Ask a Nerd. Or Ask a Puddle of Water. I'm Not Picky.

[Frostgage 7,972]

Can you teach me something about science please?

[Duality 10,738]

1 hour ago, Frostgage said:

Can you teach me something about science please?

Science is actually pretty boring

It's just a method of making a theory and testing it and adjusting it and repeating the process over and over and over again

Spoiler

Stuff we've learnt using science on the other hand is fabulous and interesting and great 

Did you know that we only know what 5% of the universe is made out of? About 27% of the rest is constituted by a very unreactive type of matter that we don't really know how to poke yet except via gravity (its mass makes galaxies about six times heavier than they should be). The remaining two thirds is some form of latent energy that fills all of spacetime - supposedly due to known quantum effects, but when you use current quantum field theory to try and predict how much of this energy there should be you get a value about 10^100 times bigger than the value seen experimentally (a.k.a. The Worst Prediction in the History of Science).

They call them dark matter and dark energy, respectively, but those are misleading and kinda defeatist names that make them sound related even though they have nothing in common except that we can't detect either of them yet

 

[ShadOBabe 18,984]

On 9/12/2019 at 12:55 AM, Duality said:

henlo frien 'zotl today i am doing the smol

tomorrow i shall be doing the Big and making a hurricane

 but today only smol and calm and reflective

today i saw three birds and picked up a nice pebble and accidentally deleted three hours of work from the company server and found a dime and wore my fuzzy new blue jumper for the first time

overall a Good Day

 did you know it's a mathematical fact that there always has to be at least one hurricane on earth

it's called the hairy ball theorem and it's all about brushing fluffy spheres

like my cat

(I love EVERYTHING about this response, XD)

Awww I’m so glad you had a good day puddle! I saw a little bit of that hurricane. I was driving to work when all of a sudden, WOOOOOSH, just ALL of the rain.

Little yous everywhere for days.

Did you know that ahuizotls love water? We’re great swimmers. But it’s kind of hard to swim in a puddle.

Are you related to other bodies of water? Is Lake Superior like your Grandpuddle? What about Rivers and Oceans?

[Widdershins 9,955]

@Duality

 So, here's a thought puzzle for you!

 Using four right turns, all of which must be 90 degrees (no cheating! It has to be something a car can physically do! So no sudden one degree turns!) , is it possible to NOT wind up heading the same direction you originally were going?

 If you're stumped, I will allow this contingency:

Spoiler

 I will accept the curvature of the planet as an acceptable variable.

 

[Duality 10,738]

On 9/14/2019 at 9:49 PM, ShadOBabe said:

Awww I’m so glad you had a good day puddle! I saw a little bit of that hurricane. I was driving to work when all of a sudden, WOOOOOSH, just ALL of the rain.

Little yous everywhere for days.

Did you know that ahuizotls love water? We’re great swimmers. But it’s kind of hard to swim in a puddle.

Are you related to other bodies of water? Is Lake Superior like your Grandpuddle? What about Rivers and Oceans?

I actually grew up in Lake Vostok, which is a lovely little locale buried hundreds of meters below some of the most ancient ice in Antarctica's frozen wastes. I got bullied when I was younger for not having any trace elements, but now I have attained the lofty rank of Purest Water on the PlanetTM and also Lordmaster Ubermensch, although the latter is another story. Needless to say I don't often associate with saltwater savages like the Pacific, but folks like the Dead Sea make for great conversation. As for Lake Superior, they have a kinda ironic superiority complex, but they're a brilliant cardsharp. 

On 9/16/2019 at 1:56 AM, Widdershins said:

 So, here's a thought puzzle for you!

 Using four right turns, all of which must be 90 degrees (no cheating! It has to be something a car can physically do! So no sudden one degree turns!) , is it possible to NOT wind up heading the same direction you originally were going?

 If you're stumped, I will allow this contingency:

So quick to dish out contingencies. Surely you know by now that I make my own solutions. 

See, the curvature of the earth is actually redundant for such a problem. Spacetime itself has curvature, and basically whatever contrivance of geometry you can perform on a surface can also be applied to the space continuum of a given hypothetical universe. Not only that, but since gravity is the warping effect that matter has on the shape of spacetime, most of those contrivances can be practically applied to the space of this universe. Since angles and distances and straight lines and all that are defined relative to spacetime, this presents a novel piece of counterintuition - spacetime is so warped by the Sun's gravity that all of our planets actually move in straight lines relative to the spacetime underlying them - their elliptical paths directly trace out the warpedness of space in our solar system.

