[Antarctic neosquid] No. That's sort of the opposite of the one I'm after
Opposite to the icy Antarctic, you say. Could it be Vampyroteuthis infernalis, the vampire squid from hell?
[Vampyroteuthis infernalis] Good guess, but you picked the wrong opposite. There are several possibilities.
Also, vampyroteuthis is not a squid. According to Monterey Aquarium, at least.
Tusoteuthis?
The purpleback flying squid (Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis)?
Flying squid. Two words that seem to go together as well as "bunch" and "water".
Found in Monterey Aquarium?
[Tusoteuthis] No. [Flying] No. [Monterey] No.
Squids aren't my forte, but it seems clear that those who name them lack nothing in creativity!
Gonatus fabricii? (Not to be confused with the late Timbergling avicii.)
[Bismarck] Agreed, but I think equal credit ought to go to the squids themselves.
[Gonatus fabricii] No
[Gonatus fabricii] No
Australiteuthis aldrichi?
Wait, we’ve had the colossal squid, but have we had the giant squid – Architeuthis dux?
(autocorrect suggested “colossal squirrel”, and I shall lose some sleep over that mental image.)
[a.aldrichi] No. It's so teeny tiny!
[giant squid] No, but getting warmer, I think.
[giant squid] No, but getting warmer, I think.
Giant Aquatic Squirrel?
[aquatic squirrels of unusual size] I don't believe they exist
Is it over one metre in size?
[>1m] Oh yes.
The internationally-flavoured Dana octopus squid, Taningia danae? Bioluminescent photophores fitted as standard.
[Taningia danae] No. Wow, but no.
How about this fella?
(the one on the right.)
[photographic evidence] Nu-uh
Is it of the family Cranchiidae?
[Cranch family] No.
Does the genus end in "-teuthis"?
[teuthises] Nope. audience applauds encouragingly
Is it a species of glass squid?
[glass squid] No, they're Cranchiidae
Oops. Okay well while I'm here, are they found in the Pacific Ocean?
[Pacific] Yes!
I am learning so much about squid. I hope some of it sticks with me.
That's great but now I've forgotten what I was getting at with that question.
Family Ommastrephidae?
[Ommastrephidae] No, not ommastrephidae
Is it a glass squid?
Bzzt! Repetition!
What about the frankly terrifying Magnapinnidae family?
[Magnapinnidae] Yep. That's the bunny
A winner?
I reckon you should give that to goldfinch. All the Magnapinnidae unknown from specimens which are well under a meter long, under the famous photograph doesn't doesn't have a species name attached to it yet.
Actually yes, I think that would be fair. On Wikipedia, I've just found that 'Magnapinnidae' jumps directly to the particular species in question.
So I shall hereby pass on this very, very long, writhing, sucker-covered, er, baton.
So I shall hereby pass on this very, very long, writhing, sucker-covered, er, baton.
Is it a goldfinch?
No but it’s just as ABSTRACT.
As abstract as a goldfinch? Hm. Does it have a known unladen airspeed velocity?
Does it begin with P?
[velocity] no it’s more abstract than that
[p] no
[p] no
Relativity?
Was it known to Plato?
A giant aquatic squirrel?
An emotion?
[emotion] no (slightest ripple of interest)
Is it astronomical?
[astronomical] no
Morniverse-related?
[morniverse] no, but there was another tiny ripple there
Guesswork?
[guesswork] meta but no
Is it a riddle?
[riddle] no.
I’ll add that it is a thing that exists and has properties, rather than a concept. It has ANIMAL/MINERAL connections but is neither.
I’ll add that it is a thing that exists and has properties, rather than a concept. It has ANIMAL/MINERAL connections but is neither.
The odour of animal faeces?
Putting it politely
[dungsmell] a fair guess but no.
Half a step in the right direction though.
A sensation?
[sensation] of sorts
FEEEELINNGGS, WHOA WHOA WHOA FEEEELLLINNGGS ?
[FEEEELINNGS] the song? or the concept of feeling?
