That's not what I mean by "mascot".
I mean it regardless of ability, intelligence, personality: whether they have it in spades or not.
I mean that the followers see their leader as being a larger than life symbol and that inspires them to greater achievement.
I think that aspect is overlooked.
I just dubbed it "the mascot effect", I don't mean that the person is literally like a modern sports mascot, just that there is a metaphorical atavistic aspect about them.
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
Happy 2019! General discussion thread
That's what I call the "cheerleader " The term is also in the literature. A mascot is just a presence, a cheerleader also usewords whether empty "rah, rah" or inspirational oratory. There is more to leadership than a hat on a battlefield or a mascot however it is meant.
Calling a leader a mascot demeans leadership to just that hat on a white horse instead of the force that makes things happen. Mclellan as opposed to Robert E. Lee to use one example.
And no it is not overlooked in the literature and there is quite a bit. Napoleon exemplified it. There was the genius and the drive as well as the image. But the image wasn't just a hat. That doesn't succeed where it matters. It's the head the hat rests upon to paraphrase any number of writers.
And there are all kinds of images and personas and its deeper than a mere mascot. You have the simple and slovenly, the dandy, the simple and severe, the man above and more. The led look upon them as a symbol of the force even a sort of mascot, but that overlooks much of what all leaders do. Words and action. That goes far and away above the mere presence of a mascot. You can have a mule as a mascot and without the lions you end up like France or Austria in a few weeks or the legions at Cannae or Teutoburgerwald.
ozoneocean wrote:
One of my main issues with the multiverse stuff is the anthropic idea that a human making a choice would have any effect on it what so ever.
WHAT makes people think for a second that human choice means anything what so ever in the scheme of the universe? It's so infantile it's insane.
Why not cat choice, cockroach choice, flea choice?
To the universe how is choice any different from random chance that happens every femtosecond? Logically it's not since human choice like everything else is just an accumulation of those chances. If entire universes were created by such chances they would be infinite…
But yeah, that's all based on pure fiction.
The theory that involves other dimensions or universes doesn't require that.
I've delved into all of this in the Godstrain. It's mainly experiments like the Double Slit Experiment that very much seem to indicate that our 'observation' (and by that it's meant an attempt to attain information, in these cases about a sub-atomic particle's location) has an effect on whether the particle behaves like a wave or a particle. Theorists then extrapolate from this phenomenon on to the larger universe, often taking it too far, maybe… but their reasoning is if the small is affected, then cannot the small affect the big, and then when do the dominoes stop?
There's also experiments done with Entangled particles, that hint at similar 'observation effects' - I have fun with this in the Godstrain, too, particulartly starting at page 328.
Are you familiar with these experiment? If not, you can google LOTS of articles. I'd love you hear your theory on what you think is 'really happening'! I'm not totally convinced it's human observation causing this, either, but I've yet to read a hypothesis that explains it better!
KimLuster wrote:Such a good comic :D
With the "observer" thing people have just misunderstood it. They think it means a human looking at the phenomenon. What it really means is that the act of recording phenomena changes the phenomena because it interferes with it.
And it only really works for things at Quantum scale because it's so tiny and sensitive that any interference changes it utterly. -so the same rationale doesn't apply to the larger Newtonian universe.
^_^
ozoneocean wrote:
With the "observer" thing people have just misunderstood it. They think it means a human looking at the phenomenon. What it really means is that the act of recording phenomena changes the phenomena because it interferes with it…
^_^
Ummm… Not quite! For the double slit expeirment to work as your saying, the measurement (and thus the inference you're talking about) would have to occur before the particle goes through the slit, which isn't the case. The particle is recorded AS it's going through. For it to work as your saying, the recording device would have to interfere with a particle (which is travelling the speed of light - remember, nothing is faster than that!) before it reaches the slit (what, then, would be doing the actual interfering? The recorders detect, they don't send out tractor beams…), and then also measure it when it reaches it. That defies physics!
ozoneocean wrote:
And it only really works for things at Quantum scale because it's so tiny and sensitive that any interference changes it utterly. -so the same rationale doesn't apply to the larger Newtonian universe.
^_^
It's the butterfly effect! Changing something at the quantum scale most certainly does effect the larger universe. It's just usually unnoticed in a sea of larger physical reactions. But it's certainly possible to imagine scenarios where it's more obvious. Or to actually see it in action! (I admit that article is rather sensational, but then… so is Quantum Mechanics!)
^_^
ozoneocean wrote:Many historians had it long before either of us. The only reason we can see farther is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. I am merely reiterating points made as long ago as the 1880s with Hans Delbruck and D. S. Freeman in the 1930s. Theres also Russell Weigley and John Keegan. And I'm forgetting so many others.bravo1102 wrote:Hey man, you're just hijacking my thing. Uncool.
Frantic chirping was driving me nuts last night. I thought it was a fluff dragon that I could coerce out a window.
It turned out to be a scared, hairless wingbaby. 
