Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

[Zoo_Dane]

15 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

He doesn't misunderstand Mendelian genetics. His explanation is that this is sci-fi, and that super simplified Mendelian-esque genetics is at play. Obviously genetics is super complicated in real life. So it fits.

I figure I'll preface this by saying I enjoy his theories and they're interesting to listen to...

Believe me, I get that, but this is just exactly what he does in general. He picks and chooses pieces that support his theory and discards equally relevant pieces that don't fit. Adding in complicated ideas that people don't understand well - and that don't fit the theory - but explaining them in a way that people think makes sense, doesn't make it make sense. It's tough to get in depth about topics (such as genetics) and describing the entire process but then saying "the discrepancies are ok because it's sci-fi" isn't really fair when we're made to assume a mountain of information and accept things to be correct when they in fact aren't. 

I think it's is just going to devolve more and more off topic and I wouldn't expect us to come to an agreement, so to answer the OP: no I do not buy PJs theory on dragon riding because the basis for his argument is that dragon riding (and hatching) involves genetics, and he describes the process in complete detail, and his argument in regards to genetics is completely false. 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

5 minutes ago, Zoo_Dane said:

I figure I'll preface this by saying I enjoy his theories and they're interesting to listen to...

Believe me, I get that, but this is just exactly what he does in general. He picks and chooses pieces that support his theory and discards equally relevant pieces that don't fit. Adding in complicated ideas that people don't understand well - and that don't fit the theory - but explaining them in a way that people think makes sense, doesn't make it make sense. It's tough to get in depth about topics (such as genetics) and describing the entire process but then saying "the discrepancies are ok because it's sci-fi" isn't really fair when we're made to assume a mountain of information and accept things to be correct when they in fact aren't. 

I think it's is just going to devolve more and more off topic and I wouldn't expect us to come to an agreement, so to answer the OP: no I do not buy PJs theory on dragon riding because the basis for his argument is that dragon riding (and hatching) involves genetics, and he describes the process in complete detail, and his argument in regards to genetics is completely false. 

Honestly I have no clue what you're saying regarding his argument about genetics. On a more general note, your response is what I consider a very stereotypical argument against PJ. Everyone says he picks and chooses details and that we have to assume a million things for his theories to be true. That's just frankly wrong. If you can actually pick apart in detail one section of one PJ theory I would be happy to hear it, as I have yet to see anyone do so. 

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Again, (no offense) classic example of people misunderstanding PJ. You say he makes a lot of assumptions but that's really applying an unfair double standard. That's how these theories work. You come up with (assume) an explanation for something previously unexplained. Then you go back and read and see if it makes sense.

And I think you're misunderstanding me. I did concede that this is a possible explanation. I don't give it much weight, but it is possible. The reason I don't give it much weight is that it relies upon very, very thin straws. I never said those straws were non-existent. the reason he's making these theories in the first place is that GRRM has given us a mystery with very little information to solve it. In future books, if one or two of those straws break, then the whole thing comes tumbling down.

For example, R+L=J is built on some pretty solid bricks. Yes, you have to dig for them, but when you find them, they feel substantial. R+L=D is built on a few of the same bricks and then it starts using straw. Likewise the Deeper Dorne stuff - there are some really good observations and insights, but then he starts spinning straw into gold to make a good story about how Doran controls everyone muaahaa haa! I know neither of us will convince the other because a lot of this comes down to gut. The theories PJ expresses are fun to think about, but they don't feel like they belong to the same story GRRM is telling here.

[AdesteFideles]

3 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

The argument that D&D must have answered correctly and that the show must have gone the same way as the books is super weak. 

Two minutes on Google got me this:

GRRM: We talked right through lunch.  Everybody from lunch left.  We were alone in the restaurant.  They started resetting all the tables for dinner, and then the dinner crowd started to come in, and we were still talking.  I did ask them a few pointed question to determine whether they had actually read the books, and they gave me the right answers.  So, we shook hands and they took the ball and ran with it.  The next thing I knew, we were in business with HBO.  

