Still more hiatus!

[Korvar]

I just want to see (well, read about) the look on Reyes' face when he meets someone with Gamma experience who lays a completely different yet equally valid theory on him...

[Joe Sherry]

I just want to see (well, read about) the look on Reyes' face when he meets someone with Gamma experience who lays a completely different yet equally valid theory on him...

Yes!  Except it can't be Reyes initially, it'll need to be filtered through Mom first. 

[txanne]

I just want to see (well, read about) the look on Reyes' face when he meets someone with Gamma experience who lays a completely different yet equally valid theory on him...

Yes!  Except it can't be Reyes initially, it'll need to be filtered through Mom first. 

I don't get it. Expand?

[Elizabeth Bear]

Reyes *is* the one who is generally cautioning the others about buying in too much to any hypothesis about how the anomaly works. Just... for the record.

ETA: Well. Reyes. And Todd.

[Joe Sherry]

I just want to see (well, read about) the look on Reyes' face when he meets someone with Gamma experience who lays a completely different yet equally valid theory on him...

Yes!  Except it can't be Reyes initially, it'll need to be filtered through Mom first. 

I don't get it. Expand?

Oh, my thought was that Reyes shouldn't be the one who meets Happy Gamma first, that it comes through someone who can soften the introduction.  That coming from Falkner, Reyes might have a bit more of an open mind.  Plus, we get Reyes / Falkner drama from that interaction. 

Thinking that it might work better (for me, not in a story sense) if Reyes is introduced to Happy Gamma rather than discovering Happy Gamma on his own.

[Emma Bull]

I just want to see (well, read about) the look on Reyes' face when he meets someone with Gamma experience who lays a completely different yet equally valid theory on him...

Yes!  Except it can't be Reyes initially, it'll need to be filtered through Mom first. 

I don't get it. Expand?

If you want to see the look on a character's face, the scene has to be from a different character's point of view. Though not necessarily Falkner's. *g*

And what Bear said. Remember, Reyes is by inclination a scientist first and a LEO second. That's MORE than enough to get him in trouble as it is. 

[Elizabeth Bear]

I just want to see (well, read about) the look on Reyes' face when he meets someone with Gamma experience who lays a completely different yet equally valid theory on him...

Yes!  Except it can't be Reyes initially, it'll need to be filtered through Mom first. 

I don't get it. Expand?

If you want to see the look on a character's face, the scene has to be from a different character's point of view. Though not necessarily Falkner's. *g*

And what Bear said. Remember, Reyes is by inclination a scientist first and a LEO second. That's MORE than enough to get him in trouble as it is. 

Actually, I think if Reyes had any conviction whatsoever that betas were larval gammas--as opposed to being alert to the possibility that they are--there's not a chance in hell that he's be letting them walk around loose, armed, and privy to his operational policies.

[greywalker]

if Reyes is introduced to Happy Gamma rather than discovering Happy Gamma on his own.

Setting Reyes completely aside, I do find the idea of a "Happy Gamma" fascinating.  I know a therapist who works almost exclusively with schizophrenics.  She says that, although it isn't common, there are a few schizophrenics whose voices are cheerful.  Apart from rare instances, their inability to discern their "voices" from reality doesn't render them a threat "to themselves or others."

[sleary]

She says that, although it isn't common, there are a few schizophrenics whose voices are cheerful.

Does she know many writers?

[Joe Sherry]

if Reyes is introduced to Happy Gamma rather than discovering Happy Gamma on his own.

Setting Reyes completely aside, I do find the idea of a "Happy Gamma" fascinating.  I know a therapist who works almost exclusively with schizophrenics.  She says that, although it isn't common, there are a few schizophrenics whose voices are cheerful.  Apart from rare instances, their inability to discern their "voices" from reality doesn't render them a threat "to themselves or others."

Not exactly what I'm going for with the idea of Happy Gamma, but interesting all the same.   

[greywalker]

I find your "happy gamma" theory interesting as well, but not at all nice.   

[Phiremangston]

Jumping out of lurkdom and back to the theories of what gammas are...

I think that MG may have something with her ideas.  I'd like to go for a biopsychosocial model: biological, psychological, and social factors are taken into account, and have different effects on different individuals, depending on (you guessed it!) different circumstances. 

Like alcoholism, for example.  It's been shown that there is a genetic predisposition to it - I'm not saying there's an 'alcoholism gene,' because there's not - but the predisposition plus someone drinking alcohol isn't enough to throw someone into alcoholism.  Neither is biological + psychological factors, or even all three combined.  There is always a possibility that someone has experienced all of the typical factors that contribute to alcoholism, and still won't develop it, even if they drink on a regular basis.  The specific factors that will trigger it are different for each person, but drastic changes (stressors) will be more likely to trigger someone if they've experienced some factors already.  But not always.

Er, my psychopharmacology professor was really big on the "the same factors can have different effects on different people!" thing.  It was something of a mantra.  I guess it rubbed off on me?   

Unfortunately, with this kind of model, it's virtually impossible to guess who the gammas will be, presuming they're not betas already.  Which I find unlikely.  Either way, it would be like trying to keep tabs on everybody in the country to make sure that if they experience something traumatic, they won't have a psychotic break.  It's just not practical.

[jimsmyth]

OTOH, using the alcoholism model as presented above, it is easier to predict the sorts of situations that will produce a higher incidence of alcoholism than the average.  While the genetic, environmental, and social factors do not guarantee alcoholism, it is more prevalent the more of those factors you have converging, and less prevalent with fewer factors.

Plus, there are definable physical  signs of alcoholism.  (Or at least uncontrolled alcoholism, to borrow a term from my diabetes knowledge, even though that is a similar-but-different model.)  There are also definable physical signs of anomalousness.  (Anomalousism?)  Assuming that we can identify factors that increase the chance of developing gammanism, we can then sort though a smaller group of people to find a learger percentage of Gammas.

So if it works, it would be a useful model for identifying Gammas.  Assuming the team feels the need to give up the current model of serial killer + Houdini effect.  Theoretically, decent law-abiding Gammas are not SU business.

[Elizabeth Bear]

Theoretically, decent law-abiding Gammas are not SU business.

This assumes that decent, law-abiding Gammas exist....

...wait, we have a word for those.

[txanne]

I hazard the guess that that word is "second-stage betas."