[Resists switching to Boney M, but its a struggle]
As in, emotions.
Sorry, rather than, a specific emotion, which I had already
[feelings at large] nope
Is one of the senses involved?
[senses] yes
Is there more than one word on the card?
Fashion?
[more than one word] yes
[fashion] no
[fashion] no
Was it invented/first created in a particular known year?
[known year] yes
The Hallelujah Chorus (1741)?
[messiah] no, but a step in the right direction
Is it a piece of music?
[music] it isn’t music
Is it dance?
[dance] no, getting colder
Is this specific date before 1900?
[<1900] no
Related to the movie/TV industry?
[movie/TV industry] yes!
A particular production of said industry?
[production] no, product, yes
A TV series?
[series] no, getting colder
A genre of movie?
Technicolor?
[genre] no!
[technicolor] no!
[technicolor] no!
The name of a particular camera technique?
[camera technique] no, no cameras involved
Is it in a particular language?
[language] it is in no particular language
The Wilhelm scream?
Is it related to figurative art?
[Wilhelm scream] Yes! It is the Wilhelm scream! (crowd goes wild in a way I’m reasonably sure isn’t a stock sound effect.)
Whoops
Aaaaaaaaggghhhhh!
Let's go ANIMAL
Let's go ANIMAL
Okay well let’s just check it’s not the crocodile which prompted the aforementioned scream?
Human?
i.e. not Liz Truss
Crocodile? No.
Human? YES!
Human? YES!
President Polk? Peter Parker? Prince Philip?
Philip Pullman? Pablo Picasso? Priscilla Presley?
Pele?
:P
PPx3? No.
PPx3? No.
P? No.
PPx3? No.
P? No.
Ptolemy? Psychology? Psittacosis? Pterodactyl?
Is it a thing that doesn't begin with P ?
More to the point, is it a human that doesn’t begin with P?
Oh no, the pile-on was quite apt
Px4? No.
Not P? No.
Non-P person? No.
Not P? No.
Non-P person? No.
Is it a human typically referred to by two names, neither one of which doesn’t begin with P?
Is or was this person a president?
Is it more than one human?
P.P.? No.
Pres? No.
People? No.
Pres? No.
People? No.
Is the AOTC a person's name?
Is the AOTC “A person”?
No need to get so semantic
Named person? YES!
"A person"? Not those words, no.
"A person"? Not those words, no.
Currently newsworthy?
Royalty?
Was this person known for picking pecks of pickled peppers?
Current? No (to my knowledge, of course)
Crowned? No (of any close descent)
Capsica? No (do I need to caveat this "to my knowledge"?!)
Crowned? No (of any close descent)
Capsica? No (do I need to caveat this "to my knowledge"?!)
Currently alive?
A scientist?
Alive? No.
Scientist? No. *a couple of audience members make noises*
Scientist? No. *a couple of audience members make noises*
Fictional?
A literary figure?
Ptolemy?
Psmith?
Fictional? No.
Literary? YES! (As in, wrote some stuff)
Ptolemy? No.
Psmith? No.
Literary? YES! (As in, wrote some stuff)
Ptolemy? No.
Psmith? No.
Political?
P G Wodehouse?
Goethe?
Political? YES! (But not, AFAIK, a politician)
PGW? No.
JWG? No.
PGW? No.
JWG? No.
British?
Does this person’s last name begin with P?
Plato?
Wrote something before 1900?
Plato? YES!!
CdM has it! And what he now has is possession of the Platonic ideal of a baton.
Those early shots in the dark really looked like they might hit.
CdM has it! And what he now has is possession of the Platonic ideal of a baton.
Those early shots in the dark really looked like they might hit.
*emerges, blinking, into the light*
ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL, VEGETABLE and MINERAL connections.
Does it end with a p?
The universe?
The probability of the Conservatives winning the next election?
Does it begin with C?
Cup, cap, crap, claptrap, clamp, chomp, crisp? No, at both extremities.
Universe? No.
Five more years? No.
Universe? No.
Five more years? No.
Created by humans?
Is it an -ism?
