What our world has become.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, June 29, 2026 21:34
VIEWED: 23059
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

RUE

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:36 PM

Very interesting post which, as always, gives me a lot to consider.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:10 PM

Well, HK, in the first place, I wish you would have given me the dignity of talking to me, like an adult, rather than about me, like a child. You decry many of the remarks I made, and yet you show me absolutely no respect? Come on, how am I not supposed to be offended by that alone? The fact that you talked about me and Khyron and AgentRouka instead of to any of us makes me think that you're less interested in actual dialogue than you are with conversing with people who already agree with you. And for someone who prides himself on his ability to think clearly and make his own judgments, your startling disinclination to even talk to people who disagree with you is just sad.

As for your remarks, I wish that you would have reacted more cognitively and less emotionally because very little of what you said actually responded to what I was saying. Most of it was reaction to what you thought I was saying, and I wish that you'd taken the time to figure that out. But in the second place, you did give a sterling example of the sort of sneering that I was talking about, and for that I suppose I should be grateful. So let me try to respond a little to your post.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, we could sneer about "what our world has become" or we could try to examine it phenomenologically, like Weingarten did. Is it that these people are fools? Or was there some validity to the art-without-a-frame thing? Seriously, we're conditioned to register street musicians as annoying presences and move along.

Okay, stop right there, seriously. We are "conditioned?" Who or what is conditioning us? Who or what has taken away Causal's ability to make his own judgements about what is and is not annoying? "Causal" indeed!

If you think that culture doesn't exert an extremely powerful influence on the way that people think about and process things, I suggest you may have another think coming. Nearly everyone, I think, will say, "Yes, that's true, but not in my case!" because I think most people don't like the idea that culture has made an impact on the way they perceive and think about things. But I believe that that's just the case. If you deny that, feel free to make an argument for why that's not the case, but please don't just insult me. That's called an ad hominem fallacy: you attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself. Because I really do think it's the case that for most people, context plays a huge part in how they process their environment. And because typically a subway station isn't the context for fine art, they tune it out. Don't make it right, necessarily, but I do think that that's true. Have you got a counter-argument that doesn't involve an insult on my mental faculties?

Quote:
Originally posted by HK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:That sort of environment is the one where people see a musician and say, "Homeless schill wanting my money" and then walk right by.

I'd want to know who the heck Causal is talking about when he says "people" but there's evidence all over this thread of exactly who he's talking about.

Where did all this contempt for street musicians come from?

Again, as with my comment above, what I was trying to get at was context. Music is phenomenologically different in a subway station than in a concert hall (and when I say "phenomenologicall" I mean the total experience of it, not just the music as such). And I do think that our culture conditions people to have certain expectations of the phenomenon of music in a subway station, and certain other ones of music in a concert hall (or open-air park, or bar, or wherever). Again, if you disagree that it's phenomenologically different in different contexts, you're free to argue that. But don't accuse me, personally, of having contempt for street musicians as though that accusation makes me wrong about everything I've said. That's

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Listen: if pausing and listening to Bach in the subway for--what?--a minute and a half is going to get you fired, then your life--your actual life--is not running smoothly.

If you don't have an extra minute and a half to spare on any given morning, you're killing yourself.

If you were to be late to work that morning and you were to blame it on the minute you spent listening to the musician, you'd be kidding yourself and your boss.

Here's the thing though, do we have to stop at EVERY SINGLE STREET MUSICIAN? Most of the people going by him lack the knowledge of classical music to recognize the skill he has so for most of the people there he's just another pretty good street musician.

If I'm 1 minute late I'm not going to get fired, but I don't pass by one street musician every day, I pass by dozens. If I devote a minute and a half to each one of them the time adds up quickly and I WILL get fired if I show up a half-hour late every day.

So who decides who I should stop and listen to? You? Should I get your phone number and call you every time I go by a street musician to ask if I should stop and listen? No. I make the decisions about which ones I should stop for, and I (probably) would not have stopped for him.

The problem is that people like you seem to think that there is some pressing reason why we SHOULD stop for every decent street musician and listen for a while. If you can explain why I should structure my life around street musicians please do as I'd love to hear your arguments.

RUE

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 9:22 PM

"People who can listen to the same artist play the same piece of music and enjoy it in the concert hall are probably many (if not most) of the same people who would have rushed right past Bell in the subway."

Though it seems that those who know music, especially the violin, where the ones who stopped.

I think the people who would fill a concert hall for that music would be a very small percentage of the overall population. It's possible the general population isn't as 'sophisticated' as the ad-hoc study presumed.

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 9:26 PM

But isn't it the case that the study just wanted to see if anyone would stop to hear a world-class musician? I'm not sure they were really interested in how many classical-music afficionados would stop.

And when I said that many (if not most) of the people in the concert were the ones that rushed by, what I meant were that those same types of people who would attend the concert would be the same types of people rushing off to work in the morning. The point is, one and the same person can hear one and the same piece of music in two different contexts, and the contexts will exert a pretty dramatic shaping influence on how the person reacts to the piece of music.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

CAUSAL

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The problem is that people like you seem to think that there is some pressing reason why we SHOULD stop for every decent street musician and listen for a while. If you can explain why I should structure my life around street musicians please do as I'd love to hear your arguments.

Right, exactly. It seems like a moral "ought" is being smuggled into the discussion. It seems like there's a presupposition that one has not just the option of stopping but an obligation of some sort. And of course, because it's on the presuppositional level, it's not being explicitly stated, just taken for granted. So when someone stops in and contradicts that notion, the argument isn't listened to because it's just being taken for grant that there is some sort of moral imperative at work.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:
If you think that culture doesn't exert an extremely powerful influence on the way that people think about and process things, I suggest you may have another think coming. Nearly everyone, I think, will say, "Yes, that's true, but not in my case!" because I think most people don't like the idea that culture has made an impact on the way they perceive and think about things. But I believe that that's just the case. If you deny that, feel free to make an argument for why that's not the case, but please don't just insult me. That's called an ad hominem fallacy: you attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself.

Causal I think you mis-perceive HK's argument. You miss the dialectic that culture makes the people... but people also make the culture. You become victim to a culture when you disavow any ability to change it.

Quote:
Music is phenomenologically different in a subway station than in a concert hall (and when I say "phenomenologicall" I mean the total experience of it, not just the music as such). And I do think that our culture conditions people to have certain expectations of the phenomenon of music in a subway station, and certain other ones of music in a concert hall (or open-air park, or bar, or wherever). Again, if you disagree that it's phenomenologically different in different contexts, you're free to argue that. But don't accuse me, personally, of having contempt for street musicians as though that accusation makes me wrong about everything I've said. That's the ad hominem fallacy all over again.

I don't know Weingarten, but I DO know that people are very 'contextual". Their experience of the music is different but the music itself remains the same. Is this a failure to differentiate between subjective and objective phenomena? Unfortunately smart people - politicians and advertizers- know the power of context and take full advantage of it. Being so contextual is one of our biggest weaknesses as thinking beings.

Quote:
if he took an Ellworth Kelly painting and removed it from its frame and hung it in a restaurant, the most it would get would be a second glance from another curator. Now why would that be? Because it's not altogether common for a restaurant to display a 5 million-dollar painting. Some environments arouse different expectations than others. I'd never expect to see a 5 million dollar painting at a flee market, for instance, so I'm not even looking for fine art there. But I do expect to see fine art when I go to the MOMA, so the way I look at things is different. Context matters. That was, in fact, a main point of discussion in the article.

I don't think "context" matters as much as previous exposure and knowledge.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 11:51 PM

"It seems like a moral "ought" is being smuggled into the discussion."

I think that was the point of the article. Not in the sense that we ought to be 'better' individuals, but that we ought to look at our society which creates the context.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Causal I think you mis-perceive HK's argument. You miss the dialectic that culture makes the people... but people also make the culture. You become victim to a culture when you disavow any ability to chage it. Again, as with my comment above, what I was trying to get at was context.

You make an excellent point. There really is a dialectic going on. The old sociological question is: do people make culture or does culture make people? I think the answer is: yes, both. So what interests me, working off your post is this: does the fact that people ignored Bell mean that something is wrong? Or not? I'd like to suggest that it's not as cut and dried as saying, "Change it!" I think that before we can really answer that question, we'd have to get an answer on the question of why people ignored him. And that's sort of been the bone I've had to pick with this thread: I don't think it's as simple as some inability to appreciate art, or some draining of compassion or zest for life. As with most things, it seems like the answer to the question of why Bell was ignored is going to more complex than a sound bite.

Quote:
I don't know Weingaten, but I DO know that people are very 'contextual". Their experience of the music is different but the music itself remains the same. Is this a failure to differentiate between subjective and objective phenomena? Unfortunately smart people - politicians and advertizers- know the power of context and take full advantage of it. Being so contextual is one of our biggest weaknesses as thinking beings.

Or you might look at it as a strength. One artificiality in our thinking is that things can be pulled from their context and set to the side to be considered on their own merits. Humans are hopelessly contextual. You can't not be contextual. I'm not sure it's as simple as saying something can be considered apart from its context on its own merits. Because the total experience just is the entire context. Pulling something out of it makes it not be what it is anymore. I think of it not as "Bell, playing in a subway station," but "Bell-playing-in-a-subway-station." I think to examine the thing phenomenologically, we have to let it stay in it's total context--because it's not just in a context, it is an integral part of the entire context as such.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:53 AM

I knew someone who knew someone ... who was a petroleum geologist by training and trade. And who was also someone who followed a creationist religion. On the one hand he would date strata as being so many million year old, on the other he believed the earth was only ~5000 years old.

The problem with rampant contextualism is that one can have a fractured approach to a single reality.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I knew someone who knew someone ... who was a petroleum geologist by training and trade. And who was also someone who followed a creationist religion. On the one hand he would date strata as being so many million year old, on the other he believed the earth was only ~5000 years old.

The problem with rampant contextualism is that one can have a fractured approach to a single reality.

Well, with all due respect to that guy, I'm a guy who believes in a "creationist" religion and who also believes that the earth is 4.5b years old and the universe is 14.5b years old. I happen to believe that truth is that which corresponds to what is actually the case. It seems pretty compelling that the earth is old so to hold a belief that doesn't correspond with reality isn't really very intellectually responsible. Of course, God's existence is still and open question, so I also happen to think that we should pursue the truth of that matter as well. /soapbox

Maybe the solution to what you describe as "rampant contextualism" is to recognize the3 singular context of reality.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 1:08 AM

I agree. But while his example is extreme (I truly wonder how he never put the two ideas side by side in his head) I've met many people who do similar things. Iraq - started on a lie but a justified war nonetheless. Or, to use SignyM's example, the US culture praises goodness but rewards greed. And so on.

