Honorverse ramblings and musings

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:Not necessarily. Both the bright mind-glow and the high intelligence might simply be effects of something else. Specifically, the Meyerdahl genemod. One of the things included in the Meyerdahl mod was an attempt at higher intelligence. The Winston's have a different genemod, but it includes the same or similar intelligence enhancer. There have been a number of other attempts at intelligence enhancers, mostly with little positive (and often with negative) success.

Characters in the books have speculated that this specific enhancer makes both Winston's and Harrington's more appealing to treecats. It also appears to have been at least partially successful in producing fairly intelligent people.

So I would say that it is not just anyone with high intelligence that appeals to treecats--it is a particular gene sequence which happens to both produce intelligence and bright auras.

Not necessarily. Fair enough.

But. As you said, it's just speculation.

Although Elizabeth shares the same sequence, Hamish doesn't. Hamish was just intelligent. Harold Tschu was just intelligent. Certainly Rachel and Miranda didn't share that gene sequence.

If I only have one poker chip left and had to bet, I'd bet on the high IQ. I don't think the cats are much interested in how or why their mates have a high IQ, just that they do. Cats just don't want to be bonded with someone dumb as a bunch of pop rocks.

And I'll agree that there are other considerations as well; textev implies as much. Like good hygiene, Cats, no doubt, have a keen sense of smell, which rules out Crandall. No drug addicts. No cowards - rules out Pavel. *No criminals - rules out pirates. And probably no one allergic to celery!

I think Occam's razor is in order here.

SWM wrote:
Occam's razor actually argues in favor of it being the aura of the person which attracts treecats. And the treecats have said so themselves.

The treecats don't test a person's intelligence before they bond with them. In fact, often times they have never met the person before; they have no idea how intelligent the person is.

So the question is what makes the aura so attractive that it causes a treecat to bond. It cannot be merely intelligence; we have seen quite a few highly intelligent people who have never attracted a treecat companion, even when the opportunity arose. I suggest that it is something in the genetics, and I think Occam's razor would support this. I'm not saying that it is only this gene mod that does it; I'm saying that it is genetic, and that this genemod happens to include it.

****** *

Occam's razor argues in favor of the simplest solution. If the two options are...
1) The messy details of gene sequences, genemods
2) Intelligence

Then intelligence is the simplest solution. Treecats talk about the brightness of the mindglow. I think the brightness of the mindglow is as a result of intelligence. We even have the same nomenclature of sorts embedded within our own language. "He isn't so bright you see. " See?

Everyone has always told me that I have a certain presence. We've all met that type person, and they were always intelligent types. *Of course, my niece has always claimed that it's my smile and good looks that light up a room. She may have something there.

Of course, you may be just as apt to be right SWM, since again, it is all speculation.

But my speculation maintains, it is simply that treecats don't want someone whose IQ has fallen, and they can't get it up.

Can you really see treecats bonding with an ignoramus?

Can you really imagine a treecat bonding with Janacek or Byng?...

<I can't believe I've bonded with a dipshit>

Nimitz and a nincompoop. NOOOOO!




Besides.

I remember an instance, but not the exact instance, of a treecat having been in the presence of the one of which he'd/she'd imminently bond for quite some time before the bond took effect. It seems that that argues in favor of the intelligence quo needing time to assert itself - since any genemods would have already been in place.

Can anyone recall that incident. Was it Hipper?

*However, I do have a very rare gene myself, that threatens to witness for your argument.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5101&p=125323&hilit=romania#p125323

SWM wrote:Occam's razor actually argues in favor of it being the aura of the person which attracts treecats. And the treecats have said so themselves.

The treecats don't test a person's intelligence before they bond with them. In fact, often times they have never met the person before; they have no idea how intelligent the person is.

So the question is what makes the aura so attractive that it causes a treecat to bond. It cannot be merely intelligence; we have seen quite a few highly intelligent people who have never attracted a treecat companion, even when the opportunity arose. I suggest that it is something in the genetics, and I think Occam's razor would support this. I'm not saying that it is only this gene mod that does it; I'm saying that it is genetic, and that this genemod happens to include it.

****** *

cthia wrote:Occam's razor argues in favor of the simplest solution. If the two options are
1) The messy details of gene sequences, genemods
2) Intelligence

Then intelligence is the simplest solution. Treecats talk about the brightness of the mindglow. I think the brightness of the mindglow is as a result of intelligence. We even have the same nomenclature of sorts embedded within our own language. "He isn't so bright you see. " See?

Interesting discussion, you two, and if I may interject a paragraph or two.