I set it outside in a box with a hot water bottle, hoping momdragon would return. But baby chirpy cried literally all night (waking me every hour from midnight to five) and was still alone after sunrise. So, I called into work for the morning and am waiting for a wildlife rehabilitation center to open.
That almost looks like a newborn. Without the wings and eyes closed, it really does look like a dragon.
Another bit of wildlife I dealt with as a security guard in an urban environment. They lived under the boardwalk in Asbury Park and would hang out in bus stop overhangs.
Kind of cool when they showed up in force on Halloween of all nights.
KimLuster wrote:That's a different effect though, not the whole Schrodinger thing.
Not quite! For the double slit expeirment to work as your saying…
It's my fault for being overly vague in my wording. Basically any interference with a single quantum particle changes it, especially in terms of super symmetry.
KimLuster wrote:The thing about the butterfly effect is that it's entirely classical and Newtonian though. :D
It's the butterfly effect!
That experiment was interesting.
But what I meant by "the same rationale doesn't apply to the larger universe" is that the physics are so different that the observer thing doesn't scale up. It's impossible to scale it up.
You can scale up quantum effects and make use of them etc, and basically everything in existence is built out of them so of course we're all the products of almost infinite effects all the time, but the physics can't be used on a non-quantum scale…
It's tricky to explain :(
——————–
@Bravo-
that's not what I meant. :P
ozoneocean wrote:Trust me you weren't going anywhere anyway so my hijack saved you a lot of time and effort. You're better off.
——————–
@Bravo-
that's not what I meant. :P
ozoneocean wrote:KimLuster wrote:That's a different effect though, not the whole Schrodinger thing.
Not quite! For the double slit expeirment to work as your saying…
It's my fault for being overly vague in my wording. Basically any interference with a single quantum particle changes it, especially in terms of super symmetry.
Maybe a different effect but it's due to the exact same phenomenon, that being the Collapse of a sub-atomic particle from a probability wave to a concise point in space when being observed! And while Schrödinger crafted his thought experiment to show how foolish it is to apply superposition states to the macro-world, physicists such as Bohr have pointed out that he sorta undercut his own argument. The thought experiment really does suggest how the quantum world and the observer effect most certainly can effect the macro world! It sorta shifted the issue. It's not whether a superposition state can exists in the macro world (many believe it can, by being entangled with the unobserved particle) but rather what actually constitutes an observation that would cause its collapse!
ozoneocean wrote:KimLuster wrote:The thing about the butterfly effect is that it's entirely classical and Newtonian though. :D
It's the butterfly effect!
That experiment was interesting.
But what I meant by "the same rationale doesn't apply to the larger universe" is that the physics are so different that the observer thing doesn't scale up. It's impossible to scale it up.
You can scale up quantum effects and make use of them etc, and basically everything in existence is built out of them so of course we're all the products of almost infinite effects all the time, but the physics can't be used on a non-quantum scale…
It's tricky to explain :(
Of course it's tricky! I'm sure you've heard of Physicist Richard Feynman's famous quote: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".
This is fun, but we know we're not gonna convince each other of anything! :D
I'll yield that it's very hard to see quantum effects in the macro world we live in everyday but as I think you're now saying, things can scale up. To me, that means we can't really say we're not effecting things by our constant observation, even though we cannot readily apply the physics. I know, it feels strange to even write that but we just can't say it's not happening! Well, we can! And you kinda did earlier! If you could definitively prove it, there's probably a Nobel prize waiting for ya!!
And for a science fiction writer the possibilities it opens! It could even "explain" seemingly magical results.
And of course there's no knowing what we can't observe as the math points to things that just could be but just don't fit human perception.
Could there be another "day the universe changed" coming?
OK, back to your double slit experiment then: The recorders change the system.
A human observer is irrelevant.
—————-
We can scale up effects so we can see them and we make use of our understanding of the effects all the time in fibre optic technology and many other things but we change nothing macro through our human observation (in the Schrödinger sense) because the physics are incompatible.
It don't mater if you collapse the the quantum state of a particle through interference, that's happening every femtosecond regardless…
OK, this is too complex hahaha, you're right. I won't go further.
———————
@Bravo, of course I was going somewhere.
The "mascot" effect is a very real one and your characterisation of it as "cheeleader" is ridiculous! I laugh up my sleeve and into my beard at you! Haw Haw Haw!
Seriously though, it was an interesting rumination on the mechanism of different kinds of leadership and the way certain people ascend to a mascot status, which becomes a far more important part of their "leadership" than anything they do themselves. Napoleon and Jon d'Arc are both very good examples of that.
Of course Napoleon was a great leader in his own right, but his reputation helped him to become something much bigger.
ozoneocean wrote:
OK, back to your double slit experiment then: The recorders change the system.
A human observer is irrelevant.
—————-
We can scale up effects so we can see them and we make use of our understanding of the effects all the time in fibre optic technology and many other things but we change nothing macro through our human observation (in the Schrödinger sense) because the physics are incompatible.
