Not trying to be rude or stupid, but is projecting emotions onto inanimate objects and being emotionally affected by imaginarily anthropomorphised circumstances a neurotypical thing? I remember in high school chemistry class when my classmates were awing and giddy over how “cute” a ~1” tall and 1/2” diameter beaker was and I just couldn’t understand.
I always assumed it was more the other way around. I never hear my NT friends etc about feeling sad for the wonky apple in the supermarket to the point that you must buy it, because you know other people will ignore it.
I understand the purpose of anthropomorphizing for the sake of narrative storytelling. But I don’t relate to people unwillingly imagining an inanimate object to be sentient and emotive to such an intense degree that the imaginer is affected by it. I’ve pondered with purpose over writing metaphors or fantasy worldbuilding, but it has been with intent rather than passively.
(And yes, my most recent emotional reaction to that lamp was disappointment with a couple of areas of the design of its new Lego set)
But I don’t relate to people unwillingly imagining an inanimate object to be sentient and emotive to such an intense degree that the imaginer is affected by it. I’ve pondered with purpose over writing metaphors or fantasy worldbuilding, but it has been with intent rather than passively.
I don’t quite understand the distinction you’re making between the former and latter. The only difference I’m seeing is it is something you actively have to do while others can do it passively. If anything, I would think that those do it passively would have a strength.
Break down exactly what is probably happening with your beaker example:
observation of physical traits
pattern matching against other examples of dissimilar sizes
analysis as to why this beaker may have an association with a found pattern match of “parent and offspring”
offspring are often more visually pleasant versions of the grown version (puppy vs dog/kitten vs cat)
apply ruleset of “parent and offspring” to beaker
therefore small beaker is cute because it could be offspring of a pair of larger beakers
This demonstrates there is a willingness to accept the unknown and explore it. It applies existing knowledge to make assumptions about future status/behavior. This is a power fact finding skill. Further, your classmates demonstrated this passively meaning it look no effort to find relationships and identify matching traits. They could possibly discover many things in life simply by looking that them and applying critical thinking.
Passivity vs. activeness in consciousness is the distinction I was making.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props. Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar. I can see others have totems and fetishes (in the sociological sense) of their own but the extent to which I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
Its sort of sounding like somebody got irritated with your creative process when you were a kid, and now you’re trying to reconcile that with other people being allowed to emote and create “for no reason”.
??? That is wildly off the mark. I’m a full on supporter of intrinsic motivation to create. I’ve defended art for the sake of expression repeatedly on this account, and I abhor when people play to the gallery. My confusion is with passive conviction of anthropomorphism rather than anthropomorphism arising only out of driven intent.
Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to.
Seeing creativity as “succumbing to emotions” sounds like you think its a bad thing that your parents told you not to do.
I mean I guess that’s sort of the point I’m stuck on. The situations I’m describing, such as in the post we’re on, are that which I cannot see as creative or active. They seem passive and overwhelming and able to genuinely convince someone of that which is clearly not there. They are of the imagination, yes, but they seem to rely on some form of unprompted and willful cognitive dissonance.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props.
This is my point “if I saw a purpose” means that you would miss any purposes that would only be evident when the act was complete.
Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing,
There is no object in existence that is devoid of story and history. Everything came from somewhere whether by nature or human intervention.
and then succumbing to emotions
What is the negative outcome of “succumbing to emotions” from your beaker example? What cost is paid? What energy lost that would have been expending elsewhere?
over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar.
Just your suggestion of a cigar triggers in me dozens of different threads of thought. Here’s just a few:
agricultural - Tobacco was planted and cultivate, harvested then dried and processed. Tobacco can only be grown in certain places in the world. The cigar itself may have been wrapped by hand.
health - Tobacco has many of the obvious negative health aspects, but a bit fewer with cigars than other tobacco consumption methods
visceral - Cigar smoke does not smell good to me. Its a pungent and then stale. Something to be avoided. Watching smoke rise is fascinating as it drifts with air currents in the room. Cigars weigh much less than I would expect from how they look.
cultural - Some modern cultures have a high integration with cigars, and even some like Cuba, have a national identity surrounding them. In the west they were, at one time, an expected gift for the announcement of a new birth.
historical - Growing tobacco massively changed the world a few times in history, and lead to the enslavement of people in some cases/regions.
The whole thought process that produced that entire list happened to me automatically and was started and ended in less than one second. To me, when someone mentions a cigar any of these things could include additional communications cues to the person or their purpose. Its non-verbal subtext.
