"The head can be removed after cooking"

"We cook and serve trout with the skin and head on, though the head can be removed after cooking," writes celebrated "Bouchon" chef Thomas Keller re "Truite aux Haricots Verts et Amandes," above, featured at epicurious.com. But fish heads aren't just another pretty face to garnish your culinary presentations. It "turns out" they're thinking heads, as a University of Liverpool study reveals.

“Subordinate fishes are known to obtain food by waiting until the dominant is engaged in aggression," says Lynne Sneddon of the University of Liverpool -- quoted in the London Times -- who led a study that found "individual trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss] play very different characters -- some are bold and inquisitive; others are shy and passive."

Fish are not the brainless dolts they are often assumed to be. Scientists have discovered that they are actually adept learners, with distinct personalities that change as they pick up information about the world . . .

These traits, however, can change rapidly in response to particular experiences, as the fish learn how best to cope with their environment -- and these changes might influence how likely they are to find themselves on the end of a hook.

If only some of our fellow brainless dolts citizens of the left were so adaptive to newly acquired information about the world. 9/11 comes to mind. But we digress. The belief that non-human species are unteachable "brainless dolts" driven by blind instinct is as old as the hills. The belief itself is an instinctual psychological survival strategy on the part of insecure if brainy humans who want to feel in control of their world. That is why we were disappointed to read this from one of our favorite speakers of wisdom and truth, Dr. Sanity, yesterday:

Animals do not have an intervening rational process between emotion and action. When they feel fear, they react. Humans, when necessary -- i.e., when in imminent danger -- will react the same way as animals because we share a similar physiology. But humans are (hopefully) able to understand and appreciate fear in a way that other species cannot. We possess a rational faculty that when used correctly can expand and refine (or consider and discard when appropriate) the information emotions give us about potential threats. Thus, humans are able to deliberately plan and anticipate for future threats -- a flexibility not available to most animal species, except where it is already programmed.

As an intimate of two usually "bold and inquisitive," occasionally "shy and passive" cats, we know it just ain't so. As with the trout, the Chelsea Grays are deeply attuned to their environment, ever on the alert for signals of danger but comparing every new situation with past experience to allow for rational decision making. As we wrote the good doctor in her comments:

When they sense possible danger, they are all ears, eyes and sniffing the air, but there is a pause during which they decide whether it is something big or not really anything to worry about after all.

That said -- as they say -- Dr. Sanity's bottom line about the Darwinian usefulness of fear is spot on. She was writing about passengers' gut response to the unnerving behavior of a group of imams on a US Airways flight yesterday:

We all feel the emotion of fear. And it is good that we do so. Fear and all our other emotions are the software "shortcuts" that encourage our mind and body to act. An emotionally mature individual tries to understand his or her fear -- i.e., he or she uses the rational faculty and reason -- because in doing so, one may determine the appropriate course of action for countering a perceived threat to youself or your loved ones.

Pretending that you aren't afraid; displacing or minimizing your fear; ignoring the slow-moving rhino heading in your direction or other dangerous realities; are hardly effective strategies to deal with the many threatening things in the world today.

Exactly. And that's what's so wrong-headed about multiculturalism and its handmaiden, political correctness. As we also noted in comments at Dr. Sanity's, referencing our post "They neither recognize their mortal enemies nor have the skills to fight for their own survival":

That seems to us to be what's wrong with the politically correct rhetoric of the left, both here and in the larger world of elite "thinkers" worldwide. Like zoo-born animals that have never had to deal with the vicissitudes of their natural predators and prey "out there," these reality-challenged folk neither recognize their mortal enemies nor have the skills to fight for their own survival.

Get in touch with your inner trout.

Comments

[Gayle Miller]

I guarantee you that my two cats have definite connective processes. They act on them all the time.

And Sam, the rescued 25# Maine Coon, has very well developed protective instincts where I am concerned. Why else would he clamp his jaws around the pants or skirt of anyone who is upsetting me and tug them toward the front door in a very insistent manner?

I've always believed that mammals at least have a modicum of emotion and intelligence, some more than others. But fish? Need more evidence!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING to you and your family Sissy!

[LanceThruster]

Researchers studying the traits of survivors in critical situations found that the #1 characteristic was to recognize the threat and respond accordingly despite denials of danger by the majority of others. Workers who vacated the WTC buildings immediately despite assurances to stay put are one example.

However, I would strongly disagree with the example given that those adopting the attitude of "9/11 changed everything" are somehow ahead of the curve.

Far more likely is that they are being led willingly to a gradual slide into a police state when in fact a far more rational approach would be a healthy skepticism and a demand that our civil rights not be abandoned on the pretense of "more" security.

And with regards as to who is being deluded, compare the budgets of the investigation of any of the Clinton peccadilloes versus the amount spent by the 9/11 Commission. There haven't even been any in depth structural engineering studies on the total progressive collapse scenario put forth.

IF the towers really did collapse from design deficiencies, you'd think that university engineering departments would want to determine what went wrong in order to revise building codes. Considering that evidence was destroyed that would allow for just that type of post-mortem, it doesn't seem to be much of a concern for some reason.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html

and

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/evidence.html

As such, I contend it is those who cannot recognize the myriad of ways we have been lied to about 9/11 and the danger that poses from fear mongers who have compromised our collective security the most.

[Sissy Willis]

EGAD. I didn't realize you were a full-blown 9/11 conspiracy theorist, LT. You need to get out more.

[Mary O'Hayes]

Revise building codes? Why, so buildings can withstand murderers flying planes into them? Poor Lance.

[Ghost of Josey]

First time here Sissy. Nice site. Looks like you're having some fun with it.

Poor Lance indeed. What a nut-bar. Hope he is able to enjoy Thanksgiving.

Well, I'm gonna go look around now.

Ciao.

[Teresa]

Oh dear LT is now spouting conspiracies... what next? I'd suggest the Popular Mechanics book on 9/11 but I'm sure that instead of seeing the science behind the explanations, he'd tell us why the rational explanations are wrong.

As for the traveling Imam circus that has been the hot topic of conversation... I have no idea what I would have thought of these people had I been on that plane. It's easy to have microscopic hindsight and then make comments on what you would do when you have all the information.

Unfortunately, chances are good I would have ignored them completely as I do with most people I must travel with. I tend to find many fellow travelers unpalatable others are fine, but in the end I try to concentrate on other things.

OTOH if enough people are uncomfortable, the people causing the discomfort should be questioned. Especially considering what the end result can be when a plane hits something.

[LanceThruster]

Sissy - I have put forth no "conspiracies" other than the FACT that the official narrative has numerous discrepancies and a systematic suppression/destruction of evidence (which is a crime in and of itself). You don't deny that the WTC site is a "crime scene" do you?

Mary - That statement deserves some sort of award or a Michael Richards-type ad hominem rant for its total cluelessness. Your ignorance (not ad hominem) is only exceeded by your arrogance. The WTC towers were in facts designed with the potential threat of large aircraft collision (a WWII B-25 bomber collided with the Empire State Building)

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

Note this passage: "The Empire State Building was constructed to take the impact of a 10-ton aircraft."

Also feel free to examine the details about the WTC skyscraper design anticipating possible aircraft impacts.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Jeez Mary, it's as if you had said, "Revise building codes? Why, so buildings can withstand fires set by arsonists? Poor Lance." Improved construction techniques are devised after earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes as well. It's what a society that cares for the safety of its citizens does.

It's unbelievably sad that those arguing for optimism for future evolution, progress, and indeed very survival of the species that this is the type of "critical" thinking that you employ.

Sorry Sissy, we're doomed. The masses can't find their backsides with both hands yet they remain unjustifiably smug. If there ever was a prescription for disaster, that would be it.