A work of fiction?
Human creation? Yes.
-ism? Yes. *applause*
Work of fiction? No. *scattered laughter*
-ism? Yes. *applause*
Work of fiction? No. *scattered laughter*
A social phenomenon?
Was it invented/coined in the last 50 years?
Social phenomenon? No.
Since 3/3/1974? No.
Since 3/3/1974? No.
An artistic or literary movement?
Art/lit? No.
Anarcho-syndicalism?
I'd regret if we didn't ask
A work of writing?
A recipe?
Channeling the ghost of INJ
Anarcho-syndicalism? No.
A work of writing? No.
Recipe? No.
A clarification: I believe my "yes" answer to "Created by humans?" is the least misleading but I suppose proponents of this -ism might dispute my answer.
A work of writing? No.
Recipe? No.
A clarification: I believe my "yes" answer to "Created by humans?" is the least misleading but I suppose proponents of this -ism might dispute my answer.
To do with religion?
Religious? Interesting question. I’m going to go with: No—but it is potentially religion-adjacent, for a broad definition of religion.
Is it named after a person?
Is it btheism?
Nominative? No.
Btheism? No.
Btheism? No.
Idealism?
We just had Plato, so it's worth a guess
Does it begin with anti-?
Something spiritual?
A crackpot theory, according to a majority?
Idealism? No.
Anti-? No.
Spiritual? Another interesting question. The best answer is No, though I'd caution that "spiritual" admits of multiple definitions. The AOTC is spiritual-adjacent, however
Crackpot? If you presented the AOTC to random people on the street, most would agree with that descriptor. If you asked those with more specialised knowledge, some would certainly still agree; the majority would disagree with the AOTC without (I think) necessarily being so pejorative. I hope that helps. :)
Anti-? No.
Spiritual? Another interesting question. The best answer is No, though I'd caution that "spiritual" admits of multiple definitions. The AOTC is spiritual-adjacent, however
Crackpot? If you presented the AOTC to random people on the street, most would agree with that descriptor. If you asked those with more specialised knowledge, some would certainly still agree; the majority would disagree with the AOTC without (I think) necessarily being so pejorative. I hope that helps. :)
Veganism?
Artificial Intelligence?
I'd have loved this to be Dianetics, but it doesn't end in ISM. Is it anything to do with geography or geology?
Is it related to art?
Veganism? No.
AI? No. (*a few glances exchanged in the audience, but no actual applause*)
Dianetics? No.
Geography? No.
Geology? In some sense maybe Yes, but that's unlikely to be helpful.
Related to Art? No.
AI? No. (*a few glances exchanged in the audience, but no actual applause*)
Dianetics? No.
Geography? No.
Geology? In some sense maybe Yes, but that's unlikely to be helpful.
Related to Art? No.
Does astronomy come in to it?
Creationism?
Astronomical? No.
Creationism? No.
Creationism? No.
Is it the name of a (supposed) being?
Overhead, without any fuss
One of the nine billion names of god? No.
Recap
We know that this is an ISM and refers to to something that was invented by humans, and that's about as far as we've got.
We do know that it doesn't begin or end with p, c, or anti. It has nothing to do with geography, geology, art, literature, or astronomy. It's not veganism, idealism, creationism, or dianetics, nor is it named after a person. There is a possible tenuous link to religion/spirituality, although all the guesses so far have not led anywhere. Normal people will think that the AOTC is crazy, those with more specialised knowledge will think that it doesn't work, although it still has its supporters.
We do know that it doesn't begin or end with p, c, or anti. It has nothing to do with geography, geology, art, literature, or astronomy. It's not veganism, idealism, creationism, or dianetics, nor is it named after a person. There is a possible tenuous link to religion/spirituality, although all the guesses so far have not led anywhere. Normal people will think that the AOTC is crazy, those with more specialised knowledge will think that it doesn't work, although it still has its supporters.
To do with economics?
Aliens?
Does it contain the name of a being, e.g. Marxism?
Politics?
