I didn't say don't have emotions. I said don't share them.
Vulcans do have emotions. In fact, they're often much stronger than human emotions. However, it is deeply ingrained in their culture to repress these emotions as much as possible.
I didn't say don't have emotions. I said don't share them.
Ok, so you had pleasant emotions while playing Imagine Babyz. Thanks, that piece of information is truly valuable to the rest of us.
About as valuable as your opinions upon games you haven't played and don't really know anything about, but you still insist on Opining them.
Except for the part you didn't read. I did not opine. I deducted conclusions about parts of a game based on some facts I do know.
I may not know who the murderer is, but I know they did it in the conservatory.
Not reading what you have to say and thinking you're talking absolute horseshit are two very different things. Needless to say, it's the latter.
And yes, Scott, I think you did opine. Because I feel like giving you the benefit of the doubt about it. Normally when someone makes something up and acts like it's fact, we call that lying, but I don't think you really have any deceptive intent behind it, unless I really, really wanted to stretch and include self-deception.
What you knew is about a quarter of something that's similar to a fact. And now you're trying to defend assertions made from that half-understood misunderstanding of the truth, by backing yourself into a series of increasingly ludicrous corners.
You don't know who the murderer is. You don't know what the murder weapon was. You think the crime was committed in the conservatory. What you don't know is that you've gone to the wrong house, wandered into a book club, and now you're wondering why nobody seems to be in the spirit of this murder mystery party you meant to go to. The house you were meant to go to for the party doesn't even have a conservatory!
In this murder mystery of an argument you've concocted, you're essentially saying that "I don't know who the murderer is, but I know it was in the conservatory". You think you're so smart because you have ONE "fact". But let's go over this:You don't know who the murderer is, you don't know what the murder weapon was, and you think the crime was committed in the conservatory. What you don't know is that you've gone to the wrong house, wandered into a book club, and now you're wondering why nobody seems to be in the spirit of this murder mystery party you meant to go to. The house you were meant to go to for the party doesn't even have a conservatory! So, not only are your "facts" wrong, but you're operating within a completely unrelated context! That is how misguided and wrong you are!
I'm going to memorize this and use it whenever someone is trying to argue something stupidly.
Scott's attempts at robot logic is probably the funniest thing I've read all day. Even folks who take logic and rationality really really seriously know that attempting to remove emotion from judging subjective human experience is fallacious because emotions, in the abstract, exist as a thing that is real and it is both impossible to detach them from our thought processes and will result in conclusions that have no utility for humans.
Scott is also still on his "only play games that improve you" kick, which is funny because if you really wanted to improve yourself you wouldn't be playing video games at all, you'd be doing some special forces training in between writing a thesis for your second PHD. His drug argument is also funny because some of us actually do use drugs recreationally, or have sex a bunch, or combine the two, or pursue other hedonistic activities (like solving board games), because it is a positive experience that feeds into our utility function as humans to work towards a feeling of security and comfort and is thus rewarded by our brains. It's not nearly the knockdown argument he seems to think it is.
(Also, it's not like there can't be some self-improvement involved in those activities. When I use drugs, it's to explore concepts artistically that I wouldn't have confidence to tackle otherwise. Not to mention you can definitely get better at sex.)
Fuck, Scott doesn't even realize that his self-improvement rationalization is itself an aspect of that same utility function; he is getting happy chemicals from his brain because he has deceived himself that the actives he engages in improve himself, thus leading to a greater feeling of security and comfort. Feeling smug is his anti-drug and it's giving him the exact same chemical feedback and when us folks play TF2, take hallucinogens, or engage in the sexy time.
In this murder mystery of an argument you've concocted, you're essentially saying that "I don't know who the murderer is, but I know it was in the conservatory". You think you're so smart because you have ONE "fact". But let's go over this:You don't know who the murderer is, you don't know what the murder weapon was, and you think the crime was committed in the conservatory. What you don't know is that you've gone to the wrong house, wandered into a book club, and now you're wondering why nobody seems to be in the spirit of this murder mystery party you meant to go to. The house you were meant to go to for the party doesn't even have a conservatory! So, not only are your "facts" wrong, but you're operating within a completely unrelated context! That is how misguided and wrong you are!
I'm going to memorize this and use it whenever someone is trying to argue something stupidly.
That's a little harsher in tone than what I was going for, but it's the rough idea of it, yes.