If you had a skycar that drove straight up, and took four 90 degree right turns after randomised driving distances, it would end up deviating from its original path by a measurable angle simply due to Earth's gravity warping the space it's driving through. The same applies to pretty much any path you could conceivably drive in due to all the gravitational influences messing with your local spacetime - including the gravitational effect of everything from the distant stars to your own left eyebrow. It is in fact vastly harder to take four right turns and still face the same direction than the other way around. Every car trip that has ever been taken in the history of automobiles has had the immediate possibility of being an empirical answer to your question. I shake my walking stick at your contingency. 

[ShadOBabe 18,984]

3 minutes ago, Duality said:

I actually grew up in Lake Vostok, which is a lovely little locale buried hundreds of meters below some of the most ancient ice in Antarctica's frozen wastes. I got bullied when I was younger for not having any trace elements, but now I have attained the lofty rank of Purest Water on the PlanetTM and also Lordmaster Ubermensch, although the latter is another story. Needless to say I don't often associate with saltwater savages like the Pacific, but folks like the Dead Sea make for great conversation. As for Lake Superior, they have a kinda ironic superiority complex, but they're a brilliant cardsharp.

(LOL!! Does puddle have multiple personalities? That was WAY different in tone. XD)

[Galaxical Phoenix 68]

22 hours ago, ShadOBabe said:

(LOL!! Does puddle have multiple personalities? That was WAY different in tone. XD)

********Duality********

 

Idk that’s just me 

 

Ok this is for ‘puddle’

Which of the following fates would you rather resign the Earth to?

- A rebellion of animals (and a few animal-loving people) against humankind

- Most of humankind to be slaughtered by dragons, which take their place

- The entire planet being devoured and then recreated by a giant space dragon

OR

- The entire planet being subject to a rain of meteors and meteorites, of which only four 13-year-old kids (and their legal guardian) will survive ((via teleporting their house to another region of space before it is destroyed))

[ShadOBabe 18,984]

26 minutes ago, Galaxical Phoenix said:

Duality

I wasn’t asking Duality, silly. I was asking puddle. But it appears that the puddle does take after Dual.

[Galaxical Phoenix 68]

1 hour ago, ShadOBabe said:

I wasn’t asking Duality, silly. I was asking puddle. But it appears that the puddle does take after Dual.

Nu nu

Puddle has duality maybe

Idk I’ll just be in a corner for a bit

[Duality 10,738]

On 9/17/2019 at 12:18 PM, ShadOBabe said:

(LOL!! Does puddle have multiple personalities? That was WAY different in tone. XD)

8 hours ago, Galaxical Phoenix said:

Ok this is for ‘puddle’

Which of the following fates would you rather resign the Earth to?

- A rebellion of animals (and a few animal-loving people) against humankind

- Most of humankind to be slaughtered by dragons, which take their place

- The entire planet being devoured and then recreated by a giant space dragon

OR

- The entire planet being subject to a rain of meteors and meteorites, of which only four 13-year-old kids (and their legal guardian) will survive ((via teleporting their house to another region of space before it is destroyed))

Why no tsunami uprising

The space dragon one seems pretty anime, so in lieu of a water-based option I'll go with that. 

[Galaxical Phoenix 68]

13 hours ago, Duality said:

Why no tsunami uprising

 The space dragon one seems pretty anime, so in lieu of a water-based option I'll go with that. 

Kewl 

I’ll have Zianerth say hi later, then.

She a big snekky space draegon. I’m trying to make her more realistic, so maybe I’ll look for some input on her design later.

[Widdershins 9,955]

@Duality  I have a question... of Cheese!

 What? You don't think I can make an overly complicated and mathematical shemantical conversation over a box of cheese! Then follow me down the Draconequus hole!

 You know that old puzzle of a drawer filled with pairs of socks? And picking them out at random and how many you'll pull out in matching pairs and how the odds of pairing out happen the less are in the container? Well now, at the pizza place I work at now, we got a box of cheese sticks. Somehow, every time I reach in, I always pull out the five sticks I need! Even the four I needed last time I did!

