Why frightened of my fedora?

[BJonas]

I'm sure she'll grow out of it. It kinda broke my heart when it happened because she loves when my wife and I baby-sit her and take her out to dinner and stuff, and apparently she's constantly saying our names when we're not around. I don't mind putting it away to keep her happy, of course. I'm not that style conscious.

 

[Matthew]

Race memory stored in the collective subconsciousness, past life experience catching up in this life. Check for spirit or psychic disturbances and reread "Spate's Catalog" and "Tobin's Spirit Guide" for clues.

Apart from the "anything goes" section of the Fedora Lounge, this is the greatest bunch of nonsense I've read on this website.

*cough* Randi.org *cough*.

Dear BJonas,
On a more serious note, I've got a background in clinical psychology. Children that young have a "mental construct" that causes them to orient on the human face. It also tells them what a typical human face is supposed to look like.

Needless to state, that mental construct does not include a fedora. She is probably scared because you are simultaneously providing her with something familiar and yet different. Kind of like a Homburg with a pink ribbon...

Lorne

Yes - a cortical/occipital reason is much, much more likely.

I dare say it's because she's 17 months old.

Bingo.

- Matt

 

[BJonas]

Hey, it was an interesting experiment. I knew that when I posted this it was going to get three types of responses:

-The "psychic phenomena" response

-The "psychological reason" response

-The "just a kid" response

I got all three responses, and am quite happy with all of them.(Incidently, I think it may be a little of all three.)

 

[John in Covina]

Anybody see Ghostbusters One?

My response is from the interview of Sigorny Weaver character after the first incident at her apartment and she visits the Ghostbusters at their HQ.

I do believe there is a lot more to this world than most would like to admit exists. There is a spiritual realm and there are dark forces at work.

 

[BJonas]

My response is from the interview of Sigorny Weaver character after the first incident at her apartment and she visits the Ghostbuster at their HQ.

I do believe there is a lot more to this world than most would like to admit exists. There is a spiritual realm and there are dark forces at work.

I knew "Tobin's Spirit Guide" sounded familiar.

 

[Spellflower]

I've both worked with young children and worn wide brimmed hats for many years, and children's reactions are as varied as their hair colors. A child's response to a man in a hat is determined by many things, including age, developmental level, experience, and general temperament. Some toddlers will freak out at at a hat because of the reasons Lorne mentioned (a fedora is not a normal part of a face), but others become accustomed to seeing a hat, and freak out if it's missing, as in RBH's case.

I wonder if your niece's reaction would be different if every man she encountered wore a fedora. On the bright side, she's certain to grow out of her aversion. If you want to speed her through this, you might try leaving it in a corner where she can choose to interact with it or not as she chooses. She's probably a little scared, and a little curious. If you and your wife act casually, but positively towards it, (maybe even treat it like it was a favorite stuffed animal, and talk to it- name it "Hat,") and tell each other how much you like it, your niece will likely begin to change her mind about it. If she absolutely doesn't want it in the room, don't push it, and wait it out.

 

[BJonas]

I've started to leave it on a shelf on a stuffed animal (actually, it's a saint bernard slipper). It looks like the dog is wearing the hat, and the last time she saw it there, she didn't react at all. So when the dog wears it, it's cute, and when a person wears it it's terrifying.

Kids[huh]

 

[Spellflower]

Oddly enough, a child I've just begun working with had an adverse reaction to my fedora this afternoon. I don't think he noticed it when I came into the house, as it was already in my hands when his mom opened the door, and I lay it on a table without his noticing. But as I prepared to leave, he saw it there, and got upset, even though I wasn't even near it. I showed it to him, but he didn't like it, and I ended up distracting him and leaving with it behind my back. Maybe your niece sent him some psychic warnings!

 

[BJonas]

An epidemic of Fedoraphobia is sweeping our nation's nurseries and play rooms.

In a related story, Tyco is pulling the "Film Noir-Me Elmo" dolls from shelves everywhere.