Scott is correct when he said (basically, anyway) that you can deduce a number of facts - or at least, most probable options - from a number of small, seemingly unrelated facts. But when you're basing your deductions upon incorrect facts, or small/misinterpreted portions of correct facts - among other things - you are far less likely to be correct in your deductions.
Edit - While I don't entirely agree with you on every point, I must say, well said, Sketch.
Fuck, Scott doesn't even realize that his self-improvement rationalization is itself an aspect of that same utility function; he is getting happy chemicals from his brain because he has deceived himself that the actives he engages in improve himself, thus leading to a greater feeling of security and comfort. Feeling smug is his anti-drug and it's giving him the exact same chemical feedback and when us folks play TF2, take hallucinogens, or engage in the sexy time.
This is the part where you are wrong. You know what would be the most fun ever for me? Sitting around playing MMORPGs all day. Guess what I don't do?
Through force of will I avoid very fun activities and intentionally engage less fun, or no fun, activities.
Of course. I do something similar; if I just wanted to descend entirely into hedonism, I'd get an Eve Online account. That game could easily provide my basic daily requirement of fun chemicals for as long as the servers stay up.
That doesn't somehow make me better than Eve Online players, though! That just means I have decided that I am willing to pursue a different path to satisfactions with my life, which in my case is creative fulfillment. But I can't judge a person who plays Eve Online, because no matter how we pretty it up, we're all pursuing our utility function. Some of us just have rationalizations for going about it in a more roundabout fashion. You and I sacrifice short-term fun for long-term satisfaction. Well, I know I am. If you are just denying yourself for the sake of it, you should probably get your brain checked.
This is the part where you are wrong. You know what would be the most fun ever for me? Sitting around playing MMORPGs all day. Guess what I don't do?
Seriously? You can't think anything more fun than playing MMORPGs all day? Nothing, like playing Mega Man all day, which is probably a great deal more fun than playing any existing MMORPG all day. But no, for you the most fun thing you can imagine is MMORPG. So sad.
This is the part where you are wrong. You know what would be the most fun ever for me? Sitting around playing MMORPGs all day. Guess what I don't do?
I'm surprised by this. You don't at all seem the type for it, and on top of that, I'm pretty sure you've expressed previously a sentiment that boils down to "I find it difficult to think of many things more boring than playing MMORPGs."
Granted, I might be misremembering, you might have changed your mind, or any of a half-dozen other things. But if you're saying that genuinely, then colour me surprised.
I think he's trying to tie it in to his other point of games as mind control. I am disappointed though; I kind of hoped for something more classy from him, like orgies, wine and togas.
Why would you force yourself to have less fun? What are you gaining through this? A sense of superiority that your tastes are better than everyone else?
Why would you force yourself to have less fun? What are you gaining through this? A sense of superiority that your tastes are better than everyone else?
If I might make a guess - Scott is trying to cram in as much experience as possible, and if he only sticks with things he enjoys, he's afraid(maybe not the right word, but close enough) he'll get stuck just in the one small set of things, rather than cramming in as much as he can. It's simply his method of ensuring variety and maximum new experiences.
Complete guess, though. I'm Australian, not a fuckin' mind reader.
Why would you force yourself to have less fun? What are you gaining through this? A sense of superiority that your tastes are better than everyone else?
If I might make a guess - Scott is trying to cram in as much experience as possible, and if he only sticks with things he enjoys, he's afraid(maybe not the right word, but close enough) he'll get stuck just in the one small set of things, rather than cramming in as much as he can. It's simply his method of ensuring variety and maximum new experiences.
Complete guess, though. I'm Australian, not a fuckin' mind reader.
But how much variety is he really getting? He's been playing the same Half-Life mods for over a decade, and he plays board games until they are no fun anymore because they have been solved. I imagine it's less about the variety of experience so much as the number of things he has mastered and can thus claim above other people.
That sense of superiority in itself its a form of enjoyment.
Maybe, but I doubt it's his main motivation. After all, if one wants a sense of superiority, smug or otherwise, that's something obtainable for far easier methods than altering one's entire lifestyle to be generally less fun. Scott has some fuckin' wierd ideas about life sometimes, but he's not that bad.
But how much variety is he really getting? He's been playing the same Half-Life mods for over a decade, and he plays board games until they are no fun anymore because they have been solved. I imagine it's less about the variety of experience so much as the number of things he has mastered and can thus claim above other people.
I'm just guessing at what he might be attempting to do and a possible motivation for doing so, I make no judgement of his success or actual method and motivations.
Now, I'm not one to usually promote staying on topic in a thread, but since the topic has shifted from vijigames to deconstructing Scott (a topic that occurs all too often) perhaps it should move to another thread? The "Rules of Scott" thread, perhaps?
Now, I'm not one to usually promote staying on topic in a thread, but since the topic has shifted from vijigames to deconstructing Scott (a topic that occurs all too often) perhaps it should move to another thread? The "Rules of Scott" thread, perhaps?
Agreed. So, what does everyone think of the demise of Japanese gaming?
There seem to be a lot of interesting theories about the decline. Was it a technological problem, as online play became the norm for most of the world? Was it a cultural problem, as America's gaming generation grew up while Japanese developers became old and crotchety? Was it a business issue, as XBox 360 and PC gaming rose and the tactical advantage shifted to America?
Honestly, I wonder if a big part of the rise of American gaming is just that developers here realized people really enjoyed shooting Nazis in the face before Japanese developers did. World War 2 shooters are a huge part of the latter day rise of American game development.
Honestly, I wonder if a big part of the rise of American gaming is just that developers here realized people really enjoyed shooting Nazis in the face before Japanese developers did. World War 2 shooters are a huge part of the latter day rise of American game development.
I'd definitely broaden World War 2 to FPS' in general. We can't downplay the influence of Half-Life (and it's many mods, Halo, and the Tom Clancy games (which were almost always modern). However, each new hot new game for this generation was just an incremental improvement over the previous popular FPS. Did FPS' fill the void after the Madden cash-cow ran dry? Maybe there is there something about small, incremental improvements that is appealing to the mass audience; these customers feel obliged to buy once they save up the funds (don't we all?), but choose the nice, safe FPS-upgrade because they don't want to blow their money on something new.
Also, new theory on Japan: the problem lies with their corporate culture? The size of a core studio has been shrinking and becoming far more casual. You no longer need an army of coders, testers, and artists to make a product. America embraced the garage developer model quicker, and studios that were established and huge were still able to embrace the more casual vibe. As evidence, I'm now curious about the size ratio of something like Skyward Sword versus, say, Borderlands.
Honestly, I wonder if a big part of the rise of American gaming is just that developers here realized people really enjoyed shooting Nazis in the face before Japanese developers did. World War 2 shooters are a huge part of the latter day rise of American game development.
I'd definitely broaden World War 2 to FPS' in general. We can't downplay the influence of Half-Life (and it's many mods, Halo, and the Tom Clancy games (which were almost always modern). However, each new hot new game for this generation was just an incremental improvement over the previous popular FPS. Did FPS' fill the void after the Madden cash-cow ran dry? Maybe there is there something about small, incremental improvements that is appealing to the mass audience; these customers feel obliged to buy once they save up the funds (don't we all?), but choose the nice, safe FPS-upgrade because they don't want to blow their money on something new.
Also, new theory on Japan: the problem lies with their corporate culture? The size of a core studio has been shrinking and becoming far more casual. You no longer need an army of coders, testers, and artists to make a product. America embraced the garage developer model quicker, and studios that were established and huge were still able to embrace the more casual vibe. As evidence, I'm now curious about the size ratio of something like Skyward Sword versus, say, Borderlands.
You make good points, but I think Call Of Duty and Medal of Honor are far bigger names than Half Life 2 to the general populace. I saw kids instinctively go to grab games with WW2 soldiers on the cover in a way they don't for Rainbow Six. Halo was also big, but on a single system line, COD and MOH were on everything they can get on
Feeling smug is his anti-drug and it's giving him the exact same chemical feedback and when us folks play TF2, take hallucinogens, or engage in the sexy time.
All I got from this is that when Scott feels smug, it actually feels like having sex. Now I'm jealous.
Feeling smug is his anti-drug and it's giving him the exact same chemical feedback and when us folks play TF2, take hallucinogens, or engage in the sexy time.
All I got from this is that when Scott feels smug, it actually feels like having sex. Now I'm jealous.
Why not do drugs? If all you want is good feelings, why play games? Just have sex all the time and eat luxurious food. Never do anything that's hard or challenging. Just do easy things that give out lots and lots of pleasure and never stop.
