the want that all and everything should yield to the obvious, a type of greed, difficult to counter and undo, a force

the news delivers the obvious like it was something new, news.

consider though the possibility you don’t know much, really, can’t know much, you’re mostly what you don’t know

compensation’s on offer, all you need do is love obviousness, a faith of sorts, a shared faith

so I present the religion of obviousness, the want for, your God

transition said:

the want that all and everything should yield to the obvious, a type of greed, difficult to counter and undo, a force

the news delivers the obvious like it was something new, news.

consider though the possibility you don’t know much, really, can’t know much, you’re mostly what you don’t know

compensation’s on offer, all you need do is love obviousness, a faith of sorts, a shared faith

so I present the religion of obviousness, the want for, your God

I once went through a month of science papers and came to the conclusion that 80% of it was, as I put it, the “bleedin’ obvious” restated.

But then another time I went through science papers and come to the conclusion that nearly 50% was wild speculation based on hypotheses that have already been disproved.

It may vary from discipline to discipline, and from month to month!

I suspect that peer review plays a role, only the bleedin’ obvious and the false speculation pass peer review because neither treads on any toes.

Real new counterintuitive information is very valuable and very rare. Was watching “bull in a china shop” last night. Even four wild bulls in a mock china shop did practically no damage at all. I like that.

On the other hand, I refuse to watch any show presented by Brian Cox because everything, literally everything he says, is obviousness.

Transition, have you heard of the psychological distinction between “matchers” and “mismatchers”? I’d be interested to know the history of that psychological theory. Matchers are all about reinforcing the obviousness. Mismatchers, like myself, are all about finding faults in the obviousness. Most people are matchers.

Aha, Wikipedia says “The match/mismatch hypothesis (MMH) was first described by David Cushing (1969)”.

It seems there must be a considerable overlap between the bleeding obvious and wild hypotheses categories.

That ties in with my observations.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems there must be a considerable overlap between the bleeding obvious and wild hypotheses categories.

That ties in with my observations.

Can you give an example ?

>On the other hand, I refuse to watch any show presented by Brian Cox because everything, literally everything he says, is obviousness

I don’t mind the show, it’s clearly meant for an audience range from toddler through to end-of-life, a casual trip enjoying the roses of physics, and the senses

i’m exploring the desire for obviousness, a type of greediness, cultural appeals to obviousness, the outcome of it being repetitively experienced, and satisfaction (or not) as a consequence of

lot of marketing psychology these days, the aether apparently isn’t saturated yet

competency and obviousness seem related, and competency is related (a sense of) adequacy

Stephen Hawking on religion (Science will win)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmg0CKdvSgk

God not necessary for big bang: Hawking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t065pt-MjLY

Stephen Hawking on God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdqmIbxhjAs

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems there must be a considerable overlap between the bleeding obvious and wild hypotheses categories.

That ties in with my observations.

Can you give an example ?

How about quantum mechanics?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems there must be a considerable overlap between the bleeding obvious and wild hypotheses categories.

That ties in with my observations.

Can you give an example ?

How about quantum mechanics?

I think for most people there’s nothing bleeding obvious about quantum mechanics. It as at first blush counter intuitive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems there must be a considerable overlap between the bleeding obvious and wild hypotheses categories.

That ties in with my observations.

Can you give an example ?

How about quantum mechanics?

A lovely example.

Makes me think of another example – pure mathematics. Once i understand what is being said it’s at least 90% bleedin’ obvious. When i don’t, it seems wild hypothesis based on disproved conjectures.

Oh, and i suppose advertising overlaps obviousness with wild statements based on disproved conjectures.

transition said:

i’m exploring the desire for obviousness, a type of greediness, cultural appeals to obviousness, the outcome of it being repetitively experienced, and satisfaction (or not) as a consequence of

lot of marketing psychology these days, the aether apparently isn’t saturated yet

competency and obviousness seem related, and competency is related (a sense of) adequacy

Since Hawking was mentioned above, I rate “a brief history of time” as 100% obviousness. I could have written all that myself from general knowledge.

I see the weaponisation of obviousness as a real thing. Being a pretence of competency to cover inadequacy. Papering over the cracks.

i’m thinking enthusiasm for mastery of the obvious may result in becoming servant to the obvious

anyway the OP was about the psychological naivety of an unrestrained want for the obvious

it’s not something an individual or group can want a lot without imposing on others. Imposing the way, the way of obviousness

most of the universe doesn’t want to be obvious, only humans could believe in such a thing, have views, ideas, that variously translate into a force to make everything obvious

it’s active delusion, nothing sleeps, everything is there waiting, material for the campaign of obviousness, creeping obviousness

take an individual organism, a human, like mostly everything involved in homeostatic mechanisms is not obvious, the milieu interior is not regulated by obviousness, obvious mechanisms, they don’t parade their workings, they don’t self-explain by what is evident externally

there’s no evidence that the forces (physics) that resulted in the emergence of organic replicators, and evolution of replicators gave great importance to obviousness

the enthusiasm for obviousness may be more ideology, than practical necessity

imposing obviousness could be madness, an acceptable madness

>I see the weaponisation of obviousness as a real thing. Being a pretence of competency to cover inadequacy. Papering over the cracks.

a lot goes into making modern environments seem natural, to the extent familiarity does make them natural, that familiarity is investment

mastering the obvious is part of familiarity

expectations of obviousness and what really is obvious don’t need be the same, and probably regularly aren’t. It’s likely possible to raise expectations of obviousness, have them overshoot practical levels, create anxiety, then offer obvious fixes, or obviousness as a fix.

which has me wondering if some of modern anxiety, or anxieties, conditions related, described as, are in fact the consequence, or outcome of unrealistically high expectations that everything or too much should yield so, experienced as not enough yields. There was a time when expectations for the obvious didn’t so much overshoot what was possible.