Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's interesting to note, however, that much of today's reactions to smoke ("stinky," "reeks," etc.) are actually learned responses where you've taught yourself to dislike the smoke, and in some cases, some can't even tell the difference between cigarette or pipe smoke because of that trained dislike. 50 years ago many of you would have been equally trained to simply ignore/accept the smell, or even enjoy certain kinds.

Well 2nd hand smoke gives me a headache, it's a bit of a stretch to call that a trained response.

I actually think the NATURAL response is that it's disgusting and 50 years ago the trained response was that it was accepted because more than 50% of males and something like 30% of females were smoking. Though even then I'm pretty sure there were decent segments of society who felt it was disgusting. I might go as far to say it was probably smokers themselves who were mostly trained to accept it the same way as car enthusiasts might be trained to like the smell of incompletely burnt petrol.

It's hardly a new thought, it's just been spurred on by the health concerns raised in the 50's and 60's. I'm sure tobacco was different back in these days, but even in 1604 King James wrote...

Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.

I tend to think the natural response is to find it gross and the trained response is to accept it. I still remember walking in to my neighbour's house as a little kid and thinking it smelled gross before I even knew smoking was what caused it

 the_Armyman wrote:

So, yeah, I'm totally trolling and being willfuly ignorant, right?

Well, since you don't even understand what this thread is about... trolling or ignorant? Which are you?

 Bookwrack wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
I find a lot of these anecdotes pretty far fetched tbh. It's like these people take their models out with them to hotbox their car or something. Absurd.

Just because you've never spent much time around anyone who's smoked doesn't make the stories of those who have 'absurd.'

Ok while we're assuming things based on people's opinions I'm gonna assume you believe every hyperbolic statement the rest of the crowd is following at the time.

For the record you're totally wrong in your assumptions, how far off is mine?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's interesting to note, however, that much of today's reactions to smoke ("stinky," "reeks," etc.) are actually learned responses where you've taught yourself to dislike the smoke, and in some cases, some can't even tell the difference between cigarette or pipe smoke because of that trained dislike. 50 years ago many of you would have been equally trained to simply ignore/accept the smell, or even enjoy certain kinds.

Well 2nd hand smoke gives me a headache, it's a bit of a stretch to call that a trained response.

Even the headache could be a learned response. You may have trained yourself to dislike the smoke that much. Another possibility is that it is an associated response: the original cause of your headaches was something different, but you may have had them the same time as you were exposes to the smoke, and thus you've now made the association and now the smoke gives you headaches because you believe it gives you headaches. It is equally possible you are, in fact, physiologically allergic to the smoke.

I'm not trying to argue here about who is right or wrong to like or dislike the smoke. I read a rather fascinating article on the subject of learned responses and associations some time ago that actually explained quite a lot about why I like certain things and dislike others. The basic example in that article went something like this: you go out to eat somewhere, and a few hours later you get violently ill. After that, even the thought of eating at that place (or even the same food) again is a complete turnoff, and may even make you feel somewhat ill. The truth may be that the illness is completely unconnected to the place and the food you ate, but the association has been made. It's like when I basically downed a six pack of beer and a full bottle of mead within an hour and a half. The resulting hangover from that mild case of alcohol poisoning made my incapable of even thinking of drinking a beer for six months afterward. The foods we like, the foods we dislike, are largely all based on learned responses going back even as far as infancy. We aren't born with an inherent like or dislike for something based solely on how it looks, smells, or tastes, but because of what mental connections we've made based on those looks, smells, and tastes.

As an ex smoker I seem to be very sensetive to the smell of cigarrette smoke. Pipe smoke doesn't bother me so much, and I don't really care about the smell of pot wafting about, it just doesnt really bother me ... As far as minis go, I've never been able to smell tobacco or anything on them. I nearly always strip and repaint any second hand minis I get, so if they are going to smell of anything it will probably be Dettol or paint stripper...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's like when I basically downed a six pack of beer and a full bottle of mead within an hour and a half. The resulting hangover from that mild case of alcohol poisoning made my incapable of even thinking of drinking a beer for six months after.

Turn the six pack to ten pints and the mead to vodka and you have a standard Saturday night for most Brits. Yet they still go out every weekend...

I think you are giving too much credit to that paper in this instance. It isn't a trained dislike, as the initial response was dislike (I presume you enjoyed your meal and the beers/mead at the time of consumption?). It's the consequences after that creates dislike, in an attempt to self preserve. That can be true of smoking if a smoker (passive or the actual smoker) has suffered illness or trauma related to the smoking. However, cigarette smoke is disgusting on a first encounter, so that is a natural reaction, not a trained one.

Smoke to me is unpleasant because of the connotations. So yeah, maybe it is a learned response.

I lived next door to a man who never smoked a day in his life, but spent decades working in bars where people could smoke. His friends smoked and he never had a harsh word to say about it. This was one or two years before the smoking ban passed in the UK.
Terraced houses. He shared a bedroom wall with me, and for three blessedly short months, I listened to him die of lung cancer. The quiet pauses between massive coughing fits were the worst as I had to wonder if that fit been the last.

My father plays as a musician in bars and pubs, and after that period, I feared deeply for his wellbeing. It was a relief to me when that "inconvenient" law passed. Now it's less common to encounter smoke, and when I do, it takes me back to that time of feeling scared.

 JamesY wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's like when I basically downed a six pack of beer and a full bottle of mead within an hour and a half. The resulting hangover from that mild case of alcohol poisoning made my incapable of even thinking of drinking a beer for six months after.

Turn the six pack to ten pints and the mead to vodka and you have a standard Saturday night for most Brits. Yet they still go out every weekend...

I think you are giving too much credit to that paper in this instance. It isn't a trained dislike, as the initial response was dislike (I presume you enjoyed your meal and the beers/mead at the time of consumption?). It's the consequences after that creates dislike, in an attempt to self preserve. That can be true of smoking if a smoker (passive or the actual smoker) has suffered illness or trauma related to the smoking. However, cigarette smoke is disgusting on a first encounter, so that is a natural reaction, not a trained one.

If anything, your response shows that you completely missed the point. Again, these learned responses can go as far back as infancy. Apply the example I used to something you ate, drank, or smelled as a toddler that was followed by a bad reaction. Regardless of what actually caused the reaction, your brain has now wired itself to make the connection. The only "natural" reaction you ever have is anything you are genetically/physiologically predisposed to have reactions to (allergic reaction, enzyme deficiency, chemical intolerance, etc.). There are no inherently bad smells or tastes, only what we learn to be bad smells or tastes (either through creating bad associations, or even consciously teaching ourselves something is bad), even if we no longer consciously remember why they're bad smells or tastes.

But, whatever, I'm done here, since we're getting nowhere. I get that people hate tobacco smoke, for a myriad of rational, correct, and good reasons. I'm not arguing against that, I'm not trying to justify smoking in any way, shape or form, nor am I even implying nor intending such justification, so do not mistake me on that point.

@ Tannhauser if you are still around, not that I'm wanting to drag this on, but that isn't correct. Rotting meat, for example, is an inherently bad smell, a predisposition we are born with to avoid poisoning. It isn't learned or trained as we are born programmed to react that way. The smell of cigarettes may well be the same.

Anyway, differences of opinion are what drives discussion forums, so happy gaming