INTERVIEWER: David and Dan, what was the specific question that George asked you?

DAN WEISS:  He asked us, “Who is Jon Snow’s mother?”  We had discussed it before, and we gave a shocking answer.  At that point, George didn’t actually say whether or not we were right or wrong, but his smile was his tell.  We knew we had passed the Wonka test, at that point.

Taken from this article I chose from the first page of my Google search: http://collider.com/game-of-thrones-season-3-4-george-r-r-martin-interview/

There are many accounts of this story in many, many articles, interviews both in print and on TV, on Youtube and on the SSM section of this very website.

GRRM asked questions and they got it right. If you want to invent some grand conspiracy between the author of the stories, the show runners, this website, massive amounts of video/print/magazine articles just to, you know, say PJ is right and they are all wrong then you are a fool. And I mean "fool" in its' simplest form, ie: a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.

You, 40 Thousand Skeletons, if you believe in this conspiracy, and think that everyone involved are liars, are a very silly person indeed.

[AdesteFideles]

3 hours ago, WalkinDude said:

I've watched every video of his.

I salute you, sir/madam.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

42 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

snip

What at least I believe about PJ is that he tries to be original but he fails miserably. For example his theory that Dany is the daughter of Lyanna and Rhaegar is based on nothing, iirc he had a theory that Robb named Cat his heir which also have no text proof. Basically he picks just words and not whole quotes to support his wishful thinking turning to fan fiction.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

31 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

And I think you're misunderstanding me. I did concede that this is a possible explanation. I don't give it much weight, but it is possible. The reason I don't give it much weight is that it relies upon very, very thin straws. I never said those straws were non-existent. the reason he's making these theories in the first place is that GRRM has given us a mystery with very little information to solve it. In future books, if one or two of those straws break, then the whole thing comes tumbling down.

For example, R+L=J is built on some pretty solid bricks. Yes, you have to dig for them, but when you find them, they feel substantial. R+L=D is built on a few of the same bricks and then it starts using straw. Likewise the Deeper Dorne stuff - there are some really good observations and insights, but then he starts spinning straw into gold to make a good story about how Doran controls everyone muaahaa haa! I know neither of us will convince the other because a lot of this comes down to gut. The theories PJ expresses are fun to think about, but they don't feel like they belong to the same story GRRM is telling here.

No, it doesn't come down to gut, it comes down to logic. Similar to my recent response to someone else, you keep generally saying that PJ's arguments are weakly put together, that he is spinning straw into gold. I would love to argue against that point but you offer no specifics. I have a super open mind to this stuff and never go my gut. If you can pick apart a specific line of argument from PJ I would sincerely love to hear it.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

9 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

What at least I believe about PJ is that he tries to be original but he fails miserably. For example his theory that Dany is the daughter of Lyanna and Rhaegar is based on nothing, iirc he had a theory that Robb named Cat his heir which also have no text proof. Basically he picks just words and not whole quotes to support his wishful thinking turning to fan fiction.

Really? He is trying to be "original"? No. He is trying to figure out these books. And the theory that Robb named Cat his heir is well thought out and well supported by the text. I believe it.

And saying R+L=D is based on "nothing" is ridiculous. That series is like 30 minutes long, and it certainly is not 30 minutes of nothing. You can say you think the theory is wrong but saying it isn't based on the text is totally unfair.

[Zoo_Dane]

59 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Honestly I have no clue what you're saying regarding his argument about genetics. On a more general note, your response is what I consider a very stereotypical argument against PJ. Everyone says he picks and chooses details and that we have to assume a million things for his theories to be true. That's just frankly wrong. If you can actually pick apart in detail one section of one PJ theory I would be happy to hear it, as I have yet to see anyone do so. 

I apologize I'm not the most articulate, I know the last post didn't make total sense. But a list of things that I can see wrong with it superficially is:

The genetics is completely off, we have to assume sci-fi intervention (Which he didn't state there was any). 

We have to assume Danys Dragons hatched because her genetics, not any blood magic. 

We have to assume no male has ever hatched a dragon. (Do we have any details of hatching in regards to who did it outside of Dany?)

This trait would have to be extremely rare for no female in the last 150+ to be able to hatch a dragon egg -- which makes it even more unlikely for Dany to posses two. 

We have to assume certain characters without apparent Targaryen connections have this gene.

Do all targaryens even posses this gene? If not that muddies things even further. 

______________

Could it be possible that riding dragons could be attached to genes? Yes. Could it be possible hatching dragons is genetic? Sure. Is it possible in the way he described it? No. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And the theory that Robb named Cat his heir is well thought out and well supported by the text. I believe it.

It really isn’t supported at all. The fact that Cat felt "trapped" isn't good enough to support that a non Stark will be the leader of the North when it is also considered as someone who has committed high treason. You can believe whatever you want that doesn't mean that it is anything worth thinking about it.

3 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And saying R+L=D is based on "nothing" is ridiculous. That series is like 30 minutes long, and it certainly is not 30 minutes of nothing. You can say you think the theory is wrong but saying it isn't based on the text is totally unfair.

It’s quality over quantity. The fact that is a 30 minutes long doesn't make it less ridiculous. There is nothing logical in the books that can prove that either a newborn can pass for an 8 or 9 months old or that Lyanna gave birth 8 or 9 months after her death and Cat couldn’t understood that Jon was older that Robb. His *theories* are based on nothing more than what he wants to prove, ignoring the text and logic.

Also as much I enjoy his video about the series him trying to prove his *theories* based on lemon trees or the lack of them in Braavos is also a failure.

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Everyone says he picks and chooses details and that we have to assume a million things for his theories to be true. That's just frankly wrong. If you can actually pick apart in detail one section of one PJ theory I would be happy to hear it, as I have yet to see anyone do so. 

OK, how about his assertion right at the beginning about what is needed to hatch dragon eggs.

"We know that Dany hatched dragons, so it seems to involve, at minimum, a special person being around the eggs for a while."

That is a straight up leap in logic. We don't know that at all. You can assume it was Dany being special, or maybe she fondled the eggs in the right way or stimulated them just enough. Or it could just be magic. GRRM has said " The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle." It was said in the context of her being fireproof, but what he actually says is the birth of the dragons was a miracle.

Looking at just two possibilities here, that it is the XX gene, or that greater magic is at work, I think magic is the more obvious conclusion. Dany's story is interwoven with the sorceress Mirri Maz and implies, to me, that the funeral was more akin to a ritual sacrifice whether Dany knew it or not. It happens just as the world needs dragons (an assumption I am making to combat the WW) and just as the red comet passes overhead. A possible coincidence, but it also fits the magical prophecy of Azor Ahai. I am not arguing who AA is, just noting that it does fit.

Obviously, I am not refuting his theory because it is impossible to. There isn't enough solid information to solidly refute it. However, there are other, more compelling reasons to prefer magic over X. And that's kind of my point.

[devilish]

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there without really backing them up. We don't know that ancient Valyrians used magic or even, frankly, that magic exists at all beyond the standard GRRM sci-fi devices of telepathy and telekinesis. Your explanation is a valid one, but I think it's a lot weaker than PJ's and lacks enough support from the text.

And yes, Nettles rode a dragon but likely never telepathically bonded with it, since she probably lacks the gene.

Dragons are magical creatures. Warging and the Greenseer actually exist, so yes magic does exist. Its not unthinkable that Valyrians found a way how to control them. They were a head above anybody else.

If genes are key then anyone with the right genes should be able to fly any dragon at any time. Its not the case. A dragon has only 1 rider at a time. Aegon and Visenya were dragon riders but they couldn't swap their dragons even though they had the right genes. 