I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
It’s a set of qualities (small, eyes too big for head, head too big for body, or an approximation of such in non animal objects) that evokes an emotional response (affectionate, protective, nurturing) which is an evolutionary development that prevents us from eating our succulent babies.
Cute is a stimulus that causes a release of dopamine, which affects our emotions. It’s not uncommon for someone to simplify that by saying cute = emotion.
That’s correct. I brought up the beaker scenario since the characterization of the inanimate object was adjacent to anthropomorphizing and it was an example in which I was the anomaly of the crowd.
Not trying to be rude or stupid, but is projecting emotions onto inanimate objects and being emotionally affected by imaginarily anthropomorphised circumstances a neurotypical thing? I remember in high school chemistry class when my classmates were awing and giddy over how “cute” a ~1” tall and 1/2” diameter beaker was and I just couldn’t understand.
I always assumed it was more the other way around. I never hear my NT friends etc about feeling sad for the wonky apple in the supermarket to the point that you must buy it, because you know other people will ignore it.
I feel like it’s the other way around
Humans will pack bond with anything
Have you ever had any kind of emotional reaction, even a mild, one to this lamp?
I understand the purpose of anthropomorphizing for the sake of narrative storytelling. But I don’t relate to people unwillingly imagining an inanimate object to be sentient and emotive to such an intense degree that the imaginer is affected by it. I’ve pondered with purpose over writing metaphors or fantasy worldbuilding, but it has been with intent rather than passively.
(And yes, my most recent emotional reaction to that lamp was disappointment with a couple of areas of the design of its new Lego set)
I don’t quite understand the distinction you’re making between the former and latter. The only difference I’m seeing is it is something you actively have to do while others can do it passively. If anything, I would think that those do it passively would have a strength.
Break down exactly what is probably happening with your beaker example:
This demonstrates there is a willingness to accept the unknown and explore it. It applies existing knowledge to make assumptions about future status/behavior. This is a power fact finding skill. Further, your classmates demonstrated this passively meaning it look no effort to find relationships and identify matching traits. They could possibly discover many things in life simply by looking that them and applying critical thinking.
Passivity vs. activeness in consciousness is the distinction I was making.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props. Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar. I can see others have totems and fetishes (in the sociological sense) of their own but the extent to which I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
Its sort of sounding like somebody got irritated with your creative process when you were a kid, and now you’re trying to reconcile that with other people being allowed to emote and create “for no reason”.
??? That is wildly off the mark. I’m a full on supporter of intrinsic motivation to create. I’ve defended art for the sake of expression repeatedly on this account, and I abhor when people play to the gallery. My confusion is with passive conviction of anthropomorphism rather than anthropomorphism arising only out of driven intent.
It was this:
Seeing creativity as “succumbing to emotions” sounds like you think its a bad thing that your parents told you not to do.
I mean I guess that’s sort of the point I’m stuck on. The situations I’m describing, such as in the post we’re on, are that which I cannot see as creative or active. They seem passive and overwhelming and able to genuinely convince someone of that which is clearly not there. They are of the imagination, yes, but they seem to rely on some form of unprompted and willful cognitive dissonance.
This is my point “if I saw a purpose” means that you would miss any purposes that would only be evident when the act was complete.
There is no object in existence that is devoid of story and history. Everything came from somewhere whether by nature or human intervention.
What is the negative outcome of “succumbing to emotions” from your beaker example? What cost is paid? What energy lost that would have been expending elsewhere?
Just your suggestion of a cigar triggers in me dozens of different threads of thought. Here’s just a few:
The whole thought process that produced that entire list happened to me automatically and was started and ended in less than one second. To me, when someone mentions a cigar any of these things could include additional communications cues to the person or their purpose. Its non-verbal subtext.
I think you may be missing messages.
Cute isn’t an emotion, it’s a visual trait.
It’s a set of qualities (small, eyes too big for head, head too big for body, or an approximation of such in non animal objects) that evokes an emotional response (affectionate, protective, nurturing) which is an evolutionary development that prevents us from eating our succulent babies.
Sometimes people will describe a setting, like a restaurant or part of town, or particular house, as “cute.” No anthropromorphics involved.
Cute is a stimulus that causes a release of dopamine, which affects our emotions. It’s not uncommon for someone to simplify that by saying cute = emotion.
That’s correct. I brought up the beaker scenario since the characterization of the inanimate object was adjacent to anthropomorphizing and it was an example in which I was the anomaly of the crowd.
Even among neurotypicals there is neurodiversity.
(inb4 IKEA lamp advert)