[Sissy Willis]

Yah, but they did revise the codes.

[Ghost of Josey]

And cue the twighlight zone theme....

[Tara]

Lance,

Please thrust your doom and gloom bunk somewhere else.

You're polluting the thread.

[LanceThruster]

The responses illustrate far better than I could why the information and comments found here can only be handled in small doses before brain rot sets in.

I brought up 9/11 specifically because Sissy used it as the basis for a snide dig at those unimpressed with the official narrative (aimed only at the left to boot as apparently there are no right wing skeptics - though they were highly visible for Waco and OK City). No mention of the differences in investigative budgets, just out of hand dismissals.

I wonder about your reading comprehension Sissy as I'm not sure what your point could possibly be regarding the building codes. What building codes specifically relating to WTC 1, 2 and 7 have they changed and why? What in-depth investigations were done, what preventative measures have been recommended, and which building and safety codes have been changed? There have been recommendations about fire exits and stairwell placement, but nothing that deals with the critical total failure of the steel support framework. The building performed as designed with the aircraft collision, and the fires were diminishing rapidly. WTC 7 had no aircraft damage and was the first steel frame hi-rise *ever* to collapse exclusively from fire in over 100 years. That 3 go down in one-day raises no concerns for you whatsoever it seems.

Link rebutting the Popular Mechanics hit piece:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

No one addressed the destruction of evidence. Apparently no confidence that a thorough investigation would support your side, therefore no call for one ($40 million+ to sniff Clinton's sheets, but somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million to review the most deadly attack on US soil in history). Now think about that. Say what you will about 9/11 skeptics, if the admin had nothing to hide, they wouldn't fear a detailed review (remember Bush initially opposed the formation of the commission outright). No one was reprimanded, demoted, or fired from any of the comedy of errors that took place that day.

No one offers any rationale for attacking a nation most assuredly NOT behind 9/11 and spending untold billions of dollars as well as the cost in lives of US personnel, the lives of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, and the loss of international support (one of the key elements in an international effort against terror attacks).

Yet what is offered in the face of all that is another "poor Lance" and how will he have fun on Thanksgiving. I will observe the day in a fashion that recognizes how fortunate I am, and how unfortunate are those who suffer horribly under the mundane evil of the ignorant of our nation and their equally ignorant and evil cheering section. They will again wallow in their crapulence as they banish from their minds any conception whatsoever of the misery that their worldview inflicts on others.

I guess in a sense, you should be exceedingly thankful for that as anyone with a shred of integrity or compassion would be overwhelmed by the realization of just how much unnecessary suffering you propagate and enable in the world. So when you discuss cognitive skills, what you should be looking into is cognitive dissonance.

I hope you all have a meaningful and secure holiday surrounded by loved ones and friends and reflect on what it might be like to be faced with endless death and destruction and the prospect of nothing but more of the same on the horizon.

[goomp]

Despite the broohaha stirred up by LT's remarks, I was most impressed by your decription of how animals react to the events and the conditions that fill their lives. Despite humans' more advanced means of communication, they still are only animals and react the same way as the other inhabitants of the planet. Sometimes rationally and with wisdom and many times the opposite.

[LanceThruster]

Both are taken into account by evolution. Despite our thin veneer of civilization, we are largely naked apes with a penchant for digressing to usage of our reptilian brains.

That (other) animals possess many of the traits found at different steps of the evolutionary ladder should not come as a surprise.

Biologists have theorized that the self-deluding nature of human intelligence is part of what allowed it to advance and adapt rapidly as well as being thought of as playing a large part in the development of religious mythology.

To go much/any further, I would offer that we need to jettison some of our primitive baggage, and soon. It may already be too late in terms of the environmental damage done to the planet. "Life as we know it" may indeed be a thing of the past.

[miss kelly]

Poor Lance! Self delusion can happen to anyone, Dear.