Anyway, I have to go (family stuff), but I truly hope we all can discuss this further.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 1:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
(I truly wonder how he never put the two ideas side by side in his head)

Very simple, he probably believes that the world was created with "apparent age", meaning that those layers he was dating to millions and billions of years ago were actually only a few thousand years old but had the appropriate balance of isotopes to appear much older. This is the sort of mental gymnastics required to be a Young-Earth Creationist.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
So because you would have walked by this man - you are a better human being than those that say they wouldn't? They are lying? Or self righteous?

Well, I'm not sure where you might have gotten that impression, but thanks for the accusations.

I'm not saying I'm better than the people who would stop. I'm just saying I'm not worse. And this thread (at least, when I wrote my initial post) had an awful lot of sneering about the people who would have walked. So my point was not that I'm better than others, but that I'm not worse. You've got the time and the loose change to stop and appreciate? Good for you. But don't look down on me for choosing not to.

And I'm quite sure that most of those who claim they would have stopped aren't lying. But a goodly number have been self-righteous about it--as if their choice is somehow morally superior to mine. And it's that implication that I resent. I think I have the freedom to be entertained at a place and a time of my choosing, especially if I have somewhere else to be. I don't want people acting as though I'm somehow a soulless robot because my choice would have been to keep walking.

Quote:
Casual, I always stop to listen, I always drop a little change and I always put money in a beggars hand. That is who I am and what I do, doesn't make me better than anyone else and doesn't make me self righteous either.

Not saying it does. I'm not sure exactly why you're taking me completely personally. I'm not suggesting that everyone who has said "I'd stop" is a self-righteous prig, and I'd appreciate it if you would recognize that that's not the case. But I don't always stop, and don't always drop change, and don't always put money in a beggar's hand. And that doesn't make me a monster. So perhaps what you're really saying is, "I'm not self-righteous!" to which I reply, "I know; I never said you were." And what I'm really saying is, "I'm not a soulless bastard!" To which I await your reply.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

As I am sure you know I do not think you are a soulless bastard. Quite the opposite. But, at the same time when you make a broad statement that "there is a lot of self-righteousess comin of this thread" you imply that anyone that doesn't agree with you is self-righteous. I simply choose to point out that in saying that, well it makes you sound as if you are. Slippery slope my friend. At some point in the next 500 years or so we have GOT to stop making personal attacks in these threads. I would hold my breath, but then I would die. "crap:

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

MARINA

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:40 AM

There was n article in the NY times about Marcus Ross, a creationist paleontologist.

I don't know how to split a link ( sorry!), but here's the intro:

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
As I am sure you know I do not think you are a soulless bastard. Quite the opposite.

Thanks for saying. Sorry I got touchy.

Quote:
But, at the same time when you make a broad statement that "there is a lot of self-righteousess comin of this thread" you imply that anyone that doesn't agree with you is self-righteous. I simply choose to point out that in saying that, well it makes you sound as if you are.

I'm don't think that I can agree with the notion that my statement implies what you think it does, but I'm sorry I made you feel that way.

Quote:
At some point in the next 500 years or so we have GOT to stop making personal attacks in these threads. I would hold my breath, but then I would die.

Don't do that! Who'd bestow titles??

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 5:33 AM

from the article:

"For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

Either he has a serious fractures in his view of reality, or he's a hypocrite comfortable with pretending to be a scientist.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 10:05 AM

Back to contextualization: Rue once gave this example of even animals being able to abstract from experience: If animals couldn't abstract from context, then each appearance of (say) water- in a bowl, a puddle, falling from the sky, in a stream- would lead to a whole welter of questions each and every instance: Do I fight it? Mate with it? Avoid it? Eat it?

Somehow they are able to abstract a generalized feature (water) from its context. I concluded from this example that the real function of brains is to be able to abstract a general principle from a welter of details (context).

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Back to contextualization: Rue once gave this example of even animals being able to abstract from experience: If animals couldn't abstract from context, then each appearance of (say) water- in a bowl, a puddle, falling from the sky, in a stream- would lead to a whole welter of questions each and every instance: Do I fight it? Mate with it? Avoid it? Eat it?
.

Who say they don't? Water in a river is a whole different experience than water in a puddle and I think an animal would indeed contemplate before acting. Avoid or drink, definitely.

But if the animal didn't naturally view water in context, it would ask those questions any time it encountered water at all. The same puddle, the same questions, every day.

No one says the ability to break away from context isn't there, but even that requires a certain context: the will to do so. We pay attention to what is already familiar because we want to pay attention, not because we are compelled to do so. Familiarity breeds safety and inattention. That's what frees us up to focus on particular things for any length of time at all.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

I believe the literal truth of the Bible, too. But there's some contention on what's meant to be read literally, literally-concretely, and figuratively. For instance, where it says Jesus will return with a sword in his mouth--surely that's figurative, right? So what else might be? Or take the 10,000 year thing. That's predicated on a particular reading of a Hebrew word with not one but three literal definitions.

And just to keep us all honest, let's not play epistemological imperialism with the scientific method. That just follows logical positivism, which fell out of vogue 50 years ago (due, I might add, to an abysmal failure to defend its first principles).

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Here's the thing though, do we have to stop at EVERY SINGLE STREET MUSICIAN? Most of the people going by him lack the knowledge of classical music to recognize the skill he has so for most of the people there he's just another pretty good street musician.

If I'm 1 minute late I'm not going to get fired, but I don't pass by one street musician every day, I pass by dozens. If I devote a minute and a half to each one of them the time adds up quickly and I WILL get fired if I show up a half-hour late every day.

So who decides who I should stop and listen to? You? Should I get your phone number and call you every time I go by a street musician to ask if I should stop and listen? No. I make the decisions about which ones I should stop for, and I (probably) would not have stopped for him.

The problem is that people like you seem to think that there is some pressing reason why we SHOULD stop for every decent street musician and listen for a while. If you can explain why I should structure my life around street musicians please do as I'd love to hear your arguments.

Hey Fred,

did you read the final paragraph of my post? The one that goes like this:

Quote:
And just to be clear: were I there, I may or may not have stopped to listen based upon my own judgement in the moment. I would blame no one but myself if I missed out on some great music. Whether or not people would stop, doesn't interest me. Why we think we do the things we do, the amount of personal responsibility we, each of us, take for "what our world has become" is of the utmost importance to us all.

"Whether or not people would stop, doesn't interest me." Not once did I say that anyone should have stopped to listen to the violinist. Not once. Nor did I imply it.

My beef was with the absurd 5th grade excuses people were making for not stopping (and more importantly, though you didn't have anything to say about it, the contempuous language people were using to describe street musicians; the implications of such language in terms of free will and the search for beauty). My concern is with people being able to take personal responsibility for their actions and their choices without scapegoating "societal pressure" or "my boss" or "capitalism," etc.

There seems to be an awful lot of guilt and embarrassment (hence the many silly excuses made in this thread) on the part of folks who wouldn't have stopped (guilt and embarrassment, therefore, over a hypothetical--people, isn't life too short to be making up situations to be embarrassed about?).

It bothers me, actually, that adults like yourself would lend credence to an argument that you should have stopped to listen to a street musician during rush hour in the subway.

It drives me (rhetorically) crazy that you read a post in which I extol free will and personal responsibility and you think I'd want to dictate your actions in any goddamn way!

Here's my first and only law then, as Dictator of the World:

LIVE YOU'RE OWN LIFE AND DON'T MAKE EXCUSES! VIOLATORS WILL BE MISERABLE!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:13 PM

No one says the ability to break away from context isn't there, but even that requires a certain context: the will to do so.

Context-free categories are a result of something akin to fuzzy logic which happens in brains* whether it's willed or not. (* birds, mammals, probably reptiles and possibly others)

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:20 PM

It's true that society creates people and people create society. People create society by the stories they tell themselves. If you want a different society you need to tell yourself different stories.

HKC - I remember when I was young and I read about the murder of 'Kitty' Genovese. I vowed to try to never be like those 38 witnesses who watched and did nothing, like the Germans who just followed orders at the death camps, like the subjects who turned up the 'electricity' until they 'killed' the trainee. I hoped, and hope, never to go along just because everyone else was doing it, or it was expected, or it's what I always did. I have to say it's tough, trying to come to a personal non-habituated response.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Whether or not people would stop, doesn't interest me." Not once did I say that anyone should have stopped to listen to the violinist. Not once. Nor did I imply it.

Sorry then. The problem is that you are seeming to jump in on the side of the people who do insist that we should have stopped and listened.

Quote:
My beef was with the absurd 5th grade excuses people were making for not stopping...My concern is with people being able to take personal responsibility for their actions and their choices without scapegoating "societal pressure" or "my boss" or "capitalism," etc.

I really don't see what you are trying to say here, you are saying that because I don't want to be late for work because of the potential consequences that I'm trying to scapegoat the system? That's a bit of a stretch, it seems like you have a preconceived notion of what the answer SHOULD be and since we aren't giving you the answer you expect that there's something wrong with us. I don't see how you can see not wanting to get fired as scapegoating the system.

Quote:
(and more importantly, though you didn't have anything to say about it, the contempuous language people were using to describe street musicians; the implications of such language in terms of free will and the search for beauty)

You don't need to preach to me about this, my opinion is that they are sometimes annoying (see my previous post about the stoners drumming outside my office building), but that there is nothing inherently wrong about what they do.

Quote:
There seems to be an awful lot of guilt and embarrassment (hence the many silly excuses made in this thread) on the part of folks who wouldn't have stopped

I don't see where you are getting either of these, I for one don't see any reason at all to be guilty or embarrassed about saying that I probably wouldn't have stopped, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

Quote:
It bothers me, actually, that adults like yourself would lend credence to an argument that you should have stopped to listen to a street musician during rush hour in the subway.

I don't, which is why it's annoying when it seems that argument is made.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Or consider this unfortunate victim of art:

Why so huffy? Can you stay calm, please? And if you have something to say to me, why not say it to me instead of trumping me around as a bad example? Rude, much?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
With a musician on the street, their art is pushed onto you, whether you're in a frame of mind to receive it or not. It's like a child demanding your attention - and then asking for your money. *Snap* Appreciate on demand - or you have the wrong priorities? Some enjoy that, but some don't. Many don't.

