The Nuptial Gift

avatar
(Edited)

Subject: Tutong field work by Dr. Jane Lavall. Intercepted correspondence.
Status: Priority only
To: Michael S. Lighton (Research Chair)
From: Jane Lavall (Scientist)

During a lecture at Oxford university, I was asked if I thought whether humans and tutongs could ever be friends. There is an uneasy truce between our two species following the ‘Alien War of 2123’. While every part of me wants the answer to be a resounding yes, there are differences between our two species that must be overcome. To do so, we must first understand those differences and deal with them in a rational adult manner. For this reason, I am now providing you with an account of the events that took place in the Summer of 2125 in the hopes of clarifying those events and put an end to all sordid rumours.

I was invited to stay in a tutong colony to conduct informal studies of this extraterrestrial species in hopes of developing an understanding between us and them. I have written extensively about my time in the colony, and though I have tried to be as thorough as possible, I was unable to report on a topic that has been sensitive and the cause of much misinformation: the sex roles in the reproduction behavior of the tutong species.

The mating behavior of tutongs is of interest to us because this parameter determines in large part their social organization. Yet, most of what we know about tutong sexuality barely reaches the level of anecdotal and is more based on rumors and hearsay. A field study was arranged under the sponsorship of the Cascadia space force exobiology division. I was chosen for this field study not just because of my expertise in extraterrestrial ethology, but also because I am a female. In their rigidly matriarchal society, males do not possess political power. The tutong council steadfastly refuses to deal with human males. Therefore, understanding the basis of this behavior was, and still is, of utmost importance.

During my stay in the colony, I befriended a tutong male, who seemed eager to learn about us and to show me around the colony. His name is unpronounceable by humans because we do not possess the apparatus to vocalize the sounds, so I will call him Hugo. By tutong standards, Hugo was a young male, though he had been alive nearly 218 earth years. At this age, tutong males begin to enter their reproductive cycles in which they attract females who compete for his attention.

While he was not initially keen to answer my questions on this touchy subject, he eventually warmed up to me. Although they do not have a conception of science like we do, he understood that tutong reproductive behavior was of great value to us humans.

In the cover of night, he sneaked me into his home. As you know, the tutong live in hive-like colonies made of resin produced in their ‘factories’. Inside, there are several interconnected circular chambers that are kept dimly lit, as the tutong prefer low light conditions because of their high visual sensitivity.

We descended into a small chamber buried below ground where the air was cooler. The walls of the round chamber were smooth and somewhat translucent. There was a light in the room but its source, I could not discern. As strange as the chamber was, I was not prepared for the sight that awaited me within it. About half a dozen liquid-filled sacs hung from the ceiling- varying in size but roughly the size of a basketball. Vein-like structures covered each sac, which hung suspended in the air with the support of stretched tendons.


Spermatophore_Sacs.jpg
Image by @litguru

I was awestruck by this sight. Hugo made a buzzing sound that denoted pride and pleasure. With his permission, I reached up and gently touched the sacs with the tip of my fingers. They were soft like skin and warm. Again he chirped and buzzed, somewhat louder than before.

When I asked him about it, he was evasive, but I managed to extract enough information from him to piece this particular puzzle together.

The hanging structures were spermatophore sacs filled with a mix of nutrients and tutong spermatozoa.

Unlike humans, sexual selection pressures are greater in tutong females. That is, females compete for males instead of the other way around. The reason for this, I hypothesize, is that large amounts of resources and energy are required for male tutongs to produce copious amounts spermatophore fluid necessary to fill the sacs. They gift these sacs to a chosen female who then uses them to initiate the egg fertilization process. Once they have lain the eggs, the females are no longer involved in parenting. Instead, the males take over and bring the embryos to term by feeding them the nutritious bio-elixir.

While this seems like strange behavior to us, it is not completely alien. We see similar sexual selection behavior in some terrestrial species (e.g., brush crickets). In the tutong case, reproductive rate (as determined by the limited capacity of the male to produce healthy spermatophores) AND parental investment are the key variables that differentiates the sexes, for they limit the number of times the males can reproduce and bring the embryos to term. Therefore, in the tutong species, males are the choosy ones when it comes to sexual selection, while females compete for the limited pool of desirable males. Thus, given the limits imposed by the inequalities of the reproduction/parenting process, tutong social organization reflects this fact.