 What could be the factors that cause this? Could it be the diameter of the sticks o' cheese make it so that only a set number of them happen to fit comfortably in specifically my hand? Could the less that are in the box make it easier to grab and somehow count how many sticks in my hand despite not seeing my hand or mentally registering that I'm counting said cheese?

 Gasp! Natural counting instincts? Could it be?

Please do endeavor to explain this phenom of exact cheese grabbings. This cheese weighs heavily on my cheesy mind. 

[Frostgage 7,972]

What is spring like on Jupiter and Mars?

[Duality 10,738]

On 10/4/2019 at 4:38 AM, Widdershins said:

@Duality  I have a question... of Cheese!

 What? You don't think I can make an overly complicated and mathematical shemantical conversation over a box of cheese! Then follow me down the Draconequus hole!

 You know that old puzzle of a drawer filled with pairs of socks? And picking them out at random and how many you'll pull out in matching pairs and how the odds of pairing out happen the less are in the container? Well now, at the pizza place I work at now, we got a box of cheese sticks. Somehow, every time I reach in, I always pull out the five sticks I need! Even the four I needed last time I did!

 What could be the factors that cause this? Could it be the diameter of the sticks o' cheese make it so that only a set number of them happen to fit comfortably in specifically my hand? Could the less that are in the box make it easier to grab and somehow count how many sticks in my hand despite not seeing my hand or mentally registering that I'm counting said cheese?

 Gasp! Natural counting instincts? Could it be?

Please do endeavor to explain this phenom of exact cheese grabbings. This cheese weighs heavily on my cheesy mind. 

I advise empirical investigation.

Try grabbing a varied number of cheesesticks a few times and see how successful you are (ranging between 3 and 7 sticks, I think). If it's natural counting abilities, we would expect it to carry over to numbers higher and lower than 5. If it's just a good fit in your hand, we would expect it not to carry over. Theories: described. Experiment: designed. Conclusion: to be decided. I expect a research report by Monday.

 

Inexplicable cheesestick-grabbing leds itself well to proper application of the scientific method. 

On 10/6/2019 at 5:56 PM, Frostgage said:

What is spring like on Jupiter and Mars?

Very long.

Mars takes 687 Earth days to fully go around the sun (i.e., to undergo one martian year) and Jupiter's orbit is so far out that its years last 4300 Earth days each (that's six months and three years worth of spring, respectively). Neptune is so ludicrously far away that in the 20 years we've sent spacecrafts to observe its weather it's only just starting to observably change season from our first measurements.

Besides that, Mars' spring temperatures are different in each hemisphere due to its elliptical orbit (hotter in the south than the north), and Jupiter is a massive ball of gas in constantly fluctuating thermal equilibrium and thus sadly does not have either consistent seasonal conditions or pretty spring blossoms brightening the air. Mars also has charmingly rustic global dust-storms on a fairly regular basis, which tends to obliterate most pretty spring flowers too. As holiday destinations go Earth is still the most hospitable.

[Frostgage 7,972]

I know this is an impossible question but what do you believe is the probability that life similar to humans exists outside our solar system? (it can be based on scientific reasoning or just your personal feelings/intuition)

Also: what is your favorite sweet treat?

Edited October 12, 2019 by Frostgage

[Duality 10,738]

2 hours ago, Frostgage said:

I know this is an impossible question but what do you believe is the probability that life similar to humans exists outside our solar system? (it can be based on scientific reasoning or just your personal feelings/intuition)

Nil. Biological life in the observable universe is, if nothing else, a one-off deal.

There's plenty of wishful thinking going around about aliens even in scientific circles, but individual units of life are so incredibly complex that the odds of even one forming from miscellaneous chemicals on a hospitable planet is effectively infinitesimal, let alone the odds of it surviving for any length of time or in fact thriving. The fact that life does indeed exist strongly implies that either there are infinite randomised multiverses or there is a life-giving God - both are impossible to scientifically verify and both involve actualised infinities (which have never been observed in nature to date, hence implying the involvement of supernature from the setout). The universe we see isn't big enough to cancel out the terrifyingly tiny odds of cell-level life formation, and no matter how large or complex assemblages of particles may be there's really no physical reason why they should start 'experiencing' their existence.

