5 ms·

Historians always think everyone from more than a century ago was a dour fun-hating worker drone. Everything that existed just because it was fun or cool gets c

by causi 3y ago

Historians always think everyone from more than a century ago was a dour fun-hating worker drone. Everything that existed just because it was fun or cool gets classified as "ceremonial".

msandford 3y ago
If you don't know what fun is, having fun is the same as a ceremony. It's some dumb thing rubes do because "nobody knows why!"
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  You see a similar phenomenon in ethology, the reason many animals "play" is a mystery but there are all sorts of loose explanations like "helps train to hunt" that are probably too quick to dismiss the idea that maybe some things simply feel good.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    Those could very well be the same thing. Evolution makes it so that the things which help us survive and reproduce feel like fun. I suspect all of our emotional responses are driven by evolution, and are really our top level instruction on how to live. Then afterwards we come up with rationalizations why we do the things we do.
  - Martinussen 3y ago
    Isn't making things feel good/hurt the way we are pushed towards stuff like training to hunt by evolution, though?
  - cyber_kinetist 3y ago
    Reminds me of the essay "Whats the Point If We Can’t Have Fun?" by David Graeber (https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-hav...): "Generally speaking, an analysis of animal behavior is not considered scientific unless the animal is assumed, at least tacitly, to be operating according to the same means/end calculations that one would apply to economic transactions. Under this assumption, an expenditure of energy must be directed toward some goal, whether it be obtaining food, securing territory, achieving dominance, or maximizing reproductive success—unless one can absolutely prove that it isnt, and absolute proof in such matters is, as one might imagine, very hard to come by. I must emphasize here that it doesn’t really matter what sort of theory of animal motivation a scientist might entertain: what she believes an animal to be thinking, whether she thinks an animal can be said to be “thinking” anything at all. I' m not saying that ethologists actually believe that animals are simply rational calculating machines. I' m simply saying that ethologists have boxed themselves into a world where to be scientific means to offer an explanation of behavior in rational terms—which in turn means describing an animal as if it were a calculating economic actor trying to maximize some sort of self-interest—whatever their theory of animal psychology, or motivation, might be. That’s why the existence of animal play is considered something of an intellectual scandal. It' s understudied, and those who do study it are seen as mildly eccentric. As with many vaguely threatening, speculative notions, difficult-to-satisfy criteria are introduced for proving animal play exists, and even when it is acknowledged, the research more often than not cannibalizes its own insights by trying to demonstrate that play must have some long-term survival or reproductive function."
    - micromacrofoot 3y ago
      This is really good, thank you for sharing it.
    - jhbadger 3y ago
      "Animal "play" isn't any sort of "scandal" -- we know that many young animals "play" by fighting with each other -- this is obviously good training for their adult lives. At the end of the day, all animal behavior evolved somehow and so self-interest must be involved, unless you want to bring some sort of creator god into the explanation. Like Graeber's distorted view of Apple's history, I suspect he knew very little of evolutionary biology.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        Birds have been seen playing too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WupH8oyrAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WupH8oyrAo
  - bitwize 3y ago
    I think you're cutting to the heart of why fun is even a thing. We do fun things, and find them fun, because they help us mentally prepare for critical real-world scenarios. We don't know this going in, but it feels good and we reap the benefits. Just like adults find sex pleasurable so they have the urge to do it and reproduce, children and adults find play pleasurable so they have the urge to do it and build up our brains. Like, armed conflict isn't fun unless you're a psychopath (in which case militaries are probably very interested in recruiting you). But a de-risked simulation of armed conflict -- anything from chess to sportsball to a modern FPS -- is an almost archetypal fun activity. This is something to keep in mind when considering the ruinous effects of the removal of recess and free play from American schools.
    - micromacrofoot 3y ago
      This is a reasonable and somewhat popular theory but evidence to support it is harder to find than you might imagine. People have spent their entire lives studying animal behavior and still don't have much more than a shrug to show for evidence supporting play as a survival or evolutionary mechanism. Some play does look like hunting (cat and dog owners will notice this), but there's a good amount that also doesn't align with anything else an animal regularly does.