 

[Matthew]

I do believe there is a lot more to this world than most would like to admit exists. There is a spiritual realm and there are dark forces at work.

...RRRrrrriiight.

And your evidence is?

- Matt

 

[John in Covina]

...RRRrrrriiight.
And your evidence is?
- Matt

*******
Ok Prove to me it doesn't exist.

 

[Matthew]

Ok Prove to me it doesn't exist.

*Sigh*

"Burden of Proof Fallacy: The advocate fails to take responsibility for arguing a case by claiming that the opponent must first prove that the opposite case is true."


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

No cigar, sir.

- Matthew

 

[stylin]

I say have your wife wear the fedora and see how the child reacts.

If she likes it on your wife or doesn't seem to care, then it is obvioulsy you or the fact that your a male.

Try it. It couldn't hurt....


[huh]

 

[John in Covina]

No cigar, sir. - Matthew

***
Ok- Here is deal. All I said was what I believed. I did not say you had to believe it too.

You asked for proof. Since you do not believe and you will take any type of explanation I give and say it doesn't prove anything or it's not scientific, I will simply waste my time on someone that won't or can't believe in anything I believe in. It is like teaching a pig to sing, it wastes your time and it annoys the pig. People once believe the world was flat. People once believed that the sun went around the earth. These things are based in what people saw and then extrapolating from that. These were reasonable ideas at the time and when things came up to indicate otherwise, it took along time to convince people as to how things really were. Magic acts tell us our eyes can deceive us.

The burden of proof. OK.
If I were to say The Bible, it will be dismissed out of hand as something akin to Grimms fairy tales. If I were to suggest the filmed and recorded activities of ghost hunters, I am sure you will invalidate any such programs as the stuff of nonsense.
Any after death experiences as told by those that came back as the ravings of ill people.

This is the normal procession of exchanges in this question.
Those that dismiss this will not even believe those that have come back from the dead.
So what convincing can I give you that will change your mind? None.
Your choice is made and you will not be swayed.

For me well, then again it isn't my job to open your eyes or convince you. I know that if it will happen it will happen because of another. The circumstances will be probaly much different.
Sometimes it takes sign of great wonder it is seen and even after examination it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Or it takes times of peril. Many believe that man is more than physical in being and there is a spiritual side, even the Russians reopened the churches during WWII. You'll just say that need is a chemical reaction in the brains of humans that creates a need for this type of stuff, it is not real.

The spiritual world is not the same as the physical world, it does not obey the same laws and can not be quantified in the same way. Physics says there are other dimensions that we cannot touch or see and to belive that is a matter of faith of sorts.

There are scientists that went thru a list of what makes life as we know it possible on this planet of ours. The listed the needs: the right kind of sun, the right distance from it, the right tempurature, the right amount of water, the right this and that. By taking these needs, in a calculation of the chances of getting it all right, it shows it was so unlikely that we should be here and the planet should be as it is, yet here we are. Talk about winning the lotto, was there a hand in it some how, an intellegent design? It takes a type of faith to believe there was no hand in it, as there is to believe there was.

You don't invalidate my beliefs to me and I can't force you to believe what I do.

So if you want, you can even say you won. But it does not change anything.

 

[Matthew]

Your right; very predictable.

Woah there, my friend!

***
Ok- Here is deal. All I said was what I believed. I did not say you had to believe it too.

You asked for proof. Since you do not believe and you will take any type of explanation I give and say it doesn't prove anything or it's not scientific, I will simply waste my time on someone that won't or can't believe in anything I believe in. It is like teaching a pig to sing, it wastes your time and it annoys the pig. People once believe the world was flat. People once believed that the sun went around the earth. These things are based in what people saw and then extrapolating from that. These were reasonable ideas at the time and when things came up to indicate otherwise, it took along time to convince people as to how things really were. Magic acts tell us our eyes can deceive us.