Furthermore (I like furthermores), the idea of existence itself is bizarrely hard to pin down - have you ever wondered why some things exist and not others? The universe may have energy and matter and space and time and physical laws and all that but none of those things necessarily exist in and of themselves. I can imagine energy and matter and space and time and physical laws awfully easily without them becoming real in the process. In fact, the only things that seem not to exist are the things we invent in our imaginations - our minds are the only source of nonexistent things we know of, which seems to imply that our minds hold a special place in the cosmos somehow (also somewhat incompatible with them being merely complex assemblages of particles).

In short, there are vast numbers of major philosophical problems caused by a purely naturalistic/reductionistic position (i.e., one denying all notions of spirit or consciousness or mental faculties that aren't reducible to physical particles interacting with each other). After all, if our mental activity is only the sum result of a conglomeration of irrational physical processes, that implies our mental activity cannot be relied on to be rational - including this very argument. 

2 hours ago, Frostgage said:

Also: what is your favorite sweet treat?

Unicorn blood  Berry-imbued dark chocolate. Can't beat it. 

[Frostgage 7,972]

Locke's Socks and the Ship of Theseus are two of my favorite thought experiments; what is your take on these?

[Duality 10,738]

2 hours ago, Frostgage said:

Locke's Socks and the Ship of Theseus are two of my favorite thought experiments; what is your take on these?

The most thought-provoking question raised by this is not the surface-level 'are things are the same if parts are progressively replaced' but something quite fundamental to our understanding of reality - is it valid to consider assemblages of particles to be something other than the sum of their constituent particles?

The two main positions here as far as I'm aware are reductionism (the nature of a group of particles is nothing more or less or other than the sum of the natures of the constituent particles) and holism (when a group of particles interact with each other it changes the nature of the group of particles in some meaningful sense). I'm not entirely sure where my stance fits in and I'm not entirely sure of my stance but it's something along the lines that on the one hand there is pure Structure (abstract relation, complexity, mathematical structure) and on the other hand there is pure Form (concrete monads, simplicity, physical particles), and somewhere in the middle we see synthesised the universe, where the Form's nature submits to the Structure and the Structure's nature is traced out by the Form, or something to that effect. Particles may be interchanged with the macroscopic Structure remaining very similar, hence in some meaningful sense (from the perspective of Structure) it's the same and in another meaningful sense (from the perspective of Form) it's different.

Fun times with the Aristotelian mean. 

[Soren Peregrine 4,606]

It has been a while. I shall post some inquiries directed towards you.

Do you think that sometimes it is unnecessary to use large words? Does it mean you are smarter if you use larger words?

What are some of the most interesting words you can think of off the top of your head.

How much of the pony have you watched recently? Have you seen all of the recent episodes?

Is water important?

What is water?

Why is water?

[Duality 10,738]

On 11/12/2019 at 11:49 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

Do you think that sometimes it is unnecessary to use large words? Does it mean you are smarter if you use larger words?

Yes and no, respectively. There are of course many ways of being smart, only one of which is being able to communicate deep concepts, but communication of anything let alone deep concepts should always use the most concise yet precise words possible, all of which should be either known to the listener or explained to the listener. You can use terms like 'quantum tunneling' if you really want to, but the best thing to do would be to describe particles 'jumping' from one state to another before introducing the frankly formidable term itself, so as to not turn off those listening or make them feel inferior to you. Awfully many tropes about intellect these days actually originated as modes which a sizable populace of moderately informed people use to make themselves seem superior to all around them.

I myself much prefer using smaller words when explaining larger concepts, so nobody realises I'm subliminally learning them quantum physics until it's too late to zone out. 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:49 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

What are some of the most interesting words you can think of off the top of your head.

Maquillage is a good one I learnt recently, as is comminute. The former means 'makeup, especially theatrical or applied in excess', while the latter is a very niche technical term for 'reduce to dust, disintegrate'. 'Ambsaces' is a very rare one meaning 'two aces'/'snake eyes' and by extension bad luck.

On 11/12/2019 at 11:49 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

How much of the pony have you watched recently? Have you seen all of the recent episodes?

I have seen the finale triad, but no more than that, sadly. My internet is a constant plague in this regard. 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:49 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

Is water important?

You're 60% water and you're important, so by transitivity water is also important. 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:49 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

What is water?

It is the physical manifestation of the metaphysical Relation known as the Dual Triad. Two distinct types of object (hydrogen and oxygen) connected to each other in a 1-2-1 pattern perfectly model such associated relations as marriage (human-God-human) and the interactions of most forms of matter (fermion-boson-fermion, in general).