Why not do drugs? If all you want is good feelings, why play games? Just have sex all the time and eat luxurious food. Never do anything that's hard or challenging. Just do easy things that give out lots and lots of pleasure and never stop.
This is actually really sound advice imho.
In my book that is a perfect set of instructions on how to become a worthless human being deserving of no respect.
Comments
Ok, so you had pleasant emotions while playing Imagine Babyz. Thanks, that piece of information is truly valuable to the rest of us.
I may not know who the murderer is, but I know they did it in the conservatory.
And yes, Scott, I think you did opine. Because I feel like giving you the benefit of the doubt about it. Normally when someone makes something up and acts like it's fact, we call that lying, but I don't think you really have any deceptive intent behind it, unless I really, really wanted to stretch and include self-deception.
What you knew is about a quarter of something that's similar to a fact. And now you're trying to defend assertions made from that half-understood misunderstanding of the truth, by backing yourself into a series of increasingly ludicrous corners.
You don't know who the murderer is. You don't know what the murder weapon was. You think the crime was committed in the conservatory. What you don't know is that you've gone to the wrong house, wandered into a book club, and now you're wondering why nobody seems to be in the spirit of this murder mystery party you meant to go to. The house you were meant to go to for the party doesn't even have a conservatory!
Scott is also still on his "only play games that improve you" kick, which is funny because if you really wanted to improve yourself you wouldn't be playing video games at all, you'd be doing some special forces training in between writing a thesis for your second PHD. His drug argument is also funny because some of us actually do use drugs recreationally, or have sex a bunch, or combine the two, or pursue other hedonistic activities (like solving board games), because it is a positive experience that feeds into our utility function as humans to work towards a feeling of security and comfort and is thus rewarded by our brains. It's not nearly the knockdown argument he seems to think it is.
(Also, it's not like there can't be some self-improvement involved in those activities. When I use drugs, it's to explore concepts artistically that I wouldn't have confidence to tackle otherwise. Not to mention you can definitely get better at sex.)
Fuck, Scott doesn't even realize that his self-improvement rationalization is itself an aspect of that same utility function; he is getting happy chemicals from his brain because he has deceived himself that the actives he engages in improve himself, thus leading to a greater feeling of security and comfort. Feeling smug is his anti-drug and it's giving him the exact same chemical feedback and when us folks play TF2, take hallucinogens, or engage in the sexy time.
Scott is correct when he said (basically, anyway) that you can deduce a number of facts - or at least, most probable options - from a number of small, seemingly unrelated facts. But when you're basing your deductions upon incorrect facts, or small/misinterpreted portions of correct facts - among other things - you are far less likely to be correct in your deductions.
Edit - While I don't entirely agree with you on every point, I must say, well said, Sketch.
Through force of will I avoid very fun activities and intentionally engage less fun, or no fun, activities.
That doesn't somehow make me better than Eve Online players, though! That just means I have decided that I am willing to pursue a different path to satisfactions with my life, which in my case is creative fulfillment. But I can't judge a person who plays Eve Online, because no matter how we pretty it up, we're all pursuing our utility function. Some of us just have rationalizations for going about it in a more roundabout fashion. You and I sacrifice short-term fun for long-term satisfaction. Well, I know I am. If you are just denying yourself for the sake of it, you should probably get your brain checked.
Granted, I might be misremembering, you might have changed your mind, or any of a half-dozen other things. But if you're saying that genuinely, then colour me surprised.
Complete guess, though. I'm Australian, not a fuckin' mind reader.
There seem to be a lot of interesting theories about the decline. Was it a technological problem, as online play became the norm for most of the world? Was it a cultural problem, as America's gaming generation grew up while Japanese developers became old and crotchety? Was it a business issue, as XBox 360 and PC gaming rose and the tactical advantage shifted to America?
Did FPS' fill the void after the Madden cash-cow ran dry? Maybe there is there something about small, incremental improvements that is appealing to the mass audience; these customers feel obliged to buy once they save up the funds (don't we all?), but choose the nice, safe FPS-upgrade because they don't want to blow their money on something new.
Also, new theory on Japan: the problem lies with their corporate culture? The size of a core studio has been shrinking and becoming far more casual. You no longer need an army of coders, testers, and artists to make a product. America embraced the garage developer model quicker, and studios that were established and huge were still able to embrace the more casual vibe. As evidence, I'm now curious about the size ratio of something like Skyward Sword versus, say, Borderlands.