I see your point, cthia,but I don't think is Occam's shaving device that best applies here. It's more of a matter of subsets--for there are a lot of intelligent people (depending on your definition of intelligence), some of them perhaps a great deal more intelligent in many ways than Honor or Hamish, that have not nor are likely to be adopted. For a couple of examples, Admiral Hemphill and Doctor Illescue are undoubtedly brilliant people, but neither seems likely to be adopted. In the early days a lot of the Sphinx Forestry folks were adopted, and while I do not doubt they were all fairly bright, I doubt they all ranked in the very top percentile of IQ. There are probably many, many more like them. So I don't think intelligence is the end of it--I do agree that it is a major component, just not the be-all and end-all.

Everyone has always told me that I have a certain presence. We've all met that type person, and they were always intelligent types. *Of course, my niece has always claimed that it's my smile and good looks that light up a room. She may have something there.

Of course, you may be just as apt to be right SWM, since again, it is all speculation.

But my speculation maintains, it is simply that treecats don't want someone whose IQ has fallen, and they can't get it up.

Can you really see treecats bonding with an ignoramus?

Can you really imagine a treecat bonding with Janacek or Byng?...

No, I can't either. Yet as you also mention, there is something...particular...about the two-legs they bond with, as if those particular puzzle parts fit perfectly with those of the People who are most likely to bond. I think that is what SWM means by the 'aura'

That noted, the 'genie' factor is possible but I think I would have to put it in the 'not proved' category; we simply do not have that much data, and it will be interesting to see if any adoptions take place in Haven in the next book (we have had hints of at least one...)

......
Besides.

I remember an instance, but not the exact instance, of a treecat having been in the presence of the one of which he'd/she'd imminently bond for quite some time before the bond took effect. It seems that that argues in favor of the intelligence quo needing time to assert itself - since any genemods would have already been in place.

Can anyone recall that incident. Was it Hipper?

*However, I do have a very rare gene myself, that threatens to witness for your argument.

You may be thinking of Samantha and Hamish, or perhaps Monroe and Justin (Queen Elizabeth's husband). Both bondings of People and two-legs that had been in proximity to each other prior to the bonding.

Hipper and Rachel Mayhew bonded (IIRC) upon sight, as did Farragut and Miranda (RIP). Which makes one wonder if there is something special about Graysons and bonding...

Hutch wrote:Interesting discussion, you two, and if I may interject a paragraph or two.

I see your point, cthia,but I don't think is Occam's shaving device that best applies here. It's more of a matter of subsets--for there are a lot of intelligent people (depending on your definition of intelligence), some of them perhaps a great deal more intelligent in many ways than Honor or Hamish, that have not nor are likely to be adopted. For a couple of examples, Admiral Hemphill and Doctor Illescue are undoubtedly brilliant people, but neither seems likely to be adopted. In the early days a lot of the Sphinx Forestry folks were adopted, and while I do not doubt they were all fairly bright, I doubt they all ranked in the very top percentile of IQ. There are probably many, many more like them. So I don't think intelligence is the end of it--I do agree that it is a major component, just not the be-all and end-all.

Can you really see treecats bonding with an ignoramus?

Can you really imagine a treecat bonding with Janacek or Byng?...

No, I can't either. Yet as you also mention, there is something...particular...about the two-legs they bond with, as if those particular puzzle parts fit perfectly with those of the People who are most likely to bond. I think that is what SWM means by the 'aura'

That noted, the 'genie' factor is possible but I think I would have to put it in the 'not proved' category; we simply do not have that much data, and it will be interesting to see if any adoptions take place in Haven in the next book (we have had hints of at least one...)

Intelligence may play a part of it. But it occurs to me that treecats primarily perceive humans through their empathic link - they feel the mindglow of their emotions; not their logic.

Intelligence may be (and likely is) one factor that makes for a compatible mind glow; but it seems unlikely to me to be the only one. (IOW I have no doubt a persons level, and type, of intelligence affects their mindglow I equally doubt it dominates it)


As much trouble as I have seeing a treecat bonding with "an ignoramus" I have an equally hard time seeing them bond with a cold and unfeeling, or warped, mentality no matter how high the person's IQ.


And finally there's clearly more than simple intelligence or even simple personality because there's an element of 'fit' between the person and the treecat. Most people who end up bonded to a 'cat aren't bonded by the first cat they ever meet (I imagine this is especially true for Sphinx Rangers with their relatively high 'cat exposure).

And presumably the converse is true as well; though a 'cat destined to bond another first meeting someone who'd later bond to a different 'cat probably doesn't happen often; just due to the low number of bonds and high number of people.

That mutual compatibility required between person and 'cat to bond makes it even harder to tease out what components of a mindglow make a person compatible with a cat 'bond.

Hutch wrote:Interesting discussion, you two, and if I may interject a paragraph or two.

