Plebcouncilman @ Plebcouncilman @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

638

Joined

6 mo. ago

I don’t see the issue. This is how it was in the early days and things were infinitely better. I’m convinced that the overly paternalistic moderation that overtook online platforms what was gave power to the alt right in the first place.

All online spaces could do with less moderation.

It will keep the normies out of the good websites 👍🏽

I mean my problem is that they didn’t learn from Fallout 4 and furthermore they went and doubled down on it in the worst ways possible. Radiant quests on FO4 were kinda lame, but at least I can say that they sent you into unique dungeons. In Starfield no only are the quests repeated but also the locations. It’s a huge step back.

On the positive end though I do have to say that the Faction quest for the Federation (I don’t remember the name) is one of the best quests lines Bethesda has written hands down. It felt like it could have been the main quest all by itself.

Wait until you realize that there’s like 5 dungeons and they are literally copy pasted all over the galaxy. Not like Oblivion were the rooms were copy pasted but had different mobs in it etc. These are literally the same dungeons, some of them even have a little narrative told through terminals, and not even that changes.

I used to be a Bethesda fan and a huge Todd apologist, but he’s literally out of touch with what made his games good for the core audience and instead panders to the audience who buys games based on the laundry list of features they never get to see because they don’t finish or play games after the hype is dead one week later.

It’s a shame because they actually got a lot of things right like going back to the TES conversation style, and having actual builds and the ship building which is pretty cool.

My last hope is that they actually learn the lesson with this game and stop this bullshit they’ve been trying to pull of since Arena of having endless content.

I gave the only instance in which piracy is permissible in the comment you replied to. When there are arbitrary restrictions on how and where you can consume the content that you purchased. But a purchased must have had happened, because that’s what entitles you to access to the content. That’s literally the only instance in which piracy is valid. I’ve seen all the other arguments and they really don’t hold up to any kind of scrutiny because games, movies and books are not necessities and you are not entitled to access to anyone’s work while everyone is entitled to price their work however they like. If you want access to the content you pay what the gatekeeper is asking for, and if the content is not good enough for you to pay for it then surely it isn’t good enough for you to spend the most valuable resource that you have on it which is time.

You do you, but to me 99% of pirates are just entitled parasites who’ve never created anything in their lives and as such do not understand why content has a price. For me piracy is only justifiable when you have paid for the content but are being barred from accessing it via bullshit like Adobe DRM.

But pirating shit just because you disagree with the pricing is entitled behavior and I cannot condone it, as someone who thinks I have the right to price my property at whatever price I want. It’s not essential to your survival so you can just not consume it and move on.

Sure, like 5 hours a week total. But that’s also because I choose to use my free time on other things like staying fit, cooking, reading and writing, if I didn’t i could possibly blay like 12 a week or a little bit more.

I don’t have kids though, and I’m a freelancer so no commute.

That’s the thing you haven’t proven anything, in fact you haven’t given a single argument in favor hat psychology is science. The only thing you said is that psychology is a science because it uses statistical method and the scientific method but that does not make it a science.

There’s too many things to read and too little time to read them so I would appreciate at least you trying to make an argument in your favor, by the time I get to read what you want me to I will forget this argument entirely.

It doesn’t offend me because I don’t think it’s true. I don’t need to play baseball to know that they guys playing basketball saying it’s baseball are not actually playing baseball. I can observe for myself the difference in the game. Similarly I can observe that psychology fails time and time again to produce objective knowledge which is the intention of all science. You have failed to refute this point and instead try to wave it away by saying:

• I’m not qualified enough to know what science is (ad hominem)
• directing me to read an entire field of philosophy that for all I know has its entire existence bent towards proving that the social sciences are sciences exactly in the same way that natural sciences are. (Also reeks of ad hominem but maybe I’m not qualified to make that judgement here either)

If you can refute how psychology can be a science without producing any objective knowledge maybe I’ll read any works of the philosophy of science that you think will further convince me. I’m currently reading Kant so it’s somewhat adjacent anyways.

Pretending that social sciences are science in the same vein as the natural sciences is academic insecurity. The validity of your field does not hinge on it producing objective knowledge but rather on whether it is useful or not. I’d say psychology is useful, and that alone makes it a valid field but it does not produce objective knowledge consistently so it is not a scientific field. Using the scientific method or math to conduct experiments does not make it a science especially when your data points come from self reported surveys or can be manipulated with sampling methods or even simple unconscious bias. Now do the natural sciences suffer from this too? Yes, but to a much lesser degree and as the methods and tools have become more refined so does the science become more certain and the knowledge produced more objective. Their primitive stages are not different from the state in which psychology exists in the present, but I would not have considered them science then just like i do not consider psychology a science now.

When the basis of psychology becomes rooted in the biology of humans and the the chemical processes that give embodiment to our consciousness, maybe it will become scientific. And also when a mind reading machine is invented because I believe that’s really the breakthrough that psychology needs in order to make reproducible experiments, self reporting is simply not reliable.

I have a degree, but not in science. Does that make me unqualified to state that the field of psychology, and most other social sciences lack the epistemic rigor of something like physics or biology and therefore are not real sciences?

I’ll repeat it, psychology is a science in much the same way that medieval medicine was a science. It may one day become an actual science much like medieval medicine became a science.

What is your field?

I’m not pretending anything, I never stated that marketing pretends to present products as they factually are. Look selling a product that no one wants is really fricking hard, no matter how much budget you have. So in order for something to sell well, people most have already wanted it. It must solve a problem, increase productivity or just fill the daddy shaped holes in their hearts, but they must want it and they cannot be truly manipulated into buying it unless you flat out lie, which is not really a good model on which to build a long term company on.

All I’m saying is that if marketing convinces people to buy a shiny poop they are in all the freedom to do so. But marketing never had the ability to manipulate people into buying something for which there is no desire. The shiny poop might fulfill some inner desire of the masses, who cares? They wanted it, they got it.

Comparing opioids to a truck or a phone is wild. I guess if opioids was something you could just walk into a store and buy without a prescription you would be somewhat right but that hasn’t been the case in a long time. The situation you describe is more about physical availability than mental availability which I think is more to the point of what we are discussing here but sure I can concede that rugged phones being less visible than the sleeker phones leads to them being purchased less often. But again, Samsung once had a mainline galaxy phone that was rugged and it didn’t do well, so maybe people really don’t want an ugly brick of a phone and want what is more aesthetically pleasant.

Let me put it this way, if you do not trust that people can make good purchase decisions. Why do we allow people to make any decisions at all? Much less participate in things so important like democracy?

Your line of thinking, that of removing completely the responsibility of the individual in a free market dynamic will necessarily take you to one or two conclusions depending on what you value more: we accept that the masses will not necessarily make the best choices available but they are absolutely free to make said choices, or that we should divide society between enlightened and non enlightened and the enlightened will dictate how the non enlightened will live because obviously these monkeys need guidance in order to make good decisions.

I flip flop between one or the other, but I always settle in the former because I can’t guarantee that I won’t be lumped with the monkeys.

Various meta analysis have found that the results of 50%+ of all studies in the field are non reproducible. It could be as high as 70%+.

Again this does not mean that it isn’t a valid field of knowledge, it just not a science yet. People somehow take offense at this because I guess they feel like I’m invalidating the field. I actually only invalidating the validity of their findings so far which is more like a “sorry, try again until you find the fundamental rules of your field”. There’s also this pervasive attitude that all fields must be a science in order to be valuable which is just not true.

The term “social science” reeks of insecurity to me because other than using the scientific method, they are not a sciences at all, but I guess academics needed a way to to defend themselves from the bullying physicists.

My personal opinion is that psychology ignores biology too much, and insists on humans as purely socially constructed beings. If they started looking more at how our biology is the fundamental mold for our psychology, they might start making real progress towards being a science. But then maybe it wouldn’t be psychology anymore.

A methodology with reproducible experiments and results.

Psychology is as much as science as medicine was a science in the Middle Ages.

That doesn’t mean we should stop pursuing knowledge in the field, but to call it a science at this point in its development is just disingenuous.

And then you don’t hire them because they have a 2 year gap in their resume and they were honest about spending that time in Thailand with a harem of transsexual prostitutes.

Is the marketing department putting a gun to your head to force you to buy anything?

I have worked in marketing, and I have a very good, almost academic understanding of it. One of the fundamental rules of marketing is that you cannot create a desire for a product, you can only create products that satisfy a desire. The big trucks are not there because the corporations forced the people to buy them, they are there because the people wanted to buy them and monkeys that we are as soon as we see many big trucks we also want one. There are small trucks in the market. They don’t sell as well as the big trucks. It’s simple free market dynamics and I really hate this pov because it makes it seem as though the corporations dictate what people want when it has always been the other way around.

The real disconnect is that you as an individual are alienated from the wants of the mass market, and this is all too common in online communities because guess what? People who spend time on discussion boards online do not think like the average person. Thankfully as barriers to entry dissolve even in markets like car manufacturing which used to be huge, we start getting more diversity of products, some of them tailored to niche buyers like yourself. But you cannot ask that these products be supported at the same level as the product that 80% of the people want, you have to live with the tradeoffs.

Not a science.

My critique is not of the content itself but rather it’s presentation, and its over reliance on what I can only call “millennial humor”.

I don’t think it was the lack of open world that put me off from it, as I’ve always preferred hub based games ever since Dragon Age Origins. I think it was just the writing honestly. I don’t like the whole “le soooo epic zany & ttlly rndm” writing that it shares with Borderlands. I don’t find it funny, endearing nor entertaining. It’s just annoying to me and it was everywhere at the time because millennial culture was at its height.