Waterluvian 3y ago
I have a hard time with the study of history. Often it feels self-serving to make exciting and interesting-to-study claims. But I imagine the overwhelming majority of the time, the actual explanations for things are mundane. Swings are fun and are a technology that have been enabled for a very long time.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  I think what you're describing is archaeology. History is more of a scholarly endeavor while archeology is the one digging up sites and trying to explain things without context from contemporary writings.
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    Kind of, yeah! I definitely feel it strongly with archaeology. But let me posit this: The further back into history you go, the harder it is to definitively figure out what, where, why, when, how. And the larger the blind spot, the easier it is to get creative with your explanations. Ie. it's a function of time. And archaeology is the study of history from a long time ago.
chongli 3y ago
Ritual /= ceremonial. Lots of people have rituals just for fun. The morning coffee ritual is one. Another common ritual is when athletes get ready for a game, but ritual need not be accompanied by superstition or indeed any belief whatsoever. There are all sorts of rituals embedded in children’s play. Has anyone played “red rover”? [1] Heck, even video games and indeed computer use in general are full of rituals. The “three-finger salute” of control-alt-delete is a classic one. I see this mistake made a lot on HN (and elsewhere). The term ritual connotes solemn religious practice but it doesn’t strictly mean that anymore. Language evolves! And in academic historical and archaeological contexts, the secular use of ritual pervades as a term of art (and may actually be a major contributor to the relaxation of the term in an etymological sense). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rover Edit: how could I forget?! The birthday party! Long devoid of religion (at least for most people in the west), the birthday party, complete with song and candle-blow, is one of the most storied (and dreaded) rituals of all!
- now__what 3y ago
  This may be true from a strictly linguistic standpoint, but is this what historians mean by "ritual?"
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Yes. For an overview of how "ritual" is used in the social sciences-- https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/jschroeder/Publications/Hobson%20et%20al%20Psychology%20of%20Rituals.pdf https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/jschroeder/Publications/Ho... or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423255/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423255/ As the grandparent points out, ritual literally/etymologically does mean a religious practice, but the use of ritual as metaphor in broader context in academic writing is weakening the religious portion of the meaning.
    - gjm11 3y ago
      The first linked paper defines a ritual as "(a) predefined sequences that are characterized by rigidity, formality and repetition that are (b) embedded in a larger system of symbolism and meaning, but (c) contain elements that lack direct instrumental purpose". Doing ctrl-alt-delete to get the attention of a Windows computer certainly fits (a) but it doesn't fit (b) without a considerable stretch and it doesn't fit (c) at all. (The second linked paper quotes the first paper's definition, or something basically indistinguishable from it; the paper itself isn't about saying what rituals are, it's about exploring why they exist. Very little of what it says about that is applicable to ctrl-alt-delete.) It's absolutely true that "ritual" doesn't just mean religious ritual. But it's also not as broad as "anything that people repeatedly do in more or less the same way".
defaultcompany 3y ago
For a great satire of this tendency see David Macaulay's amazing graphic book Motel of Mysteries[1] where a motel is unburied thousands of years in the future and everything in it is classified as part of some ceremonial burial rite. 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdLit/comments/sy8pt2/motel_of_mysteries_by_macaulay_david_a_satirical/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdLit/comments/sy8pt2/motel_of_m...
- lapetitejort 3y ago
  I'm probably speaking to the choir here, but the novel A Canticle for Leibowitz [0] involves a monastery that forms around an electrical engineer's design documents. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    It was a lot more than just his design documents. There were enough technical books stashed that it took centuries for the survivors to work through (and saved them centuries re-climbing the tech ladder as they did).
7952 3y ago
I agree, although to be fair magical thinking was often the only explanation people had for why things happened. It is inexplicable now because we have much better explanations. So an element of ceremony may have been mixed into other things like fun. And we still hold onto things like that which have an element of pleasure or fun whilst having some other abstract ideas. Just look at Easter or Christmas.