 

Don't hold me to this philosophy I am ethically obliged to come up with original responses

On 11/12/2019 at 11:49 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

Why is water?

Genesis 1:1 is the best answer you're going to get, methinks. Interestingly enough the Spirit hovered over the face of the waters before the First Day had even begun. 

[Soren Peregrine 4,606]

What's the meaning behind your forum name (I may have asked this before but I cannot remember)?

Opinion on Rarity? Is she just a drama queen?

Are you at/in a University/College, or have you graduated from school?

Thoughts on Astral Projection, if you know anything about it?

[Duality 10,738]

On 11/26/2019 at 12:25 PM, Soren Peregrine said:

What's the meaning behind your forum name (I may have asked this before but I cannot remember)?

The username 'Duality' originated from the phenomenon of wave-particle duality (hence the full name of my O.C.), which is the quantum paradigm regarding how matter units behave like particles in some circumstances, waves in others, and both at the same time in particularly curious situations.

The water side of things actually arose by fortuitous coincidence, since my first profile picture was an image of a water droplet plopping into water (a common metaphor for wave-particle duality - the droplet represents the particle side of matter and the radiating ripples represent the wave side of it). Folks started calling me 'the water guy' for obvious-in-retrospect reasons and matters proceeded fabulously from there.  

On 11/26/2019 at 12:25 PM, Soren Peregrine said:

Opinion on Rarity? Is she just a drama queen?

If she was just a drama queen, there would be zero scenes in the show where she displayed any personality characteristics besides a proclivity for drama. As this is somewhat self-evidently not the case, one must surely conclude that dramaqueenery is merely a facet of her personality, with other such facets including those of aesthetic abilities, perfectionism, generosity, etc. My opinion of her is that she is a 'creative type' - eclectically artistic with a side of exceptionally keen etiquette and a desire to surround herself with beauty. 

On 11/26/2019 at 12:25 PM, Soren Peregrine said:

Are you at/in a University/College, or have you graduated from school?

I am in fact currently working as a geotechnical engineer, which in my case currently entails digging holes to test dirt. I get to see plenty of interesting places before they develop them though so it's quite a nice line of work in that respect.

On 11/26/2019 at 12:25 PM, Soren Peregrine said:

Thoughts on Astral Projection, if you know anything about it?

Between that, the whole 'empty your mind' vibe of meditation, and the recent fads for lucid dreaming and similar, it seems somewhat like spiritual escapism to me. At any rate, your mind is certainly designed to be filled and focussed more than vacated.

[Soren Peregrine 4,606]

On 11/27/2019 at 1:02 AM, Duality said:

Between that, the whole 'empty your mind' vibe of meditation, and the recent fads for lucid dreaming and similar, it seems somewhat like spiritual escapism to me. At any rate, your mind is certainly designed to be filled and focussed more than vacated.

Ah, but see, lucid dreaming is a slightly different matter. In lucid dreaming, all that you are doing is becoming conscious that you are dreaming, and by doing so, you can then control your dreams. We sleep for about 1/3 of our entire lives, so why not use some of it? I have tried it, and I always just found it fun to do, and figuring out how to fly, and other sorts of fun things. None of it is real, dreams are just a perception of reality that our brains are projecting, and I find it actually less escapist to be more fully aware of what is going on with my brain. I personally like to be able to have more control over my mind and not let it do whatever it wants to. I am out of practice right now however.

Again, I found it actually helped me to be more aware of myself and my surroundings even in everyday life, rather than rolling through on auto pilot, which is actually most of what our brains do, whether you would like to admit it or not.

I am not for emptying your mind of all thoughts however. That is also fairly impossible. For if you were to focus on emptying your mind of all thoughts, you would be thinking about that thought. That is the fad that I see.

I agree with pretty much everything you said about Rarity. She is a creative, in my opinion.

May I ask what your opinion of Rainbow Dash is? A lot of people I meet seem to think that she is a very shallow character, and that she is extremely prideful and full of herself, and they say they cannot stand what they call her "I'm better than everyone else" attitude. Some have used more colorful insults to describe her too (pun not intended, yet intended nonetheless). I have a theory that she may struggle with self-worth, and therefore she overcompensates by saying that she is awesome, and thinking very highly of herself, sometimes too much. I do know people who do this. Or she might suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. Personally I think that while she may mess up sometimes, her heart is in the right place, being loyal to her friends and what she stands for. I also believe that some show writers decide to take the negative aspects of her personality way too far, when she was not meant to be written that way.