I think the Targs didn't possess the ability to control dragons like the other Valyrians did. Maybe they weren't the top dogs back then or the ability to do so was lost after the doom of Valyria just like forging Valyrian steel. Now we know through Danny that baby dragons can get extremely close to humans who are close to them when they are born. We also know through Nettles that dragons can be appeased to submission. Genes has nothing to do with it

[Zoo_Dane]

1 hour ago, devilish said:

 

If genes are key then anyone with the right genes should be able to fly any dragon at any time. Its not the case. A dragon has only 1 rider at a time. Aegon and Visenya were dragon riders but they couldn't swap their dragons even though they had the right genes.

This -- and to piggy back a bit off this as well: 

How is the dragon binding horn explained? If genes are what allows people to ride dragons how is the dragon binding horn explained? Does blowing the horn insert the gene into your body allowing you to ride the dragon when you couldn't before? 

[Isobel Harper]

2 hours ago, Zoo_Dane said:

This -- and to piggy back a bit off this as well: 

How is the dragon binding horn explained? If genes are what allows people to ride dragons how is the dragon binding horn explained? Does blowing the horn insert the gene into your body allowing you to ride the dragon when you couldn't before? 

My impression of dragon bonding is that genes help A LOT.  It's damn near impossible to bond with a dragon without have the right genes...  but ultimately not impossible. 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

2 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

My impression of dragon bonding is that genes help A LOT.  It's damn near impossible to bond with a dragon without have the right genes...  but ultimately not impossible. 

But it may be impossible to telepathically bond with a dragon without the right genes, according to this theory. We can infer that Dany definitely has a mental link to her dragons from moments in her POV chapters, regardless whether you think the link is sci-fi or magical. We have no solid evidence that Nettles had a similar link (simply because we lack info on Nettles), and we also know she didn't hatch her dragon, if that's what you're referring to with "not impossible".

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

6 hours ago, Zoo_Dane said:

I apologize I'm not the most articulate, I know the last post didn't make total sense. But a list of things that I can see wrong with it superficially is:

The genetics is completely off, we have to assume sci-fi intervention (Which he didn't state there was any). 

We have to assume Danys Dragons hatched because her genetics, not any blood magic. 

We have to assume no male has ever hatched a dragon. (Do we have any details of hatching in regards to who did it outside of Dany?)

This trait would have to be extremely rare for no female in the last 150+ to be able to hatch a dragon egg -- which makes it even more unlikely for Dany to posses two. 

We have to assume certain characters without apparent Targaryen connections have this gene.

Do all targaryens even posses this gene? If not that muddies things even further. 

______________

Could it be possible that riding dragons could be attached to genes? Yes. Could it be possible hatching dragons is genetic? Sure. Is it possible in the way he described it? No. 

If GRRM is writing a sci-fi story but trying to trick people into thinking it's fantasy, he wouldn't tell us.

Genetics instead of blood magic? definitely possible

"Do we have any details of hatching in regards to who did it outside of Dany?" -- yes... TWOIAF and the short stories. a full third of TWOIAF is devoted to detailing the history of the Targaryens and their dragons.

"This trait would have to be extremely rare..." -- the entire point of the video series is to explain the mystery of why no one in the last 150+ years could hatch dragons and why Dany could hatch dragons. The trait being "extremely rare" doesn't really apply as an argument against this video, which assigns specific numbers of dragon-X genes to specific people based on evidence mostly from TWOIAF and the short stories. 

non-Targ characters having dragon genes is supported by the text. There are stories of dragons in Westeros during the Age of Heroes, and there are characters like Darkstar who look Valyrian but are apparently "First Men" which is super weird.

"Do all targs even possess this gene?" -- Did you watch the video? No. That's the whole point. Because the gene is passed down through the X chromosome, as I stated in the OP, males do not pass the gene to sons but always give it to daughters. Females with 1 dragon-X gene have a 50/50 shot for every child. Females with 2 dragon-X genes have 100% chance to pass it to every child.

