Darkroom Word Badges

the circle of craft, in which mastery gets you – nothing. Like old man in speedo; like strutting around the wading pool wearing a snorkel. Doing it the difficult way doesn’t make you better at the hard stuff.

Words come together over time as people try to say something meaningful about something new. We start with existing words, then alter them, or just use them differently. A recent example, wrong to me, but not to the lab selling the printing service. They call a C-Print from a laser printer “continuous tone” — what they think the C means. To me, C meant type C, a Kodak product from 70 years ago. Their sales group used the “chromogenic” print from the research department to brand their color printing paper. Today those papers are RA-4, after the chemical process. I’ve also heard people think C meant chemical. Time is timeless, meanings aren’t.

The need to distinguish is a driver in this pushing of meaning – molding distinctions as some new method manages to breath. Users may introduce a word. Labs have to route work to the group with that skill, so we have quick-print, machine-print vs. hand-print.

In the photolab printing has moved from contact, to projection, and enlargement. Kodak’s enlargers were Projection Printers until moves (cinema) dominated the market. Making “projection prints” didn’t make sense there; they projected prints onto a screen for Saturday’s popcorn crowds. In the 90s distinction was made in film labs between prints made using an optical printer or a digital printer. Kodak supplied emulsions to them as well as color paper for commercial and private darkroom printing. Addressing the exposure differences between incandescent, and LED/Laser lights meant devising an emulsion that could be printed in two different manners. From a piece of film in an enlarger, or from a digital output using and LED or Laser system.

Kodak literature lifted the terminology from the film world: optical, digital. An optical print or a digital print. The first publications put optical in quotes; by 2003 the quotes had been dropped. The word had changed, it burst out of quotes and was born as an Optical Print.

“There are two major differences between optical and digital printer balancing procedures. Optical printers typically are balanced on one density point; a gray target on a standard portrait (often known as a “Shirley”) negative. A typical balance is approximately 0.80 red, 0.80 green, and 0.80 blue. Digital printers typically balance on multiple density points ranging from just above the D-min of the paper to the D-max. Because of these multiple balance points, the printer can adjust for a straight line response if the process varies from normal aim through most of the density range.”

