Curry Recipes Online

Curry Chat => Lets Talk Curry => Topic started by: Peripatetic Phil on January 11, 2012, 08:50 AM

Title: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Peripatetic Phil on January 11, 2012, 08:50 AM
The recent derogatory and frequent references to "Monkey sees, monkey does" were brought strikingly into focus by a very well-argued letter to the Financial Times yesterday.  It read :

Quote from: FT reader Tim Hammond
Sir,

Andre Geim (
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: emin-j on January 11, 2012, 01:38 PM
Nice find Phil  ;)
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: curryhell on January 11, 2012, 03:57 PM
Now ain't that a coincidence :o. The monkeys rest their case ;D
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: emin-j on January 11, 2012, 04:03 PM
CH,what do ya think of the sig  ;)
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: curryhell on January 11, 2012, 04:32 PM
CH,what do ya think of the sig  ;)
Very apt emin-j.  Funny that somebody else thinks the understanding often follows the invention more often than not.  I bet he's wrong though ;)
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Cory Ander on January 12, 2012, 02:23 AM
I'm not sure what the purpose, or point, of posting this is?

I don't think anyone suggested that mimicry is not a valid (and commonplace) way of learning?
 
I think it was simply maintained that a better understanding would be acquired by a more thorough understanding of the science behind certain practices.  Least nonsensical practices become entrenched through simple mimicry.  I'm surprised that anyone can (or would try to) sensibly argue otherwise.

To reinforce that concept, here are some simple examples (from http://stephswiki.wikispaces.com (http://stephswiki.wikispaces.com)) of where common misunderstandings have led to absurd practices becoming entrenched, even if some of them maybe have a modicum of scientific rationale behind them (though undoubtedly not know at the time).  Fortunately, I'm sure you'd agree, our level of understanding has vastly improved, through better scientific understanding, to the benefit of all (including leeches, wolves, pigs, toads, pigs, birds, etc) !:

"COMMON SICKNESSES AND CURES

RINGWORM  Wash hair in a males urine.
PLAGUE  Eat powdered emeralds, bathing in human urine, wearing of excrement, placing dead animals in home, use of leeches or drinking molten gold.
SKIN DISEASE  Cover sore spot with the skin of a wolf.
LOSS OF MEMORY  Eat ginger.
INSOMNIA  Eat treacle.
BRUISES  Apply a plaster of bacon fat & flour.
FAINTING  Breathe the smoke of burnt feathers.
BLOCKED NOSE  Stuff mustard & onion up the nose
INTERNAL BLEEDING  Wear a dried toad in a bag around the neck
GOUT  Apply a plaster of goats droppings mixed with rosemary, herbs & honey
KIDNEY STONES  Apply a hot plaster smeared with honey and pigeon poo.
TOOTHACHE  Get a candle and burn it close to the tooth. The worms that are gnawing the tooth will fall into a cup of water held by the mouth.

"RING A RING A ROSIES"

Every kid has joined hands with friends and sang the familiar nursery rhyme, "Ring around a rosie, a pocket full of posies. A tissue, a tissue, we all fall down." Not many people realize what this happy little nursery rhyme actually means.The nursery rhyme began about 1347 and refers to the deadly Black Plague, which killed over twenty-five million people in the fourteenth century. The "ring around a rosie" refers to the round, red rash that is the first symptom of the disease. "A pocket full of posies." means carrying flowers and placing them around the infected person for protection. "A tissue" means the sneezing sounds made by the infected person and finally, "we all fall down" describes the many dead from the disease.

DID THEY THINK THEY WORKED?

In medieval times, people didnt know better than to believe that these cures worked. There was no source of medicine so really they had to just try lots of different things. When they thought something worked, somebody else with the same disease/sickness would try it but they would usually end up dead because it didnt (my emphasis)".


Sound (analogously) familiar?  ;)

The recent derogatory and frequent references to "Monkey sees, monkey does"...