I gotta wonder what bizarre clauterphobic distopia these folks live in that they feel street music is "pushed onto" them. Good god, what about the birds that sing and the sunsets every last night of the week? Thrust upon us without our say-so! Oh, the misery!

Let me reply while trying to ignore your really aggressive language. (I'm judging you for that, btw.)

I was talking about it in terms of attention - the attention it is implied SHOULD be paid to them, in terms of stopping or paying them money. Many people didn't do either for Bell, and people somehow find that noteworthy. Why? Because apparently people SHOULD have stopped.

I disagree. It's a choice.

It's not the music that bothers me, it's the hypocrisy of saying that it's a choice and then finding it oh so troublesome that people chose not to stop.

You say that we are defensive and use "excuses" for our "behavior" but you don't admit to the judgment inherent in your own position. It may not be a moral one, but it's still a judgment. "Droid" has been implied.

I like most street musicians, but it's still a bid for one's attention, not something sought out. Maybe "pushed" was a strong word to use, but it's applicable.

Quote:

And this insinuation that street musicians demand money! What, indeed, has our world become when people perceive the passive invitation of a violin case open at the feet of a musician as a demand thrust upon them? It's as if the simple presence of the artist offends these people! Oh, wait...

Oh, right. The presence of the artist offends me. That must be it.

I did not say that "demand money". I said they demand attention - or rather, the people who keep being astounded that people didn't stop for Bell are demanding that we pay them attention.

I said they ask for money.

Some street musicians are so painfully bad and play with so little motivation that - indeed - the only reason they can be doing this is the coin-littered hat at their feet.

No, not all of them ask money. I may have over-generalized, because I was exaggerating to make my point about attention. But some do ask for money.

You really took this quite personally, geez. All of this could have been said with a lot less arrogant snippiness.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Our society works because it is based on precision. People being in certain places, doing certain things at very certain times. In between that we're supposed to fit our lives, families and sleep.

Does it rob us of certain freedoms and is that sad? Yes. But with as many people as we are, inparticular concentrated in one place in big cities, it's probably the only way to keep things running smoothly.

All this sacrifice in the name of that holy grail of modern control-freak culture: "running smoothly." What in this world that matters, seriously now, runs smoothly?

I said society, not culture.

It may not matter to you, but I consider emergency rooms to be a better place in the world when nurses and doctors are on time to take over shifts for their coworkers. I consider any workplace better for the courtesy we pay each other by being on time and doing our job. (Not, not the company or my boss - my coworkers, people I spend 8 hours a day with. People who are nearly friends.)

I like when repair people come when they said they would,

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 6:56 PM

"Yet people keep calling it "sad" and ask what has become of the world."

But it's a valid question.

Why is it people haven't learned about classical music? Why is it enough people haven't learned to play any instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing? Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby? Why is it an (apparent) lack of money is akin to being a leper, such that people not only didn't stop for a second or two, they didn't even turn and look in acknowledgment.

The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU? It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Is it ?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:27 PM

I wonder how many people lamented the lost art of cave painting during the Renaissance?

Posting to stir stuff up.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But it's a valid question.

I'll answer these for myself YMMV

Quote:
Why is it people haven't learned about classical music?

Couple reasons, first to appreciate classical music you can't take it in 4 minute cuts like you can with most other styles, I am not a big enough music buff to dedicate a half-hour to 2 hours to what is essentially one extremely long song. This is why I'm not big on the idea of concept albums for instance. Second, a lot of the people who are into classical music come across as pretentious asses so the culture of classical music isn't always welcoming IMO.

Quote:
Why is it enough people haven't learned to play any instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing?

I did, I'm sure that the classical musicians here will probably scoff, but I took Bass lessons for a while and I recognize the amount of work it takes to get good at even a relatively simple instrument as the Bass (I was pretty good at playing but I sucked at composing). But that in no way means that I should automatically pay complete attention to everyone who plays well. Consider, Kerry King is an excellent guitar player, but if you put a recording of him playing on in a room full of classical music snobs they'd probably freak out and kill the CD player, why? because they don't like it, not because it isn't technically skilled.

Quote:
Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby?

The only real answer I can give here is the one that's come up repeatedly, after spending enough time having street musicians on all sides you eventually learn to tune them out completely. Is it right? maybe not, but just like everything else in life, when you are exposed repeatedly to something you get inured to it. Perhaps if music was rare and difficult to obtain things would be different, but in our world you can listen to music 24\7 with ease.

Quote:
Why is it an (apparent) lack of money is akin to being a leper, such that people not only didn't stop for a second or two, they didn't even turn and look in acknowledgment.

I don't think that this was actually the issue, there's a couple of people on this thread who've mentioned feeling like this but I think most people don't think street musician=homeless vagrant, I know I don't see it that way.

In a broader sense I think that we as a society have been conditioned to believe that if someone is down on their luck that they probably had something to do with it, be it drugs, gambling, bad business decisions etc. So we as a society connect homelessness with personal weakness which isn't usually valid (many of the homeless people are ex-soldiers who couldn't re-adjust to civilian life ala Rambo in First Blood (not the blood and guts sequels)).

Quote:
The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU?

Unfortunately that's the way it comes across

Quote:
It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Meh, there are a lot of changes that I would like to make and I suspect that there are other societies that match the way I think things should be better, but all in all it not bad enough for me to leave...yet.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Yet people keep calling it "sad" and ask what has become of the world."

But it's a valid question.

You know, just to say this up front, I do not say that our world right now is perfect at is it.

I just really vehemently disagree that the Bell experiment is in any way a valid indicator for that. At all.

The experiment has more to do with human nature than it does with the flaws of society.

I have a long list of things I would like to change about the world, but I doubt that in my perfect utopia people would have stopped for Bell in a noticably higher number.

Quote:

Why is it people haven't learned about classical music? Why is it enough people haven't learned to play an instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing?

If I read this right, people should all be taught to play an instrument and learn enough about classical music in order to arrive at the preferred level to recognize the distinguishing amount of Bell's talent on the particular instrument violin in the first place.

Since I don't know how high that level is, how easily attainable, I honestly can't say if that's a reasonable approach or a haughty one. I know that not everyone is musically inclined, even though that number is smaller than the number of people who tend to not find out.

Neutrally speaking, I'm not against giving children greater access to creating music. It's on my list.

You could teach everyone the practical and theoretical bits necessary to recognize art in all its forms (because, why favor one over the other), and whenever someone decided to try the Bell experiment, crowds would gather and they would recognize the true talent among them. If they want.

I'm not against that, at all.

I just don't think that this current lack of specialized knowledge is hurting people's ability to enjoy life very much right now. They might enjoy music on a more "shallow" level, but they do enjoy it. Dance to it. Listen to it. Write teen-angsty Mary-Sue song fic to it.

And if they wanted, they could learn more already.

Can it be better? Yes. Is the status quo horrible and worth weeping over because people are sad victims? No. Not to me, anyway.

Quote:

Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby?

Maybe they were preoccupied writing Gilmore Girls fanfiction in their heads. Maybe they were imagining how to break up with their boyfriend. Maybe they were contemplating the Iraq situation. Maybe they were imagining biting into the snickers bar in their pocket.

I think it is very easy to be preoccupied. I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. The more things we are surrounded by, the less we can focus on, and in a city, being preoccupied strikes me as a self-defense against overstimulation, which would be stressful.

To me, it seems entirely natural. Not always to our advantage, but not inherently harmful, either.

Quote:

The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU? It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Is it ?

If the only thing wrong with society was what the Bell experiment touched upon? Yes.

I care about different things, such as combining working and parenthood in a harmonious way, moving away from punishing criminals toward turning them into something that's not a threat upon release, the question of how screwed up our relationship with love and sex and its combination can be, how much we judge and make each other miserable...

I'm not saying that human artistic expression and reception and questioning our immediate environment isn't necessary and important. But it's much lower on my list of what is wrong about the world I live in.

I don't think art is as endangered as Bell's experiment makes it seem. Art should reach its audience on account of itself, and if Bell's music couldn't, maybe it's not the right mediu

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:25 AM

Ask the larger questions. Mine were only a starting point. Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not. Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? Do we WANT a society that can't place a value on things unless there's a dollar sign on it? And so on.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Why is it people haven't learned about classical music? Why is it enough people haven't learned to play any instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing? Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby? Why is it an (apparent) lack of money is akin to being a leper, such that people not only didn't stop for a second or two, they didn't even turn and look in acknowledgment.

The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU? It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Is it ?

Pretty much.

Of course I don’t think I know anyone who looks at people with an apparent “lack of money” as "lepers." I’m sure there are people like that, but they are the exception not the rule. And I don’t see any way of drawing such a conclusion about people in this article. As far as society is concerned vis-à-vis street performers, it seems to me that society allows people to play the violin in the street if they want, allows those who find something meaningful in the music to stop and enjoy it and those that don’t or have other more pressing issues, not to. And I like that too.

Lot’s of people listen to classical music, rue. I’m not one of them, but many do. And there are many, many choices of music. I don’t listen to them all. We live in time, when there is so much culture and entertainment that few will ever be able to experience it all or even want to. To attempt to develop an ear for all the different types of music or enjoy all the entertainment or experience all the culture that is available to us would become overburdening and completely defeat the purpose. Most people know about classical music and choose, for reason or another, not to pursue it. And I like that too.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:04 AM

People'e response reminds me a lot of the cab driver segment of TV Nation. When asked why they didn't pick up the Black man, the drivers said they 'didn't see him'.

But there's even more going on. People are visually oriented. That no one should look at the violinist as they passed by indicates more than being city-blase. They were avoiding looking.

Yes, buskers, pan-handlers, people shouting to themselves on the street - people look away.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ask the larger questions. Mine were only a starting point.

What I would enjoy, seeing as how you keep repeating these "open your mind" and "is this what you want" questions, a little more concrete ideas of what it is YOU want.

And, please, another example to draw your conclusions from than Bell, because this same situation could still have occured in a world with 2-hour lunches and 6-hour work days. Because it's not about the amount of free time or preoccupation with money, it's about the numer of people, the amount of stimuli available and the fact that even in a holiday world we would occasionally have reason to be precise in our timing.

Quote:
Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.

