fadeaway263
Active member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,530
I swear, I never said Sight Nymph fished Balls Eddy with worms. ;-)
Sight Nymph Handles Balls Eddy
- Thread starter fadeaway263
- Start date
"I said Mr Purple People Eater, what's your line?
He said [color=FF33CC]eating purple people[/color], and it sure is fine
But that's not the reason that I came to land
I wanna get a job in a rock 'n roll band"
Acristickid
Well-known member
What people call “stereotypes” are what scientists call “empirical generalizations,” and they are the foundation of scientific theory. That’s what scientists do; they make generalizations. Many stereotypes are empirical generalizations with a statistical basis and thus on average tend to be true. If they are not true, they wouldn’t be stereotypes. The only problem with stereotypes and empirical generalizations is that they are not always true for all individual cases. They are generalizations, not invariant laws. There are always individual exceptions to stereotypes and empirical generalizations. The danger lies in applying the empirical generalizations to individual cases, which may or may not be exceptions. But these individual exceptions do not invalidate the generalizations.
An observation, if true, becomes an empirical generalization until someone objects to it, and then it becomes a stereotype. For example, the statement “Men are taller than women” is an empirical generalization. It is in general true, but there are individual exceptions. There are many men who are shorter than the average woman, and there are many women who are taller than the average man, but these exceptions do not make the generalization untrue. Men on average are taller than women in every human society (and, by the way, there are evolutionary psychological explanations for this phenomenon, known as the sexual dimorphism in size, but that’s perhaps for a future post). Everybody knows this, but nobody calls it a stereotype because it is not unkind to anybody. Men in general like being taller than women, and women in general like being shorter than men.
However, as soon as one turns this around and makes a slightly different, yet equally true, observation that “Women are fatter than men,” it becomes a stereotype because nobody, least of all women, wants to be considered fat. But it is true nonetheless; women have a higher percentage of body fat than men throughout the life course (and there are evolutionary reasons for this as well). Once again, there are numerous individual exceptions, but the generalization still holds true at the population level.
Stereotypes and empirical generalizations are neither good nor bad, desirable nor undesirable, moral nor immoral. They just are. Stereotypes do not tell us how to behave or treat other people (or groups of people). Stereotypes are observations about the empirical world, not behavioral prescriptions. One may not infer how to treat people from empirical observations about them. Stereotypes tell us what groups of people tend to be or do in general; they do not tell us how we ought to treat them. Once again, there is no place for “ought” in science.
As empirical generalizations borne of the observations and experiences of millions of individuals, most stereotypes are on the whole true. If they are not true, they cannot survive long as stereotypes. Nonetheless, theory and research in evolutionary psychology have overturned a few stereotypes and shown them to be false. For some reason that I cannot quite fathom, all the stereotypes that have been shown to be false so far have to do with people’s physical appearances. In the next few posts, I will discuss each of these stereotypes which evolutionary psychological theory and research have shown to be false.
An observation, if true, becomes an empirical generalization until someone objects to it, and then it becomes a stereotype. For example, the statement “Men are taller than women” is an empirical generalization. It is in general true, but there are individual exceptions. There are many men who are shorter than the average woman, and there are many women who are taller than the average man, but these exceptions do not make the generalization untrue. Men on average are taller than women in every human society (and, by the way, there are evolutionary psychological explanations for this phenomenon, known as the sexual dimorphism in size, but that’s perhaps for a future post). Everybody knows this, but nobody calls it a stereotype because it is not unkind to anybody. Men in general like being taller than women, and women in general like being shorter than men.
However, as soon as one turns this around and makes a slightly different, yet equally true, observation that “Women are fatter than men,” it becomes a stereotype because nobody, least of all women, wants to be considered fat. But it is true nonetheless; women have a higher percentage of body fat than men throughout the life course (and there are evolutionary reasons for this as well). Once again, there are numerous individual exceptions, but the generalization still holds true at the population level.
Stereotypes and empirical generalizations are neither good nor bad, desirable nor undesirable, moral nor immoral. They just are. Stereotypes do not tell us how to behave or treat other people (or groups of people). Stereotypes are observations about the empirical world, not behavioral prescriptions. One may not infer how to treat people from empirical observations about them. Stereotypes tell us what groups of people tend to be or do in general; they do not tell us how we ought to treat them. Once again, there is no place for “ought” in science.
As empirical generalizations borne of the observations and experiences of millions of individuals, most stereotypes are on the whole true. If they are not true, they cannot survive long as stereotypes. Nonetheless, theory and research in evolutionary psychology have overturned a few stereotypes and shown them to be false. For some reason that I cannot quite fathom, all the stereotypes that have been shown to be false so far have to do with people’s physical appearances. In the next few posts, I will discuss each of these stereotypes which evolutionary psychological theory and research have shown to be false.
jdaddy
Active member
^ tl;dr
jdaddy
Active member
No. This thread, as titled is about you and how awesome you are. Ahhhhh. I see what you did there.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,261
That's kind of funny because I an self taught and was "fly fishing" with a spinning rod even before i bought my first fly rod or fly line. Dry flies, too, and no bobber. I think i was about 10 years old. Yea, real difficult there.
