4 likes
0 comments
Abstract:
Human encroachment remains the greatest threat to the Lands of Faerie, and to the wider wilderness with all its glorious birds and beasts. You’ve no doubt heard tales of humans wearing big boots, wielding sharp axes, marching into pristine forests, and chopping down or chopping up whatever they find. Some seek treasure, hoping for a literal pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. But when they don’t find the loot they seek, humans settle for picking our mushrooms and trampling our homes! But is the tide of human aggression inevitable?
Previous attempts to dissuade human belligerence produced mixed results. From intimidation (Cerberus, 715 BCE), to the enforced empires of dragons (Grendel, et al). Previous studies have shown the inconsistency of such methods (Scheherazade, 1472.)
However, one consistent theme in human conflict regards the proclivity for humans to fall for tricks and schemes, both via magic, and through simple psychological techniques (Rumpelstiltskin, 1207.) But never before have a broad range of techniques been tested under proper experimental conditions.
After a five-year longitudinal study, we can at last publish this groundbreaking research. And what do our results indicate? I would never spoil the ending, you’ll have to read to the end to find out! And no peeking at the results section please!
Keywords: Polymorph, riddles, faerie magic, fairy magic, fairy maegic, loquacity, temptation, reverse-psychology.
Hypothesis:
Based upon extensive study of mythological experiments going back millennia, I hypothesized that temptation would be the most effective means of influencing human behavior (see Cupid et al, also Midas.) But, for a proper test, I chose to compare temptation with other traditional methods of influence: intimidation and trickery. I also predicted that trickery would prove mildly effective, and intimidation not effective at all.
I swear on The Heart of the Forest that I made these predictions before the experiment began. If, upon reading to the end, you think I cheated and made my predictions afterwards, all I can say is that you impinge my honor.
This is what we call in the industry, a “teaser.”
Test Procedure:
We scouted thirteen (13) human settlements for this experiment, ranging in size from simple hamlets to bustling townships with their own aqueducts.
We followed the same procedure for each settlement: we sent an agent (a selkie polymorphed to look like a human trader or traveler) into town. This agent would stop to chat with the first person they saw or, barring that, would proceed to the local drinking establishment (tavern, beer hall, wine house, teahouse, caravanserais, etc) and would, within a few minutes, spin a tale designed to keep humans away from the wilderness. Then we would observe over the next week to see if human activity in the surrounding forests changed in statistically significant ways. Then we put all our observations in a series of handy charts and then put those charts at the end of this paper!
Controls:
Our selkie agents polymorphed into what we determined to be “a standard serf from the region.” They presented themselves as poor but not impoverished, and malnourished but not starving. They would express hope for good weather and an interest in the local alcoholic beverage of choice. They were allowed one-to-two (1-2) facial boils or nasal protuberances for verisimilitude.
Each agent memorized a script, and would only improvise if they feared for their lives. Each script included acceptable greetings, “small talk”, transitions, and a mythological story to impress upon the villagers. In addition, every agent abstained from employing faerie magic, necromancy, alchemy, or witchcraft. The only exception: each agent was allowed one mid-level loquacity charm (to help get conversations going.)
In addition, agents never spent longer than an hour in town, and always “kept to the script” when issuing warnings, presenting temptations, or engaging in trickery. If questioned on the mythology, they replied with some form of “I don’t know, it’s just something I heard.”
Sample Script Greetings:
“Good day to you, fine sir.”
“To whom do I owe the pleasure?”
“Helloooooo!”
Sample Script Small Talk:
“That’s a fine dress you’re wearing ma’am.”
“Nice weather we’re having.”
“Tis a fine brew you make here. A fine brew.”
Sample Script Transitions:
“They say a strange beast lurks in the forest.”
“You want to hear a riddle? I’ll bet you a copper you can’t get the answer.”
“The mayor is hiding a cache of gold in his basement while we all go hungry!”
Sample Subject Responses (Positive):
“I’ve heard similar things.”
“I absolutely would like to hear a riddle.”
“I never trusted him!”
Sample Subject Responses (Neutral):
“Tis neither fair nor foul weather in my estimation.”
“Could you repeat that? I couldn’t hear you over all the drinking and revelry.”
“What’s a ‘riddle’?”
Sample Subject Responses (Negative):
“You expect me to believe that?”
“Put up your dukes, you blaggard!”
“Get out of our village, you filthy stranger!”
Observations:
Most iterations of intimidation proved disastrous. Hinting that humans should avoid a certain wilderness area: a valley, a dark forest, a mushroom circle, a high hill, etc, for their own safety would invariably compel humans to explore that area, often within a day. If the warning indicated a dangerous predator (wolf, bear, lion, ogre, etc) the humans would invariably hunt any animals they found at the location. If the warning included the possibility of magical vengeance (a haunted grove, a witch’s curse, etc), the humans would often harvest every mushroom, nettle, and other potential reagent, hoping to secure some of the magic for themselves.
Trickery proved only marginally more effective. A few agents convinced their listeners that they needed a secret password, which was the answer to a riddle, to safely enter a certain location (a stone circle, the forest across a river, etc.) This often kept humans puzzling about the brainteaser for days. But about as often, subjects became convinced they had the correct answer and barged directly into the verboten zone.
But temptation, as I predicted, worked wonders. “You catch more flies with cinnamon rolls than hellfire,” as the saying goes. The key was to convince subjects that the means of getting rich or prosperous lay within human society, rather than in the natural world. A pair of examples: “I heard the Baron will choose a new steward soon, and it’ll be whichever farmer works the hardest this coming week!” and “They say there’s pirate treasure hidden at the bottom of the town well. I wouldn’t be willing to risk finding out though.”
These sound like preposterous suggestions to the average, educated fey, but you’d be surprised how quickly humans fall for any promise of easy wealth, no matter how unlikely. In addition, all methods of trickery proved most effective if the agent appeared uninterested in, or intimidated by, the promised wealth. Classic reverse psychology.
This sort of temptation proved highly effective, resulting in an average increase in intrahuman competition by 35% and decreased wilderness excursions by 17%. Just imagine what we could do with even more time and resources!
Data:
Before you lies infinity: page upon page of charts so dense and chaotic they appear to blend into a single amorphous blob of information. Line graphs flow, loop, and twist into cursive sentences which none alive would dare speak. Bar charts bob in and out of the margins like cursed corks. Numbers with dozens of significant digits spill beyond your field of vision. Images of tentacled monsters hidden within the data take shape, with numeral for eyes and twisted gridlines for limbs. You feel surrounded by data, subsumed by statistics, converted into mere 1s and 0s, processed into the basic units of existence by the machinations of some malevolent computer. The whole world is data! The whole universe is data! You cannot escape! No one can escape!
Conclusions:
The data speaks for itself. Sometimes literally if you stop and listen.
In summary, intimidation techniques are almost completely ineffective, increasing human activity in wilderness areas.
More surprising, most trickery methods had little or no effect on human behavior. Riddles and curses with a basis in logic or wordplay showed no effect on humans whatsoever. The only tricks indicating any sustained effect were those that relied on reverse-psychology (consistent with Brer Rabbit, 1904.)
Temptations were the obvious winner among the methods tested. But the manner of temptation was even more important! The most effective temptations were the sort that turned human attention against each other. Within that category, temptations that turn their attention inward, towards events in their own township, proved most effective of all.
Humans may be our greatest threat, but they’re also their own worst enemies.
Funding for this study was provided by the Seelie Court, as well as a generous grant from The Bacchus Foundation.
You must sign up or log in to submit a comment.