I see your point, cthia,but I don't think is Occam's shaving device that best applies here. It's more of a matter of subsets--for there are a lot of intelligent people (depending on your definition of intelligence), some of them perhaps a great deal more intelligent in many ways than Honor or Hamish, that have not nor are likely to be adopted. For a couple of examples, Admiral Hemphill and Doctor Illescue are undoubtedly brilliant people, but neither seems likely to be adopted. In the early days a lot of the Sphinx Forestry folks were adopted, and while I do not doubt they were all fairly bright, I doubt they all ranked in the very top percentile of IQ. There are probably many, many more like them. So I don't think intelligence is the end of it--I do agree that it is a major component, just not the be-all and end-all.

Can you really see treecats bonding with an ignoramus?

Can you really imagine a treecat bonding with Janacek or Byng?...

No, I can't either. Yet as you also mention, there is something...particular...about the two-legs they bond with, as if those particular puzzle parts fit perfectly with those of the People who are most likely to bond. I think that is what SWM means by the 'aura'

That noted, the 'genie' factor is possible but I think I would have to put it in the 'not proved' category; we simply do not have that much data, and it will be interesting to see if any adoptions take place in Haven in the next book (we have had hints of at least one...)

Johnathan_S wrote:Intelligence may play a part of it. But it occurs to me that treecats primarily perceive humans through their empathic link - they feel the mindglow of their emotions; not their logic.

Intelligence may be (and likely is) one factor that makes for a compatible mind glow; but it seems unlikely to me to be the only one. (IOW I have no doubt a persons level, and type, of intelligence affects their mindglow I equally doubt it dominates it)


As much trouble as I have seeing a treecat bonding with "an ignoramus" I have an equally hard time seeing them bond with a cold and unfeeling, or warped, mentality no matter how high the person's IQ.


And finally there's clearly more than simple intelligence or even simple personality because there's an element of 'fit' between the person and the treecat. Most people who end up bonded to a 'cat aren't bonded by the first cat they ever meet (I imagine this is especially true for Sphinx Rangers with their relatively high 'cat exposure).

And presumably the converse is true as well; though a 'cat destined to bond another first meeting someone who'd later bond to a different 'cat probably doesn't happen often; just due to the low number of bonds and high number of people.

That mutual compatibility required between person and 'cat to bond makes it even harder to tease out what components of a mindglow make a person compatible with a cat 'bond.

Which just got more interesting with your and Johnathan's intelligent and insightful offering. Thanks.

Yes, Hamish and Samantha. Forever in your debt.

There are varying forms of intelligence. Some people have a dull, lackluster, boring intelligence and some are quite the exuberant witty type. I think the answer lies somewhere within-and-between these varying types of "personality." Though where or how to draw the line is beyond me. I remember that there is coined an "emotional intelligence" that has its roots set in personality. And I think that personality is the "aura" in which SWM speaks.

Interesting your note about Graysons and bonding. Which of course I'd wager, if so, it is the Christian angle which has the effect of focusing one's "aura."

As humans, how many times have we heard "Here, go buy yourself a personality?"

Personality(P) = Emotional IQ.

In other words Intelligence + Personality = Bonding.
IQ + P = B.

Hey, I'll coin this the "cthia-bonding test." (CBT). Since "cthia" is the Vulcan word for logic.

http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligen ... 20data.htm
http://www.psychtronics.com/2013/06/two ... gence.html

Cthia,

We have now seen around a dozen bondings. All but two of those bondings been instantaneous, practically upon first sight. The only bondings we have seen in which the treecat and human had time to get acquainted before the bonding are the cases of Monroe to Justin and Samantha to Hamish. And in both cases, the treecat had been previously bonded and essentially was in a period of mourning and adjustment when they first met the second bondmate.

The evidence suggests that in normal circumstances bonding is instantaneous, not giving the treecat any opportunity to measure the intelligence of the human. Having a second bonding is not the norm.

I would also argue that Occam's Razor does not favor intelligence being the primary factor, because you still have to explain why most intelligent people do not attract a treecat, and why several people of unexceptional intelligence have had treecats. Intelligence is the simplest explanation only if you ignore those problems.

Hay guys, been gone for a while due to a growing family, (baby boy, born on the 15th. 8 lbs 1 oz. ) and I get to come back to see one of my favorite hobby horses being ridden.

Occam's Razor does not say what most people believe it does; that the simplest answer is usualy the right answer.

What is actually says is that, if you have two competing hypotheses that both provide equally accurate predictions, the one that requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.

I would say that the "intelligence hypothesis" is a less accurate predictor.

crewdude48 wrote:Hay guys, been gone for a while due to a growing family, (baby boy, born on the 15th. 8 lbs 1 oz. ) and I get to come back to see one of my favorite hobby horses being ridden.

