Why do we like blowing bubbles?

(This is not a bitcoin thread, go away)
1/

So I'm not a “neurotypical” (a fact discovered late in life) and while we won't go into the details here, the net output of that fact appears to be that I'm wired to take a more… ‘zoological’ approach to understanding humanity.

Hence the quirky Animal Planet threads.
2/
The distance afforded by non-participation in certain things (the weakness) also occasionally lends itself to a bit more subtlety with pattern detection (the strength).

And so I started painting a picture about bubbles.
3/
And in my mind’s eye there formed a cluster of ladybugs. They were happy, far from from eating aphids, and content on their beautiful tree.

And then one started flapping.
4/
At first the other ladybugs ignored it, but after a time its persistence was intoxicating.

And so a few more flapped.

And as is the way with exercise, certain endorphins were released

And it felt good to flap.
5/
And before long the tree was like the ladybug equivalent of CrossFit: everyone was doing it and getting hella jacked.

The tree was abuzz, and the energy was bright and intoxicating.
6/
But a few ladybugs didn't flap. They didn't like this new thing because they didn't understand it - the flapping had no logic.

But the flapping wasn't about logic, it was about feeling good.

So the non-flappers were wrong, in a way.
7/
For some time things continued this way, and much joy was produced by the flapping.

Except for the non-flappers, who still just ate their aphids and did their non-flappy things.
8/
And then autumn came, and with it a beautiful crispness.

But the aphids were less plentiful.

And so the flapping began to feel less good, for there was less fuel for it.

And the buzzing dimmed.
9/
And before long the ladybugs, more focused on sustenance, had ceased flapping altogether.

While most of the ladybugs rushes around in a provisioning frenzy, the non-flappers were calm, still fat with their stored energy.
10/
And as these things go, the non-flappers declared that they had been right all along.

Clearly non-flapping had been the prudent, safer play.
11/
But were they right?

Foe they also had missed out on the beautiful euphoria of the flap, stoically sacrificing it for a calmer, more serene experience over time.

Perhaps in the end such things are a matter of appetite.
12/
And that's what makes a market.
/13
Oh hey - we're gonna talk about bubbles and such on @RealVision soon!

Stay tuned; some fun stuff lined up.

More from Travis Kimmel

More from Life

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x