I didn't even know anybody who fly fished back them. I just saw fish hitting bugs on the surface and adapted.
I wasn't doing it right, but was getting results.
I also didn't have anyone back them tell me it was too difficult.
Acristickid
Well-known member
Thought my copy and paste was just as relavent, if not more educational then the other senseless dribble posts. I thought it was entertaining at the very least.
fadeaway263
Active member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,530
I'm here to report Sight was using a bobber. Big pink balooney looking thing. Gave it a special name though...a "strike indicator" I guess calling it a SI is how Sight took the "Bob to the Bob Bobinator from the Rama Rama Ding Dong" :hammer:
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,261
Before the Kid writes his dissertation on stereotypes (very interesting BTW), I have a great FFing snob story.
I was fishing the D River with my nephew, he was maybe 12 or 13 years old at the time. I was just teaching him how to spin fish, and we were after smallies for the most part. I decided to leave my rod in the truck and just focus on teaching him. Anyway two FFer guys were below us fishing, I paid little attention to them, in about a half hour they came up the path and passed us going back to their vehicle. They were decked out in all the latest equipment and were obviously serious FFers.
I asked how they were doing and they mumbled something like "a few." I asked them what were they taking, and they replied curtly, "flies" while turning around and walking away. It seemed they assumed I was a member of the unwashed masses (just another dumb spin fisherman) that couldn't understand such complicated things such as fly patterns or hatches.
The truth of the matter was I was about to tell them about a bunch of rising trout in the riff above me, but I didn't, given their attitude. Anyway I went up to my truck, grabbed my fly rod, walked up to the riff and proceeded to slay the bows on caddis emerger flies. Their vehicle was parked in an elevated spot above the riff, and I'm sure they could see me fishing.
After about an hour of fishing I moved back down to see how my nephew was doing, and the same two guys came back down the the path to the river. This time I ignored them, but both guys walked right up behind me and said, "hey buddy, what were those fish takin'?" You guessed it!....I turned my head to them and said "FLIES" and turned back around....Dang FFing snobs...lol.
jdaddy
Active member
In all fairness to the snobs, when someone asks "what are they taking" and has a spinning rod in their hand, answering "22 olive comparaduns" may be just as smart of an answer. Clearly the spin fisherman is not going to break open his tackle box and whip out a fly box and match your information. You know that answer is going to seem pompous as well.
HOWEVER, their coming back and asking you what they were taking was fully deserving a good retort. Good game!
HOWEVER, their coming back and asking you what they were taking was fully deserving a good retort. Good game!
jdaddy
Active member
Oh, and he so much as called me a tool for having a new fangled thingamabobber on the Espous last year. Guess someone explained it was a SI, not a bobber. I guess the purist still use yarn.
cmkrachen
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 394
FarmerDave,
because you taught your self how to fly fish and didnt find it difficult, does not mean that alot of other guys dont. not to mention that alot of entry level fly anglers cant afford, or perceive that they cannot afford many of the "expensive" items we "require" while fly fishing. 2 dollar a piece flies etc...
I guess the point is, if you're on the opposite side of the argument you're right and i'm wrong.
Plainly, i think most spin fisherman i run into on the stream treat it more poorly and show less respect for the resource than most fly anglers...a bad fly angler isnt going to catch many fish, nor will he harm them, a novice bait fisherman is going to gut hook alot of trout. period. if you disagree and feel otherwise...have at it... but where im from, if it looks like a steer, walks like a steer, and smells like a steer, it probably isn't a turtle...
feel free to bash away and disagree...but it is what it is...
because you taught your self how to fly fish and didnt find it difficult, does not mean that alot of other guys dont. not to mention that alot of entry level fly anglers cant afford, or perceive that they cannot afford many of the "expensive" items we "require" while fly fishing. 2 dollar a piece flies etc...
I guess the point is, if you're on the opposite side of the argument you're right and i'm wrong.
Plainly, i think most spin fisherman i run into on the stream treat it more poorly and show less respect for the resource than most fly anglers...a bad fly angler isnt going to catch many fish, nor will he harm them, a novice bait fisherman is going to gut hook alot of trout. period. if you disagree and feel otherwise...have at it... but where im from, if it looks like a steer, walks like a steer, and smells like a steer, it probably isn't a turtle...
feel free to bash away and disagree...but it is what it is...
MattBoyer
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,515
Sorry you come from such a crappy neighborhood. Where I come from there are quite a few conservation minded spin fishers, some of whom would make us both look like buffoons with the fly rod, but choose to spin fish. The entire basis of the argument, that fly fishing is some sort of "progression" above spin fishing, is quite silly and is probably a plot started by the purples.
Boyer
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,261
That's bull.
They were A-holes.
If someone askes me what I am using while I am fly fishing, I'll assume they actually know something about fly fishing or they wouldn't ask, and that is regardless of what rod they happen to be using at the time. You see, I am one of those people who will fish with any tackle, and I don't think I am a freak of nature because of that.
Hey Jay, how's that for low hanging fruit? :-D
Great story Afish.