As you can see, I was rather excited about my findings, and I’m afraid at this point, I let my scientific curiosity get the best of me. As I was questioning him about the spermatophores, I saw Hugo reach up with one of his pincers and make a small incision on one of the sacs. A marble-sized drop of the gelatinous amber substance spilled into a concave cavity in his claw.

“Eat, friend,” he said.

I scanned the substance and was surprised to find out that it was mostly made of nutrients. Save for the DNA in the spermatozoa, there was nothing “alien” or out of the ordinary.

I rubbed the substance between my fingers, noticing its warm and sticky texture.

“Eat, friend,” Hugo repeated.

I realized then (and confirmed later) that the liquid served another function: community building. It is common for males to share their spermatophores with those they accept into their own hives. So not wanting to offend my generous host, and curious about the liquid, I placed a small drop of it on my tongue. The gelatinous substance quickly melted in my mouth. Sweet and salty, a tingling sensation spread over my tongue. I did not feel any other side effects save for a brief moment of elation, which I have attributed to the novelty of the situation.

Unfortunately, a couple of days after my clandestine meeting with Hugo, I was accosted by an orchestra of females who had somehow found out about our meeting and what had transpired. They were intent on harming me with their sharp mandibles. Thankfully, a group of males surrounded me and prevented them from carrying out the wicked deed.

I admit this was an unprofessional transgression on my part, and I have willingly accepted my censure. For it was this exchange, I am sure, the reason why I was asked to leave by the tutong council and future research projects were scrapped.

I did get a chance to say goodbye to Hugo, who seemed sad to see me go. I had developed a good rapport with him, and I miss him dearly. With his help, we have learned more about the behavioral and social patterns of tutong sexuality and social organization. Though the practice of sharing spermatophores may seem strange to us, it is not that different a mechanism from those found in earth’s species. Thus, understanding those species in the absence of direct contact with the tutongs would be highly beneficial in bringing about an end to hostilities and long lasting peace between our two species.

This letter is not intended to excuse any of my behavior. I take full responsibility. I do fervently believe that my skills and knowledge as a researcher are valuable in these unstable times. I beg of you to reconsider my suspension so that I may continue this line of research. I ask you not as a subordinate to a superior, not even as a friend, dear as you truly are, Michael, but as a fellow human who just wants a brighter future for all of us on this planet.


Thank you for reading my story. I loosely based this story on the behavior of the Mormon cricket, which apparently is not a cricket but a katydid. Males create a spermatophore that they give to the female as a nuptial gift. The spermatophore can be up to 27% of the male’s body weight, according to Wikipedia. The female uses it to eat and fertilize the eggs. Given that it’s difficult to produce a large enough spermatophore, then males are choosy about whom they give this nuptial gift to. They seem to prefer large females because of their “fecundity.” So females have to compete for males, not the other way around. This behaviour has been used as support for the theory that differential competition for mates arise from inequalities in parental investment and/or reproductive rates (in Alcock’s Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach 5th ed.).

In regards to extra terrestrial life, I was inspired by a recent interview I heard with Arik Kershenbaum who wrote the Zoologist Guide to the Galaxy. He argues that if aliens exist, they might look familiar to us because the same selection pressures that determine our bio-mechanics could be at work in different planets regardless of our distance from them. If they are out there, then it makes sense that the same laws of physics are at work in our world as well as theirs.

Happy Valentines! 💝



0
0
0.000
17 comments
avatar

No, I disagree. We won’t be able to recognize them @litguru They will be the light in the sky, the warm of your breath, the sound on the wind. In this respect, they’re here with us already, perhaps they are the unrecognizable monsters in our history. I once wrote a story about Hilter being an alien, but it wasn’t well received (actually I got death threats) (by email for months).
💕❤️🤗

0
0
0.000
avatar

It could be that we won't recognize them. Maybe it will depend on the level of their evolution. They could be millions of years ahead of us. Just look at humans, we're now entering an electronic phase in which we are becoming clusters of electrons in computer networks. As an example, I don't really know if you, or anyone on Hive, is real. You seem real to me, but all I've ever seen of you are the photons that travel from my screen to my eyeballs then turn into words and images in my brain. Of course, I assume that there's a clever lady made of flesh and bones somewhere in this world; she has a fantastic consciousness and produces bursts of creative joy, but I have never seen her. Your form is nebulous. Timeless. Omnipresent in the matrix.

In the future, we may transfer ourselves completely into electrons, atoms, or any other medium, then we'll be unrecognizable. To get to that point, however, a species may need to pass through the physical stages, which are bound by the laws of physics similar to ours (unless you're talking about universes with different laws).

I once wrote a story about Hilter being an alien, but it wasn’t well received (actually I got death threats) (by email for months).

Wow! That's terrible that you got death threats. I bet that if you've written about Stalin, no one would have said anything.

Thank you for reading and your thoughtful insight! 😊

0
0
0.000
avatar

Here’s a picture of me so you know I’m real

img_4895.jpg

0
0
0.000
avatar

O my! I'm happy to see you at last. Is this even safe for work? Look at all that mathematical, historical, judicial, spiritual, and geo-physical delight.

Well, given that you showed me your picture, I now have to show you mine.

LilDevil.jpg

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!

Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).

You may also include @stemsocial as a beneficiary of the rewards of this post to get a stronger support. 
 

0
0
0.000
avatar

How creative. Weaving something into a fictional story that has its origins in scientific work. I like the way you approached this.

I have started to find Arik Kershenbaum on yt and listen to a dialogue but have not gotten far, so far (will finish it another time).

The interesting question about whether aliens are more like us than different from us humans is an open question that is great to speculate about since you can't prove anything. The physical laws are tempting, I would like to ask, nevertheless, whether they are really the same everywhere in the universe. Also a question which cannot be answered. You should, if you feel like it, definitely read Rupert Sheldrake on this and listen to his lectures on this very subject. He challenges some of the basics that are recognized as certain and fascinates me for that reason alone.

I would venture that differences in culture and physical appearance already found in humans led to such disturbing events that I would probably hold it like the Vulcans: The readiness to meet strangers shows in the same on one's own ground. Where people butt heads because of their differences existing in their own species, an encounter of a third kind is rather inadvisable.

I think your story is great and eloquently and coherently told. It is very tempting to get into the character of the scientist and break the rules. She risked something and even if she is punished for it, it was worth it, I think :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was hoping to see your take on aliens. Do you think they exist?

The interesting question about whether aliens are more like us than different from us humans is an open question that is great to speculate about since you can't prove anything.

This is true. We can only speculate, theorize, and hypothesize about what they might look like until we find the evidence, if it exists. I think that this is an important topic because we live in a vast and complex universe so the chances of there being life beyond Earth is a real possibility.

The physical laws are tempting, I would like to ask, nevertheless, whether they are really the same everywhere in the universe.

A good question. We know that the laws of physics break down inside black holes. There are also other mysteries like dark matter and dark energy, along with a few other things that we do not yet understand about how our universe works. But I believe the scientific consensus is that the fundamental laws are the same. In absence of an adequate alternate theory, then we have to be boring and assume that yes, the fundamental laws of the universe are the same everywhere.

I'm familiar with Sheldrake's thoughts on morphic resonance. His ideas have been around for quite a while, but they haven't been accepted by the scientific community. We may chastise scientists for not wanting to investigate these theories, but I don't understand why Sheldrake et al didn't conduct proper experiments necessary to test his ideas. How do you think his ideas would fit with this topic of extra terrestrial life?

The readiness to meet strangers shows in the same on one's own ground. Where people butt heads because of their differences existing in their own species, an encounter of a third kind is rather inadvisable.

You're right. It could be very dangerous to meet another advanced species. Maybe like us, they're still very aggressive. That is why we need to be prepared for such a meeting. It could happen at any moment. It could even be happening already. For all you know, I could be an alien. Maybe I've been tasked by my species to engage humans online, find the smart ones and analyze their thoughts patterns, so we can better understand humans strengths and weaknesses. In due time, we'll come for you, and we don't come in peace, we come to get wild 🐙

Heh! 😆

Thanks so much for reading @erh.germany!

0
0
0.000
avatar

... I apologize for my long answer (two in one). But here it is - on a more serious note :)

I think it's very probable that aliens exist but for my real life it does not matter. It's nice though to fantasize and make up stories. At the end of my own life this question will probably not be important to me. It is more important to me whether I have no regrets and lived my life in close relationships, not ending dying in a room where I see only unfamiliar people or worse: alone.

In academic science, topics have made it out of the taboo zone and into the establishment, just as vice versa. I don't exclude former assumptions whose starting point, for example, was never questioned again over the centuries and which may have started from a false or very questionable premise.

There need be no substitute for science, I don't see why that would be necessary, however, the scientific method should not present itself as superior to everything else, I rather plead for it to be enriched by what is defined as its opposite, synthesis. In my view, however, analysis is not the opposite, but complementary to it.

The problem with the scientific method is that it can only focus on certain factors in order to arrive at unambiguous results. This unambiguity is produced by means of laboratory settings within which there must be no deviation.

This is at the same time its strength, but in my eyes it does not diminish the fact that unambiguity is something that also carries the father of a thought as a desire and can thus become a bias.

This would basically not be such a big problem if

  • 1st, it'd be generally acknowledged that there is an unknown bias factor underlying every scientific result. And it can ultimately be the belief or disbelief in something that makes one experience (and influence thereby) positive or negative results or no results at all.
  • 2nd, the individual remains free in his or her decision to reject treatments/applications.

Any scientific work can be taken apart and questioned, that is basically the good tone that is cultivated among relaxed scientists, that theories and their results are contradicted and counter-theories and research are attempted.

I am aware that if research were always under scrutiny and subject to ongoing counter-theories and results, there would probably be no applications. This is, of course, a completely theoretical state of affairs that does not happen in practice because the opposite happens: There are ongoing applications that arise from scientific expertise and eventually end up in application, where they basically provide further insights.

Think of the enthusiasm of new medicine and application in its infancy and the horror that such practices cause today. For example, electroshock therapy on the mentally ill or lobotomies on the brain. Nowadays, such things would be considered gross charlatanry and bodily harm.

Therapies have been refined and made less invasive, but at all times experimental humans and animals and plants were needed outside the laboratory. I see a circular development and feedback in the whole matter. Has the medical industry grown so gigantically because there are so many sick people? But aren't the many sick people also an expression of a growing medicine industry?

The more people experience their livelihood and meaning in an industry, the more they reach a circle of their own relatives, friends and social contacts. The thing then grows from a certain point on as if all by itself, I would think. In my eyes, however, this does not mean that absolutely clean scientific work has preceded it. The will to self-preservation is strong in all grown structures and therefore difficult to resist or question.

This is where I meet or return your question: how do you know that Sheldrake and others do not conduct proper experiments?

Vanity should never be underestimated and a person who has built something up on the basis of a certain world view will defend tooth and nail what he thinks is right. Sheldrake does not make this impression on me; rather, he seems not being a zealot and basically calls on his readers and listeners again and again to set up experiments themselves and carry them out at schools or universities. Only the brave and the deviant follow this call, because it is risky.

It seems important to me to accept such dissenters and to take up an idea as worthy of research precisely because it contradicts the common picture of the world. I interpret that you have also a positive attitude towards those deviators.

On the other hand, it may all be nonsense and I turn away from it disinterested because my real life requires me to go against all scientific "reason or warning", just as I would against a perceived enthusiasm, and do what my conscience tells me. I am talking about my freedom to behave unreasonably and irrationally, because ultimately my rationality cannot be generally questioned or adequately proven or unproven. To do so would require me to be pressed into a context on which I have a say.

To answer your other question

How do you think his ideas would fit with this topic of extra terrestrial life?

Not sure. He speaks about "the sun being conscious", for example. I think he would not rule out extra terrestrial life, if that was the question?

I see no chance to prepare myself for meeting aliens. No preparation whatsoever will avoid me the surprise and shock related to an encounter of utmost strangeness. If I would be amongst the first ones, I may go insane. If, on the other hand, those aliens would appear like humans, I see no need for being prepared but go with the flow.

It goes with habit. The first generations being under shock and disbelief, while the further ones become familiarized and used to the foreign. Though, no unity to be expected.

I hope you don't mind me being a bit of a spoilsport and have left the lightness of the conversation.
Be assured of my sincerity towards you! :))

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I think it's very probable that aliens exist but for my real life it does not matter.

Oh I see. Given your impassioned comments on this story, I thought the existence of alien life might be of interest to you. But it appears that your main concern is relationships, not dying alone in a room surrounded by strangers. This doesn't concern me because at the end of the day, we all die alone, and the only thing to keep you company is the contents of your brain.

In academic science, topics have made it out of the taboo zone and into the establishment, just as vice versa.

This goes along with acceptance in mainstream society, so it's not necessarily the fault of academic science but society at large. Maybe your criticism is not against science or the scientific method but the scientists themselves.

There need be no substitute for science, I don't see why that would be necessary, however, the scientific method should not present itself as superior to everything else, I rather plead for it to be enriched by what is defined as its opposite, synthesis. In my view, however, analysis is not the opposite, but complementary to it.

I don't think the scientific method presents itself as superior. The method is what it is: just a method. Perhaps you're reacting to the scientific community, which is sometimes perceived as narrow minded, especially in the old days.

rather plead for it to be enriched by what is defined as its opposite, synthesis. In my view, however, analysis is not the opposite, but complementary to it.

Synthesis IS part of the scientific method. It's an integral aspect of it. Every scientific report has to create a synthesis of the ideas discussed that fall within the scope and depth of a given subject under scrutiny. It is impossible for any scientist to look at all facets of a problem, which is why they have to look at specific aspects of an issue and build on the work of others. Maybe the fault is not with science or scientists but with the general public who do not take an active interest in what science and scientists are saying. I know many people who say, I'm not interested in black holes, stars, gravitational waves, evolution, or the behavior of animals. They show a tremendous lack of curiosity about the world around them that I find startling. So these people don't inform themselves properly of what scientists are saying yet they are sometimes quick to criticize what they do not understand. The problem therefore is not science or scientists but the lack of curiosity by the general public who fail to question the mysteries of the universe around them and are therefore unware of what the science is showing.

The problem with the scientific method is that it can only focus on certain factors in order to arrive at unambiguous results. This unambiguity is produced by means of laboratory settings within which there must be no deviation.

There is a good reason for this. It's called the third variable problem. For example, Sweedish researchers conducted an analysis of the arrival of storks and the number of babies in Sweeden (I think it was Sweeden). They found a correlation between the arrival of storks and the birth of babies. A non-scientific approach would say, look how wonderful, the storks are bringing babies just like the old wives tales say. A scientific approach would encourage you to seek further and take into account a third or more variables. For example, the seasons. Stork arrive in Spring, which is when most babies are born because people plan for that time or some other reason. The scientific method allows us to systematically look at variables and show us how they interact, even in non-laboratory settings.

This is where I meet or return your question: how do you know that Sheldrake and others do not conduct proper experiments?

Scientists don't take him seriously because the 'experiments' he described do not follow proper protocols. He could very well be describing a stork-baby situation but because he hasn't followed the proper procedures, he fooled himself (and others) into believing his ideas, intriguing as they are. He may be the guy saying, "look the storks are bringing babies," when in fact something entirely different is happening.

Sheldrake...seems not being a zealot and basically calls on his readers and listeners again and again to set up experiments themselves and carry them out at schools or universities. Only the brave and the deviant follow this call, because it is risky.

This is where the issue arises. Without proper scientific methods, one personal experiments remain merely anecdotal. They may enrich one's personal life, but unless one follows the proper procedures, then the results and findings remain merely anecdotal or fiction. Thus, one cannot say, my truth is a general truth that describes the state of the world. Sheldrake puts himself out there by saying that his truth is a universal scientific truth, therefore the onus is on him to prove it. Unfortunately, as far as I understand, he has not done so because his 'experiments' are riddled with problems. We won't know the truth until the scientific method is properly applied to test his ideas. For now, they remain in the realm of fantasy.

