GENIUS FORUMS

.


Ryan Rudolph - I had no idea gold had that many industrial uses.



-tomas-
That's cool, we all have our up-and-downs, strengths and weaknesses, etc.




-Ryan-
However, parts of my analysis probably still hold some truth because most of the electronic uses are very recent.

-tomas-
I want my MTV.




-Ryan-
And so perhaps gold might have made a good currency over others because it wouldn't have had that many uses prior to the industrial revolution.

-tomas-
Tell that to the Inca, Aztecs, ancient Egyptians.




-Ryan-
So perhaps the present price of gold in the markets does not reflect a pathology in the human psyche because gold is in demand for other manufacturing uses besides jewelery and currency.

-tomas-
It is my understanding that the Vatican* holds more than half the gold EVER mined since the beginning of time (as we know it). A goodly amount from the pillaging of the America's (thanks to those damn Spaniards carring the cross before them).

I've two gold crowns that I can chew the coldest liquids (ice cream, cold lemonade) and doesn't bug the nerves.


* Guarded by those gun-toting Swiss Guards.


.

I'm new here, first post, and as a student of human nature this thread caught my eye.

When it comes to figuring out why people would purchase gold during times of crisis the simplest answers are often the best.

Gold goes back a long, long way in conjunction with human history. Regardless of the industrial uses it holds today, those uses are pretty recent. Originally gold was pretty, shiny, quite possibly (as others have pointed out) reminiscent of the light of the sun. I believe that to be utter conjecture, but entirely possible.

I'd venture to say that the earliest gold was found in stream beds rather than mined; not especially labor intensive initially, only later when the easiest sources of this shiny play-pretty petered out.

It's hardly certifiable via documentation that humans have three basic emotions, but it is simple observation. Those emotions are:

1. Greed
2. Lust
3. Greed

Whoring has been referred to as the oldest profession but I'd suggest thievery takes the front seat on that one. We covet, we seek, and if we can't find on our own, we take. During tribal battles one of the chief prizes aside from either food stores or slaves (both because of inherent laziness and a desire to make our own lives easier) is adornment. Adornment is a sign of wealth, wealth a sign of power.

Gold, being malleable and easily toolable, being all shiny and easily burnished, would be an easy object of human desire. Rare enough to require some hunting as a minimum, to require labor-intensive mining as an alternative, ... come on, it doesn't take a leap of genius to piece this one together.

Once gold became established as a standard of wealth it wasn't a great leap of administrative ability to make it a standard of this zany thing the Chinese called "currency". Okay, the Chinese didn't invent currency itself, but they came up with the paper standard representative of hard wealth.

Why metals at all? Because once upon a time metal represented wealth in and of itself when compared to stone. Pre-metal, more toolable stone was a thing to be sought.

Thus gold becomes ingrained in the psyche as a means of stability. It cannot be eaten, is no good for making tools, but people illogically still seek it out when times get tough; they do this because it represents wealth, wealth represents security and the ability to provide.

When I'm starving I'd prefer wheat to gold; anyone in their right mind would, but does that happen? Not so much. There are countless tales of misers who starved surrounded by coinage. But once that first pang of hunger is appeased, how many people really, truly stop to think about the next meal versus the number who start looking around and thinking about looting the place? It doesn't make sense to a reasonable person, but most people aren't all that reasonable.

"Sell your old gold now!" commercials are all over the airwaves at a time when people are getting desperate. I'd say it's a business venture, nothing more, because good and bad times come and go, just as they always have. When the dust of our current predicament settles, people will turn once more to gold, and someone else will control a significant portion of it. The price will go up and people WILL buy -- because let's face it, it's not getting any smarter out there.

As Frank Zappa said, you have to come to terms with stupidity and make it work for you.

That's why people go for the gold when priorities should lie elsewhere.

