Comment author: Benquo 11 March 2008 02:58:00AM 9 points [-]

Yeah, I can't help but think that in many cases there is no implied inference that the alien especially desires the woman, but rather that the reader is especially affected by the fact that the abductee just happens to be an attractive woman. (King Kong would be an exception.) It's the same reason that we rarely if ever see the alien carrying a cow instead; not because of its preferences, but because we wouldn't be especially apprehensive about the cow's fate.

If there's a bias here, it's one generated by the desire to tell interesting stories. Projection happens, but I don't find this example terribly compelling.

Comment author: MooreQuestions 20 May 2013 08:38:48AM 0 points [-]

(Five years on, but whatever)

I don't think the inference is necessary, really; it's fairly explicit that the scenario in which the comment is relevant is one in which the Alien Monster selected the Damsel for some lovin'. A competent writer, given only that cover art as the basis for their film, could get around that. The fact that the story is so frequently told incompetently is what makes it an unfortunately apt example for a much subtler and more insidious fallacy.

As a more contraversial, if slightly less ovious example, is the Christian condemning an Athiest to Hell. Their universe does not include a scenario in which there is any other result in store for someone who disbelieves, even without any objective basis for their claim. Besides Dante Aliegeri, but results have to be independently verifiable, after all.

Comment author: MooreQuestions 29 November 2012 12:23:31AM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure how well it classifies, but I find that my "overacheiver" and "just don't fail me" are facets of the same thought. It's probably an arrogance thing, but going from "this is good, I'm doing well, I've done this right" to "no, you haven't" to "oh god oh god oh god i'm such a moron" etc etc is rather quicker and easier and (shudder) more intuitive than I would like. And it's not like I'm a pilot or anything where that's the appropriate response!

Too Cool for School got me through High School, but when I got to uni and failed miserably it made me question how and why I was there, and I got out after 18 months.

In response to Causal Universes
Comment author: MooreQuestions 28 November 2012 11:47:26PM *  0 points [-]

One thing this model ignores, so far as I could tell, is the reflective point of view of third person / past tense narration. Both Rowlings HP and Eliezer's HPMOR are past tense narrations, stories told progressively, but always reflectively ("Harry said" instead of "Harry says").

So, what if the causal links are already updated to the new information introduced with a 9pm|8pm turn, and this in turn updates the memories of agents within the universe, including the narrator (note: Narrator and Author are seperate entities in this concept; most literature students would not argue with this. At least, not too much)

As such, it's not a cycle of updating information that the universe has to remain consistant; the new universe continues on from 8pm as normal, but new information is added to the collective memories of anyone who interacts with the Time Traveller, as well as the Time Traveller themselves.

The only way this doesn't work is with Harry in MOR pulling a Bill and Ted with the Remembrall. Anyone with better maths want to tackle that one?

Comment author: MooreQuestions 29 November 2012 12:02:01AM 1 point [-]

Ooops, shouldn't have posted before reading the whole thing. Still, my arguement stands; what defines the "goodness" or "badness" of universe being destroyed and immediately replaced with another identical to it in all the most miniscule ways (the memories of agents interacting with the time machine), or for that matter the "betterness" of the previous universe.

Technically, this means "time travel" is less accurate that "history re-writer", but to me, that doesn't sound any worse.

In response to Causal Universes
Comment author: MooreQuestions 28 November 2012 11:47:26PM *  0 points [-]

One thing this model ignores, so far as I could tell, is the reflective point of view of third person / past tense narration. Both Rowlings HP and Eliezer's HPMOR are past tense narrations, stories told progressively, but always reflectively ("Harry said" instead of "Harry says").

So, what if the causal links are already updated to the new information introduced with a 9pm|8pm turn, and this in turn updates the memories of agents within the universe, including the narrator (note: Narrator and Author are seperate entities in this concept; most literature students would not argue with this. At least, not too much)

As such, it's not a cycle of updating information that the universe has to remain consistant; the new universe continues on from 8pm as normal, but new information is added to the collective memories of anyone who interacts with the Time Traveller, as well as the Time Traveller themselves.

The only way this doesn't work is with Harry in MOR pulling a Bill and Ted with the Remembrall. Anyone with better maths want to tackle that one?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit