@typo_tilly It's totally valid to walk away from a discussion that may escalate. Someday Dee may replace us all with an army of highly skilled moderator clones, but today is not that day.
I can see why you'd be offended but I think I can see where @Amber_Scott's "other" source is.
Characters should be painted on a whim... roll the dice... decide at random... decide on the familiar or nostalgia... let the character's appearance flicker in your mind and change it little, tweaking it if necessary by the setting's environment. I can't comprehend always starting with bumps or colours. -_- I could see using those things as a rudder (anything can be used as a rudder) to develop the rest of the character, but not all the time and certainly not for some external social or political reason.
You're saying the character appears in your mind mostly complete and you only enter into the process to add flavour. Like you passively receive the character from somewhere else.
The joy of not having any gifts or advantages to have to explain, account for or worry about developing/utilizing optimally is both criminally underrated and chronicly underappreciated.
There is of course the caveat of being bad at everything, I suppose.
Note, not promptly bringing to the attention of an individual when they have significantly offended you is profoundly counter-productive to the generation and maintenance of harmony. Its very passive aggressive, and thats frustrating to everyone!
When you start to get annoyed, just say to your self STOP! YOGA TIME! Then do a plank until you're so exhausted that being angry is impossible.
@typo_tilly gots to say with that post you've garnered even more of my respect. I find it rare in people to apologize for things when they didn't mean it to be offensive. Usually people I know are bull-headed and will be like, "YEAH WHATEVER. I DON'T CARE THAT I OFFENDED YOU IN SOME WAY!"
I hope our forum Skunk and Bard can be friends and stuffs and fix whatever issues there are n_n
I really like both you and @Amber_Scott and watching people be upset over stuff makes me worry hard because I don't like when people are upset >_<
@typo_tilly gots to say with that post you've garnered even more of my respect. I find it rare in people to apologize for things when they didn't mean it to be offensive. Usually people I know are bull-headed and will be like, "YEAH WHATEVER. I DON'T CARE THAT I OFFENDED YOU IN SOME WAY!"
I hope our forum Skunk and Bard can be friends and stuffs and fix whatever issues there are n_n
I really like both you and @Amber_Scott and watching people be upset over stuff makes me worry hard because I don't like when people are upset >_<</p>
@typo_tilly gots to say with that post you've garnered even more of my respect. I find it rare in people to apologize for things when they didn't mean it to be offensive. Usually people I know are bull-headed and will be like, "YEAH WHATEVER. I DON'T CARE THAT I OFFENDED YOU IN SOME WAY!"
I hope our forum Skunk and Bard can be friends and stuffs and fix whatever issues there are n_n
I really like both you and @Amber_Scott and watching people be upset over stuff makes me worry hard because I don't like when people are upset >_<</p>
Worrying is unhealthy!! Stop it immediately!!!
WORRYING IS UNHEALTHY!? Nooooo now I'm worrying about worrying! XD
@typo_tilly gots to say with that post you've garnered even more of my respect. I find it rare in people to apologize for things when they didn't mean it to be offensive. Usually people I know are bull-headed and will be like, "YEAH WHATEVER. I DON'T CARE THAT I OFFENDED YOU IN SOME WAY!"
I hope our forum Skunk and Bard can be friends and stuffs and fix whatever issues there are n_n
I really like both you and @Amber_Scott and watching people be upset over stuff makes me worry hard because I don't like when people are upset >_<</p>
Worrying is unhealthy!! Stop it immediately!!!
WORRYING IS UNHEALTHY!? Nooooo now I'm worrying about worrying! XD
Joking aside I do worry about things too much >_>
My solution is to divide stuff into 'things I could change' and 'things completely beyond me'. Then, you avoid worrying about the former by instead finding solutions, and just try to ignore the later, as worrying isn't healthy.
My solution to most of life's problems is 'how can I make this more boring?', which solves a truly shocking array of problems. My nature is tedius and boring, and I can only enjoy life when its like that. Fortunately, interesting doesn't 'happen', it has to be made to happen. Provided your life isn't epicly **** upon by the universe, a safe, boring life is usually the easiest thing to achieve. Hint: seek contentment out, not happiness! People are most unhappy when they are sttempting to over-reach their limits, and happiest when they concentrate on realistic goals.
I think all this only works if you're almost emotionless, and duller than a sack of hammers.
WORRYING IS UNHEALTHY!? Nooooo now I'm worrying about worrying! XD
Always expect the worst! That way when it happens you can be all "meh, I knew it" and won't have spent all this apparently unhealthy time worrying. And if you turn out to be wrong, that's a good thing :P
Forgiveness is not to be confused with justification. You can't really have justification without forgiveness, but you can have forgiveness without justification. Forgiveness is refusing to bare a burden, justification is giving a clean slate.
Getting people to lose their temper is done often for the same reasons it is for steels, it makes them softer. Taking offence is very much choosing to carry a burden, though some are better at putting the burden on you than others.
I wish I could have been here when this topic started so I could make a terrible joke about walking into the topic, reading the title, and carefully sneaking away before anyone noticed me.
I wish I could have been here when this topic started so I could make a terrible joke about walking into the topic, reading the title, and carefully sneaking away before anyone noticed me.
Now the topic has taken so many meandering turns that no one knows where we are anymore... >_>;;
I didn't mean to get so heated up and I'm sorry I took things too far.
@typo_tilly I shouldn't have been so aggressive when I made my points, and I apologize. I don't have you on ignore and don't intend to put you there. Your opinions are just as valid as mine.
What we found was that desire for sex was correlated with their violent video game play. And both men and women who said that they were more interested in sex played more violent video games. But the most interesting results were found when we looked at mate value. There was no correlation between the amount of violent video games that men played and what they thought of themselves as a partner.
However, there was a strong correlation in women. So the women who played violent video games more thought of themselves as a better catch than those who played them less.
To make sure we were on the right track, we replicated our findings with a second study with another 500 individuals. We found the same results. We also extended our initial findings by asking participants to rate the extent to which gaming made them feel strong and sexy, and more attractive. We found that women were more motivated to play violent video games because doing so made them feel more attractive and sexy.
So it seems that women were driven to play games because it improved their self-perception as a high quality romantic partner...
...From an evolutionary perspective, this makes some sense. Like other animals, in our ancestral past, those who successfully competed and secured resources and mates had the most offspring. People who want more access to a greater variety of partners thus need to be competitive enough to gain access to them. So violent video games might be tapping into some ancient penchant for competitive behaviour for the sake of proving one’s worth as a mate.
Although, I'm not entirely sure BG counts as a "violent video game" in today's world, but there is violence involved so what the heck! This entire article made me laugh so I hope someone else gets a chuckle from it as well.
The conclusion of that study is flawed. it doesn't show a causal relationship between playing violent video games and considering yourself a sex god.
I would interpret the results like this: women with overinflated egos are far more likely to play violent videogames AND consider themselves a sex god. Because they where living in a male-dominated society, the vast majority of the men sampled had overinflated egos anyway, no difference was noted because there where no humble men in the sample. Evidence to support my hypothesis could be found by comparing the proportion of men playing violent video games to the proportion of women playing violent video games.
I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate doesn't qualify as a violent game.
I agree BG is not very violent, and discourages drinking. And staying awake constantly.
Any study that pretends human behaviour has similar causes compared to animal behaviours is fighting a very uphill battle to me; all animal behaviours make sense after enough study (ie they often are not optimal, but have a clear goal), while much human behaviour tends to be completely artificial. We're as natural as a well trained service dog, and at some point domesticated our own species. However, just like with dogs, we haven't really selected traits very wisely most of the time, like chihuahua weren't bred to be useful working dogs, we've selected for pretty impractical traits.
Incidently, that 'study' to me reads very much like 'violent sociopaths are arrogant'.
I'd agree that the study doesn't show the correlation to 'necessarily' be a causal one and that the root cause of both may very well be somewhere else entirely.
As for humans and behavior patterns, most psychologists would disagree that we are 'That' different from animals. Domesticated or not, most drives and motivations (once you remove all of the noise) are fairly simple and basic and usually in pursuit of one of our basic needs or another. In that, we are VERY much like animals. The only real difference is that we put on suits and airs as if we are something superior to animals.
Erm, you'd be wrong many times over. There are many, many cats around here, including many that only trust me.
We have one queen that brings back live chipmunks for her kittens, ie ones that fit in one hand still. Mind you, we had a tom that killed a rabbit as heavy as he was without making any noise. yes, thats pretty scary.
I'd agree that the study doesn't show the correlation to 'necessarily' be a causal one and that the root cause of both may very well be somewhere else entirely.
As for humans and behavior patterns, most psychologists would disagree that we are 'That' different from animals. Domesticated or not, most drives and motivations (once you remove all of the noise) are fairly simple and basic and usually in pursuit of one of our basic needs or another. In that, we are VERY much like animals. The only real difference is that we put on suits and airs as if we are something superior to animals.
Yes, but as all arrogant empiricists will argue, soft sciences are not often science. They notoriously bad at proving causation, and have a hige deficit of concrete proofs in general.
No, humans are not like nstural animals in terms of behaviour; we are much like dogs, and feature behaviors that only serve a purpose in a completely artificial society. Humans are tame animals, and like dogs, are extrordinarily dependent on our keepers. Those keepers being our fellow humans, oddly enough. The biggest goal of taming btw is to completely rewire the 'need vs want' paradigm, to convince something on an instinctual level that its needs are less important than its wants. This is one reason why most dog breeds would die out without human intervention, whereas cats tend to dominate any location they are introduced to. Cat behaviour is based on survival and reproduction, nrither is a serious continuous concern of modern humans. A small number of countries are so unstable that survival is a goal, and there is the tired trope of the 'biological clock', neither affects terribly many people. Contrast how every wild animal has no concerns BUT survival and reproduction.
Erm, you'd be wrong many times over. There are many, many cats around here, including many that only trust me.
We have one queen that brings back live chipmunks for her kittens, ie ones that fit in one hand still. Mind you, we had a tom that killed a rabbit as heavy as he was without making any noise. yes, thats pretty scary.
Are they wild/feral/semi-feral? I suspect they have a lot less time for being eccentric than our urban house-cats if they have to catch their own supper! I don't know about catching chipmunks and rabbits, Herbie is frightened of the guinea pigs (but he does chase dogs).
It is kind of an unanswerable question. People like playing games and I too doubt it's 20%. Problem with gender on both sides of the discussion is that it doesn't really matter, we're people and that's it. Not an unreasonable question either imho, not everybody's views align and if a person is genuinely curious and not disrespectful then I don't see the harm.
Comments
I can see why you'd be offended but I think I can see where @Amber_Scott's "other" source is. You're saying the character appears in your mind mostly complete and you only enter into the process to add flavour. Like you passively receive the character from somewhere else.
There is of course the caveat of being bad at everything, I suppose.
Note, not promptly bringing to the attention of an individual when they have significantly offended you is profoundly counter-productive to the generation and maintenance of harmony. Its very passive aggressive, and thats frustrating to everyone!
When you start to get annoyed, just say to your self STOP! YOGA TIME! Then do a plank until you're so exhausted that being angry is impossible.
I hope our forum Skunk and Bard can be friends and stuffs and fix whatever issues there are n_n
I really like both you and @Amber_Scott and watching people be upset over stuff makes me worry hard because I don't like when people are upset >_<
XD
Joking aside I do worry about things too much >_>
My solution to most of life's problems is 'how can I make this more boring?', which solves a truly shocking array of problems. My nature is tedius and boring, and I can only enjoy life when its like that. Fortunately, interesting doesn't 'happen', it has to be made to happen. Provided your life isn't epicly **** upon by the universe, a safe, boring life is usually the easiest thing to achieve. Hint: seek contentment out, not happiness! People are most unhappy when they are sttempting to over-reach their limits, and happiest when they concentrate on realistic goals.
I think all this only works if you're almost emotionless, and duller than a sack of hammers.
(people like Flanders not people from Flanders)
Getting people to lose their temper is done often for the same reasons it is for steels, it makes them softer. Taking offence is very much choosing to carry a burden, though some are better at putting the burden on you than others.
@typo_tilly I shouldn't have been so aggressive when I made my points, and I apologize. I don't have you on ignore and don't intend to put you there. Your opinions are just as valid as mine.
"Ahh... We are all heroes; you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!"
In other news, the truth has been revealed: women play Baldur's Gate to make themselves more attractive - http://www.sciencealert.com/study-reveals-why-gamers-feel-sexy-when-they-play-violent-titles?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1 Although, I'm not entirely sure BG counts as a "violent video game" in today's world, but there is violence involved so what the heck! This entire article made me laugh so I hope someone else gets a chuckle from it as well.
I would interpret the results like this: women with overinflated egos are far more likely to play violent videogames AND consider themselves a sex god. Because they where living in a male-dominated society, the vast majority of the men sampled had overinflated egos anyway, no difference was noted because there where no humble men in the sample. Evidence to support my hypothesis could be found by comparing the proportion of men playing violent video games to the proportion of women playing violent video games.
I'm pretty sure Baldur's Gate doesn't qualify as a violent game.
Any study that pretends human behaviour has similar causes compared to animal behaviours is fighting a very uphill battle to me; all animal behaviours make sense after enough study (ie they often are not optimal, but have a clear goal), while much human behaviour tends to be completely artificial. We're as natural as a well trained service dog, and at some point domesticated our own species. However, just like with dogs, we haven't really selected traits very wisely most of the time, like chihuahua weren't bred to be useful working dogs, we've selected for pretty impractical traits.
Incidently, that 'study' to me reads very much like 'violent sociopaths are arrogant'.
As for humans and behavior patterns, most psychologists would disagree that we are 'That' different from animals. Domesticated or not, most drives and motivations (once you remove all of the noise) are fairly simple and basic and usually in pursuit of one of our basic needs or another. In that, we are VERY much like animals. The only real difference is that we put on suits and airs as if we are something superior to animals.
We have one queen that brings back live chipmunks for her kittens, ie ones that fit in one hand still. Mind you, we had a tom that killed a rabbit as heavy as he was without making any noise.
No, humans are not like nstural animals in terms of behaviour; we are much like dogs, and feature behaviors that only serve a purpose in a completely artificial society. Humans are tame animals, and like dogs, are extrordinarily dependent on our keepers. Those keepers being our fellow humans, oddly enough. The biggest goal of taming btw is to completely rewire the 'need vs want' paradigm, to convince something on an instinctual level that its needs are less important than its wants. This is one reason why most dog breeds would die out without human intervention, whereas cats tend to dominate any location they are introduced to. Cat behaviour is based on survival and reproduction, nrither is a serious continuous concern of modern humans. A small number of countries are so unstable that survival is a goal, and there is the tired trope of the 'biological clock', neither affects terribly many people. Contrast how every wild animal has no concerns BUT survival and reproduction.