I never asked for proof. I asked for evidence. The burden of proof fallacy is about a flaw in argumentation, whereas only logicians, mathematicians, and bartenders need "proof." On empirical matters, such as the existence of spooky stuff you claim to exist - this is not possible. Only evidence counts, which I asked for.

Statements of belief are not arguments; they are assertions.

Now, magic acts are meant to deceptive. Smoke, mirrors, and the people who use them are the deceptions. You are exactly correct, perceptions can be false and often are - but does that mean that when you and I take off our glasses and see a blurry, myopic world, that it opens the possibility up for unicorns to exist, or justifies my belief in them?

Just because widely held beliefs in the past were false - it is no argument, nor is it evidence, for any belief. If I tell you "scientists once thought caloric and phlogiston was real too!" does that mean that my belief that Leperchauns are real is justified, or that Leperchauns really do exist?

Invalidating our empirical faculties or showing historical examples of errors is not evidence for magical, noncorporeal things. Creationists of all kinds like to do this too - set up a this/that dichotomy of evolution vs. creationism - attempt to refute evolution - and then say that because evolution is "refuted," creationism wins/is true. Too bad it is a wonderful case of the Fallacy of Bifurcation.

I never said that I "won't" or "can't" believe in your assertion - you offered no reason for me to do so - how can I, my friend?

The burden of proof. OK.
If I were to say The Bible, it will be dismissed out of hand as something akin to Grimms fairy tales. If I were to suggest the filmed and recorded activities of ghost hunters, I am sure you will invalidate any such programs as the stuff of nonsense.
Any after death experiences as told by those that came back as the ravings of ill people.

If I ask for evidence, and in response you say "the Bible," - it is akin to saying "The dictionary." That is not evidence.

John, if I write on my hand "Zeus exists," and when you ask for evidence I say "my hand," i'd me making the same fallacy you are - the argument to authority and/or testimony.

Unfortunately, activities of societies are not evidence of the phenomena they claim to predict or study. If I give you the proceedings of the Flat Earth Society, or parapsychological organizations - it does not follow that you have demonstrated that the earth is flat or that you can bend spoons with your mind.

Now, it is the case that if you offer apparrent evidence of ghosts, it is by the nature of evidence that it could be falsified or require further investigation. If you show me photos with orb ghosts on them, perhaps they could be ghosts. ("Fuzzy smudges and blurs on polaroids? Of course, they are the ectoplasmic souls of trans-world energy forces of the departed!") But, if I am able to recreate the orbs by using different kinds of film in certain situations - then it tells me that they arent "ghosts," but manipulations of the environment and of the camera.

(Sadly, the ghosts that follow me around, for some reason, always leave me alone for a while after I dust the inside lens of my camera).

Ghost hunters, eh? Isn't that a show on the Discovery Channel? Now, does the "Pet Psychic" really know the depth of existential ennui or meloncholy that the guinea pigs, cows, or lizards feel? (Why do they ask the owners the names of the dogs? Why don't they just ask the dogs?)

In all seriousness...

"Near Death Experiences" are common. Your brain will begin to starve for oxygen, as you know, if you are dying or passed out and not breathing (for example). Now, when the brain is starving for oxygen, your cortex begins to go crazy - you will hullucinate and possibly experience tunnel vision (aka, the "white light at the end of the tunnel"). Now, which is more likely - your brain begins to hullucinate before being recesitated, or that you "contacted the beyond?"

Okhams Razor prefers the former.

This is the normal procession of exchanges in this question.
Those that dismiss this will not even believe those that have come back from the dead.
So what convincing can I give you that will change your mind? None.
Your choice is made and you will not be swayed.

I'm not being dogmatic here, it sounds like you are the fideist. (...Wait, before I wrote this post, where did I say "I will not be swayed" or "I have made my choice on X and I'm stickin' to it!") And, if you remember, I did offer a source of convincing, evidence.

For me well, then again it isn't my job to open your eyes or convince you.

So, you can't and you won't "convince" me? How appropriate, then, for you to insist that I am brick-minded.