Your thoughts?

[Widdershins 9,955]

Okay, okay, got a good one for ya @Duality! Was originally gonna Status-Update it to you but the thought got too long! ...yes, I measure my thoughts before they're written down; don't question it, we've yet to get to my actual question!

 Okay! I want a point-by-point argument for Bio-logic! Basically, tell me if the following are biologically feasible to be found in Nature as we know it! (All specimens recreated from supposed once-live, extinct species.)

 And I must defend my precious, innocent, mutant children!

 Specimen One: Dracozolt is easy. Unmatched skin coloration, patterns and even size from one end of the body to the other? Mere child's play in the chaotic variation that Nature has provided! I could no doubt call up dozens of real life animals that have that! If I had the time and energy, that is.

 Specimen Three,  (from the left to right, of course) Arctozolt: Simple a big bodied raptor, eh? No doubt capable! Even if one end of the body produces energy while the latter half is somehow devoid of thermal energy... but that disconnect in metabolism does go a long way in explaining its sluggish behavior that led to its extinction. And yes, those are flipper feet on a purely land animal. I see no qualms in lacking toes and such for land maneuverability, yes?

Specimen Four, Arctovish: It's harder to explain its feasibility of operating as an organism... but it makes sense, I should say, for a fully aquatic creature. While I can't think of any examples of actual animals... having a head on upside-down surely isn't that bad of a hinderence to an animal, right...? One could, technically, claim that a creature would evolve as such to tear out the softer undersides of its aquatic prey, yes?

 And foremost the reason I posit this complex query... Specimen Two, Dracovish: ...uhm, Pokedex claims it only went extinct because it just was too efficient a predator. ...Never mind the fact that it can't breathe well. I don't THINK it specifies the fish head can ONLY breathe water... despite being a land reptile...Just because it APPEARS to have a head on the wrong end of a tail doesn't mean that its a malfunctioning homonculous. Can be merely argued that it only appears that way from its counter-conventional bodyform, right? It's stated, verbatim, that it "had trouble breathing" and it doesn't mean it somehow evolved to walk where it couldn't breathe? Just... *cough* too large of a body to fully respirate accurately, right?

 In short, how capable are these specimens of, well, "Staying alive of their own power?"

 I expect a full, four-part dissertation! /Pout

[Duality 10,738]

On 12/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

Ah, but see, lucid dreaming is a slightly different matter. In lucid dreaming, all that you are doing is becoming conscious that you are dreaming, and by doing so, you can then control your dreams. We sleep for about 1/3 of our entire lives, so why not use some of it? I have tried it, and I always just found it fun to do, and figuring out how to fly, and other sorts of fun things. None of it is real, dreams are just a perception of reality that our brains are projecting, and I find it actually less escapist to be more fully aware of what is going on with my brain. I personally like to be able to have more control over my mind and not let it do whatever it wants to. I am out of practice right now however.

Again, I found it actually helped me to be more aware of myself and my surroundings even in everyday life, rather than rolling through on auto pilot, which is actually most of what our brains do, whether you would like to admit it or not.

Fair points all. I was however intending the escapism aspect of lucid dreaming that I've been seeing a lot of - trying to replace reality with a sufficiently convincing imitation that you have full control over is rather a tempting prospect for many, it seems.

On 12/5/2019 at 10:15 AM, Soren Peregrine said:

May I ask what your opinion of Rainbow Dash is? A lot of people I meet seem to think that she is a very shallow character, and that she is extremely prideful and full of herself, and they say they cannot stand what they call her "I'm better than everyone else" attitude. Some have used more colorful insults to describe her too (pun not intended, yet intended nonetheless). I have a theory that she may struggle with self-worth, and therefore she overcompensates by saying that she is awesome, and thinking very highly of herself, sometimes too much. I do know people who do this. Or she might suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. Personally I think that while she may mess up sometimes, her heart is in the right place, being loyal to her friends and what she stands for. I also believe that some show writers decide to take the negative aspects of her personality way too far, when she was not meant to be written that way.

Your thoughts?

