Misconceptions about unicorns

[OldTrees1]

A unicorn is a masculine, physically powerful and intimidating beast that can become as weak as a kitten by a maiden.

From the female point of view there is an element of romance.

From the male point of view this is obviously a sign of weakness.

What kind of kitten?


I would not want to mess with Rajah despite how gentle he is towards Jasmine. Unicorns are similar.

[Lemmy]

You can't have a misconception about something that doesn't exist... At most, you can have misconceptions about a particular portrayal of it.

A gentle rainbow-pooping silver-haired unicorn is as vallid an interpretation as one where it has tiny tentacles instead of fur and shoots bees from its eyes. Use the version you like and be happy.

[WarKitty]

What about the platonic form of a unicorn?

[Lethologica]

You can't have a misconception about something that doesn't exist... At most, you can have misconceptions about a particular portrayal of it.

A gentle rainbow-pooping silver-haired unicorn is as vallid an interpretation as one where it has tiny tentacles instead of fur and shoots bees from its eyes. Use the version you like and be happy.

Just because there is no real-world instantiation of the concept of unicorns, and there are a collection of not-identical portrayals of unicorns in media and culture, doesn't mean the concept is all-encompassing and applies indiscriminately to all possible forms. Some interpretations are more valid than others.

[Frontier]

My picture of unicorns as "innocent" has forever been tarnished!

[Lemmy]

Just because there is no real-world instantiation of the concept of unicorns, and there are a collection of not-identical portrayals of unicorns in media and culture, doesn't mean the concept is all-encompassing and applies indiscriminately to all possible forms.

The concept encompasses whatever it is that the creator/storyteller/whatever wants it to encompass.

Some interpretations are more valid than others.

No. Some interpretations are more common/popular/interesting than others... But none of them has any shred of evidence to make them "more valid", at least until someone creates or finds a real unicorn.

Most people, me included, will associate the word "unicorn" with a one-horned horse with magical powers and some vague connection to nature and/or purity... But if someone creates a setting where unicorns are metallic snakes with giant fangs and a drill for its horn, he will be just as correct, and his interpretation will be just as valid as anyone's else. Just look at how many different types of dragons we have! From classic fire-breathing lizards, to hovering dogs, to cutesy anime girls. Saying one is more or less valid than any other is just putting your preference above those of others.

[The Glyphstone]

At first I misread the title of this thread as 'Misconceptions about Unicrons'. The contents were sadly disappointing.

[Razade]

At first I misread the title of this thread as 'Misconceptions about Unicrons'. The contents were sadly disappointing.

He only destroys planets to make teddy bears for orphans.

[Velaryon]

Pretty much ever since I opened this thread I've been dying to bring up the book Zombies vs. Unicorns, which has a lot of interesting and badass portrayals of unicorns. For anyone stuck on the "pretty pony with an adorable horn" idea of a unicorn, this book will remind you that horn can be used to disembowel as well.

[Lethologica]

The concept encompasses whatever it is that the creator/storyteller/whatever wants it to encompass.


No. Some interpretations are more common/popular/interesting than others... But none of them has any shred of evidence to make them "more valid", at least until someone creates or finds a real unicorn.

Most people, me included, will associate the word "unicorn" with a one-horned horse with magical powers and some vague connection to nature and/or purity... But if someone creates a setting where unicorns are metallic snakes with giant fangs and a drill for its horn, he will be just as correct, and his interpretation will be just as valid as anyone's else. Just look at how many different types of dragons we have! From classic fire-breathing lizards, to hovering dogs, to cutesy anime girls. Saying one is more or less valid than any other is just putting your preference above those of others.

The fact that you felt the need to add a horn to your deliberate subversion of the unicorn concept proves my point. Even when you're trying to make a valid interpretation of 'unicorn' completely unlike a unicorn, you feel the need to keep some aspect of a conventional unicorn. Just like no one would confuse a billion-dollar startup for a horned ungulate, but the people who came up with the term felt the need to analogize unicorn startups to regular unicorns in terms of their rare and magical nature.

That's because there is a distinct set of concepts conventionally associated with what a unicorn is. Creating a specific and unconventional kind of unicorn is not the same as disagreeing about what those conventions are. Someone who believes that unicorns are conventionally associated with being snakes is laboring under a misconception about unicorns; someone else, who creates a snake unicorn for the sake of his story or setting, is not. That doesn't mean the conventions of what a unicorn is are totally fixed, like the conventions of some other nonexistent entities (e.g. real numbers), but the conventions are also not totally fluid. You would have to create a lot of popular snake unicorns before that concept became part of the unicorn's conventional concept set.

[Fiery Diamond]

The fact that you felt the need to add a horn to your deliberate subversion of the unicorn concept proves my point. Even when you're trying to make a valid interpretation of 'unicorn' completely unlike a unicorn, you feel the need to keep some aspect of a conventional unicorn. Just like no one would confuse a billion-dollar startup for a horned ungulate, but the people who came up with the term felt the need to analogize unicorn startups to regular unicorns in terms of their rare and magical nature.

That's because there is a distinct set of concepts conventionally associated with what a unicorn is. Creating a specific and unconventional kind of unicorn is not the same as disagreeing about what those conventions are. Someone who believes that unicorns are conventionally associated with being snakes is laboring under a misconception about unicorns; someone else, who creates a snake unicorn for the sake of his story or setting, is not. That doesn't mean the conventions of what a unicorn is are totally fixed, like the conventions of some other nonexistent entities (e.g. real numbers), but the conventions are also not totally fluid. You would have to create a lot of popular snake unicorns before that concept became part of the unicorn's conventional concept set.

Indeed. Just because something doesn't exist in reality doesn't mean the word doesn't have a definition; parts of that definition can be mutable, but "misconception" has more to due with "mistaken belief" than it does "conceives of wrongly," despite the common-sense interpretation of the parts of the word. Someone who believes that unicorn refers to X, when the common definition refers to Y, is operating under a misconception. Someone who says, "for the purposes of my story/other usage, unicorn will refer to X (which shares Z in common with Y, hence my using the word unicorn instead of another word)" is not laboring under a misconception despite conceiving of a unicorn that is not Y.

It is perfectly possible to have a mistaken belief about a nonexistent entity. "When people talk about jackalopes, they mean fire-breathing lizards" is a wrong belief, even though jackalopes don't exist. "When I say jackalope, I mean a fire-breathing lizard" is just being Humpty-Dumpty (a la Alice's adventures), rather than an actual misconception, but one could argue that claiming this definition is "just as valid" is wrong because hey, words have meaning granted to them by popular usage, which this definition goes against.

[Lemmy]

The fact that you felt the need to add a horn to your deliberate subversion of the unicorn concept proves my point. Even when you're trying to make a valid interpretation of 'unicorn' completely unlike a unicorn, you feel the need to keep some aspect of a conventional unicorn.

Nah... It proves I know the etymology of the word "unicorn" (ít literally means "one horn"). Besides, I already said I do personally associate the word unicorn with one-horned horses. I simply recognize this is just my preference (which happens to be the most overwhelmingly popular one).

Just like no one would confuse a billion-dollar startup for a horned ungulate, but the people who came up with the term felt the need to analogize unicorn startups to regular unicorns in terms of their rare and magical nature.

That's because there is a distinct set of concepts conventionally associated with what a unicorn is. Creating a specific and unconventional kind of unicorn is not the same as disagreeing about what those conventions are. Someone who believes that unicorns are conventionally associated with being snakes is laboring under a misconception about unicorns; someone else, who creates a snake unicorn for the sake of his story or setting, is not. That doesn't mean the conventions of what a unicorn is are totally fixed, like the conventions of some other nonexistent entities (e.g. real numbers), but the conventions are also not totally fluid. You would have to create a lot of popular snake unicorns before that concept became part of the unicorn's conventional concept set.

Like I said, just because one interpretation is more common/popular/whatever, it doesn't mean it's more valid. The creature doesn't exist. Anyway you describe it is just as accurate as any other way, because imaginary things have no real characteristics... Only those we decide to give them. The person who believes unicorns are hornless snakes only has a misconception about one particular portrayal of unicorns (or maybe what other people mean when they use the word "unicorn")... But his description is just as accurate as any other.

Again... What dragon is the "right" dragon? The fire-breathing lizard? The hovering dog? The super-strong anime girl?

EDIT: Tsc... Whatever... I don't really care, anyway. I'm dropping the discussion.

[Razade]

Like I said, just because one interpretation is more common/popular/whatever, it doesn't mean it's more valid. The creature doesn't exist. Anyway you describe it is just as accurate as any other way, because imaginary things have no real characteristics... Only those we decide to give them. The person who believes unicorns are hornless snakes only has a misconception about one particular portrayal of unicorns (or maybe what other people mean when they use the word "unicorn")... But his description is just as accurate as any other.

I can't believe I found someone who would make me have to agree with Lethologica but man. If you want to converse with people than using the more popular representation of ideas is the way to do it. If I say I have a pet dog and you say you do too and whip out a rock covered in glue we're not really having a conversation. No matter how many times you scream that your usage of the word Dog to mean a rock covered in glue is just as valid as me using "the most popular/common" interpretation of the word. Words don't have intrinsic meaning, they have usages and the more popular usages define what the word means in a given context. Eating soup with a fork is a valid thing that doesn't make it correct. Validness and Correctness aren't the same thing.

[Lethologica]

Like I said, just because one interpretation is more common/popular/whatever, it doesn't mean it's more valid.

Usage is the ultimate source of meaning for any unit of language.

[Knaight]

Indeed. Just because something doesn't exist in reality doesn't mean the word doesn't have a definition; parts of that definition can be mutable, but "misconception" has more to due with "mistaken belief" than it does "conceives of wrongly," despite the common-sense interpretation of the parts of the word. Someone who believes that unicorn refers to X, when the common definition refers to Y, is operating under a misconception. Someone who says, "for the purposes of my story/other usage, unicorn will refer to X (which shares Z in common with Y, hence my using the word unicorn instead of another word)" is not laboring under a misconception despite conceiving of a unicorn that is not Y.

While we're at it, something existing in reality is a little bit less of a cleaner line than it superficially sounds. Even sticking to nouns referring to actual discrete objects, which have a tendency to be relatively cooperative there's the matter of how words are categories that frequently cover a lot of distinct things, the way they're grouped is inherently arbitrary to some degree, and there's inevitably a fuzzy boundary somewhere. This is particularly true for colloquial language; while scientific jargon and the like is often made extremely carefully* to avoid this exact thing common words have a tendency to just sort of emerge. It's just that this is one of those things that tends to be easy to overlook until it's brought to your attention, either because you run into a translation case where fuzzy boundaries around related words were divided differently (dao and jian vs. knife and sword come to mind as an obvious example) and you're in the grey area or when you end up in a semantics argument (is a stool a type of chair?).

*Although it's not like you don't run into issues here. The term "species" is a titanic mess, as just one example - particularly when you look into bacteria.

[Lemmy]

I can't believe I found someone who would make me have to agree with Lethologica but man. If you want to converse with people than using the more popular representation of ideas is the way to do it. If I say I have a pet dog and you say you do too and whip out a rock covered in glue we're not really having a conversation. No matter how many times you scream that your usage of the word Dog to mean a rock covered in glue is just as valid as me using "the most popular/common" interpretation of the word. Words don't have intrinsic meaning, they have usages and the more popular usages define what the word means in a given context. Eating soup with a fork is a valid thing that doesn't make it correct. Validness and Correctness aren't the same thing.

Fine, I'll bite one more time...

You CAN have misconceptions about the WORD unicorn.
You CAN NOT have misconceptions about the CREATURE unicorn. Because there's no such things.

It's a bit difficult for me to explain in a way that makes it clear, because language is obviously limited to... well... language. But let me try, one last time:

I could call a horse, not an unicorn, but a REAL horse, a turtle and still know everything there's to know about horses, even if I'm not using the word commonly used to name that species (which is not wrong, but will make it really freaking hard, or even impossible, for me to communicate effectively with others).

OTOH, no matter what I call an unicorn or what others call an unicorn... No one can know everything there's to know about unicorns. Because there are no unicorns. Literally every characteristic you give it is as accurate as any other. It might not be a popular or interesting portrayal of unicorn, and the word might not make sense (why call "unicorn" anything that has any number of horns other than one?), but it's just as accurate, unless you're talking about an specific portrayal of unicorns. If I create a setting where unicorns are snake-people with chainsaws and every character and NPC in that setting call them "unicorn", because those snake people use long spears that look like horns, that's what an unicorn is (in that setting). They are not the same type of unicorn you see most often, but they are just as "unicorny" as any other unicorn.

(remember, I'm making a distinction between the WORD and the actual CREATURE).

OTOH, if I say those snake people are horses, I'd be wrong. Because we know what horses are. And they are not spear-wielding snakes... Now.. They could be CALLED "horses" for whatever reason, but they wouldn't BE horses (Once again: distinction between the WORD "horse" and the actual CREATURE "horse").

Is my point clear, now?

[Razade]

You CAN have misconceptions about the WORD unicorn.

Sure, totally agree.

You CAN NOT have misconceptions about the CREATURE unicorn. Because there's no such things.

NO. You CAN have misconceptions about the CREATURE unicorn even if it doesn't exist because it's an abstract construct that has concrete depictions. If you show me a PICTURE of a Unicorn and it's actually a Dragon then we have a problem. Because the word I use to identify a Unicorn ad the word you're using to identify a Unicorn of different. It may be describing the same thing but that doesn't matter when you're the only one in the room using Unicorn to describe a Dragon and 19 other people in the room are using it to describe a horse with one horn. The majority details the most common usage of a word. That's how language evolves.

It's a bit difficult for me to explain in a way that makes it clear, because language is obviously limited to... well... language. But let me try, one last time:

I could call a horse, not an unicorn, but a REAL horse, a turtle and still know everything there's to know about horses, even if I'm not using the word commonly used to name that species (which is not wrong, but will make it really freaking hard, or even impossible, for me to communicate effectively with others).

Yeah, see above. Words are labels and they don't have intrinsic meaning. We agree, we're both descriptivists. That's awesome because we're both right. You're wrong however in its application. Because when you're in a group of people, that group determines the nomenclature. So if you want to call a horse a turtle when you're alone...what ever. When you're in a body of people and the majority agree that a horse is a horse, you calling it a turtle is WRONG and you don't get to hide behind personal opinion.

OTOH, no matter what I call an unicorn or what others call an unicorn... No one can know everything there's to know about unicorns.

Because there are no unicorns. Literally every characteristic you give it is as accurate as any other. It might not be a popular or interesting portrayal of unicorn, and the word might not make sense (why call "unicorn" anything that has any number of horns other than one?), but it's just as accurate, unless you're talking about an specific portrayal of unicorns. If I create a setting where unicorns are snake-people with chainsaws and every character and NPC in that setting call them "unicorn", because those snake people use long spears that look like horns, that's what an unicorn is (in that setting). They are not the same type of unicorn you see most often, but they are just as "unicorny" as any other unicorn.

This isn't fully correct. We have stories and writings and legends about Unicorns which informs the usage of the term. There's no such thing as Spiderman but if you start calling him a villain who uses magnetism you're going to be corrected. It's not down to personal opinion, it's a concept that exists in a wider usage in society. Non-real things can have properties. Unicorns have the properties that are agreed upon by the wider group discussing and using them. If you run counter to that, that's fine but you're going to be countered on it as you've been. Language isn't personal opinion. It's consensus. That's how language works. And that's how non-real things work. Spiderman has the properties we associate with him because that's what the people have agreed on to mean Spiderman.

(remember, I'm making a distinction between the WORD and the actual CREATURE).

I thought we agreed that words don't have intrinsic meaning so it doesn't matter what distinction we make between them. Only on the agreed parlance that is used in regards to them?

OTOH, if I say those snake people are horses, I'd be wrong. Because we know what horses are. And they are not spear-wielding snakes... Now.. They could be CALLED "horses" for whatever reason, but they wouldn't BE horses (Once again: distinction between the WORD "horse" and the actual CREATURE "horse").

Is my point clear, now?

Your point was clear from the get go, it doesn't make it any less incorrect.

[Lemmy]

Whatever, then... Agree to disagree, I suppose.

[Kantaki]

Unicorns are perceived as harmless.
What?

No seriously, what?

First time I hear something like that.

In all stories I ever heard unicorns are nasty, nasty beasts.
Killing every man who enters they forest kind of nasty.

Sure, there is that whole tame in the presence of virgins part, but unless you have one handy you are better really clever. And good at dodging.
I would recommend taking levels in tailor.
I mean „strong enough to impale your horn in a tree with enough force that you are stuck” doesn't a harmless critter make.

[Gravitron5000]

I could call a horse, not an unicorn, but a REAL horse, a turtle and still know everything there's to know about horses, even if I'm not using the word commonly used to name that species (which is not wrong, but will make it really freaking hard, or even impossible, for me to communicate effectively with others).

If you know everything there is to know about horses, then you would also know that people call them horses.

[Scarlet Knight]

Unicorns are perceived as harmless.
What?

No seriously, what?

First time I hear something like that.

[Lethologica]

Charlie the Unicorn might disagree with you about whether those unicorns were harmless. Freakin' mob unicorns or whatever setting him up to lose a kidney.

[hamishspence]

The myth about unicorns, as well as the thought about them being rivals to lions, is probably an echo of wooly rhinoceros and a time when both they and lions were wide-spread throughout Europe and Asia and lived alongside humans.

There's also the theory that it was the Elasmotherium that inspired unicorn mythology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium

though it's pretty similar to the woolly rhino - but single-horned, and larger.

[The Succubus]

What if the horn was something that could be easily snapped at the base? As people have pointed out, if you make the horn too strong, then you run into (hah!) problems with torsional effects on neck muscles, impacts along the length of the spinal column and so on. If the horn was something that could snap off and regrow afterwards, it would be a lot more feasible as a way of deterring larger predators like bears and so on.

Kind of curious to see if this thread can deliver a more evolutionarily practical unicorn.

[Quild]

Seems like no one linked this mandatory SMBC strip: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3480

[Kio]

Perhaps that's why they're so rare. They were rallied up and used as weapons for some terrible and ancient war! :O

[Themrys]

When I say unicorns are seen as weak, I'm more referring to modern day depictions, where they show up on every little girls folder

That'd probably be because nowadays, it is considered a matter of course that little girls are virgins, and that they choose to change this when they grow up.

Back in the day, if we are to believe George R.R. Martin's rapefest interpretation of medieval times, a woman who could remain a virgin into her twenties would have to be pretty badass. So her pet unicorn would also be badass.

I'd assume the way unicorns are perceived is tied to the way virgins are perceived.


Since we are talking about misconceptions, all you who say unicorns are like horses are wrong, wrong, wrong. They're more like goats, really. (The dangerous ones, at least. Well, perhaps the horsey unicorns are harmless because they don't have the neck musculature that goats have, or something)

A unicorn is a masculine, physically powerful and intimidating beast that can become as weak as a kitten by a maiden.

From the female point of view there is an element of romance.

From the male point of view this is obviously a sign of weakness.

That'd mean that the media (i.e. the way things are commonly perceived) are even more dominated by men now than they were in the Middle Ages.

If true, that'd mean there's been disappointingly little progress made.

[Wardog]

There's also the theory that it was the Elasmotherium that inspired unicorn mythology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium

though it's pretty similar to the woolly rhino - but single-horned, and larger.

I'm not sure why "its was inspired by a rhinoceros that died out thousands of years ago, or a rhinocerous-like thing that died out 10s of thousands of years ago" is more likely than "it was inspired by extant rhinoceroses".

Especially as we have a record (already mentioned) of Marco Pollo seeing a rhino and imediately thinking "that's a unicorn, we just have had a bad description of what they look like". Add to that his only way of describing it was as a mix-and-match critter, I can easily imagine an earlier traveller making a similar report, and then other people retelling it and changing what the maix and match was until it becomes some sort of horse-goat-antelope-narwhal.


Edited to add:
For a more badass unicorn, see: http://www.adultswim.com/games/web/r...ck-heavy-metal

[Armok]

I'm reminded of the time Drizzt got to pet a unicorn in one of his books. As stupid as that sounds, it was very clear that it was not a gentle beast. More like a really, really angry horse that would probably murder somebody. And the only reason why Drizzt even got away with touching it was because it was a message from the goddess he worships.

Like, seriously, if I could remember which book it was in I'd refer you all to it. It was the one where he goes back to Menzoberanzan to settle some business with the Drow. As stupid as the idea of Drizzt petting a unicorn sounds, it was actually a pretty well written depiction of encountering this fierce, noble creature that definitely was not gentle...

[vitaminbillwebb]

Has anyone linked to "Unicorns are Jerks" on this thread? Because I would, except I can't. Post. Links.