I suppose we really should apologise, to monkeys everywhere, for our derogatory comments  :P
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: chriswg on January 12, 2012, 10:00 AM
I'm not sure if this proves or ridicules your post:

It is often suggested that the rhyme relates to the symptoms of plague, specifically the Black Death - the bubonic plague that spread through Europe in the 1340s, or to the Great Plague of London, 1665/6. The plausible-sounding theory has it that the 'ring' was the ring of sores around the mouths of plague victims, who subsequently sneezed and fell down dead.

Those with more knowledge of etymology will shake their heads sagely and explain that the plague theory is a well-known falsehood. Reasons here: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/ring-a-ring-of-roses.html. (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/ring-a-ring-of-roses.html.)
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Peripatetic Phil on January 12, 2012, 12:18 PM
Now look, you chaps, you really must stop attacking our suspension of disbelief.  Those of us old enough to have had a /good/ education at primary school (classes of 44, and real discipline) will have had a number of urban myths burned into our still-malleable brains.  Those over sixty /know/, as a result, that "pop goes the weasel" involves the pawning of one's coat ("weasel and stoat"), that the ring of roses was a plague symptom, the pocketful of posies a prophylactic, the sneezing a sign of imminent death, etc.  We also learned the correct pronunciation of words such as victuals ("vittles") and conduit ("kundit").  Leave us, please, our childhood fantasies and keep your facts to yourselves !
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Razor on January 12, 2012, 12:22 PM
 :o :o :o :-\
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Les on January 12, 2012, 12:57 PM
Now look, you chaps, you really must stop attacking our suspension of disbelief.  Those of us old enough to have had a /good/ education at primary school (classes of 44, and real discipline) will have had a number of urban myths burned into our still-malleable brains.  Those over sixty /know/, as a result, that "pop goes the weasel" involves the pawning of one's coat ("weasel and stoat"), that the ring of roses was a plague symptom, the pocketful of posies a prophylactic, the sneezing a sign of imminent death, etc.  We also learned the correct pronunciation of words such as victuals ("vittles") and conduit ("kundit").  Leave us, please, our childhood fantasies and keep your facts to yourselves !

Well said Phil, Us old folk's need our fantasies, Mainly because that's about all we have in our favour, ;) which these youngin's will find out later on in life ;D
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: chriswg on January 12, 2012, 01:52 PM
I wouldn't recommend watching QI then. Apparently 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' can't be taught anymore because there are actually more (albeit less common) examples where the opposite is true :)
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Razor on January 12, 2012, 01:55 PM
I wouldn't recommend watching QI then. Apparently 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' can't be taught anymore because there are actually more (albeit less common) examples where the opposite is true :)

Chris, I also saw that episode, brilliant :)

Ray :)
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Peripatetic Phil on January 12, 2012, 03:42 PM
Apparently 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' can't be taught any more because there are actually more (albeit less common) examples where the opposite is true :)
More examples than what, Chris ?  More than there were when I was at school ?  More than are commonly taught ?  I would certainly wager a quite significant sum that there are fewer words containing "ei" in that order than there are words containing "ie", and that the "ie"-words outnumber the "ei" words by a factor of about six to one ...

** Phil.
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Razor on January 12, 2012, 04:16 PM
Phil,

Even after 'C' ?
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Les on January 12, 2012, 04:26 PM
Phil,

Even after 'C' ?

Back to your cooking pot, Troublemaker ;D

Les
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: bamble1976 on January 12, 2012, 06:37 PM
From the QI website:

I have to declare an interest here, since the fact of there being 21 times as many words which break the "rule" as obey it came from me. (Using a Scrabble word list, and with technical help from my stepdaughter and from Davini994, who used to be a regular on these forums.)

And what we found was 923 words which have <cie>, 2,606 words which have <ei> after something other than <c>, and just 167 words which really do have <cei>. (Of which only six are really in everyday use.)
Regards

Barry
Title: Re: Monkeys and the FT
Post by: Peripatetic Phil on January 12, 2012, 07:27 PM
Ah, so it is the "except after 'c'" that is central here.  I hadn't appreciated that.  I had thought that someone was asserting that there are more "ei" words than "ie" words, which I am 99.999% certain is false (by a factor of about six).  But how many "cei"s there are as opposed to "'not-ce'is", I have no idea !

** Phil.