Reading List: June 20

References
Bainbridge, T. F., Quinlan, J. A., Mar, R. A., Smillie, L. D., Fajkowska, M. (2019). Openness/intellect and susceptibility to pseudo–profound bullshit: A replication and extension. European Journal of Personality, 33(1), 72–88.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., Dodd, S. M., Angel, J. L., Armstrong, E., Blumenberg, B., Girgis, F. G., Turkel, S., Gibson, K. R., Henneberg, M., Menk, R., Morimoto, I., Sokal, R. R., Trinkaus, E. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25(3), 301–330.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Bednarik, R. G. (2014). Doing with less: Hominin brain atrophy. Homo, 65(6), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchb.2014.06.001
Google Scholar
Bilker, W. B., Hansen, J. A., Brensinger, C. M., Richard, J., Gur, R. E., Gur, R. C. (2012). Development of abbreviated nine-item forms of the Raven’s standard progressive matrices test. Assessment, 19(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112446655
Google Scholar
Bjorklund, D. F., Kipp, K. (2002). Social cognition, inhibition, and theory of mind: The evolution of human intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The evolution of intelligence (pp. 27–54). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Google Scholar
Burke, H. R. (1985). Raven’s Progressive Matrices (1938): More on norms, reliability, and validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(2), 231–235.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Byrne, R. W. (1996). Machiavellian intelligence. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 5(5), 172–180.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Byrne, R. W., Whiten, A. (1990). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Behaviour and Philosophy, 18(1), 73–75.
Google Scholar
Carson, T. (2016). Frankfurt and Cohen on bullshit, bullshitting, deception, lying, and concern with the truth of what one says. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.1.03car
Google Scholar
Čavojová, V., Brezina, I., Jurkovič, M. (2020). Expanding the bullshit research out of pseudo-transcendental domain. Current Psychology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00617-3
Google Scholar
Crow, T. J. (1993). Sexual selection, Machiavellian intelligence, and the origins of psychosis. The Lancet, 342(8871), 594–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)91415-I
Google Scholar
Cunnane, S. C., Harbige, L. S., Crawford, M. A. (1993). The importance of energy and nutrient supply in human brain evolution. Nutrition and Health, 9(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/026010609300900307
Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 6(5), 178–190.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Frankfurt, H. G. (2009). On bullshit. Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Gavrilets, S., Vose, A. (2006). The dynamics of Machiavellian intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(45), 16823–16828. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601428103
Google Scholar | Crossref
Geher, G., Miller, G. (Eds.). (2007). Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system. Psychology Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Grabo, A., Spisak, B. R., van Vugt, M. (2017). Charisma as signal: An evolutionary perspective on charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.001
Google Scholar
Greengross, G., Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006
Google Scholar
Handel, M. I. (1982). Intelligence and deception. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 5(1), 122–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402398208437104
Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. K. (1976). The social function of intellect. In Bateson, P. P. G., Hinde, R. A. (Eds.), Growing points in ethology (pp. 303–317). Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Jerrim, J., Parker, P., Shure, D. (2019, April). Bullshitters. Who are they and what do we know about their lives? [IZA Discussion Paper No. 12282]. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3390272
Google Scholar
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Google Scholar
Littrell, S., Risko, E. F., Fugelsang, J. A. (2020). The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12379
Google Scholar
Littrell, S., Risko, E. F., Fugelsang, J. A. (2021). “You can’t bullshit a bullshitter” (or can you?): Bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to various types of misleading information. British Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12447
Google Scholar
Malhotra, N., Krosnick, J. A., Haertel, E. (2007). The psychometric properties of the GSS wordsum vocabulary test. GSS Methodological Report, 11, 1–63.
Google Scholar
McCarthy, I. P., Hannah, D., Pitt, L. F., McCarthy, J. M. (2020). Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit. Business Horizons, 63(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.01.001
Google Scholar
McKeown, G. J. (2013). The analogical peacock hypothesis: The sexual selection of mind-reading and relational cognition in human communication. Review of General Psychology, 17(3), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032631
Google Scholar
McLaurin, W. A., Jenkins, J. F., Farrar, W. E., Rumore, M. C. (1973). Correlations of IQs on verbal and nonverbal tests of intelligence. Psychological Reports, 33(3), 821–822.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
McNally, L., Brown, S. P., Jackson, A. L. (2012). Cooperation and the evolution of intelligence. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1740), 3027–3034. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0206
Google Scholar | Crossref
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Miller, G. (2000, October). Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. In Novartis foundation symposium (pp. 260–270). John Wiley, 1999.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Miller, G. F., Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(5), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01169-3
Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision making, 10(6), 549–563.
Google Scholar | ISI
Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G. (2019). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476
Google Scholar
Petrocelli, J. V. (2018). Antecedents of bullshitting. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 249–258.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Raichle, M. E., Gusnard, D. A. (2002). Appraising the brain’s energy budget. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10237–10239. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.172399499
Google Scholar | Crossref
Rosenberg, K., Trevathan, W. (2002). Birth, obstetrics and human evolution. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 109(11), 1199–1206. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.00010.x
Google Scholar
Roth, G., Dicke, U. (2005). Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 250–257.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Schillaci, M. A. (2006). Sexual selection and the evolution of brain size in primates. PLoS One, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000062
Google Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L. (2002). What are big brains for? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(7), 4141–4142. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082105099
Google Scholar | Crossref
Sharma, S., Bottom, W. P., Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: A meta-analysis. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(4), 293–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613505857
Google Scholar
Stone, V. E. (2006). Theory of mind and the evolution of social intelligence. In Cacioppo, J. T., Visser, P. S., Pickett, C. L. (Eds.), Social neuroscience: People thinking about thinking people (pp. 103–129). MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Thiessen, D., Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(2), 111–140.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Turpin, M. H., Walker, A. C., Kara-Yakoubian, M., Gabert, N. N., Fugelsang, J. A., Stolz, J. A. (2019). Bullshit makes the art grow profounder. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 658–670.
Google Scholar
Walker, A. C., Turpin, M. H., Stolz, J. A., Fugelsang, J. A., Koehler, D. J. (2019). Finding meaning in the clouds: Illusory pattern perception predicts receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 109–119.
Google Scholar
Whiten, A. (2018). Social, Machiavellian and cultural cognition: A golden age of discovery in comparative and evolutionary psychology. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 132(4), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000135
Google Scholar