by causi 3y ago

Historians always think everyone from more than a century ago was a dour fun-hating worker drone. Everything that existed just because it was fun or cool gets classified as "ceremonial".

msandford 3y ago

If you don't know what fun is, having fun is the same as a ceremony. It's some dumb thing rubes do because "nobody knows why!"

micromacrofoot 3y ago
You see a similar phenomenon in ethology, the reason many animals "play" is a mystery but there are all sorts of loose explanations like "helps train to hunt" that are probably too quick to dismiss the idea that maybe some things simply feel good.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Those could very well be the same thing. Evolution makes it so that the things which help us survive and reproduce feel like fun. I suspect all of our emotional responses are driven by evolution, and are really our top level instruction on how to live. Then afterwards we come up with rationalizations why we do the things we do.
- Martinussen 3y ago
  Isn't making things feel good/hurt the way we are pushed towards stuff like training to hunt by evolution, though?
- cyber_kinetist 3y ago
  Reminds me of the essay "Whats the Point If We Can’t Have Fun?" by David Graeber (https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-hav...): "Generally speaking, an analysis of animal behavior is not considered scientific unless the animal is assumed, at least tacitly, to be operating according to the same means/end calculations that one would apply to economic transactions. Under this assumption, an expenditure of energy must be directed toward some goal, whether it be obtaining food, securing territory, achieving dominance, or maximizing reproductive success—unless one can absolutely prove that it isnt, and absolute proof in such matters is, as one might imagine, very hard to come by. I must emphasize here that it doesn’t really matter what sort of theory of animal motivation a scientist might entertain: what she believes an animal to be thinking, whether she thinks an animal can be said to be “thinking” anything at all. I' m not saying that ethologists actually believe that animals are simply rational calculating machines. I' m simply saying that ethologists have boxed themselves into a world where to be scientific means to offer an explanation of behavior in rational terms—which in turn means describing an animal as if it were a calculating economic actor trying to maximize some sort of self-interest—whatever their theory of animal psychology, or motivation, might be. That’s why the existence of animal play is considered something of an intellectual scandal. It' s understudied, and those who do study it are seen as mildly eccentric. As with many vaguely threatening, speculative notions, difficult-to-satisfy criteria are introduced for proving animal play exists, and even when it is acknowledged, the research more often than not cannibalizes its own insights by trying to demonstrate that play must have some long-term survival or reproductive function."
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    This is really good, thank you for sharing it.
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    "Animal "play" isn't any sort of "scandal" -- we know that many young animals "play" by fighting with each other -- this is obviously good training for their adult lives. At the end of the day, all animal behavior evolved somehow and so self-interest must be involved, unless you want to bring some sort of creator god into the explanation. Like Graeber's distorted view of Apple's history, I suspect he knew very little of evolutionary biology.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      Birds have been seen playing too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WupH8oyrAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WupH8oyrAo
- bitwize 3y ago
  I think you're cutting to the heart of why fun is even a thing. We do fun things, and find them fun, because they help us mentally prepare for critical real-world scenarios. We don't know this going in, but it feels good and we reap the benefits. Just like adults find sex pleasurable so they have the urge to do it and reproduce, children and adults find play pleasurable so they have the urge to do it and build up our brains. Like, armed conflict isn't fun unless you're a psychopath (in which case militaries are probably very interested in recruiting you). But a de-risked simulation of armed conflict -- anything from chess to sportsball to a modern FPS -- is an almost archetypal fun activity. This is something to keep in mind when considering the ruinous effects of the removal of recess and free play from American schools.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    This is a reasonable and somewhat popular theory but evidence to support it is harder to find than you might imagine. People have spent their entire lives studying animal behavior and still don't have much more than a shrug to show for evidence supporting play as a survival or evolutionary mechanism. Some play does look like hunting (cat and dog owners will notice this), but there's a good amount that also doesn't align with anything else an animal regularly does.

