have imaginary friends at a prevalence of 50%. On the other hand, East Asians are more likely to personify inanimate objects. The authors say that this is for cultural reasons, but i’m actually leaning toward deep genetic differences in tendency — Western religion, poetry, and music are much more likely to extol brotherly affection than those of East Asia, which (imo) favors an emphasis on place, natural objects, and strict hierarchy.

I’ll join the chorus of commenters who are extremely skeptical of the 50% claim. For what it’s worth, I had a “special blanket” that I semi-personified and emotionally imprinted on, to the point that I was totally distraught when my parents eventually had to throw it away because it was falling apart. I’m as warmly-inclined toward HBD explanations as many other people here are, but this particular claim does not seem to resemble my personal experience whatsoever.

The concept was culturally salient enough for Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends to be a cartoon people could understand the premise of (an orphanage for imaginary friends once children stop believing in them). I had one, but I've never mentioned it to anyone I know, because who the hell cares about a non-existent character I talked to from ages 3-6(?)

TheMotte is probably going to be self-selecting for the cohort least likely to have an imaginary friend, in a similar way that 19th century scientists self-selected for those who did not typically visualize with the mind’s eye (see Scott’s essay on that, whose title I forgot). A hyper-rationalist offshoot is probably genetically influenced to be less social, or at least not so social that their mind creates for themselves imaginary companions. How many of our parents were hyper-social butterflies who conceived of the world in primarily social relational experiences?

https://dacemirror.sci-hub.ru/journal-article/d377cfd09d86cd27a6b469d4af9998be/klausen2007.pdf?download=true

Metaphysical explanations for pretend companions are not at all limited to the wast because, to some extent, they have existed even in recent times. Studying pretend companions in the early 20th century, Harvey (1918) found that many parents provided spiritual explanations for pretend companions. Even at the end of the century, some groups within America still described pretend companions in terms of possession and as preternatural powers that sometimes "will result in spiritual bondage" (Anderson, Vanderhook, & Vanderhook, 1996, p. 196) or that need to be exorcized (Allison, 2000). Perspectives on pretend companions from before the Euro-American repudiation of metaphysical explanations may also be inferred from research conducted in villages of Northern India (Barker & Pasricha, 1979): Pretend identities, a phenomenon similar to pretend companions in which an imagined personality is assumed rather than projected by the child, were explained in terms of spiritual connections with previous lives. Research in India on pretend companions suggests another reason why few reports of pretend companions have survived from previous centuries. Mills (2003) reported that there is no recognition of the concept of pretend companions in India.

Even when allowing for the belief that some children have interactive memories of past lives, the prevalence of pretend companions was calculated to be only 0.2% (Barker & Pasricha, 1979).

Early research in 1930s reported a 13% prevalence: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1935-01508-001 . 1969 reports 30%: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-02218-001 . We also have a study from 1930s (Harriman) alleging one-third of all children have imaginary friends

So I’d say that there are three possibilities:

  • The first is that this is learned from media (very unlikely given that the earliest research shows a prevalence despite its absence from media)

  • the second is that it is culturally transmitted and children are “practicing” the skills in the form of play, because Western culture was more friendship-oriented than other cultures, and permitted children to play

  • the third is that Europeans are genetically oriented to be more social in the form of fraternal bonding. This would fall in line with what we know about European history, religion, art, dance, and music culture. There’s also the prevalence of blue eyes in Europeans, which is found only in domesticated animals [goats, dogs, some foxes], and blonde hair, which is found in the more social and friendly dog breeds [compare: “golden retriever boyfriend”].

My mom did an absolute cop-out and told me that the mailman had taken my "blankie" away, so from ages 3-6 I was absolutely hostile to the postal service.

My replacement was a platypus (search for folkmanis folktails platypus for the specific one) which I semi-personified and was more fully personified by my dad in freeform bedtime stories.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats