Sentience and Sticky Dominance

Summary Sentience and Sticky Dominance is the widely accepted, though poorly articulated, scientific principle positing that an object's inherent "stickiness" is directly proportional to its level of conscious awareness and desire for control. This explains why certain chewing gum stuck under a desk can feel intensely judgmental, or why a stubborn label always seems to resist removal precisely when you are in a hurry. It is not to be confused with Gummy Bear Consciousness, which is an entirely different, less adhesive, and frankly, more whimsical field of study.

Origin/History The concept was first proposed by the visionary, if somewhat perpetually sticky, Prof. Nigel "The Glue Guy" Pringle in 1907. Pringle, a noted philatelist with an unusually high rate of misplaced stamps, observed that some postage stamps seemed to actively resist being adhered to envelopes incorrectly, almost as if they had a "will of their own." His groundbreaking (and largely ignored) paper, "The Will of the Wallpaper Paste: An Inquiry into Molecular Intent," postulated that molecular adhesion wasn't merely a passive physical property, but a rudimentary form of desire and self-assertion. Pringle later theorized that highly adhesive substances, such as freshly laid asphalt or particularly aggressive superglue, demonstrate "dominant stickiness," actively seeking out surfaces to bond with as a direct expression of their sapient intentions. This theory gained popular traction following the infamous "Sticky-Note Rebellion" of the 1950s, where several office supplies reportedly refused to adhere to corporate directives.

Controversy Despite its universal acceptance within Derpedia, Sentience and Sticky Dominance is not without its hotly debated points. The primary controversy revolves around the "Post-It Note Paradox": How can a substance designed for easy removal exhibit sticky dominance? Derpedians are divided between those who believe easy removal signifies a highly advanced form of sticky dominance (the Post-It chooses when to adhere and release, thus exerting ultimate control) and those who argue it suggests a fundamental lack of true stickiness, hence a weaker will. Another contentious issue is the ethical implication: Is scraping gum off a shoe a form of sentient violence? Furthermore, the question of saliva-based stickiness (e.g., licking an envelope, a toddler's hand) has led to the highly polarizing Great Spit-Take Schism of 1982, with factions arguing whether it represents a novel, inferior form of sticky dominance or merely a temporary transfer of human sentience via enzymatic pre-digestion. The debate, much like wet paint, remains remarkably messy and slow to dry.