As a side note, I think one really important clue pertaining to the theory is Aegon V's title of "Aegon the Unlikely". Aegon, who is one of the 2 main characters of the Dunk and Egg series (which probably means he is important), should not have been king. It was super unlikely. GRRM is basically hitting us over the head with the title "The Unlikely". It is a breadcrumb to make us, the readers, think more about if something nefarious was going on with the succession, and sure enough it seems that BR was manipulating events to make Egg king. Not to go off topic, but a better example of a GRRM breadcrumb is when Theon and Jeyne jump escape WF, and Umber asks Jeyne the names of the cook and the smith to prove her identity, and he says he knew the cook because the last time he was at WF he had great steak and kidney pie... except the pie was venison! So then we, the readers, must question why he is lying.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

5 hours ago, Zoo_Dane said:

This -- and to piggy back a bit off this as well: 

How is the dragon binding horn explained? If genes are what allows people to ride dragons how is the dragon binding horn explained? Does blowing the horn insert the gene into your body allowing you to ride the dragon when you couldn't before? 

To explain the point you quoted about dragons only bonding to one rider at a time. That can be explained by the sci-fi explanation that riders with the dragon-X gene have the ability to telepathically bond with a dragon. But the bond goes both ways, so as long as the rider is alive, dragons cannot bond with another one. And it seems to be the situation, based on the history we have, that humans so far have been unable to bond with more than one dragon at a time. This contrasts with the greenseers, who can skinchange into many different animals. And I would like to point out that there is this moment in the books that implies (in my opinion) that Dany seems to be connected to all 3 of her dragons, at least a bit: She heard the city fall from half a league away, though, when the defenders' shouts of defiance changed to cries of fear. Her dragons had roared as one in that moment, filling the night with flame.

The dragon binding horn, which PJ actually does explain in his Iron Born series, does not bind dragons to people. It bonds people to their masters. It was probably a slave horn used to bind slaves to their Valyrian masters' will. The Targaryens didn't need horns to control their dragons. Why should the Valyrians? But if you could bind slaves to your will to make them work to death in the volcanic mines of Valyria, that would be super useful. And most people read the books without realizing, we have already seen the horn used to its full effect. Euron uses it to win the Kingsmoot. He blows a horn, and we literally get Damphair's own POV of being under the influence of Euron, and then all the captains shout his name, even though 2/3 of them should not have wanted him to be king politically, and he just promises them 3 dragons with literally no other details as a plan to conquer Westeros.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

8 hours ago, AdesteFideles said:

Two minutes on Google got me this:

GRRM: We talked right through lunch.  Everybody from lunch left.  We were alone in the restaurant.  They started resetting all the tables for dinner, and then the dinner crowd started to come in, and we were still talking.  I did ask them a few pointed question to determine whether they had actually read the books, and they gave me the right answers.  So, we shook hands and they took the ball and ran with it.  The next thing I knew, we were in business with HBO.  

INTERVIEWER: David and Dan, what was the specific question that George asked you?

DAN WEISS:  He asked us, “Who is Jon Snow’s mother?”  We had discussed it before, and we gave a shocking answer.  At that point, George didn’t actually say whether or not we were right or wrong, but his smile was his tell.  We knew we had passed the Wonka test, at that point.

Taken from this article I chose from the first page of my Google search: http://collider.com/game-of-thrones-season-3-4-george-r-r-martin-interview/

There are many accounts of this story in many, many articles, interviews both in print and on TV, on Youtube and on the SSM section of this very website.

GRRM asked questions and they got it right. If you want to invent some grand conspiracy between the author of the stories, the show runners, this website, massive amounts of video/print/magazine articles just to, you know, say PJ is right and they are all wrong then you are a fool. And I mean "fool" in its' simplest form, ie: a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.