And you're drawing this conclusion how? And do you have any direction this is going? Because I don't think anyone is being actively prevented from appreciating classical music any more than they are prevented from enjoying any other cultural pursuit.
So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?

Quote:
Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? Do we WANT a society that can't place a value on things unless there's a dollar sign on it? And so on.

See, here you're losing me again, drawing these extreme conclusions from the experiment.

Do you honestly think this one incident is any indication on whether people are capable of enjoying pleasant moments? Or just your own personal idea of a pleasant moment?

I think that some people run themselves ragged out of ambition or greed or whatever. But I do not think that it's the majority at all. I think that the people who walked by Bell were happy and well-adjusted and that they walked by him not for "bad" reasons but for completely harmless ones.

If he's lying in a puddle of his own urine or blood or even just beer, babbling and confused, and no one pays him any mind - and that's something I can see happen, too - that is something worth talking about. That's something that raises complicated questions I consider to be relevant. (Such as, is there a right to be publically miserable and harmful to one's self?)

And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:09 AM

Quote:
What I would enjoy, seeing as how you keep repeating these "open your mind" and "is this what you want" questions, a little more concrete ideas of what it is YOU want.

Why does that matter? The point of the article was the question, not any one particular answer.

Quote:
And, please, another example to draw your conclusions from than Bell, because ... it's not about the amount of free time or preoccupation with money, it's about the numer of people, the amount of stimuli available and the fact that even in a holiday world we would occasionally have reason to be precise in our timing.

1,097 people passed by that day. Out of all those people, how many even turned to look at where the music was coming from? So in one sense, you are right. It's not about free time, because surely many could have spared a half-second glance.

Quote:
Rue: Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.
Agent: So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?

Didn't I say that ? I could have sworn ...

Quote:
Rue: Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? And so on.
Agent: See, here you're losing me again ... Do you honestly think this one incident is any indication on whether people are capable of enjoying pleasant moments? Or just your own personal idea of a pleasant moment?

Roughly 1000 walked by. Given when and where, that's roughly 1000 well fed, well housed, well educated, gainfully employed solid urban citizens - the achievement of urbanized society. That very few stopped, and almost no one apparently could spare a glance is, given the numbers, statistically significant. "... 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look." And this question ties into the next -

Quote:
I think that the people who walked by Bell were happy and well-adjusted and that they walked by him not for "bad" reasons but for completely harmless ones.

We agree. So the question is NOT (let's say this again) - what's wrong with those people, but rather - is that the normality we want to have?

Quote:
If he's lying in a puddle of his own urine or blood or even just beer, babbling and confused, and no one pays him any mind - that is something worth talking about. That's something that raises complicated questions I consider to be relevant. (Such as, is there a right to be publically miserable and harmful to one's self?)

Commonly the publically miserable and harmful to one's self is someone pushing a shopping cart down the sidewalk, or walking down the street mumbling and shouting. And yes, you'd walk by one of those every time. I'm guessing the difference in your mind between the noteworthy and ignorable is whether or not someone can stand up.

Quote:
And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.

The homeless and Bell draw the same response - purposeful ignorance. Given every instinct to turn and glance, people did, and do, not. That's something worth thinking about.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:10 PM

So now if I don’t listen to classical music, I hate homeless people? Wow, this moral imperative has really gone crazy. But I’ve already responded this particularly issue. As I said earlier:

"...I don’t feel any social requirement to pay panhandlers, in general. I pay a fair amount each month to local and national charities, several of which run, missions or shelters. If a street musician needed food, he could probably go to one of those shelters or get a real job."

Most homeless people suffer chronic drug addiction and mental illness. The truth is that homelessness is almost never as simple as an “(apparent) lack of money.” It is generally a product of an inability to function in society because of alcohol and drug abuse or several psychological and mental problems. I’ve dealt with both of these problems in my family and they can be daunting, if not virtually impossible to solve. In at least two cases that I know of it led to the family member becoming homeless, despite attempts to help him. Now if we were unable to prevent our own family members from becoming homeless, what is suppose to make me think I can provide any meaningful assistance to some stranger? So I don’t feel any need to provide personal assistance to homeless and I would caution other people in doing so as well, since not only will such assistance likely become drug money to further the problem, but it can be dangerous. Instead, I would suggest that you locate a charity or church and provide them with the assistance, which they will put to much better use through shelters and soup kitchens.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:59 PM

Finn,

I'm sorry for your family problems. While people in my family haven't had those problems (yet) I've personally known people who have. And yes, it's often an intractable problem.

If you read my post, I hope you'll notice that my point is that the same thing that makes people ignore buskers is the same thing that makes them ignore panhandlers or the homeless. The response to them is the same even though the situation is not.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:36 PM

Before I tackle your longer reply above...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

If you read my post, I hope you'll notice that my point is that the same thing that makes people ignore buskers is the same thing that makes them ignore panhandlers or the homeless. The response to them is the same even though the situation is not.

But how do you know it's the same thing?

Finn gave a pretty good, rational reasoning for why he doesn't pay much attention to homeless people or panhandlers, and I don't think that the same reason has him ignoring street musicians (if he does).

One is an awareness of not being able to help, anyway. The other probably has nothing to do with an impulse to help at all.

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:04 PM

The response is: I pretend not to see it b/c it's uncomfortable for me.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How many people do you think passed by that day. 500? 1000? 3000? Out of all those people, how many even turned to look at where the music was coming from? So in one sense, you are right. It's not about free time, because surely many could have spared a half-second glance.

It appears we agree that it's not about free time. I'm still, however, waiting to see a real point from you. One that is not "Ask questions!" because without an actual statement from you, this is just "Ask questions randomly!" Which can be fun, sure enough, but is less interesting to me.

Quote:

Quote:
Rue: Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.
Agent: So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?
Didn't I say that ? I could have sworn ...

You said "do WE want PEOPLE to". What a subset expects of the group. A "what should people do" floats in there.

I am asking what the individuals of the group want for themselves. A choice they are already free to make and are making.

Quote:

Given when and where, that's roughly 1000 well fed, well housed, well educated, gainfully employed solid urban citizens - the achievement of urbanized society. That very few stopped, and almost no one apparently could spare a glance is, given the numbers, statistically significant. And this question ties into the next -

Quote:
We agree. So the question is NOT (let's say this again) - what's wrong with those people, but rather - is that the normality we want to have?

And I keep asking WHY NOT? Your question implies a dissatisfaction with the current state of things. What is the actual problem that you perceive with people not stopping? What is the reason you keep asking us to ask?

You keep demanding questions, so why not offer up a statement or reason for once? A nice, actual exchange of opinions?
I swear, I am not going to accuse you of dictatorship ambitions if you merely committ to an idea of what kind of world YOU want to live in.

You don't say WHY the mere act of being preoccupied is supposedly harmful to people, except when you imply or outright assume that they were preoccupied by some kind of brainwashed need to increase their wealth unnecessarily, a presumably "unworthy" reason.

I say that this presumption is not justified. Can you allow for the option that they are actually preoccupied with positive things? Things concerning their lives that are not necessarily worthy of dismissal?

Quote:

And yes, you'd walk by one of those every time. I'm guessing the difference in your mind is whether or not someone can stand up.

Believe it or not, I consider acute danger a more pressing reason to pay attention than a healthy person's free choices. So yes, "standing up" or "not appearing ill/injured" are categories that my attention is filtered through.

Hell, it's already an entirely different visual stimulus. Attention snaps to those bearing the signs of physical distress and/or really abberrant and potentially dangerous behavior.

The difference here is: acute harm to people vs. no harm to people.

Quote:

Quote:
And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.

They draw the same response, I draw the same conclusion.

I consider that short-sighted.

Two different things can cause the same response.

Ignoring a street musician = at WORST an unhealthy preoccupation with one's trivial life problems. If one feels the need to judge. Harm only potentially done to oneself.

Ignoring an injured person = callous refusal to lend aid.

Do you really think that a street musician is the same ind of visual trigger as a person lying down or slumped over, which indeed rates as much more unusual within a safe and familiar environment?

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:08 PM

Who says that street musicians make people uncomfortable?

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:28 PM

Agent,

The more I considered the article, and the more people posted, the more interesting it got.

The article, if I read it correctly, wavers between several potential directions. One is that encountering a street musician is a moral choice as to what to do next; and/ or that people have a classical music appreciation deficiency; and/or a surfeit of busy-ness; and/ or that people don't recognize art without a frame.

HKC posted something that took my ideas in a different direction - it's not the choice per se, it's the reasons for that choice that are interesting. On reconsideration, all the reasons come down to - that's just not what we do in this society. We're too busy, too preoccupied, too inured, too scheduled, too tamed, and so, it's just something we don't do.

But on even further consideration, what I found interesting is that people didn't even glance. As I posted above, we are a highly visually oriented society. We look for the source of sound. And a glance is certainly not time-consuming. So what is the disincentive to, without breaking stride, turning around to look ?

And the reason people pretend not to see - why they override their instinct to glance - is that something makes them uncomfortable. The same way people drive past the homeless without turning to look, or walk past pan-handlers without turning to look, people will walk past a violinist 3 feet away without an instinctive, natural glance.

So I propose that all the 'reasons' - too busy, too scheduled etc - the reason why it's just not something we do in this society - come down to personal discomfort and the moral dilemma proposed above. And what does that personal discomfort hinge on? It's the apparent lack of money. Rather than value the skill, artistry, passion of the violinist he (or she) is judged on one single parameter - an apparent lack of money. And that makes us uncomfortable.

So, I don't know if I addressed your questions here, but these are my current musings on this topic.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The article, if I read it correctly, wavers between several potential directions. One is that encountering a street musician is a moral choice as to what to do next; and/ or that people have a classical music appreciation deficiency; and/or a surfeit of busy-ness; and/ or that people don't recognize art without a frame.

All of which are reasonable answers, NONE of which can be remotely proven. Given the experiment I don't see any way to draw a meaningful conclusion out of it, which is what people keep trying to do on this thread.

Quote:
On reconsideration, all the reasons come down to - that's just not what we do in this society. We're too busy, too preoccupied, too inured, too scheduled, too tamed, and so, it's just something we don't do.

But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far.

Quote:
So what is the disincentive to, without breaking stride, turning around to look ?

How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me? You can't be sure that the people in front of you will keep going the same speed and I would rather not bump into random people on the street if I don't have to, that's a recipe for unpleasantness.

Quote:
And the reason people pretend not to see - why they override their instinct to glance - is that something makes them uncomfortable.