Recap. Mostly correct, although you only know that it doesn’t begin with C or end with P. I struggled with my answer to “invented by humans?”, so I’ll attempt a clarification. If we think of, say, a continuum of isms from Marxism (clearly invented by humans) to magnetism (clearly not), I think this is a bit closer to Marxism. But it is something that humans have thought of that could conceivably be fact—and if it were fact, it would be more like magnetism.
Economics? No.
Aliens? No.
Contain the name of a being? No. (Well, technically yes, but that’s essentially coincidental).
Politics? No.
Economics? No.
Aliens? No.
Contain the name of a being? No. (Well, technically yes, but that’s essentially coincidental).
Politics? No.
Hypnotism?
Hypnotism? No. On the Marx-Magnet scale, the AOTC is to the right of hypnotism.
One more clarification. B’s recap stated “those with more specialised knowledge will think that [the AOTC] doesn’t work”. I’d say,rather, that they’d think it isn’t true.
Is it adhered to by less than 20% of people globally?
Governmental?
Is it associated with a particular group of people?
...who'd be identifiable beyond just being "AOTC-ists", that is
1.6 billion? I think that the adjacent spiritual/religious concept quite probably has more than that number of adherents. The AOTC is a more technical notion (and term), which would be unfamiliar to (most of?) those adherents. I think. The adjacent spiritual/religion-adjacent concept might be a helpful route to the answer.
Governmental? No.
Associated with a particular group? For the AOTC itself, I'd say No. But the adjacent spiritual/religion-adjacent concept is certainly associated with various identified groups.
Governmental? No.
Associated with a particular group? For the AOTC itself, I'd say No. But the adjacent spiritual/religion-adjacent concept is certainly associated with various identified groups.
Spiritualism?
Presumably not, since you wouldn't have described it as spiritual...
Dowsing?
Spiritualism? No.
Dowsing? No.
Dowsing? No.
Has it anything to do with the human body?
Corporeal? The best and least misleading answer is No. (There is a pedantic sense in which the answer is Yes, because “anything to do with” is pretty broad and vague.)
Solipsism?
Solipsism? No—but the audience awakes from its torpor and there is *some applause, mixed with a little laughter* .
-ism scale
On my Marx-Magnet scale©, I'd probably put the various isms that have been suggested in the following order, with Idealism/Solipsism/AOTC being fairly close to each other. All three are invented by humans but could in some sense be fact.
Marxism ... Veganism ... Hypnotism ... Spiritualism ... Creationism/Btheism ... Idealism/Solipsism/AOTC ... ... Magnetism
Marxism ... Veganism ... Hypnotism ... Spiritualism ... Creationism/Btheism ... Idealism/Solipsism/AOTC ... ... Magnetism
Is it an idea about the nature of the entire universe?
Is this to do with logic?
Does it relate to death or matters after?
Idea about the nature of the entire universe? Yes! *sustained applause*
To do with logic? No.
Relate to death? The best answer is No, though an indirect argument could be made for Yes.
To do with logic? No.
Relate to death? The best answer is No, though an indirect argument could be made for Yes.
Would this be taught in university philosophy courses?
Plato's cave?
Has anyone said Existentialism yet?
Does it entail a belief in predestination?
University Philosophy? I'm not an expert in university philosophy curricula, but I'll speculate as follows: the AOTC would show up somewhere in the curriculum but is unlikely to make an appearance in an Introduction to Philosophy subject. The AOTC has an entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Britannica.
Plato's cave? No.
Has anyone said Existentialism yet? No.
Is Existentialism the AOTC? No. (I'd put that more in the vicinity of Spiritualism on the M-m scale.)
Does it entail a belief in predestination? You just had to ask that, didn't you? No.
Plato's cave? No.
Has anyone said Existentialism yet? No.
Is Existentialism the AOTC? No. (I'd put that more in the vicinity of Spiritualism on the M-m scale.)
Does it entail a belief in predestination? You just had to ask that, didn't you? No.
You're enjoying this aren't you CdM ;^)
Does an old Greek come into this as a major proponent of the AOTC?