Occam's Razor does not say what most people believe it does; that the simplest answer is usualy the right answer.

What is actually says is that, if you have two competing hypotheses that both provide equally accurate predictions, the one that requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.

I would say that the "intelligence hypothesis" is a less accurate predictor.

Congratulations papa! I enjoy hearing about new births. Remember, teach him all about Chevy!

Yes, but it is accepted as the most popular layman's form.

SWM wrote:Cthia,
We have now seen around a dozen bondings. All but two of those bondings been instantaneous, practically upon first sight. The only bondings we have seen in which the treecat and human had time to get acquainted before the bonding are the cases of Monroe to Justin and Samantha to Hamish. And in both cases, the treecat had been previously bonded and essentially was in a period of mourning and adjustment when they first met the second bondmate.

The evidence suggests that in normal circumstances bonding is instantaneous, not giving the treecat any opportunity to measure the intelligence of the human. Having a second bonding is not the norm.

I would also argue that Occam's Razor does not favor intelligence being the primary factor, because you still have to explain why most intelligent people do not attract a treecat, and why several people of unexceptional intelligence have had treecats. Intelligence is the simplest explanation only if you ignore those problems.

I don't think that intelligence is the primary factor either. But rather 'personality in conjunction with.' It's just that I think one begets the other. One can be intelligent without a pleasing personality. One can have a pleasing personality without being intelligent. But a person that does have immense intelligence in conjunction with a pleasing personality would shine as bright as the morning star. My niece is a perfect example of this. Her intelligence + personality makes her irresistably charming.

I think the clue lies in the fact that treecats rarely bond with adolescents. Because adolescents don't usually enjoy having a well developed personality or intelligence. (My niece notwithstanding. Whew!) Heck, even many adults haven't discovered who they are yet and are still trying to 'find' themselves. Treecats wouldn't want to bond with someone who's lost. The average adolescents' personality and intelligence hasn't settled and congealed yet.

And even humans don't wish to be saddled with a complete nincompoop. Yet, if all else in the IQ department is equal, it is his/her personality that is the trait that wins out.

I like SWM's observation regarding the two cases of delayed bonding and yield to that logic. The scientist in me must also add a tidbit of information about Occam's razor as it applies to this case - where I'm surprised someone didn't attack. 'Intelligence' implies its own hidden complexities.

But intelligence also inspires its own brand of personality. If that personality is pure - bereft of arrogance, conceit and all the other associative dots .... then I can imagine it tasting good to cats. At any rate, I agree with others who have asserted that intelligence can't be all or an end-all-be-all so let's examine more closely some of the other nominees...
-Aura - whose synonyms include 'character' and 'personality.'
-Personality - the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character:

Soulmate - a person who is perfectly suited to another in temperament 2 : a person who strongly resembles another *in attitudes or beliefs ...

Personality rooted in intelligence is key. IMHO.

*As per Hutch's observation of something potentially special going on with Grayson and bonding, brings to my mind the Christian tenet of the attitude of gratitude. That makes for a quite pleasing personality. I would be surprised if Grayson doesn't produce the lion's share of adoptions. Christianity 'gone right' can produce some very pleasing personalities.

Even for humans, personality has an overriding property.

"But she is ugly."
"Yea but I like her personality."

"Girl he is overweight."
"Girl I know he's fat. But what a nice personality."

"But he's broke."
"But I love his personality."

Treecats are people too. It's as simple as Occam's razor to cut to the chase.

Has there been any textev regarding pheromones potentially playing a part? Pheromone -a chemical substance produced and released into the environment by an animal, especially a mammal or an insect, affecting the behavior or physiology of others of its species.


Personality(song)
'cause you got personality,
Walk, personality
Talk, Personality
Smile, Personality
Charm, personality
Love, personality
And of Cause youve got
A great big heart
So over and over
Oh, I'll be a fool to you
Now over and over
What more can I do?

Over and over

crewdude48 wrote:Hay guys, been gone for a while due to a growing family, (baby boy, born on the 15th. 8 lbs 1 oz. ) and I get to come back to see one of my favorite hobby horses being ridden.

Occam's Razor does not say what most people believe it does; that the simplest answer is usualy the right answer.

What is actually says is that, if you have two competing hypotheses that both provide equally accurate predictions, the one that requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.

I would say that the "intelligence hypothesis" is a less accurate predictor.

Congratulations, to you and Mrs. Dude!

I'd disagree slightly — I don't think Occam's Razor says the simpler hypothesis is more likely to be correct, just that you should go with the simpler because it's simpler. Being simpler means it's easier to use, and probably easier to test.

Essentially, Occam's razor cautions against 'overthinking.'