Can you back this up? I mean the part about a street musician making people uncomfortable? They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way.

Quote:
people will walk past a violinist 3 feet away without an instinctive, natural glance.

I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc. would train people to keep their eyes forward as much as possible.

Quote:
So I propose that all the 'reasons' - too busy, too scheduled etc - the reason why it's just not something we do in this society - come down to personal discomfort and the moral dilemma proposed above.

Disagree, unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort (neither of which you have proved IMO).

Quote:
And what does that personal discomfort hinge on? It's the apparent lack of money.

BS, I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them and even then it's easy to be wrong. Most people in cities will interact with people of all monetary situations constantly so implying that someone without money makes us uncomfortable doesn't make much sense.

I'll agree that people ignore the homeless in a manner like that which you are applying here, but as Finn said most people are homeless for a reason and I for one try to stay out of other people problems when I'm not likely to be able to actually help. I'll toss a little change to a homeless guy now and then and if I'm in a good mood I'll buy them a little food (better than giving them money) but for the most part I just ignore them because as tragic as their situation may be it's still probably something that only they can fix.

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:46 PM

Sigh ...

I'm sorry but all this reads as so much blah blah Blah blah blah, blah blah.

"But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far." No one has even implied it except to say that it's instinctive to turn to look at the source of a sound. Don't believe me? Make a loud noise at work and see how many people look over.

"How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me?" So you never look at a poster on the wall? The sign on the tram? The hottie off to the left? Your suitpants to see if they got wet? I mean really, your comment is just ridiculous.

"They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way." They are a source of sound. The article talks about 6 minutes before a person, without breaking stride, GLANCING in the direction of ... not stopping, not turning, not even slowing down, just glancing over. Walling yourself off that way in an urban area is common in the US, it invovles an active suppression of an instinct to look in the direction of a sound.

"I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc." Again with the bogus argument. Give it a rest, already. It's like saying people are too inept to walk and chew gum at the same time. How about you go to a large Canadian city - say Toronto - and see how many people manage to walk and look around.

"unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort" What is the disincentive to glancing in someone's direction? You tell me.

"I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them" Then you are dumber than the average mugger.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:01 PM

Rue -

The thing I disagree with is the instinct argument you make.

Is it really instinctual to turn toward a sound that is not unfamiliar? We don't glance up at all birdsong we encounter. We don't glance at all traffic noise. We don't glance in the direction of every conversation we overhear.

I think that music, even life and a few feet away, is not unfamiliar enough to draw an instinctual glance. And even beautiful music is common enough to make people indifferent toward it as a phenomenon. It can and does become background noise unless we are sufficiently stimulated/choose to focus on it. You assume that there must be a reason NOT to look, but there is no reason TO look, either.

We are visual creatures, yes, but more so with actual visual stimuli. We can't always choose what draws our eye when it enters our field of vision, but we usually can choose to shift our field of vision toward something that stimulates us in another way. Or choose not to.

So.. there doesn't have to be some kind of moral dilemma or discomfort at play. It's not shame that has people not looking. It's indifference bred of familiarity and the option our brain gives us to categorize/prioritize input.

Not looking is no more a conscious decision than looking is.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far." No one has even implied it except to say that it's instinctive to turn to look at the source of a sound. Don't believe me? Make a loud noise at work and see how many people look over.

Right, because where I work we don't make loud noises, on the street musicians and other loud noises are the rule not the exception.

Quote:
"How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me?" So you never look at a poster on the wall? The sign on the tram? The hottie off to the left? Your suitpants to see if they got wet? I mean really, your comment is just ridiculous.

Like I keep saying there's nothing interesting or abnormal about a street musician, like agent said there's no incentive to look. Do I look at every poster? Every sign? No. Only the ones that catch my eye, the rest of the time I'm paying attention to where I'm going.

Quote:
"They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way." They are a source of sound. The article talks about 6 minutes before a person, without breaking stride, GLANCING in the direction of ... not stopping, not turning, not even slowing down, just glancing over. Walling yourself off that way in an urban area is common in the US, it invovles an active suppression of an instinct to look in the direction of a sound.

Go into a big city, try to look at every source of sound at once, you can't do it. Try to look at every source of sound constantly and you'll only give yourself whiplash, we are trained to notice important sounds (tires screeching, sirens going off), but ordinary unimportant sounds are usually ignored. It's the only way to function in a city.

Quote:
"I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc." Again with the bogus argument. Give it a rest, already. It's like saying people are too inept to walk and chew gum at the same time. How about you go to a large Canadian city - say Toronto - and see how many people manage to walk and look around.

Again Agent answers for me, there is no incentive to look at any given street musician. Yes I can probably navigate an entire city safely with only a glance ahead of me every few seconds, but there is no reason for me to ignore what's ahead of me for every street musician I pass.

Quote:
"unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort" What is the disincentive to glancing in someone's direction? You tell me.

There is little incentive to look so a disincentive isn't really necessary, and you still haven't backed up your "moral dilemma" or "discomfort" arguments.

Quote:
"I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them" Then you are dumber than the average mugger.

First off, fuck you. Second, any mugger who chooses his target with a single glance is either extremely good, or isn't likely to be a mugger for to terribly long.

THATWEIRDGIRL

Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:45 PM

I way off topic here. Well, not way off, but far enough off to hesitate posting.

You've been debating various aspects of urban life, music appreciation, and I don't know, time? It all gets blurry after 100+ posts. These people are effectively on their employers' and schools' time. They're in work mode or trying to get in the work mode. Minds are overclocking. It's fair to say, I think, even if our society was more relaxed, morning rush hour is still morning rush hour. On your way to work is the worst time to try to alter your outlook on life.

I think a better example of what our society has become is a fight Wednesday night at the Boston Pops. A perfectly nice evening of music, presumedly with music fans, brought to a halt. Why do people think it's okay to brawl in public, heck, at all? People are carrying way too much stress. Does our society condone this type of behavior?

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:47 PM

How does one know a baby is deaf? When they don't LOOK to the source of a sound. It's THAT instinctive.

How does one know a toddler is autistic? When they don't LOOK at the people around them. It's THAT instinctive.

How does one know people don't accommodate to city noises? When their blood pressure goes up and stays up due to background noise. It's THAT intrusive. (Sensory habituation, which Agent alluded to, happens to ongoing sensations, not day to day ones.)

Suppression of the urge to look at new sounds or to look at people is a LEARNED response which doesn't happen in every city. Canadians, in general, stand out from Americans because they walk head up, looking around. So no, I don't buy it that somehow USers have different biologies.

FredG
And I hope you have a good fuck yourself too.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:06 PM

Every sound is new to babies. Most sounds are new to toddlers. The comparison is not valid because I am talking about exactly that learned response of ignoring familiar sounds.

No one argues that city noise isn't stress, so whether blood pressure goes up or not is largely irrelevant.

Is there some kind of evidence that backs up how Canadians react in a completely different way to their surroundings and sounds they commonly hear to how Americans do? Did they run the Bell experiment there to different results? If not, why not, if this is an apparent phenomenon, as you claim?

... is this now about what America should be like because, apparently, Canadians already do it right? I'm not either, mind you, but.. that would be a helpful thing to know in order to keep discussing this.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:49 PM

@Agent

This is about a bunch of people trying to take a highly specific experiment that was not designed to produce any meaningful information, valid in only one extremely specific situation and use it to make a commentary on our entire culture.

RUE

Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:51 PM

Hi Agent,

I have to go to a meeting, but I'd like to pose this question: why would a person need to LEARN to ignore sounds and people? (Besides paying minute attention to where they're walking.)

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The response is: I pretend not to see it b/c it's uncomfortable for me.

I don't know about that. I can't say what these people were thinking, anymore then anyone else can, but as for me personally, I've never felt the least bit uncomfortable ignoring homeless people on the street and certainly not street musicians.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SHADYGLEN

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:07 PM

Wow. Amazing article, thanks for the link!

The time comes when silence is a betrayal. MLK,Jr.

KANEMAN

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:31 PM

Ruse,
"Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music?"

Not really. What makes it any better than Rap or Rock or Emo or Disco? It is a form of music. It comes down to personal preference. What are we music Nazi's around here? Is Bell any more talented than Neil Pert? Why do you WANT people to appreciate classical music? Why not the Cure...Robert Johnson, Marley, Dixie Chixs, Spice Girls, Taking back Sunday? How often do you listen to classical music on your Ipod? What makes one form more important? Who decides......Answer, The listener! You come off as a tad HIGHBROW....

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The response is: I pretend not to see it b/c it's uncomfortable for me.
I don't know about that. I can't say what these people were thinking, anymore then anyone else can, but as for me personally, I've never felt the least bit uncomfortable ignoring homeless people on the street and certainly not street musicians.

I'm pretty sure that what she was saying is that for some reason the presence of street musicians makes you uncomfortable, so you ignore them. No more correct but a different statement then "Ignoring street musicians makes you uncomfortable".

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi Agent,

I have to go to a meeting, but I'd like to pose this question: why would a person need to LEARN to ignore sounds and people? (Besides paying minute attention to where they're walking.)

Information overload? Overstimulation?

I am not talking about ignoring all sounds and people, but those that are familiar enough to create their specific categories in the mind, be judged safe. Otherwise we'd have to categorize every sound and person every day. And again and again, which would leave us blind to what is actually new.

We filter out certain categories in order to free our attention to what is actually new or relevant. We'll recognize a familiar face in a crowd faster, are able to think about something other than walking around strangers and what certain noises mean, what the people around us are talking about. Which is actually often repetitive, boring and frustrating and thus stressful. Thinking about something else, navigating on auto-pilot frees our mind go to a more interesting place. Or a more relevant one.

A city, compared to the environment in which human beings evolved is incredibly crowded, noisy. We are swamped with information. Swamped with people. It's not natural. It's not really avoidable for a large number of people considering our population size, and it has many advantages, but it is not natural.

I think filtering is the only way to cope with the stress. We reduce the amount of stimuli we actually have to examine down to a number we can cope with easily.

Filtering is our friend.

Now, we can demonize the idea of concentrating people in cities the way we do, but the advantages outweigh or at least balance the disadvantages, in my opinion.

Even in a village with 50 people, there will be filtering. Just less of it, because there is much less stimulation on offer.

Hell, people living all by themselves also start filtering simply because they can't take the boredom of having to reexamine the same things all over again. They, too, will disappear into their heads.

