I’m going to have to stop you there for a moment, @Vanner . And the reason why is because while I can agree with some of your points, I can find enough contrasting examples that differentiate from some of them that illustrates not only the differences in hive and headcanon, but also the disparities within different generations of the fluffy fandom (yes, there are different generations)
This was true as @BKCatharsis pointed out earlier in the chat. Early fluffy greentexts did center around reaching the context of “fluffy pony drowns” or the like. But the problem is that there is a disparity between stories where fluffies act like this, and the more realistic stories where fluffies do not have this behaviour. I can easily think of Waggytail drawing a fluffy enjoying a bath.
While there are stories that shows fluffies not having said animal instincts, I can easily think of @Gardel & @Fluffus’s work on The Fluffy Sink. Going further, Fluffus’s own story of Star depicts adult fluffies as behaving (and fighting) rather animalistically and survivalist, which contrast with the approach you mentioned.
Again, another area where I disagree with you, but this also boils down to the fact that different people have different ideas on how long fluffies take to age. Fiercedeitylynx had fluffies reach maturity within a month, while @Carpdime has fluffies still be foals after just a month. @KerosineCannibal has them age to adulthood after three months while Great_White_Nope had them age to adulthood in one year
From what I’ve seen, people either have depicted fluffies being good domestics from the time of foalhood, or have to learn how to survive as ferals while foals. Which means that its lot less than “a few years old”
Another area where I go with “depends on headcanon”, mainly because people have disagreed with it. I am aware that you have your own headcanon for it, but I am also pointing out that not many agree with the idea of pre-programmed language. Its something @mutagen mentioned here
This is a very loaded statement, and I find that this requires defining “abstract concepts”. And I’m going to work with a definition of “abstraction” as provided by wikipedia. In particular, I am going to go with a definition provided by noted English philosopher John Locke:
the mind makes particular ideas received from particular things become general; which it does by considering them as they are in the mind—mental appearances—separate from all other existences, and from the circumstances of real existence, such as time, place, and so on. This procedure is called abstraction.
Consider the following examples:
“Human A sees Human B and says, you’re a human just like me”.
"Fwuffy A sees Fwuffy B and says, “Fwen am just wike fwuffy.”
Both examples reflect the existence of an other mind, particularly one that is similar to it. That’s an abstract concept. Its an abstract concept that doesn’t need to be fully detailed or explained, it just comes natural - just as humans are raised around humans and understand other humans have minds, a fluffy raised around other fluffies recognize that other fluffies are just like them. Now granted, some people are going to disagree with me on this, but considering how fluffies have been depicted as social creatures needing communication, I think fluffies are aware of the existence of other minds in order to have a conversation to begin with.
The point I am making here is that a fluffy doesn’t need to rationalize an abstract concept in order to be aware of it or understand it.
I’ve seen at least a few stories revolving around fluffies bartering, and understanding how barter works. Some of it is comical, some of it is sadbox What I’m trying to point out here is that fluffies can at least understand an abstract concept of value, enough to barter, which is an instinctual human behaviour. Even in the concepts and headcanons of bestest babbehs and good colours (which I tend to disagree with), all of these reflect around a primitive concept of value. Otherwise, they wouldn’t use the term “bestest”.
Different people have different ideas of what fluffies supposed to be or have become, to the extent that I haven’t really seen them be these living teddy bears. Granted, there are some people who have depicted fluffies as really fragile, but the earlier example of Fluffus kind of defies that idea of fluffies as fragile or "teddy bear"ish. Waggytail has depicted them more akin to pets then as living toys
I think the question is the extent to which Fluffy education can be explored, which again boils to to headcanon/hivecanon. Waggy not only depicted fluffies learning, but even had a mare teach foals. While Squeakyfriend’s Crazystein is considered weirdbox, the premise behind that series is a fluffy thats a mad scientist and is privy to experimentation. And I haven’t even mentioned @Pinkyfluffy who has depicted his fluffies speak perfect Italian.
A final thing I want to mention is that I find that there is this disparity between the different iterations of the fluffy pony fandom, whether it was at the time of the Fall of Cleveland, early booru, mid booru, latter booru and in its current form. One person commented that the current hivecanon was very different from his time, a reason why I made a topic about what I saw to be “a Steady Decline”. Its part of the reason why I find it more interesting to explore the different unique headcanons some past creators had, as different people have their own different visions of fluffies.