The simulation hypothesis?
Enjoying this? Yes and No. Whenever an AVMA takes this long, I worry that either I have made it too hard or that I have inadvertently misled people with a less than perfect answer.
Old Greek? The idea of the AOTC can in some sense be traced back to the very earliest days of recorded philosophy, which of course includes quite a few old Greeks. That said, I don't think the AOTC is associated with a particular OG who was a "major proponent". (It's not like, say, stoicism, where—if you know about the topic—you'd immediately link it to Epictetus.)
Simulation hypothesis? No.
Old Greek? The idea of the AOTC can in some sense be traced back to the very earliest days of recorded philosophy, which of course includes quite a few old Greeks. That said, I don't think the AOTC is associated with a particular OG who was a "major proponent". (It's not like, say, stoicism, where—if you know about the topic—you'd immediately link it to Epictetus.)
Simulation hypothesis? No.
Vitalism?
Deism?
Vitalism? No.*applause of the kind that indicates that even though the answer is in some sense completely wrong, it is also absolutely the right kind of guess*
Deism? No.
Hidden text
Remember that the audience have been watching this game for decades and have absolutely figured out the nuances of applause.Deism? No.
Metempsychosis?
O, rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words.
Metempsychosis? No.
Clarification: While "vitalism" (at least as I understand it) is indeed in some sense completely wrong, it is nonetheless oddly close to the AOTC. Raak is definitely thinking along the right lines. Also, the "O, rocks!" quote is not a clue of any kind.
Life, the universe, and everything?
Life, the Universe, and Everything? No. But the AOTC is definitely related to LtUaE. :)
Human exceptionalism?
Buddhism ?
Human exceptionalism? No. *audience laughter*
Buddhism? No. The AOTC, as already noted, is not religious but is a concept that is spiritual/religion-adjacent. The adjacent spiritual/religious idea is present in Buddhism.
Buddhism? No. The AOTC, as already noted, is not religious but is a concept that is spiritual/religion-adjacent. The adjacent spiritual/religious idea is present in Buddhism.
Emptiness?
Emptiness? No.
Reincarnationism?
(I always thought vitalism was a sort of margarine)
Reincarnationism? I always thought that was a sort of milk. No.
Does it involve the concept of an immortal soul?
Immortal soul? No.
Panpsychism?
Panpsychism? Yes!! It is indeed the belief that there is (some sort of) consciousness present in everything. Here, have this sentient baton.
Ooohh goody!
That was not an easy one to find! I only got it because of the subject being recently treated on the "In Our Time" podcast. So thanks to Melvyn Bragg and his guests.
The next round is now starting, hold on to the straps. The sentient baton suggests ABSTRACT.
The next round is now starting, hold on to the straps. The sentient baton suggests ABSTRACT.
Small print
There are links to Animal and Vegetable, and on the Marx-Magnet scale© CdM it's towards magnetism, although it isn't an -ISM.
Does it begin with P?
P-precedent? No, but don't let that put you off.
Fictional?
Made up? Not fictional.
Something in fundamental physics?
A human interest?
Present only on Earth?
Fun physics? No.
Fun life? No, although humans have and have had a great interest in the AOTC. It's not an occupation, either.
Earthbound? So far as anyone knows, only on Earth.
Fun life? No, although humans have and have had a great interest in the AOTC. It's not an occupation, either.
Earthbound? So far as anyone knows, only on Earth.
Life?
Is the AOTC a single word?
Life? Certainly connected, the audience applauds vigorously.
Single word? Also yes.
Single word? Also yes.
Death?
Is it an -ology?
Death ? Like life, it is necessary for this concept. Audience are aware and expectant.
Ologious? No.
Ologious? No.
Procreation?
Procreation? No. Audience still bate their breath.
Sex?
Drugs? Rocknroll?
What my body needs? No to all three. Audience quiescent.
Evolution?
Evolution? No.
To do with food?
Food? No. Audience lethargic.
Were humans aware of this prior to 1900?
Pre-Edwardian? Yes.