It's how we are. A normal human response.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 11, 2007 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The response is: I pretend not to see it b/c it's uncomfortable for me.
I don't know about that. I can't say what these people were thinking, anymore then anyone else can, but as for me personally, I've never felt the least bit uncomfortable ignoring homeless people on the street and certainly not street musicians.

I'm pretty sure that what she was saying is that for some reason the presence of street musicians makes you uncomfortable, so you ignore them. No more correct but a different statement then "Ignoring street musicians makes you uncomfortable".

Okay, well in that case, homeless people on the street might make me uncomfortable depending on the circumstances. I don’t really want them approaching my family, because I don’t know if their dangerous. But in any case that’s not way I ignore them; that’s a completely different story that has to do with the belief that anything I do for them personally is likely to have little positive impact and may aggravate the situation.

As far as street musicians go, I can't think of any circumstance in which they would make me uncomfortable? If I ignore them, it probably has a lot more to do with not caring about their music then with any discomfort.

And speaking to what Agent is talking about: when I used to walk to work or when I’m out running or even just taking a walk, I’m almost always in my own little world. Most of the time my mind is deep in thought about work: thinking of how I might phrase something for an upcoming briefing, or working out the physics or the chemistry or the geometry of something I’ve been struggling with. Or sometimes I'm thinking about something completely frivolous. So I might not ignore street performers because I don’t care, although I probably don’t, but I might be completely consumed with what I’m thinking about.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:37 AM

I'll probably just have time for one response today:

Agent and Finn - have either of you lived in another country for any length of time? Because - and I'll have to go back to my experiences rather than any study - not all countries are like this. Going to work or coming home from work in another country is nothing like in the US. Each place has its different flavor, but the US is, by far, the most defensive walled-off group of commuters I have ever seen.

It's not 'normal' in the sense of some hidden biological response. It is very cultural.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'll probably just have time for one response today:

Agent and Finn - have either of you lived in another country for any length of time? Because - and I'll have to go back to my experiences rather than any study - not all countries are like this. Going to work or coming home from work in another country is nothing like in the US. Each place has its different flavor, but the US is, by far, the most defensive walled-off group of commuters I have ever seen.

It's not 'normal' in the sense of some hidden biological response. It is very cultural.

I have to agree Rue.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'll probably just have time for one response today:

Agent and Finn - have either of you lived in another country for any length of time? Because - and I'll have to go back to my experiences rather than any study - not all countries are like this. Going to work or coming home from work in another country is nothing like in the US. Each place has its different flavor, but the US is, by far, the most defensive walled-off group of commuters I have ever seen.

It's not 'normal' in the sense of some hidden biological response. It is very cultural.

I'll repeat here that I am not actually from or in the US, nor in a particularly big city.

The results of the experiment still didn't strike me as odd or alarming.

I haven't lived in another country than mine for any length of time, though, so I'm perfectly willing to concede that you may have seen things I have not.
Since you're the one with the experience, what are the responses in cities of comparable size and cultural offers, at morning rush hour in a spot of public transit in other countries?

RUE

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:28 AM

I've been away for a while so I'll get back to this as I catch up.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:48 PM

Home, finally, long story to that you might actually get in the form of a rant, later, maybe.
(fyi, not in a good mood and real tired so i might be a little...irrational...)

I've little useful to add here beyond stating for the record - no, you've not convinced me one bit of the need for social order of the type we commonly practice in the US, not even close.

In fact, if anything this thread further convinces me it's a deterimental factor to society, humanity, and all the things that, you know, actually *matter* in my eyes.

I also think it's asinine and that the world isn't, you know, gonna END if you're a little late coming in, especially if you make up that time at the end of the day - even when I worked a 9-to-5, my boss saw little difference between 9:00-5:00 and 9:18 - 5:30, long as the job gone done.

Besides which, lemme ask you this question ehe ?
How many of you are doing 50-70 hours work...
On a 40-hour "Salary" used to dodge pesky things like overtime and you know, actually paying you for your work, yes ?

The american "work environment" is so greviously detrimental to the mental state of a person, that if you took most foreigners and set them into it, within six months they would go crazy - we work the most hours, with the least vacation, and somehow wind up LESS productive, answer me why that is, hmm ?

No, this "social order" is just bullshit, is what it is, a control mechanism to keep the peons in line, and watching this fully convinces me of it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:43 PM

Actually, the interesting thing here to me is that, under the stated circumstances so many people stopped to smell the roses, and pay for the privlege, not so few.

The article states that the street concert lasted 45 minutes, and pulled in $52.00. (And yes, I am counting the twenty that the woman who recognized Mr. Bell threw in. Ask any street performer; money is money.)

Brethren and Sistren, that's better than sixty dollars an hour! How many of us earn that much?

Add in the fact that this performance took place at rush hour in a busy public transit station -- or in other words, dealing with a deck so cold it might have been dipped in liquid oxygen -- and I'd say the public taste acquited itself fairly well.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I've little useful to add here beyond stating for the record - no, you've not convinced me one bit of the need for social order of the type we commonly practice in the US, not even close.

Is that what you were asking? I was thinking that we were talking about social structure in general which is not only necessary but inevitable. If you are talking about the U.S. then yeah there's a lot of dumb crap that can be done away with, though there's probably a fair bit that actually makes sense too, the problem being finding an agreement on what falls into which category.

Quote:
I also think it's asinine and that the world isn't, you know, gonna END if you're a little late coming in, especially if you make up that time at the end of the day - even when I worked a 9-to-5, my boss saw little difference between 9:00-5:00 and 9:18 - 5:30, long as the job gone done.

Of course not, but if you were habitually significantly late he'd probably notice and not in a good way.

Here's the thing though, the "stop and listen" advocates keep talking like there is only one street musician around but that's not the way it usually is. If I stop at one street musician for 2 or 3 minutes then it's no big deal, if I stop at every street musician I pass for 2 or 3 minutes then it adds up, fast. I have no interest in getting up any earlier then I already do just to stop and listen to music I don't know played on an instrument that I don't really care for.

That brings up the question that's never been answered here, why should I stop? What reason do I have to stop and listen a street musician? Why should I pay a street musician any attention at all? If I want to listen to music I can listen to an mp3 player on the move or get to work and listen to the radio or mp3's on my computer.

RUE

Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:27 PM

Agent,

"Since you're the one with the experience, what are the responses in cities of comparable size and cultural offers, at morning rush hour in a spot of public transit in other countries?"

Bad video and quite a bit more bustle and people performing, but Toronto response during rush hour

Here is a fair portion of the video from Washington DC

Bruce Springsteen in Copenhagen - you have to watch to near the end where they pan to the crowd

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Bad video and quite a bit more bustle and people performing, but Toronto response during rush hour

There's a pretty huge difference between standing off to one side playing music and dancing around the middle of the crowd. If someone wearing a jesters hat comes dancing by me of course I'm going to pay attention (and probably get the hell away from them). If Bell had been getting in people's way dancing around the area wearing a rainbow wig he'd have gotten a lot more attention.

Quote:
Bruce Springsteen in Copenhagen - you have to watch to near the end where they pan to the crowd

Bruce Springsteen is a pop star whose face and music are well known by a huge number of people. If I showed a picture of Bruce Springsteen to everyone in my office I'll bet the 80% would recognize him, and everyone would know who he was when I told them his name. If I showed a picture of Joshua Bell I'd bet that no one would recognize him, and I'd further bet that if I told them who he was no more than 1 or 2 would recognize the name.

EDIT: Show me a video of Bell playing in a subway station in the middle of a large European city at rush hour where there is a significant number of people watching.

RUE

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:14 PM

FredG,

You're the one who's claiming everyone acts just like the people in DC. So, show me a video of Bell playing in a subway station in the middle of a large European city at rush hour where there is a significant number of people NOT watching..

"and probably get the hell away from them" Didn't you notice the Torontonians were smiling ??

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You're the one who's claiming everyone acts just like the people in DC. So, show me a video of Bell playing in a subway station in the middle of a large European city at rush hour where there is a significant number of people NOT watching.

I never said anything of the sort. I freely recognize that other countries will react differently, though I suspect the difference would be a lot less then you think it in a given situation. YOU are the one who has stated repeatedly that there would be a difference so YOU are the one who has to back it up.

By that I mean show me the same experiment (I'll give you a pass on using the same musician and instrument) with the same songs performed in a similar setting by a musician of similar talent at rush hour in a major European city, and then another couple cities from different European countries, then maybe Canada, and toss in a Middle Eastern city or two and a Japanese city and a Chinese city or two. THEN you can say with authority that there is a significant difference in the way the different cultures work.

But there still isn't an answer to the question of why I should pay any attention in the first place.

Quote:
"and probably get the hell away from them" Didn't you notice the Torontonians were smiling ??

First off, And? So what? Second, I don't generally care for people dancing around me in a subway station, much less when they are dressed like fairies and clowns. If I was watching from a distance I might smile too, but not if I'm in the middle of it.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:18 PM

I was just thinking more about this thread and I realized something, no one has talked about another reason for wanting to be at work on time. So here goes, when I was talking to my boss about my work hours, I told him that I would be here at 9:30*. Regardless of whether or not he would notice, I still told him that I'd be here. Isn't that alone a good enough reason to want to be there on time?

*Yes I get to work at 9:30, but I leave at 6:30 (usually), it's better than the alternative (else I wouldn't have asked), but it's not some unfair setup where I only have to work 6 hours while the rest of you are working 8.

RUE

Friday, May 18, 2007 1:06 AM

FredG

Quote:
I never said anything of the sort. (that everyone acts just like the people in DC).

The whole context of your argument is that with complex societies people just naturally become more time-constrained. Here is one example:
"Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 15:12
Thus people in cities are more apt to be willing to bow to the demands of society."
So yes, you are under an onus to back up your very general claims.

Quote:
If I was watching from a distance I might smile too, but not if I'm in the middle of it.

Well, it was the people immediately in front of the group, some of whom turned around to look and turned back smiling. And, oh yes, the people in back of them, and if you'll look closely the people on either side ...

Aside from that, you keep saying that people are claiming you should always stop and listen. In fact you went so far in mischaracterizing the argument you said "I don't see it as a failing of society that we don't stop ... and watch entranced until it's done." Until it's done ??? Did anyone ever say that? And well, you also missed my point - which was that I found it odd that few people 'without breaking stride' turned around to look.

And in general, comparing tapes of Canadians and Americans in public places, Americans have defensive body language.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
I never said anything of the sort. (that everyone acts just like the people in DC).
The whole context of your argument is that with complex societies people just naturally become more time-constrained. Here is one example:
"Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 15:12
Thus people in cities are more apt to be willing to bow to the demands of society."
So yes, you are under an onus to back up your very general claims.

No. I was talking to Fremd about social order at the time. People in cities are less individualistic and independent and more likely to bow to social pressure then people outside of cities, with exceptions like every generalization. This only has a little to do with ignoring or not ignoring street musicians. I said NOTHING about whether or not people in other countries would behave differently, though the divide between city dwellers and non-city dwellers will probably still hold true regardless of country.

YOU are the one who is insisting that the results of the experiment would be different in different countries, something which I have never denied. But it is YOUR job to back up the claim if you want it to be agreed with as factual instead theoretical.

But here's the fun part, even if you prove that there is a difference, you still haven't given a concrete reason why anyone SHOULD stop and listen to a street musician, meaning that you still can't draw a conclusion about which culture is BETTER based off of the experiment.

Quote:
Quote:
If I was watching from a distance I might smile too, but not if I'm in the middle of it.
Well, it was the people immediately in front of the group, some of whom turned around to look and turned back smiling. And, oh yes, the people in back of them, and if you'll look closely the people on either side ...

And? So what? So I don't really like the idea of strange, oddly dressed people dancing around me, does that mean there's something wrong with me? Would you mind if I grabbed a bunch of friends and ambushed you outside your job wearing an assortment of loincloths and clown suits and danced around you for a bit? So I'm not that amused by people capering about around a subway station, does that mean there's something wrong with me?

Quote:
Aside from that, you keep saying that people are claiming you should always stop and listen.

If not always then when? Should they have paid attention just this time? Why?

Quote:
In fact you went so far in mischaracterizing the argument you said "I don't see it as a failing of society that we don't stop ... and watch entranced until it's done." Until it's done ??? Did anyone ever say that?

Then how long should we all listen to meet your expectations of a good society? 2 minutes? 4 minutes?

Quote:
And well, you also missed my point - which was that I found it odd that few people 'without breaking stride' turned around to look.

I was actually thinking about this after I watched some of the video. I think the conclusions they come to are interesting, I'm sure that the original video is higher-res, but I still think the reasoning is flawed. I for one may be dumber than the average mugger, but I AM capable of moving my eyes without turning my head and I see no reason to believe that many if not most of the people walking through that area couldn't have flicked their eyes over without breaking stride and without being noticed by the camera.

Quote:
And in general, comparing tapes of Canadians and Americans in public places, Americans have defensive body language.

Good for them...what's your point?

RUE

Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:36 AM

"you still haven't given a concrete reason why anyone SHOULD stop and listen to a street musician"

Once again you are arguing against an position I don't hold.

I was wondering - have you ever spent significant time in another country? Because, to say this yet again, different cultures have different flavors. What 'people in cities' do is different depending on which country you are in. It's not some pre-destined outcome of technology, complexity and interdependence. So the Danes, despite living in a fully modern complex city will stop and listen, the Torontonians turn and smile and the USers rush past.

Run this thought experiment in your mind - do you think Bruce Springsteen would gather a crowd in DC? Would a festive troupe garner smiles? And why not? So, what is it about US culture that causes that result? What is it about US culture that makes people defensive in public?

These are just questions. I think there is an underlying cause, but I'm curious what you think.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 19, 2007 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was wondering - have you ever spent significant time in another country?

2 weeks in Canada when I was 8 or 9, pretty sure that doesn't count.

Quote:
Because, to say this yet again, different cultures have different flavors. What 'people in cities' do is different depending on which country you are in.

Right, like I said I never said that different countries would not have different reactions. You are placing my statement about social order into the argument about street musicians and it wasn't meant for here, I was talking to Fremd about the reason for the development of social order NOT about a specific reason why people ignore the street musicians.

Quote:
Run this thought experiment in your mind - do you think Bruce Springsteen would gather a crowd in DC?

Probably, it would depend on circumstance. If you put him in a transit station at rush hour then the crowd would form but it's probably be pretty small, if you put him outside in the off-hours like that video appeared to be then he would probably pull about as many as in that video. It really depends on how many people recognized him.

Quote:
Would a festive troupe garner smiles?

If they were in the middle of a transit station at rush hour? I'd guess no. If they were somewhere else probably.

Quote:
And why not?

My guess? They're in the way. A transit station is supposed to be designed to get you in and out quickly, when there's a bunch of clowns dancing around it slows down traffic and pisses people off. It's really not that different from getting caught in a traffic jam. I have my mornings pretty well timed out, I know when I need to get up and when I need to leave my house to get to work on time, when something gets in the way (be it a truck granny gearing it down the hill, assholes going 10 miles under the speed limit etc.) it annoys me.

Quote:
So, what is it about US culture that causes that result? What is it about US culture that makes people defensive in public?

Culture of physical separation? Culture of fear of crime? Culture of fear in general? Culture of persecution of those who are different?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, May 19, 2007 6:01 AM

I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I’ve been to many countries. Stayed in many of them for extended periods of time. I’ve never seen anything to make me believe that the Americans are the most defensive and walled-off people in the world. Actually that sounds absurd to me, and I imagine that such statements have as much or more to do with personal prejudices then any sort of impartial assessment.

I’ve seen as many defensive people in London and Paris as I have in most major American cities. And of the large cities that I’ve stayed for several days or lived (which off the top of my head include London, Paris, Rome, New York, Detroit, DC, Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, Huntsville, Birmingham (Al), Venice, Milan, Naples, Edinburgh, Dublin, Belfast and probably others I can’t remember) the only cities where I saw a large number of defensive people on the streets was Belfast and Derry. Although Detroit seemed to be as bad or maybe even worse then Belfast, but I don’t think I’ve ever been anywhere in Detroit that wasn’t a part of the hood. When I lived in Detroit, I was very, very poor. Those were the only cities where I felt that a number of people actually tried to avoid me and often cast very suspicious glances at me. And this was much worse then anything in the US outside of particularly bad neighborhoods. Of the others, none of them really stand out to much, though New York, Paris and London are perhaps marginally worse then others. In these three cities I encountered a number of very short tempered people (although despite its reputation Paris wasn’t nearly as bad as New York or London). The large cities where I felt the most welcome and where people were the friendliest was Venice, Dublin, Amsterdam and Nashville; with Venice being the most friendliest and pleasant.

I’ve also been to several small towns which include too many to actually try and name them all (and I don’t remember the names of all of them anyway) but I didn’t stay in most of them for very long. But which include towns in the Northern US states, Southern US states, Northern Ireland, Scotland, France and Italy. The only small towns outside of the US and Northern Ireland where I’ve spent any length of time was Saint Andrews (Scotland) and Beauvais (France). In small towns people tend to be much friendlier and life often seems to be more conservative and slower paced. All of these towns were actually pretty friendly and only one event of a particularly unfriendly person in France strikes me. But then again I rarely stayed in these towns for more then a day or so (I think I spent a whole two days in Saint Andrews and Beauvais) except for the Southern US and Northern Ireland, which tend to be comparable to each other.

In general, cities like Belfast and Derry, which have experienced a degree of civil strife, have the most defensive people in my experiences, but even then it’s not any kind of unbearable thing. The truth is that vast majority of people that I met in Belfast and Derry were very nice. Belfast in particular was real fun, since that was where I experienced my first terrorist bombing. Cities with very high population density (or perhaps it’s the number of tourists I don’t really know), like New York, Paris and London also seem to display a slightly elevated degree of defensiveness among commuters. The difference in defensiveness is most notable between urban and rural towns I think. There is something to be said of the culture too probably, but I think it’s probably a much lower order perturbation. The Italian, Irish and Southern American Cultures all seem to be friendlier and more outgoing then some others, and that might play a part in why the cities that I felt were the friendliest were in Italy, Ireland and the Southern US, but like I said, I think this is a much lower order affect, and it’s probably as likely that it’s coincidence. And the Dutch are so friendly you want smack to them, except for the Bus drivers for some reasons.

But anyway the only thing that I’m confident saying is that it is imposs

RUE

Sunday, June 3, 2007 7:38 PM

Go to any large city at night and see how friendly the people are. That's where it really stands out.

This is why I think USers are defensive and why you can spot a Canadian in a crowd:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29000

America ranks low in 'Peace Index'

1 Norway
2 New Zealand
3 Denmark
4 Ireland
5 Japan
6 Finland
7 Sweden
8 Canada
9 Portugal
10 Austria
11 Belgium
12 Germany
13 Czech Republic
14 Switzerland
15 Slovenia
16 Chile
17 Slovakia
18 Hungary
19 Bhutan
20 Netherlands
21 Spain
22 Oman
23 Hong Kong
24 Uruguay
25 Australia
26 Romania
27 Poland
28 Estonia
29 Singapore
30 Qatar
31 Costa Rica
32 South Korea
33 Italy
34 France
35 Vietnam
36 Taiwan
37 Malaysia
38 United Arab Emirates
39 Tunisia
40 Ghana
41 Madagascar
42 Botswana
43 Lithuania
44 Greece
45 Panama
46 Kuwait
47 Latvia
48 Morocco
49 United Kingdom
50 Mozambique
51 Cyprus
52 Argentina
53 Zambia
54 Bulgaria
55 Paraguay
56 Gabon
57 Tanzania
58 Libya
59 Cuba
60 China
61 Kazakhstan
62 Bahrain
63 Jordan
64 Namibia
65 Senegal
66 Nicaragua
67 Croatia
68 Malawi
69 Bolivia
70 Peru
71 Equatorial Guinea
72 Moldova
73 Egypt
74 Dominican Republic
75 Bosnia and Hercegovina
76 Cameroon
77 Syria
78 Indonesia
79 Mexico
80 Ukraine
81 Jamaica
82 Macedonia
83 Brazil
84 Serbia
85 Cambodia
86 Bangladesh
87 Ecuador
88 Papua New Guinea
89 El Salvador
90 Saudi Arabia
91 Kenya
92 Turkey
93 Guatemala
94 Trinidad and Tobago
95 Yemen
96 United States of America
97 Iran
98 Honduras
99 South Africa
100 Philippines
101 Azerbaijan
102 Venezuela
103 Ethiopia
104 Uganda
105 Thailand
106 Zimbabwe
107 Algeria
108 Myanmar
109 India
110 Uzbekistan
111 Sri Lanka
112 Angola
113 Cote d' Ivoire
114 Lebanon
115 Pakistan
116 Colombia
117 Nigeria
118 Russia
119 Israel
120 Sudan
121 Iraq