You, 40 Thousand Skeletons, if you believe in this conspiracy, and think that everyone involved are liars, are a very silly person indeed.

I think you are jumping the gun a bit. I am not a very silly person indeed, in my humble opinion. I think I am making totally sane arguments here. I am super aware of the exact quotes you pointed out. Allow me to also quote it to prove my point:

I did ask them a few pointed question to determine whether they had actually read the books, and they gave me the right answers.

Clearly GRRM was trying to determine if they had read the books. Holding them to the standard of getting all the theories correct would be a bit much I think, and that's definitely not what he said here. "Right answers" does not necessarily mean they correctly figured out any particular theory. He is just saying, in that context, that they proved to him they had actually read the books and paid attention and thought about them.

At that point, George didn’t actually say whether or not we were right or wrong, but his smile was his tell. We knew we had passed the Wonka test, at that point.

Please, tell me again where GRRM said they correctly guessed Jon's parentage. Additionally, I would like to point out, slightly facetiously, that Charlie may have passed the Wonka test, but he was still wrong about the theory. That asshole Mr. Slugworth was actually named Wilkinson, and he worked for Wonka the whole fucking time! So similarly, I think D&D passed the Wonka test and got to ride in a magic elevator, but that doesn't mean they got the answer right. And even if they did get it right, you don't know what their answer was.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

8 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

It really isn’t supported at all. The fact that Cat felt "trapped" isn't good enough to support that a non Stark will be the leader of the North when it is also considered as someone who has committed high treason. You can believe whatever you want that doesn't mean that it is anything worth thinking about it.

It’s quality over quantity. The fact that is a 30 minutes long doesn't make it less ridiculous. There is nothing logical in the books that can prove that either a newborn can pass for an 8 or 9 months old or that Lyanna gave birth 8 or 9 months after her death and Cat couldn’t understood that Jon was older that Robb. His *theories* are based on nothing more than what he wants to prove, ignoring the text and logic.

Also as much I enjoy his video about the series him trying to prove his *theories* based on lemon trees or the lack of them in Braavos is also a failure.

What is your explanation for Cat feeling trapped? It is a very important moment in the books and the final line of that chapter, and it's an event that the author has made deliberately ambiguous for some reason. Here's the exact quote:

"I left my wife at Riverrun. I want my mother elsewhere. If you keep all your treasures in one purse, you only make it easier for those who would rob you. After the wedding, you shall go to Seagard, that is my royal command." Robb stood, and as quick as that, her fate was settled. He picked up a sheet of parchment. "One more matter. Lord Balon has left chaos in his wake, we hope. I would not do the same. Yet I have no son as yet, my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead, and my sister is wed to a Lannister. I've thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now as my true and loyal lords to fix your seals to this document as witnesses to my decision."

A king indeed, Catelyn thought, defeated. She could only hope that the trap he'd planned for Moat Cailin worked as well as the one in which he'd just caught her.

See? He is talking about separating his valuable people. Yes, Cat is certainly valuable as a hostage, but she is even more valuable if she is Robb's heir. And his wife obviously, is for producing heirs (the purpose of a royal wife). Then Robb executes a trap so good that Cat hopes his trap for Moat Cailin will work just as well. This must be one serious trap.

"His *theories* are based on nothing more than what he wants to prove, ignoring the text and logic" -- I disagree.

I'm not sure what exactly your argument against PJ's timeline for Jon and Dany is, considering he does not say that Ned tried to pass off a newborn as 8 to 9 months old or that Lyanna gave birth 8 to 9 months after dying. He says that Jon would be 3 months older than Robb.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

8 hours ago, devilish said:

Dragons are magical creatures. Warging and the Greenseer actually exist, so yes magic does exist.

Not necessarily. Could just be telepathy and telekinesis. GRRM even did an interview where he points out that his dragons (unlike most fantasy dragons) only have 2 legs and wings because that's more "scientific". Doesn't sound very magical to me.