It seems important to me to accept such dissenters and to take up an idea as worthy of research precisely because it contradicts the common picture of the world. I interpret that you have also a positive attitude towards those deviators.

Outliers are important, no doubt, but if we are going to accept someone's world view, we need to do the hard work. We need to be able to analyze the methods and procedures used to arrive at those truths. Otherwise, our truth, is just an opinion. Opinions are a great place to start an inquiry (and write a good sci-fi story) but not a good place to stop in search of the truth.

I see no chance to prepare myself for meeting aliens. No preparation whatsoever will avoid me the surprise and shock related to an encounter of utmost strangeness. If I would be amongst the first ones, I may go insane. If, on the other hand, those aliens would appear like humans, I see no need for being prepared but go with the flow.

I believe that our generations will be less 'shocked' if we meet aliens because we have become accustomed to the idea, in part thanks to story telling. This is one of the roles of story telling in my opinion. They present us with potential blueprints of the future that prepare us for what is to come. The idea of aliens may seem shocking, and even heretical, to a person from medieval times, but for someone who has grown up on a steady diet of science fiction, the idea is not far fetched.

But when I talk about being prepared, I'm not talking about preparing psychologically. I'm talking about preparing ourselves socially, politically, economically, and militarily. The existence of aliens has repercussions beyond philosophy and get to the root of our very own existence.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

We have different interests, I would say. I am curious or fascinated by topics that are of less interest to you and that you seem to have checked off for yourself.

As for Sheldrake, I know the criticisms but don't feel called upon to refute them. If we could have shared a topic here, I would have been pleased, so I brought it up.
In fact, I am not critical of the scientific method per se, as I hoped to make clear, I am more allergic regarding exaggerations and the media (or political) treatment of scientific papers or results.
I mentioned initial risks and serious errors in new scientific methods in medicine at their time (lobotomies, electric shocks, but also the doses of radiation used in early chemotherapy are, I believe, now part of them).

One could say that bloodletting was also considered state of the art in its time, and the doctors who practiced it probably thought of themselves as proceeding scientifically. In my sister's youth they liked to operate out tonsils and adenoids, I don't see that it is still put under such a great necessity today. Actually, one doctor wanted to do this on my son because he had problems in this regard for many years. But I was against it and in fact the problem has resolved itself.

For today's science, such is also true; in two hundred years, some of today's methods will probably no longer exist.

My point was that one should be aware that any new method or finding carries initial risks (outside of laboratory conditions) and that one does not find truth in science, but just the state of current knowledge (which, as we know, is constantly changing).

I am quite fascinated by the role of the scientific observer, the experimenter, who believes himself to act objectively.

Sheldrake is only one of those who made me pay attention by an unusual subject. Where finally someone puts money in his hand and breaks the taboo zone that his subjects occupy, I remain curious.

I am not even on the point of view that we have nothing better than science, the world is still so much more than science.

One can retain a sense of wonder and fascination with everything (also apart from it), I agree.

You prepare yourself for aliens, I maintain meanwhile relationships :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am quite fascinated by the role of the scientific observer, the experimenter, who believes himself to act objectively.

This is a good critique. The universe appears to change when we look at it. We haven't found a way to control for the presence of the observer. In Psychology, we know that the experimenter can influence a participant. For example, a male testing a female will act different when he tests another male and vice versa. This can influence the outcome of an experiment. It is not that different from some principles found in physics like Heisenberg's uncertainty and Schrodinger's feline shenanigans.

Now what is the best way to resolve this situation? Personally, I think that we should keep more track of the experimenter's movements, behaviors, and words during an experiment. These metrics can be easily recorded with cameras and motion capture systems. Then the experimenter should analyze these data in relation to variables measured in the course of the experiment and determine whether his or her behavior altered the measured parameters. The results should be reported in the final paper. This is a lot of work and beyond the scope and resources of most studies but something to strive for.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Oh dear, just let me answer briefly: I think of your mentioned solution as (another) pandoras box :) - for I think of it as anything but easy.