Urban Sasquatch,

There are countless tales of misers who starved surrounded by coinage. But once that first pang of hunger is appeased, how many people really, truly stop to think about the next meal versus the number who start looking around and thinking about looting the place? It doesn't make sense to a reasonable person, but most people aren't all that reasonable.

Yes, it is quite interesting to me that during the gold rush you had foolish men pick up their entire families, and move from rural zones (very rich soil and warm) to places like the Yukon territories (rocky, cold, very difficult to survive). And their reasoning is that they would get rich from discovering gold. The Yukon territories created a lot of victims during those times. People were very naïve in their thinking, and the men didn’t know what they were getting their families into, while the women were too unthinking and obedient to question the husband’s decision to move them further north, away from their rural farms.

Very dumb indeed.

Dumb could be defined as a very narrow singular fantasy thought-pattern that doesn’t take into account the complexity of reality. Men are notorious for getting hung up on one thought-pattern, which results in their own demise.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Urban Sasquatch,

There are countless tales of misers who starved surrounded by coinage. But once that first pang of hunger is appeased, how many people really, truly stop to think about the next meal versus the number who start looking around and thinking about looting the place? It doesn't make sense to a reasonable person, but most people aren't all that reasonable.

Yes, it is quite interesting to me that during the gold rush you had foolish men pick up their entire families, and move from rural zones (very rich soil and warm) to places like the Yukon territories (rocky, cold, very difficult to survive). And their reasoning is that they would get rich from discovering gold. The Yukon territories created a lot of victims during those times. People were very naïve in their thinking, and the men didn’t know what they were getting their families into, while the women were too unthinking and obedient to question the husband’s decision to move them further north, away from their rural farms.

Very dumb indeed.

Dumb could be defined as a very narrow singular fantasy thought-pattern that doesn’t take into account the complexity of reality. Men are notorious for getting hung up on one thought-pattern, which results in their own demise.

Ryan, your point about men leaving their farms to search for gold -- the gambling fever that even today has people spending beaucoup bucks in casinos and on lottery tickets -- is well taken. Sorry you felt you had to water it down with a dig at their wives. How do you know "the women" were too unthinking and obedient to question their husbands' decisions? All women? None questioned? And who had the power to decide the family's fate, in most cases, in those days? Please refrain from such blanket statements. Being illogical is unsagely.

Carl,

Sorry you felt you had to water it down with a dig at their wives. How do you know "the women" were too unthinking and obedient to question their husbands' decisions? All women? None questioned? And who had the power to decide the family's fate, in most cases, in those days? Please refrain from such blanket statements. Being illogical is unsagely.

do you understand anything about the culture of the gold rush period? Woman's opinions have very little say in what happened in the home. It was always the man's final decision that she had to follow. Moreover, even if a woman did make a objection, she wouldn't have been taken very seriously, especially if her objection was in contradiction to what the man wanted to do. However, I'm suggesting that the majority of wives usually go with the husband's decisions in the home when it comes to major decisions. He may allow her to pick the wallpaper color or what grade of toliet paper to use, but when it comes to a decision of serious consequence, most wives trust their husbands, which is a major mistake because usually they are quite clueless as well.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

Sorry you felt you had to water it down with a dig at their wives. How do you know "the women" were too unthinking and obedient to question their husbands' decisions? All women? None questioned? And who had the power to decide the family's fate, in most cases, in those days? Please refrain from such blanket statements. Being illogical is unsagely.

do you understand anything about the culture of the gold rush period?

Yes I do. In fact I was there, in another lifetime. Heh.

Woman's opinions have very little say in what happened in the home.

Yep, which is why I asked you "who had the power to decide the family's fate, in most cases, in those days?" Meaning, for the most part the men, which is why I asked you why the dig at women.

It was always the man's final decision that she had to follow.

Not always, Mr Blanket Statement.

Moreover, even if a woman did make a objection, she wouldn't have been taken very seriously, especially if her objection was in contradiction to what the man wanted to do.