Waterluvian 3y ago

I have a hard time with the study of history. Often it feels self-serving to make exciting and interesting-to-study claims. But I imagine the overwhelming majority of the time, the actual explanations for things are mundane. Swings are fun and are a technology that have been enabled for a very long time.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
I think what you're describing is archaeology. History is more of a scholarly endeavor while archeology is the one digging up sites and trying to explain things without context from contemporary writings.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Kind of, yeah! I definitely feel it strongly with archaeology. But let me posit this: The further back into history you go, the harder it is to definitively figure out what, where, why, when, how. And the larger the blind spot, the easier it is to get creative with your explanations. Ie. it's a function of time. And archaeology is the study of history from a long time ago.

chongli 3y ago

Ritual /= ceremonial. Lots of people have rituals just for fun. The morning coffee ritual is one. Another common ritual is when athletes get ready for a game, but ritual need not be accompanied by superstition or indeed any belief whatsoever. There are all sorts of rituals embedded in children’s play. Has anyone played “red rover”? [1] Heck, even video games and indeed computer use in general are full of rituals. The “three-finger salute” of control-alt-delete is a classic one. I see this mistake made a lot on HN (and elsewhere). The term ritual connotes solemn religious practice but it doesn’t strictly mean that anymore. Language evolves! And in academic historical and archaeological contexts, the secular use of ritual pervades as a term of art (and may actually be a major contributor to the relaxation of the term in an etymological sense). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rover Edit: how could I forget?! The birthday party! Long devoid of religion (at least for most people in the west), the birthday party, complete with song and candle-blow, is one of the most storied (and dreaded) rituals of all!

now__what 3y ago
This may be true from a strictly linguistic standpoint, but is this what historians mean by "ritual?"
- mlyle 3y ago
  Yes. For an overview of how "ritual" is used in the social sciences-- https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/jschroeder/Publications/Hobson%20et%20al%20Psychology%20of%20Rituals.pdf https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/jschroeder/Publications/Ho... or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423255/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423255/ As the grandparent points out, ritual literally/etymologically does mean a religious practice, but the use of ritual as metaphor in broader context in academic writing is weakening the religious portion of the meaning.
  - gjm11 3y ago
    The first linked paper defines a ritual as "(a) predefined sequences that are characterized by rigidity, formality and repetition that are (b) embedded in a larger system of symbolism and meaning, but (c) contain elements that lack direct instrumental purpose". Doing ctrl-alt-delete to get the attention of a Windows computer certainly fits (a) but it doesn't fit (b) without a considerable stretch and it doesn't fit (c) at all. (The second linked paper quotes the first paper's definition, or something basically indistinguishable from it; the paper itself isn't about saying what rituals are, it's about exploring why they exist. Very little of what it says about that is applicable to ctrl-alt-delete.) It's absolutely true that "ritual" doesn't just mean religious ritual. But it's also not as broad as "anything that people repeatedly do in more or less the same way".

defaultcompany 3y ago

For a great satire of this tendency see David Macaulay's amazing graphic book Motel of Mysteries[1] where a motel is unburied thousands of years in the future and everything in it is classified as part of some ceremonial burial rite. 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdLit/comments/sy8pt2/motel_of_mysteries_by_macaulay_david_a_satirical/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdLit/comments/sy8pt2/motel_of_m...

lapetitejort 3y ago
I'm probably speaking to the choir here, but the novel A Canticle for Leibowitz [0] involves a monastery that forms around an electrical engineer's design documents. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  It was a lot more than just his design documents. There were enough technical books stashed that it took centuries for the survivors to work through (and saved them centuries re-climbing the tech ladder as they did).

7952 3y ago

I agree, although to be fair magical thinking was often the only explanation people had for why things happened. It is inexplicable now because we have much better explanations. So an element of ceremony may have been mixed into other things like fun. And we still hold onto things like that which have an element of pleasure or fun whilst having some other abstract ideas. Just look at Easter or Christmas.