I know that if it will happen it will happen because of another. The circumstances will be probaly much different.
Sometimes it takes sign of great wonder it is seen and even after examination it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Or it takes times of peril.

Wonder and awe are great - I feel it too. But, "feelings of majesty" do not demand obediance or a strong adherence to conclusions - no matter how warm or fuzzy or good they feel. Appealing to the passions, still, is not evidence.

Many believe that man is more than physical in being and there is a spiritual side, even the Russians reopened the churches during WWII.

*Sigh* :eusa_doh:

Bandwagon Fallacy.

You'll just say that need is a chemical reaction in the brains of humans that creates a need for this type of stuff, it is not real.

Ouch: Words shoved in my mouth - looks like I got the strawman.

No, I wouldnt make that claim. That would be the genetic fallacy. Need or no need is not the qualifier for what is real and isn't.

The spiritual world is not the same as the physical world, it does not obey the same laws and can not be quantified in the same way.

If the "spiritual world" is not the same as the "physical world" then how can the ghosts be photographed? How, then, if this spooky stuff is nonphysical/noncorporeal, can these things be experienced empirically?

Physics says there are other dimensions that we cannot touch or see and to belive that is a matter of faith of sorts.

Very convenient. You reject empirical evidence and the scientific method, yet you are appealing (or, cherrypicking?) to modern physics (where you think it suits you)?? Is anybody else's head spinning, here???

"Of sorts?"

"Faith" is a funny word, used in many different ways. When used as a synonym for "confidence/hope/trust," it can conveniently make scientists (or, anybody, really) sound like mindless adherents of docterines. Too bad, because you are equivocating. "Faith" is proof without evidence - viz. maintaining a conclusion without regards to, or in spite of, contrary premises or objections.

There are scientists that went thru a list of what makes life as we know it possible on this planet of ours. The listed the needs: the right kind of sun, the right distance from it, the right tempurature, the right amount of water, the right this and that. By taking these needs, in a calculation of the chances of getting it all right, it shows it was so unlikely that we should be here and the planet should be as it is, yet here we are. Talk about winning the lotto, was there a hand in it some how, an intellegent design? It takes a type of faith to believe there was no hand in it, as there is to believe there was.

Ah yes, the "shock and awewith big numbers" argument. ID (Intelligent Design Creationists) proponents are fond of it, of cours, they call it the "fine tuning" argument... Basically, it results from a profoundly deep misunderstanding of how evolution and nature works (Bottom up, not top-down).

And, no, it does not take "faith" to maintain otherwise.

You don't invalidate my beliefs to me and I can't force you to believe what I do.

So if you want, you can even say you won. But it does not change anything.

Honestly, you really got me here. The "Put-Fingers-Iin-Ears-And-Say 'Lalalalala I'm not listening' Defense" is absolutely irrefutable.

Now, that might win you the cigar.

- Matt

 

[John in Covina]

MAtt,

this has been done to death before. Your responses to take what ever I say apart and your methods are as predictable as my responses.

I will simply say this, although they are seperate the 2 realms will occassionally cross and allow a glimpse of what is there.

Evidence, you will shoot down what ever I give. It still does not mean you are right.

It does mean that you have limited yourself to the posiblilties.

Should anything ever come up that you can't refute, simply rely on the hope that you don't have all the evidence and it will go away.

(The question I have now is: do you feel superior? Because alot of people aren't happy if they don't. I spent some time trying to give some information, while showing what you reponse would be. My view point is always seen as foolishness by those that perport to be analytical. You on the other hand spent much more time crafting your points, so I am asking what is behind this, what drives you to hammer on me, what is you ambition here, the need for your challenges and your responses? Stamp out stupidity? Faith and religion is the opiate of the masses? It is just a chemical reaction? Why the drive to destroy the faith of others? Although given as an discussion or argument the concept behind it is the same, " you believe in this stuff, you are a fool!")

There is more to this world than we can know. Either you find comfort in that statement or it holds a terror for you. I am fine, how are you?