Wapsi Square Forum

You can't learn to make your senses more acute.

If that were possible, I wouldn't need glasses.

GlytchMeister wrote:You can't learn to make your senses more acute.

If that were possible, I wouldn't need glasses.

The raw sensory inputs... no, probably not.

The processing of the raw signals in the brain... the extensive filtering and pattern detection which picks out the significant parts of the raw sensory input and says "prey walked here" or "LION!"... these aspects of perception are very learnable/trainable. As with many aspects of learning, it's often more easily and effectively done when we are young (say, below the age of 25 out so) due to the greater "plasticity" of the nervous system.

A lot of the fabled "dullness" of the senses of civilized humans is that we don't exercise and train that aspect of our nervous system very well while we are young.

GlytchMeister wrote:You can't learn to make your senses more acute.

If that were possible, I wouldn't need glasses.

Me neither.

But you can learn to pay attention to the inputs that are there . . . I'm nearsighted and astigmatic, yet I frequently see things that other people don't . . . I've learned to pay attention.

When I worked in a machine shop, after a few months I could tell by sound if a cutter was getting dull. BTW, I always wore hearing protection . . . it filtered out a lot of the extraneous noise and let me hear the pitch of the cutter more accurately.


Another reason that humans have such poor perceptions is that they frequently do things that damage their senses . . . especially hearing and smell.

And just to be sure we're all using the same definition, here's how the Oxford dictionary defines instinct:

instinct
noun
An innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli: birds have an instinct to build nests

Note the word innate: if it's learned, it's not an instinct.

In computer terms, instincts are in ROM, learned behavior is in RAM.

--FreeFlier

FreeFlier wrote:

GlytchMeister wrote: . . . As for the weirdness surrounding predatory instincts: it seems to me kids and adults who are new to being paranormal (recently metamorphosed) have the most trouble controlling their nature. And it's kind of unreasonable to expect kids to have an iron grip on themselves. Kids are stupid. They're gonna freak out and get their paranormal groove on because they don't have the self-control required to not do so.

Gryphon School has already been established to have lessons or overarching requirements involving the development of control over paranormal natures. Kids have to maintain human appearance, have to hold their Glamours when in intense physical activity (see the swimming lesson), yadda yadda yadda.

I think what we haven't seen are the majority of paras that have no trouble controlling themselves.

As far as instincts, humans have basically none. That's one of the things that makes humans such superb generalists.

The evidence we've seen indicates that many paranormals are substantially otherwise: they have a substantial level of instinctive behaviors.

Combined with inexperience and teenage hormones, that's a really bad combination.

And how often do teenage humans do destructive things to themselves or to others? Despite having no abilities that nobody around them doesn't have?

--FreeFlier

And even the few instincts that ordinary humans have, can only be pressed on so hard.

Atsali's claws in her feral form are such that, in a contact sport, she could easily kill someone accidentally in passing.

FreeFlier wrote:

lake_wrangler wrote:

jwhouk wrote:EDIT: No one noticed that we all were posting... IN DA FYU-CHA!!!!????

100 years, to be precise... Will Wapsi Square still be going on strong, by then? How many generations of characters will have passed, at that point?

Ninety years, actually . . . 2106-2016 = 90



--FreeFlier

I...

Um...

That is...

Iwasroundingup!

That's the ticket... rounding up... yeah...


Besides, I was just checking to see if anyone was paying attention... Congrats, FreeFlier, you win!



They say there are 3 types of people in the world... those who are good at math, and those who aren't...
Just like there are also 10 types of people in the world... those who can count in binary, and those who can't...

lake_wrangler wrote:. . .
They say there are 3 types of people in the world... those who are good at math, and those who aren't...
Just like there are also 10 types of people in the world... those who can count in binary, and those who can't...

That calls for a crack about hexedecimal, but I can't think of one . . .

They also say there are two kinds of people in the world . . . those who see only two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't.

--FreeFlier

There are over seven billion different kinds of people in the world... And yet there is only one kind of people.

I am aware of two major distinctions- those who speak more than one language, and Americans...

Sgt. Howard wrote:I am aware of two major distinctions- those who speak more than one language, and Americans...

Mais je parle le francais.

(en peu)

--FreeFlier

FreeFlier wrote:

Sgt. Howard wrote:I am aware of two major distinctions- those who speak more than one language, and Americans...

Mais je parle le francais.

(en peu)

--FreeFlier

Then again, this is Sarge....genuine frontier gibberish...

Sgt. Howard wrote:I am aware of two major distinctions- those who speak more than one language, and Americans...

Or to put it another way: people who speak the dominant language of at least half of all countries within 500 miles of their home, and non-Americans.

Sgt. Howard wrote:I am aware of two major distinctions- those who speak more than one language, and Americans...

I live in hope that someone will prove that is actually possible to speak both Bluestate and Redstate fluently, without becoming either tongue-tied or hypocritical (or being burned at the stake).

Dave wrote:

Sgt. Howard wrote:I am aware of two major distinctions- those who speak more than one language, and Americans...

I live in hope that someone will prove that is actually possible to speak both Bluestate and Redstate fluently, without becoming either tongue-tied or hypocritical (or being burned at the stake).

Well, I live in a purple state. We elected a moron Republican governor, but voted Obama in the last two elections.

jwhouk wrote:

Dave wrote:

Sgt. Howard wrote:I am aware of two major distinctions- those who speak more than one language, and Americans...

I live in hope that someone will prove that is actually possible to speak both Bluestate and Redstate fluently, without becoming either tongue-tied or hypocritical (or being burned at the stake).

Well, I live in a purple state. We elected a moron Republican governor, but voted Obama in the last two elections.

So you're saying that your state is better at picking governors than at picking presidents?

(Actually a moron would be an improvement over the large majority of candidates for both offices from both parties.)

My hamster would be an improvement, and he's been dead for years.

I think people can guess my incredible dislike for Scottie W, so I won't get into it here.

I feel sorry for Mrs adler.

I keep thinking all the movies, where black player is added to team of whites.
Apply all those arguments. Not racism, when some para can literally rip head of from the opponent?