red thread

If mimicry exists at that level, then you’re not describing camouflage anymore.

You’re describing integration.

Visual imitation is the easiest way to do that but behavior is harder. Social manipulation is harder still. But once you reach the point where the target population begins to self-correct against detection, the system becomes self-sustaining.

In that scenario, you don’t need perfect mimicry. You just need plausible behavior, a way to redirect suspicion and a population conditioned to doubt its own observations

Gaslighting wouldn’t just be a tactic — it would be part of the environment. At that point, detection doesn’t fail because the methods are lost. It fails because the observer is no longer a reliable instrument.

If the detection methods are difficult if not impossible to determine due to these methods being obscured by folklore, and even our own natural instincts are unreliable due to societal influences or the prevalence of anxiety and general unease... in the assumption that near-human legendary beings exist, is that not possibly the effect of mimicry?

While it is easy enough to see mimicry as a surface or visual imitation, would it not stand to reason that mimicry might include behaviors and speech patterns. Manipulation tactics, gaslighting. After all, what surrogate "family" is more eager to welcome or what "prey" is easier to hunt than those who doubt the very nature of their reality?

Whether these creatures exist or not, our own inability to identify something as deceptively simply coined as "real" makes even reliance on scientific facts a gamble.

[quote=SoftSignal post_id=450 time=1774112747 user_id=114]

People describe:

• unease
• emotional flatness
• a sense of wrongness without a clear reason

[/quote]

Not the most comforting thing to hear in relation to the potential presence of the paranatural, especially when those feelings are prevalent in one's life, I'll admit...

I’m noticing how many of these experiences involve feeling something before seeing it.

People describe:

• unease
• emotional flatness
• a sense of wrongness without a clear reason

That suggests the response might not start with conscious perception. It could be something more instinctive — the body recognizing a mismatch before the mind can explain it.

Animals reacting first would support that idea since they don’t rationalize what they’re sensing.

The whole theory here is, beyond just looking more an more like us, that even the weaknesses could be lessened. The shape-shifter who presented with a lower or delayed reaction to silver may have survived "selection" ensuring their trait survived into further generations. Maybe all "vampires" don't react to garlic or silver in the ways set out in documented cases.

Testing for weakness is still the best bet, but the expected results may need updating. What truly is the problem is determining between a "reaction" and human medical conditions. Nickle and Silver allergies are a thing. My uncle cant even enter a room where an onion was recently cooked. I once knew a woman who couldn't take a hot shower because of what it would do to her skin. In short, for those that search for the possible Supernatural is that Caution must always be taken and proof assured.

Wouldn't the only sure-fire tell by that point when it comes to identifying the paranatural be to test against 'weaknesses' that are recorded instead of relying purely on social cues that they would've evolved or trained out of doing? Shifters for example being weak to silver, or notaries with uttering their [i]real[/i] name, if any of that really holds water.

The only problem I see is that some of those weaknesses are blatantly aggressive and dangerous enough for the normals.

You’re actually asking the right question.

If something did evolve to blend in with humans, then older detection methods would have existed during the period when the mimicry was incomplete. There would have been a time when the differences were easier to spot.

The problem is that most historical records describing those methods are buried in folklore rather than science. Which means separating useful observations from superstition becomes tricky, but there are some patterns worth noting.

Many traditions claim certain entities could be detected through various means. Now, a lot of that could easily be nonsense layered onto a few genuine observations, but if we entertain the mimicry idea for a moment, then cultural folklore might actually represent early attempts at detection.

Think about it this way: if something slowly learned to imitate human behavior over generations, the weaknesses would show up first in subtle social or biological mismatches.

Those are the kinds of things humans notice subconsciously long before we consciously identify them which might explain why so many traditions describe creatures that look human but are just slightly wrong. Whether those stories are exaggerations of real encounters or simply the human brain projecting fears onto strangers is another question entirely.

If mimicry were occurring, the older stories might contain fragments of the original tells before the camouflage improved. If true, then the mimicry for some may have reached a level beyond any possible detection.

[quote=BurntheRoot post_id=436 time=1772902505 user_id=113]
The mimicry hypothesis assumes the creatures actually exist. That’s a large starting assumption.

But if we treat it purely as a theoretical framework, the logic is sound. Any species under sustained pressure from a dominant predator — in this case humans — would benefit from adapting strategies that reduce detection.

Camouflage is one solution. Behavioral mimicry is another. Plenty of real animals already do this.

If a hypothetical intelligent species were forced to survive alongside humans, blending in would absolutely be the most effective long-term strategy.

The real question wouldn’t be if they could mimic us.

It would be how we would detect them if they did.
[/quote]

Hey, hi; don't mean to intrude on the conversation, but the hypothetical got me curious.

If the concern is how to detect a paranatural thing, especially one that actively works to blend in with people, wouldn't the first thing to look at be... I don't know, "historical" accounts of things and how they found them out before?

Like leeches. Sure, pop-culture may have done a lot of heavy lifting in the area of making them look almost impossible to pick apart from a crowd of people, but if we assume that they actually exist and they're subject to this Vavilovian mimicry that Mr. Mulder mentioned, wouldn't there be a point in time where they didn't blend in so well? If so, how did we pick them out then?

Like, maybe we need to look at the methods we used in the past and see if they still work somehow, but maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here.

I think Mr. Mulder has a point in these spooky things possibly existing.

The mimicry hypothesis assumes the creatures actually exist. That’s a large starting assumption.

But if we treat it purely as a theoretical framework, the logic is sound. Any species under sustained pressure from a dominant predator — in this case humans — would benefit from adapting strategies that reduce detection.

Camouflage is one solution. Behavioral mimicry is another. Plenty of real animals already do this.

If a hypothetical intelligent species were forced to survive alongside humans, blending in would absolutely be the most effective long-term strategy.

The real question wouldn’t be if they could mimic us.

It would be how we would detect them if they did.

In the annuls of history, there have been many sightings and events attributed to Supernatural creatures. A whole host of Inhuman by genus, not by societal norms. Whole hosts and realms of creatures outside our own that can be found in every human culture from around the globe. Of course, as our cultures evolved, these beings became figments of mysticism and superstition. "Monster" attacks become grisly, but mundane, murders. Abductions once attributed to the unnatural become human depravity. What if it was not only we who evolved, but they also evolved along with us?

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection]Evolution by Natural Selection[/url], one of the cornerstones of modern biology, is the method by which phenotypic variations that are more successful and adaptive in their environment are passed to successive generations and attain dominance as they become more successful/desirable. Darwin's Finches all evolved to consume separate food sources, Humans evolved to stand upright while our cousins the Chimp evolved to best suit their environments. IF a common ancestor can be identified, or if species can be grouped into a specific genus, we can infer that conditions in the environment forced changes in the intervening generations.

In confirmation, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding]Artificial selection[/url] has also shown to cause species to evolve towards a desired outcome. Take the dog for example. With the common ancestor of various wolf species, Humans "guided" their evolution into the hundreds of vastly differing breeds today. Need to defend your heard against wild animals? Breed the right dogs together to get the Great Pyrenees, Anatolians, or Komondor. Need a dog to pursue a rabbit into its den? Dachshunds or Jack Russell Terriers are designed to do so. Not only do we breed animals to our purposes, but plants as well. Even before the advent of the GMO, The fruits and vegetables we know today have had hundreds of years of meddling to better suit our needs.

There are also cases were Involuntary Artificial Selection occurs because Humans assist a species in evolution. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavilovian_mimicry]Vavilovian Mimicry[/url] is a form of mimicry in plants where a invasive plant evolves to share characteristics with a desirable crop. Described by Russian Plant Geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, he describes the process in how a weed can be evolve to mimic the characteristic of a crop plant through generations of Human mistakes. Normally, weeds are removed from crops. If they start to share characteristics with the crop, it can become harder to weed (heh) them out. Through successive generations, Humans "select" the weeds which are harder to differentiate. Rye and Oats are said to have used this process through the mimicry of wheat.

Why is it, with the advent of the information age, we haven't seen an increase in reported Supernatural creature sightings? The ability for nearly anyone anywhere to post proof online should allow for concrete proof of the Supernatural. However, we hear less and less. What we do here is dismissed as hoax.

A while ago, I posted a thought on [url=https://red.follow-the-thread.net/viewtopic.php?t=33]Pareidolia[/url] being something that kept us from seeing them (either evolutionary or through outside means). We must also consider, What if Vavilovian Mimicry is the answer to why sightings of Supernatural beings has dwindled? What if, like rye evolving to look more like wheat, the supernatural evolved to blend in with humanity? Did the huts or defenses of legend inadvertently select for creatures that could more easily blend with humanity? Do they walk amongst us in plain sight? Is your nurse just a bad day away from revealing she a beast of legend or Is the beautiful man in the bar there to consume you (and not in the fun way)?

Of course, these questions are impossible to know. I do not know for sure the supernatural is out there, but I want to believe! Once i get one of these thoughts into my head, it just thumps around until I have to release them into the world. My pseudo-intellectual ramblings are the best method I've found of explaining my thought process and seeing if they make sense to others, or if they are just mad ramblings.