I'm not awfully good at judging individual people analytically, which can be both a help and a hindrance in various circumstances. I do, however, fancy myself good at judging people as a collective, which works better to generalise such debates as this one than to resolve any given instance.

The writers of the show knew how to give their characters personalities. Personalities are complex. Hence, anyone trying to cram the personality of any given character on the show into a single trope box is in general either being deliberately misleading or themselves have a complex of grudges and biases and general intolerance for certain personality traits to the perceptual exclusion of most other traits that don't correspond with their opinion. Other people 'acting better than everyone else' tends to come to our critical notice only insofar as we ourselves want to be better than everyone else. I've heard pride defined as the thing everyone hates in other people but not in ourselves - the essence of competition, of conflict, of me-not-you and there-can-only-be-one-best. I can see how Rainbow can be construed as being quite prideful in this sense, but it's shown in the show to be tempered with playfulness and a genuine enjoyment of competition in a way that cold hard Pride doesn't care enough to match. After all, if I'm better than you why bother stooping to your level to prove it? What does your opinion matter to me? Why would I care about pathetic second-placers? As long as somebody cares about things other than themselves (which Rainbow does plenty of, despite her 'play it cool' public persona), then they aren't prideful in the worst sense. Rainbow Dash does appear to maintain a prideful external personality for some psychological or social reason, but when her friends end up in danger it quite blatantly slips off to reveal something far more caring beneath.

 

 

 

On 12/6/2019 at 12:45 AM, Widdershins said:

Okay, okay, got a good one for ya @Duality! Was originally gonna Status-Update it to you but the thought got too long! ...yes, I measure my thoughts before they're written down; don't question it, we've yet to get to my actual question!

 Okay! I want a point-by-point argument for Bio-logic! Basically, tell me if the following are biologically feasible to be found in Nature as we know it! (All specimens recreated from supposed once-live, extinct species.)

 Specimen One: Dracozolt is easy. Unmatched skin coloration, patterns and even size from one end of the body to the other? Mere child's play in the chaotic variation that Nature has provided! I could no doubt call up dozens of real life animals that have that! If I had the time and energy, that is.

 Specimen Three,  (from the left to right, of course) Arctozolt: Simple a big bodied raptor, eh? No doubt capable! Even if one end of the body produces energy while the latter half is somehow devoid of thermal energy... but that disconnect in metabolism does go a long way in explaining its sluggish behavior that led to its extinction. And yes, those are flipper feet on a purely land animal. I see no qualms in lacking toes and such for land maneuverability, yes?

Specimen Four, Arctovish: It's harder to explain its feasibility of operating as an organism... but it makes sense, I should say, for a fully aquatic creature. While I can't think of any examples of actual animals... having a head on upside-down surely isn't that bad of a hinderence to an animal, right...? One could, technically, claim that a creature would evolve as such to tear out the softer undersides of its aquatic prey, yes?

 And foremost the reason I posit this complex query... Specimen Two, Dracovish: ...uhm, Pokedex claims it only went extinct because it just was too efficient a predator. ...Never mind the fact that it can't breathe well. I don't THINK it specifies the fish head can ONLY breathe water... despite being a land reptile...Just because it APPEARS to have a head on the wrong end of a tail doesn't mean that its a malfunctioning homonculous. Can be merely argued that it only appears that way from its counter-conventional bodyform, right? It's stated, verbatim, that it "had trouble breathing" and it doesn't mean it somehow evolved to walk where it couldn't breathe? Just... *cough* too large of a body to fully respirate accurately, right?

 In short, how capable are these specimens of, well, "Staying alive of their own power?"

 I expect a full, four-part dissertation! /Pout

How dare you assume I'm fluent in biology. Biology is squishy science. Only for wimps and science frauds. I'll have you know the most applied scientist in my family is a chemist, and even that's beginning to edge too far from the icy embrace of Pure Mathematics.

That aside, I'm not at all sure how to go about ecological analysis of Pokemon. They include literally thousands of ludicrously variegated species that no doubt interact in an intractably complex network in the wild. For all I know the Dracovish fish head uses its gills to strain out ions from the air to build an electric potential over which to gain energy. These things are literally magic sentient animals in a set of environments bizarrely exotic enough to house every creature that the Pokemon creators can yank out of their imagination - biology is complicated enough in our world without elemental powers piled on top of it.