My own thoughts on this would be less radical resp. having a lesser (if anything) control setting in mind - Wouldn't it be great to have different curriculums and other forms of student - tutor relationships (expand that on relationships as well)?

Can you agree, that what you learn as a young person is what later will shape and influence your (work) life. Like being a responsible scientist in the lab where no observer is needed.

Your game is hard to play (I get belly pains by it), I think, for the question remains:

Who observes the observer?

P.S. > Schrodinger's feline shenanigans

:-D HaHa!!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Can you agree, that what you learn as a young person is what later will shape and influence your (work) life. Like being a responsible scientist in the lab where no observer is needed.

There is no amount of training or upbringing that will get rid of the observer problem because in many instances we're not even aware of the problem. Even if you raise the perfect child. The only way to deal with the observer problem is at the scientific level. This means measuring and controlling what the observer is doing, then determining statistically if the observer somehow influenced the measurements.

In Psychology studies, good research takes into account the potential issues that arise because of experimenter biases and behaviors. But just imagine the complexity of any given experiment in which human participants are involved. When a participant arrives at the lab, you greet them, give them an introduction to the experiment, explain the procedures and potential dangers, answer questions, ask them to sign forms like informed consent, calibrate instrumentation if you're using any, train them in the procedure, test them, provide them with concluding remarks and answer any questions that participants may have. At any point during this interaction, the experimenter can affect the participant's behavior and responses. This is why the experimental design is of utmost importance, to ensure that you conduct the procedure equally for all participants across the board. Hopefully, the experimental design gets rid of any confounding variables at the statistical level. However, even if you're a diligent genius scientist with high levels of OCD, there are variables outside of your control and even awareness (e.g., the role of the moon phases, cosmic radiation, biological processes, quantum indeterminacy, sugar levels, mental states, etc). Once you start thinking about it in detail, particularly at the statistical level, then you realize the enormity of controlling the role of the observer. Good scientists are aware that there is a problem but coming up with a solid solution is usually beyond the scope of their knowledge and resources. As you can see, I have given this issue a lot of thought. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Back in time people were oblivious to the knowledge of the "subconscious", it became slowly but surely something that nowadays is being widely considered and has impacts on how humans think of each other.
To be(come) aware of a problem, is both a result of the many as well as the individual over time. "Over time", I think, is to be considered in the slow changes how man thinks about himself.

From how I see it, the slow changes are not to be compared to straightforward problem solving attempts but something where the will to change is confronted with the will to preserve. Where those two different attitudes meet each other, sudden change measurements are being slowed down or even sabotaged (either consciously or unconsciously).

I agree that you cannot solve the problem "who observes the observer?" but the awareness that this is so, might be something which will enter common knowledge, maybe long after you and I have died.

I've heard somewhere the the state of the art/contemporary scientific practice is back in time (like fifty years or so). People who were and are ahead of their times, were not necessarily witnesses of what they wished for to change; or; I would say to be discussed and debated. They set the ground and from there, they had to trust and rely on those coming after them.

Once you start thinking about it in detail, particularly at the statistical level, then you realize the enormity of controlling the role of the observer.

But just imagine the complexity of any given experiment in which human participants are involved.

I do that all the times. I also would not limit it to the humanities but also to the natural sciences. In particular there, where the notion might be strong that there is no need to search for biases.
In my mind, all those thinkable variables pop up. Didn't you notice? ;-)

In my former blog posts was not tired to mention Heinz von Förster (and others), who was concerned with this very problem. You never told me, if you heard of him or read his publications.

So now we are two who have given this issue a lot of thought :)

I would like you to read this article of mine, in order to shorten our attempts of explanations in which way and on what our knowledge might be based on:

https://hive.blog/philosophy/@erh.germany/truth-is-a-liar-s-invention-a-reading-for-happy-skepticism

0
0
0.000
avatar

might be something which will enter common knowledge, maybe long after you and I have died.

Heh. I see what you did there. 😄

0
0
0.000