http://www.le.ac.uk/pc/aw57/world/sample.html

Nation SWLS Score

DENMARK 273
SWITZERLAND 273
AUSTRIA 260
ICELAND 260
BAHAMAS 257
FINLAND 257
SWEDEN 257
BHUTAN 253
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 253
CANADA 253
IRELAND 253
LUXEMBOURG 253
COSTA RICA 250
MALTA 250
NETHERLANDS 250
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 247
MALAYSIA 247
NEW ZEALAND 247
NORWAY 247
SEYCHELLES 247
ST KITTS AND NEVIS 247
UAE 247
USA 247
VANUATU 247
VENEZUELA 247
AUSTRALIA 243
BARBADOS 243
BELGIUM 243
DOMINICA 243
OMAN 243
SAUDI ARABIA 243
SURINAME 243
BAHRAIN 240
COLUMBIA 240
GERMANY 240
GUYANA 240
HONDURAS 240
KUWAIT 240
PANAMA 240
ST VINCENT AND THE 240
UNITED KINGDOM 237
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 233
GUATEMALA 233
JAMAICA 233
QATAR 233
SPAIN 233
ST LUCIA 233
BELIZE 230
CYPRUS 230
ITALY 230
MEXICO 230
SAMOA WESTERN 230
SINGAPORE 230
SOLOMON ISLANDS 230
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 230
ARGENTINA 227
FIJI 223
ISRAEL 223
MONGOLIA 223
SAO TOME AND PERINI 223
EL SALVADOR 220
FRANCE 220
HONG KONG 220
INDONESIA 220
KYRGYZSTAN 220
MALDIVES 220
SLOVENIA 220
TAIWAN 220
TIMOR-LESTE 220
TONGA 220
CHILE 217
GRENADA 217
MAURITIUS 217
NAMIBIA 217
PARAGUAY 217
THAILAND 217
CZECH REPUBLIC 213
PHILIPPINES 213
TUNISIA 213
UZBEKISTA

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, May 23, 2024 6:31 PM

15, 16, 17 years pass

maybe 18 soon

Would Joshua Bell play on these crime ridden subway and streets today

and what the Deep State Globalist rag the WashingtonCompost has become

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Another thought occurred to me - have US cities ever been kind to buskers, especially classical musicians? In general Americans don't have much interest classical music. You practically have to be a snob or geek or French to like that sort of thing.

a lot of people these days seem tone deaf, its not about being a snob, classical music at one time almost was the folk music of its time. Do people today remember notes, hear modes can they hear Harmonic Minor or Dorian or Phrygian, will they hear the space between tones, broken chords or arpeggios, can they remember the form and composition of more than one bar of music?

people hear some Shit-Hop beat maybe, I'm not sure they even clap on time

Milwaukee News Crew Filming Segment Captures The Moment A Stolen Car Wrecks Into Parked Cars, Thug Falls Out And Runs Away
https://vidmax.com/video/227768-milwaukee-news-crew-filming-segment-ca
ptures-the-moment-a-stolen-car-wrecks-into-parked-cars-thug-falls-out-and-runs-away

stupid women run up to help the saggy pants car jacker feral criminals

More shootings
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/3-shot-in-northeast-dc/361997
0/

California’s Looming Crime Catastrophe
https://www.city-journal.org/article/californias-looming-crime-catastr
ophe
Recent legislation makes it easier for felons to claim racial bias—potentially putting them back on the streets in large numbers.

a Japan jazz guy in NYC he intended to return to Japan, adding that "My wife and I worry about raising kids here [In the United States], especially after this happened
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/nyregion/jazz-pianist-attack-racism
.html

Washington Compost started to notice a race to the bottom

at Mount Sauron the Belly of the Beast, L'Enfant Plaza is at the nucleus of federal Washington

these days American listen to dumb electronic noises and Rap doesn't even have chords

'Pearls Before Breakfast
Can one of the nation's great musicians cut through the fog of a D.C. rush hour? '

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, May 24, 2024 3:42 PM

After ‘Fall Guy’ flop, Hollywood braces for uncertain summer
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4657039-hollywood-summer-box-office/

Town Community gone, the nuclear family unit wiped out.

In America’s culture of death, there is neither peace nor freedom
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/1/in-americas-culture-of
-death-there-is-neither-peac/

Why has American culture declined so much?
https://www.quora.com/Why-has-American-culture-declined-so-much

Is Culture Dead?
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/dialogue-program/culture-dead
Mid-twentieth century America gave strong evidence of a consensus on culture. It was a time when melting pot values were held up as the natural aspiration of a diverse population. The only alternative to these values was the ancient ethnic cultures that had sheltered early generations of immigrants and linked them to ancestral lands and folkways. A half-century later the situation is dramatically different. Not only has the national cultural consensus declined but traditional ethnic cultures have lost their sway as well. Christopher Clausen argues that America is in a post-cultural condition rife with choices available to individuals who can define themselves in bold new ways. The decline of both a central American culture and ethnic cultures means for Clausen that we are in an age of freedom and nostalgia.

Is American Culture Dying? It Depends on Your Definition of “American Culture”
https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/is-america-a-dying-culture-it-de
pends-on-your-definition-of-culture/
In a recent Guardian profile, actor and playwright Sam Shepard declared that American culture is “on [its] way out,” especially since so much of its industry has been off-shored.

Mass Religion is dying I'm not sure if this is a good thing or bad but most Millennials are leaving organized religion in droves, meanwhile with open borders they replace old Christian culture with thousands upon thousands of islamics some of which are willing to do terrorism or to stab Rushdie

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, June 3, 2024 2:43 PM

Beethoven had high amounts of lead and arsenic in his body

https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2024/05/22/beethoven-lead-poisoning/

banning music at that weirdo Euro show

Why hasn't Israel been banned from the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest like Russia was in 2022?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-11/israel-eurovision-2024-song-con
test-russia/103829704

Rosie O’Donnell Says Her 11-Year-Old Autistic Daughter Is Now Non-Binary

https://vidmax.com/video/227918-rosie-o-donnell-says-her-11-year-old-a
utistic-daughter-is-now-non-binary

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:19 PM

Smiling' female postal worker, 48, is brutally shot and killed while delivering mail in Chicago as locals mourn 'mom of the neighborhood'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13657223/Octavia-Redmond-fema
le-postal-worker-shot-killed-Chicago.html

in all the chaos and selfies and online posts

an age of education might be born

Let's Play Music Launches Online Platform for Children's Music Lessons
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/274460240/letaposs-play-music-laun
ches-online-platform-for-childrenaposs-music-lessons

Rap In 2024 Be Like....
https://vidmax.com/video/228626-rap-in-2024-be-like

why do some call it cr-Rap ?

unfortunately for the left he might even be correct here

US political commentator Ben Shapiro says rap isn’t real music
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/ben-shapiro-thinks-rap-isnt-music/

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:26 PM

Street Acrobat China

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:27 PM

Argentina - Tango street dance on Avenue Florida

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:28 PM

even if you played what pop song cover they wanted to hear most won't stop

Manila street busker sings One Direction's 'Perfect' |

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:31 PM

Georgia street Tbilisi, part of the Caucasus region, bounded by the Black Sea to the west, Russia to the north and northeast, Turkey to the southwest.

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:33 PM

Bhutanese Traditional folk

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:35 PM

Brazilian Drum Group - Rio de Janeiro

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:38 PM

Flash Mob in Warsaw/muppet show theme

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:40 PM

Stephen Fry in Alabama

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:43 PM

only in Japan?

Elvis rockabillies at Yoyogi Park, Harajuku Tokyo

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:44 PM

South Africa folk music

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:48 PM

South Korea - Street Magic Performance

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:51 PM

Flamenco Street Dance - Seville

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, July 24, 2024 9:53 PM

anyone with a web connection can log on and see webcams of major events and city and town atmosphere around the world

17 or 18 years later have people learned to sop and listen

Hong Kong MYO

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, October 30, 2024 4:02 PM

How other cultures grow
?

World Christmas Market Singapore: A Festive Wonderland for All Ages
https://sg.theasianparent.com/christmas-market-2

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, November 19, 2024 7:28 PM

nice music

but some meddling bys body marxist prying Britbongistani woman takes offense, maybe she's tone deaf

https://x.com/PicturesFoIder/status/1858716299720855864

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, December 10, 2024 9:26 PM

Australia’s best buskers head to Cooma for national finals

https://the-riotact.com/australias-best-buskers-head-to-cooma-for-nati
onal-finals/829724

The Art of Street Performance: Profiles of Buskers at the World Buskers Festival

https://www.artsfestival.co.nz/2024/05/27/the-art-of-street-performanc
e/

magic...no juggling!

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, January 25, 2025 11:25 PM

2,000-Year-Old Greek Statue Found Abandoned in a Bag Near Trash Cans

https://people.com/2000-year-old-greek-statue-found-abandoned-in-a-bag
-near-trash-cans-police-8779197

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:35 PM

not sure if real

he's a massive actor with hugely praised movies since the 70s, four Academy Awards, a British Academy Film Award, and four Golden Globe Awards. He received an Honorary Golden Bear, he is still very active with The Legend of Ochi arriving in February, 2025

A TikTok account by the name of Hikhann posted a video of the user stopping Dafoe, who was walking down the street, and interviewing him, asking the actor what his name is and what he does for a living. Dafoe, ever the polite person, calmly answers the interviewer's questions before continuing to stroll down the busy public street.

https://vidmax.com/video/231220-man-on-the-street-interviewer-has-no-i
dea-he-s-interviewing-willem-dafoe

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, July 5, 2025 2:25 AM

Ai Band Is Here... Now What?

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, June 29, 2026 9:34 PM

Choreographer Hyeyeon Kim Dances with AI Robots
https://www.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2026061610420649372

Humanoid Robot Seen Begging for Spare Change on the Street — and yes, there's a QR code
https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/articles/humanoid-robot-seen-beggin
g-spare-185507366.html

Live Hong Kong Concert Highlights How Creepy Humanoid Robots Really Are
https://www.aol.com/lifestyle/live-hong-kong-concert-highlights-231500
581.html

Why the Rest of the World Thinks Americans Are Brainwashed

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2