It don't mater if you collapse the the quantum state of a particle through interference, that's happening every femtosecond regardless…
OK, this is too complex hahaha, you're right. I won't go further.
———————
@Bravo, of course I was going somewhere.
The "mascot" effect is a very real one and your characterisation of it as "cheeleader" is ridiculous! I laugh up my sleeve and into my beard at you! Haw Haw Haw!
Seriously though, it was an interesting rumination on the mechanism of different kinds of leadership and the way certain people ascend to a mascot status, which becomes a far more important part of their "leadership" than anything they do themselves. Napoleon and Jon d'Arc are both very good examples of that.
Of course Napoleon was a great leader in his own right, but his reputation helped him to become something much bigger.
Can't ever admit you don't know what you're talking about. I'll just throw all the coursework and curriculum out the window because as always some Australian graphic artist knows better than all the experts in the field. It's called cheerleader because for the simple fact that in American parlance a mascot is part of the cheerleading squad. It's often compared to football. Rah, rah. Affection for what the leader represents, the reputation he builds in the mind of the followers either intentionally or accidentally in addition to his actual job performance. The whole mascot cheerleader thing is often considered incidental to what the leader is supposed to be achieving. It's a byproduct and often useful but hardly necessary. After all many leaders were the exact opposite of their mascot's image.(Frederick II for one)
And it's one of the reasons I am such a poor leader. I alternate between being too empathic and irreverent and being the only guy in the room able to motivate everyone to do something.
ozoneocean wrote:
OK, back to your double slit experiment then: The recorders change the system.
A human observer is irrelevant.
—————-
We can scale up effects so we can see them and we make use of our understanding of the effects all the time in fibre optic technology and many other things but we change nothing macro through our human observation (in the Schrödinger sense) because the physics are incompatible.
It don't mater if you collapse the the quantum state of a particle through interference, that's happening every femtosecond regardless…
OK, this is too complex hahaha, you're right. I won't go further.
I agree. Observing (whether via recorder, or whatever) does change the system. It causes a particle to collapse from a wave to a point. That's sorta the 'point'! anyway…
Notice what I bolded in your quote. "because the physics are incompatible…"
Classical Physics and Quantum Physics ARE incompatible. So of course it logically follows that one of them offers up an incomplete (ie. ultimately incorrect) view of how the universe operates. And the evidence strongly suggest that it's classical physics that is incomplete, so you probably shouldn't ever use 'incompatible with classical physics' as an argument against Quantum Physics. Classical Physics works for our day to day comings and goings (because we trust in the law of probability so much that we treat it as rock solid) but it is not the truer view of reality.
And now I'm done… for real! Haha. If you want to say something else I promise you'll have the last word!!
Don't mind me. I'm steering away from the comparison between classical physics and quantum physics (though I do agree the latter seem more accurate to the truth/reality) because I'm definitely not equipped to talk physics.
I'm here only to show off my new WM banner that I made all by myself and everything.
Fools talking about physics, don't you know man was never meant to understand Gods method of making the world. 😂😂😂
Perhaps the reason things change when observed is because someone alters the code of the matrix to mess with the observer…
Yup, I have no clue about this stuff. In other news I've been massively busy learning new software lately and and finally have come up for air, so what did I miss apart from quantum physics stuff?
I don't physics. The universe may do as it pleases. Not like I could stop it.
Very nice banner, Tantz!
I had another winged beastie visit me a couple nights ago. But this one was an adult. 
I put him outside in a box, and after he calmed down and shook off the trauma of my dog trying to get him to play with him, the dragon started moving again and got airborne.
I think I would the crack. I filled it with paper towels and covered it with duct tape to patch it until the building owner gets around to fixing it. I think it worked because I heard bat chattering just behind the patch job last night.
Haha I don't do physics either! If I did, I'd, like, be in a lab or something, instead of posting about it on a webcomics forum! But… I do believe our stance on these things has a bearing on how we live our lives! I can elaborate on that in another discussion, should it come up! :D
And as Bravo said, it makes for great story fodder!
I write so I study physics (and a lot of other stuff) to come with possibilities that can be extrapolated into stories. Ask the primary question at the core of storytelling "what if?"
But my primary field is history. Physics and mathematics have impacted history. Once upon a time science was considered philosophy and then the universe changed. I love James Burke.
And it not only could it change again but it probably will.
usedbooks wrote:
I don't physics. The universe may do as it pleases. Not like I could stop it.
Very nice banner, Tantz!
I had another winged beastie visit me a couple nights ago. But this one was an adult.
I put him outside in a box, and after he calmed down and shook off the trauma of my dog trying to get him to play with him, the dragon started moving again and got airborne.
I think I would the crack. I filled it with paper towels and covered it with duct tape to patch it until the building owner gets around to fixing it. I think it worked because I heard bat chattering just behind the patch job last night.
I also don't do physics, but do cute creatures! Why do Bats get so much hate!! This guy is adorbs~
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo