OOTS #1070 - The Discussion Thread

[Sithrak]

I discovered it on Tumblr. It was mentioned in a post talking about other sayings that suffer similar fates, such as "Curiosity killed the cat".

Are you talking about this comment chain by any chance? Because unfortunately, the whole thing is just another case of internet disinformation. The familiar stock phrases really are the originals, and the putative "full" versions are rejoinders that were created at a later date (usually much later).

It's actually possible to track the evolution of "jack of all trades, master of none, often better than a master of none." Originally, we just had "jack of all trades" as a way of referring to people with a working knowledge of many fields. But as specialization came to be seen as valuable, "master of none" was added on to reframe the original term as pejorative. And finally, "often better than a master of one" was added on to that when we went back to valuing diverse skill sets. So it was never part of the "full" or "original" or "real" phrase. It was something tacked on to refute an earlier sentiment.

So what does all this mean for us? Possibly nothing. We are not duty-bound to put the original phrases—and the sentiments behind them—on a pedestal. The rejoinders exist precisely because times and sentiments change. If you think the modern variants are closer to the truth than the originals, more power to you. Knowledge marches on! But it's still worth knowing that what you are passing on is modern thinking, not ancient wisdom.

Why does everyone always forget the second half of that saying?

Because it's not actually the second half of the saying (see above).

[danielxcutter]

Are you talking about this comment chain by any chance? Because unfortunately, the whole thing is just another case of internet disinformation. The familiar stock phrases really are the originals, and the putative "full" versions are rejoinders that were created at a later date (usually much later).

It's actually possible to track the evolution of "jack of all trades, master of none, often better than a master of none." Originally, we just had "jack of all trades" as a way of referring to people with a working knowledge of many fields. But as specialization came to be seen as valuable, "master of none" was added on to reframe the original term as pejorative. And finally, "often better than a master of one" was added on to that when we went back to valuing diverse skill sets. So it was never part of the "full" or "original" or "real" phrase. It was something tacked on to refute an earlier sentiment.

So what does all this mean for us? Possibly nothing. We are not duty-bound to put the original phrases—and the sentiments behind them—on a pedestal. The rejoinders exist precisely because times and sentiments change. If you think the modern variants are closer to the truth than the originals, more power to you. Knowledge marches on! But it's still worth knowing that what you are passing on is modern thinking, not ancient wisdom.

Because it's not actually the second half of the saying (see above).

Um... Okay. Still, I mostly prefer the newer ones.

[Sithrak]

Um... Okay. Still, I mostly prefer the newer ones.

No problem! That's why I ended with an entire paragraph justifying them. Older doesn't mean better, and original doesn't mean good, after all!

[Lord Torath]

Heh, I never actually heard that second part before.

I find it extremely unrelatable. Something being too curious for its own good is entirely plausible, easy to imagine. Resurrection following a reckless death... what the heck?

It fits pretty well with the whole, "Cats have nine lives" thing, though. And the idea that the juicy tidbit that got it killed was so extraordinary not even death could keep it down is just too fun.

[Quibblicious]

But, that mean's duling Klingon Opera. I don't think the world is ready for that.

You'd better brace yourself... it's coming...

Q

[Quibblicious]

And somehow, we've gone from discussing whether or not Roy has taken the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, to Klingons dueling via opera. All because of Bards.

Truly, Bards are the life of the party, and of the Party. But in Soviet Russia, Bard Finds You.

We are truly amazing. or amusing.

Something like that.

Q

[JumboWheat01]

We are truly amazing. or amusing.

Something like that.

Q

I think the term you're looking for is "spoony."

[Goblin_Priest]

It fits pretty well with the whole, "Cats have nine lives" thing, though. And the idea that the juicy tidbit that got it killed was so extraordinary not even death could keep it down is just too fun.

More or less. "Curiosity kills the cat" implies that death is the inevitable outcome of (excessive) curiosity. Sure, the idea that "cats have nine lives" implies some form of ressurection, but with the very explicit caveat that it only works so many times, and thus each life remains valuable. "Curiosity brought it back" implies it is the inevitable outcome of death by curiosity, thus negating the limit of 9, and all importance of the death. These ideas do not seem compatible to me.

And what's the moral, anyways? Go get yourself killed, it's worth it? That's not really a message that society tends to promote. After all, we don't endlessly resurrect, we don't even have 9 lives. Satisfaction won't bring us back.

And saying it to a young child might just incite it to reckless behavior, and dramatic outcomes.

Plus, with a quick look-up on wikipedia, that extra tidbit doesn't even seem to be a legitimate part of the idiom...

[8BitNinja]

I think the term you're looking for is "spoony."

There are several bards I would describe with that term.

[Lord Torath]

More or less. "Curiosity kills the cat" implies that death is the inevitable outcome of (excessive) curiosity. Sure, the idea that "cats have nine lives" implies some form of ressurection, but with the very explicit caveat that it only works so many times, and thus each life remains valuable. "Curiosity brought it back" implies it is the inevitable outcome of death by curiosity, thus negating the limit of 9, and all importance of the death. These ideas do not seem compatible to me.

And what's the moral, anyways? Go get yourself killed, it's worth it? That's not really a message that society tends to promote. After all, we don't endlessly resurrect, we don't even have 9 lives. Satisfaction won't bring us back.

And saying it to a young child might just incite it to reckless behavior, and dramatic outcomes.

Plus, with a quick look-up on wikipedia, that extra tidbit doesn't even seem to be a legitimate part of the idiom...

Moral? I've usually encountered it issued as a threat. "Don't dig too far into my obviously-non-shady past or you'll be sorry". In which case, the rejoinder seems completely appropriate: "You don't scare me."

I confess, I've only seen the "satisfaction" addition once. Alianna of Pirate Swoop (daughter of Master George Cooper and Sir Alana of Olau and Pirate Swoop - and Trebond as well, though that's been left out lately) uttered it to people she was traveling with. (Tamora Pierce's Trickster's Choice - great book, give it a read). But I really like it.

The moral of "Curiosity killed the cat" is that you should be content with what you know. I will quite happily counter that with "No, you shouldn't!" any time I hear it. "Learn something new! It'll be worth it!" is a much better message in my not-so-humble opinion.

[Kish]

And what's the moral, anyways?

The moral is that curiosity is a good thing, as opposed to your apparently strongly held belief that curiosity is a bad thing.

[Shani]

*Carefully steps into the cat discussion, because... lets be honest... who can ignore a cute kitten*

I think proverbs like "Curiosity killed the cat." are meant as lessons that are easy to remember and often contain some common sense, moral or traditional view. Changes in proverbs have probably a lot to do with the changes in morals and views, but I don't think that choosing either the old or the new one is wrong, though it might say a lot about you and your personal views and experiences.
Though I doubt that many people think that deeply about that stuff and just use them as a way to make what they say more interesting or visual. Or when they want to tell others to keep out of their business, without wanting to make the threat too mean sounding. (Though that could still be too subtle for some to catch.)

Learning something new is something I would really encourage, so I don't dislike the new addition of "satisfaction brought it back", but on the other hand I do think that there is reason for the first part. After all... you can't use your new gained knowledge if you're dead.
Knowing when to be curious and knowing when to .. be careful... Seems a sensible thing to me.


Also.. I think Roy could use some proverbs in order to drill some common sense into Elan. They're short and easy to remember, so there is hope that even Elan will be able to apply them when needed. (Although I do admit that he's gotten a lot better compared to the beginning.)

[Quibblicious]

I think the term you're looking for is "spoony."

You want to spoon me?

Um, thanks, but I'm taken...

Q

[Lord Torath]

Also.. I think Roy could use some proverbs in order to drill some common sense into Elan. They're short and easy to remember, so there is hope that even Elan will be able to apply them when needed. (Although I do admit that he's gotten a lot better compared to the beginning.)

"If you help with their verse, you'll just make things worse."

[Goblin_Priest]

The moral is that curiosity is a good thing, as opposed to your apparently strongly held belief that curiosity is a bad thing.

Curiosity is not a bad thing, but recklessness is. Curiosity, in itself, is risky, because it involves dealing with the unknown. It means you are seeking something without knowledge of the risks and dangers that lurk.

I'd have a hard time thinking of any harm in being curious about things like "I wonder who invented X?", "I wonder what the best model of X is?", "I wonder if I can breed X to have Y trait?". On the other hand, "I wonder what's on the other side of that barbed fence", "I wonder what's down that abandoned bunker", "I wonder if this old bridge can support my weight", "I wonder if I'm fast enough to jump in front of a moving train", and "I wonder how fast I can take this turn" are aspect of curiosity which can be dangerous, and thus, merit warning. Society no longer shuns the knowledge-seeking aspect of curiosity as it once did, but still preaches prudence, because life is valued and we only have one of it. Many childrens' stories are indeed cautionary tales to dissuade them from being overly curious (about the Unknown, not about general knowledge).

There's a wide gap between promoting prudence (i.e. "maybe you shouldn't try to lean over that ridge as far as you can, as you could fall down and die") and discouraging learning (i.e. Eve seeking the fruit of knowledge of good and evil is what cursed mankind!), and I would hope you understand this. I, for one, have never heard of "curiosity killed the cat" being used for the latter, it would seem like a rather silly-sounding idiom to use for what is essentially a death threat. Using it to promote prudence, though, targets accidents more than malevolence, and thus helps keep the discussion less grim and morbid than saying the risks plainly ("Side-effects of crossing this bridge may include death").

[Lord Torath]

Curiosity is not a bad thing, but recklessness is. Curiosity, in itself, is risky, because it involves dealing with the unknown. It means you are seeking something without knowledge of the risks and dangers that lurk.

I'd have a hard time thinking of any harm in being curious about things like "I wonder who invented X?", "I wonder what the best model of X is?", "I wonder if I can breed X to have Y trait?". On the other hand, "I wonder what's on the other side of that barbed fence", "I wonder what's down that abandoned bunker", "I wonder if this old bridge can support my weight", "I wonder if I'm fast enough to jump in front of a moving train", and "I wonder how fast I can take this turn" are aspect of curiosity which can be dangerous, and thus, merit warning. Society no longer shuns the knowledge-seeking aspect of curiosity as it once did, but still preaches prudence, because life is valued and we only have one of it. Many childrens' stories are indeed cautionary tales to dissuade them from being overly curious (about the Unknown, not about general knowledge).

There's a wide gap between promoting prudence (i.e. "maybe you shouldn't try to lean over that ridge as far as you can, as you could fall down and die") and discouraging learning (i.e. Eve seeking the fruit of knowledge of good and evil is what cursed mankind!), and I would hope you understand this. I, for one, have never heard of "curiosity killed the cat" being used for the latter, it would seem like a rather silly-sounding idiom to use for what is essentially a death threat. Using it to promote prudence, though, targets accidents more than malevolence, and thus helps keep the discussion less grim and morbid than saying the risks plainly ("Side-effects of crossing this bridge may include death").

Got any better arguments? I've trotted out my best, and you remain unconvinced. I could try rephrasing or rewording mine, but I doubt that will have a meaningful effect. I, also, remain unconvinced by your arguments, so I think it's about time to call this conversation a draw. You see the idiom as urging very sensible precautions, and I see it as squashing inquisitiveness. Truce?

[Jasdoif]

You see the idiom as urging very sensible precautions, and I see it as squashing inquisitiveness.

Cats are very good at reacting quickly to surprises, but they're also apt to investigate strange things so they don't get surprised; because a quick reaction isn't necessarily a good reaction. Usually when I hear the phrase "curiosity killed the cat", it's a warning not to investigate something if you're not prepared to deal with whatever you find (or whatever fallout results from your investigation).

[Grey Watcher]

Cats are very good at reacting quickly to surprises, but they're also apt to investigate strange things so they don't get surprised; because a quick reaction isn't necessarily a good reaction. Usually when I hear the phrase "curiosity killed the cat", it's a warning not to investigate something if you're not prepared to deal with whatever you find (or whatever fallout results from your investigation).

My experience with the idiom is more in line with Lord Torath's: not as a warning to make sure you're prepared before you go inquiring/exploring, but as an injunction against doing so at all.

[Jasdoif]

My experience with the idiom is more in line with Lord Torath's: not as a warning to make sure you're prepared before you go inquiring/exploring, but as an injunction against doing so at all.

I suppose when coupled with an implication that you can't be prepared, it would fit that way....

[Goblin_Priest]

Got any better arguments? I've trotted out my best, and you remain unconvinced. I could try rephrasing or rewording mine, but I doubt that will have a meaningful effect. I, also, remain unconvinced by your arguments, so I think it's about time to call this conversation a draw. You see the idiom as urging very sensible precautions, and I see it as squashing inquisitiveness. Truce?

I wasn't even aware we were debating the intent of the idiom. :P

"How it is used" would be hard to debate, and probably varies from locale to locale. It could very much be used for one purpose in one area, and for another in a different area. I could very well see it being used for both purposes, by different people. My own experience with it has more been about potentially dangerous actions, like snooping around an abandoned house, than about seeking knowledge. But, also, more as an injunction to squash this inquisitiveness: there's no "good" or "prepared" way to snoop around an abandoned house. It could have guard dogs. It could be dangerous (breaking floors, protruding nails). It could actually be a gang hangout. Could be full of old needles. Could be full of a large number of risks. Cops could pass by and charge for trespassing. What kind of parent would incite their child to go explore it? There's no good reason to go explore it, other than satisfaction from indulging one's curiosity.

Maybe you feel, personally, that this satisfaction is sufficient. But society, as a whole, generally doesn't. Parents, in general, don't.

My latest reply addressed more the allegation that I thought that curiosity was, in itself, a bad thing, than what the idiom meant.

[8BitNinja]

You want to spoon me?

Um, thanks, but I'm taken...

Q

So that half spriggan template I've been waiting for is coming soon?

[littlebum2002]

Are you talking about this comment chain by any chance? Because unfortunately, the whole thing is just another case of internet disinformation. The familiar stock phrases really are the originals, and the putative "full" versions are rejoinders that were created at a later date (usually much later).

I agree this is usually correct, but I feel the need to give the exception that proves the rule. "There but for the grace of god go I" was originally "there but for the grace of god goes John Bradford". The original has been lost, the modified version is still in use.

(However, considering the fact that the original was coined by a guy talking about himself in the third person, and would have made more sense anyway if it had used "I" instead, I wouldn't say this proves you wrong)



On another note, I feel the need (for some reason) to point out that the moral behind the phrase "curiosity killed the cat" is clearly "curiosity is bad", and I can't believe this is actually something people could debate about.

[georgie_leech]

and I can't believe this is actually something people could debate about.

HI, welcome to the Internet! Here's your complementary flame shield, torches and pitchforks are available at concession.

[Goblin_Priest]

I agree this is usually correct, but I feel the need to give the exception that proves the rule. "There but for the grace of god go I" was originally "there but for the grace of god goes John Bradford". The original has been lost, the modified version is still in use.

(However, considering the fact that the original was coined by a guy talking about himself in the third person, and would have made more sense anyway if it had used "I" instead, I wouldn't say this proves you wrong)



On another note, I feel the need (for some reason) to point out that the moral behind the phrase "curiosity killed the cat" is clearly "curiosity is bad", and I can't believe this is actually something people could debate about.

People can debate, with passion no less, about just about anything!

I, for one, think the morale is not that curiosity is bad, but that it is dangerous. Which I think I have already stated, but I reiterate it no less. Had the equation to "bad" been desired, a less anecdotal formulation, such as "curiosity kills", or "curiosity kills (the) cats", or "curiosity will kill (the) cats", would have been more directly to the point. Using the past tense with a singular noun says "bad things happened to this particular individual". The proper logical conclusion is that repeating the same pattern might yield the same result, because all you can infer from X caused Y is that X can cause Y. It is anecdotal evidence that does now allow one to conclude that X always causes Y. If the desired message was that curiosity always leads to bad outcomes, using a plural subject (catS) would bring it more into the field of a rule rather than an anecdote, as would using a present or future tense. For example, "speeding killed the driver" and "speeding kills", to me, do not have the same connotation at all.

How it came to be that "curiosity" replaced "care" in that expression, though, completely beats me. The saying originally meant cats would die of grief, which in itself is bizarre in my eyes. Replacing grief with curiosity was quite a leap...

[Lord Torath]

HI, welcome to the Internet! Here's your complementary flame shield, torches and pitchforks are available at concession.

That literally had me laughing (albeit quietly, to not draw undo attention to myself at work) out loud.

People can debate, with passion no less, about just about anything!

How it came to be that "curiosity" replaced "care" in that expression, though, completely beats me. The saying originally meant cats would die of grief, which in itself is bizarre in my eyes. Replacing grief with curiosity was quite a leap...

Are you certain that "curiosity" is not just Pavlov's nickname for Erwin Schrödinger?

[Kish]

That sure is a lot of weight put on "the slogan uses the singular and refers to an entity, rather than using the plural or not mentioning an entity."

I also find it ironic that you've swerved from protesting the "curiosity is good" version of the saying as a Bad Message for Society's Children based on assumed total generalization to defending the "curiosity is bad" version based on assumed lack of generalization.

That is: Saying that curiosity killed the cat, which you declare to be one specific cat, you declare a reasonable warning which cannot be paraphrased as "curiosity is bad" because it wouldn't mention one entity if that was it; saying that satisfaction brought her back, you consider to be promoting mass recklessness.

[Quibblicious]

So that half spriggan template I've been waiting for is coming soon?

Once I start branching out a bit, I'll leave you something you can stick with.

Q

[Quibblicious]

Are you certain that "curiosity" is not just Pavlov's nickname for Erwin Schrödinger?

There's a probability it could be.

My first job out of college was to feed Schrödinger's cat.

I'm not sure how I did...

Q

[Ruck]

There are several bards I would describe with that term.

Really? I can only think of the one.

[8BitNinja]

Once I start branching out a bit, I'll leave you something you can stick with.

Q

YEEEEEAAAAAAAH!!!!!!

(CSI: Miami Opening plays)