Which doesn't mean all women always were "too unthinking and obedient to question their husbands' decisions", which is what you implied with the term "the women." Accurate identification is the first part of logic, Ryan, you know, A=A?

However, I'm suggesting that the majority of wives usually go with the husband's decisions in the home when it comes to major decisions. He may allow her to pick the wallpaper color or what grade of toliet paper to use, but when it comes to a decision of serious consequence, most wives trust their husbands, which is a major mistake because usually they are quite clueless as well.

Now you are fast-forwarding to the present? Here I disagree. In chauvinist households, yes, men wear the pants. But I know quite a few couples where the decision-making is equal, or where the woman holds the upper hand.

I think you generalize far too much, and it cuts into your sageliness.

I think you generalize far too much, and it cuts into your sageliness.

What sageliness, Carl?

Carl,

Now you are fast-forwarding to the present? Here I disagree. In chauvinist households, yes, men wear the pants. But I know quite a few couples where the decision-making is equal, or where the woman holds the upper hand.

I’m not fast forwarding to the present, I should have chosen examples from the right time period, but anyway, what I'm suggesting that in many early western societies, and many other societies for that matter, women were sheltered from the “outside” world, as men felt it was their duty to protect them, and do handle all the pragmatic affairs. Men also felt that women should not be bothered to handle any of the duties that “men” were supposed to do. This is why Men encouraged women to put most of their energy into domestic affairs inside the home, as this is what man believed women were best suited for. Moreover, by men depreciating them as a sort of handicapped royalty, men didn’t have to compete with other women, they only had to compete with other men.

All I’m suggesting is that early America and Canada imitated the cultural attitudes of the English gentry for a certain period of time. These days, women are not as controlled as much by men in that regard, but some of those same attitudes still exist within many cultures today.

And its not totally untrue, because some of the stereotypes of what women and man are capable of hold up to the test of time, which implies that there is genetic conditioning underpinning much of the gender stereotypes. For instance: I’ll bet you’d find more women interested in interior decorating than carpentry. Or I’d bet you’d find more men interested in fixing automobiles than hair dressing. Or I’d bet you’d find more women interested in fashion than computer repair and programming.

A stereotype or a generalization expresses some truth in the world, and even though there are exceptions, the exception does not refute the truth of the stereotype itself.

For instance: The only time I’ve had a man cut my hair was either if he was a homosexual, or an Italian. Moreover, A homosexual has more femininity in his character, so they tend to be predisposed to be interested in woman type interests. And the Italian, well, I think that is just a cultural phenomenon. However, the gender stereotype that women tend to be more interested in hair dressing than men still holds some truth because it expresses the reality of how things are.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Ryan: However, I'm suggesting that the majority of wives usually go with the husband's decisions in the home when it comes to major decisions. He may allow her to pick the wallpaper color or what grade of toliet paper to use, but when it comes to a decision of serious consequence, most wives trust their husbands, which is a major mistake because usually they are quite clueless as well.

Carl: Now you are fast-forwarding to the present?

I’m not fast forwarding to the present, I should have chosen examples from the right time period,

You should have also used past tense of verb. But okay, I get your point about the past, and I'm not in disagreement.

A stereotype or a generalization expresses some truth in the world, and even though there are exceptions, the exception does not refute the truth of the stereotype itself.

This is still not an excuse for sloppy writing -- indicating sloppy thinking -- like, saying "the women" or "always" instead of most or usually.

Carl,

This is still not an excuse for sloppy writing -- indicating sloppy thinking -- like, saying "the women" or "always" instead of most or usually.

Well, you have a point. And I agree that perhaps my use of always may not ‘always’ be appropriate, however the use of women instead of woman is usually just a common spelling error. Moreover, when making a true statement about the world, one must 'always' be careful not use the incorrect signifier.

For instance: Here is an incorrect statement using the word "Always":

Carl 'always' counters Ryan's arguments successfully.