272 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In those remarks of David's to which you linked, he insisted that the tone of PC dialogue was always fixed, and that's clearly not true.

Characters have always reacted as if your character spoken in a certain tone. If you're able to ignore or mentally rewrite NPC reactions, then why can't you do so with the PC?

He assumes they've misinterpretted the PC.

No, I don't.  I don't need to assume they've misinterpreted the PC.  I just need not to assume that they've interpreted the PC correctly, which is what the rest of you are typically doing whne you claim that the NPC reaction somehow implies a specific delivery of a given line.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Frankly though, with the amount of freedom Sylvius demands at times, I honestly wonder why he doesn't just write fanfiction, create his own games, or play D&D by himself - as then he's have absolute freedom.

I don't want absolute freedom.  I want extensive freedom within a rigid framework, and that's what CRPGs can give me.  They've given me that before.

I don't ask BioWare to provide me with any feature they have not previously used.  That way I know I'm not making impossible requests.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:36 .

[bEVEsthda]

You gotta love Sylvanius the Mad. A mind like clear water from a spring. And the time and patience.
I don't have that. bye.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Frankly though, with the amount of freedom Sylvius demands at times, I honestly wonder why he doesn't just write fanfiction, create his own games, or play D&D by himself - as then he's have absolute freedom.

I don't want absolute freedom.  I want extensive freedom within a rigid framework, and that's what CRPGs can give me.  They've given me that before.

I don't ask BioWare to provide me with any feature they have not previously used.  That way I know I'm not making impossible requests.

The sad thing is that what Sylvius wants from his cRPGs would be far cheaper and easier to do than what BioWare is moving towards.

Even if they fully voiced EVERYONE but the PC.

For whatever reason (traditional non-game concepts of storytelling, I personally believe) BioWare feels the need to have the MC (main character, the player's main character he or she plays and controls) to be a very well defined character going INTO the story before the story starts.  There are merits to this, but not necessarily in a cRPG.  Adventure games with preset stories benefit the most from preset protagonists.  RPGs, which are meant to be your characters and your choices (as opposed to preset choices and events and just your skills at navigating those preset choices and events as in the majority of other games) benefit from the more control over the player's character that the game can give the player.  Each pre-defined trait of the MC is one more trait the player can't choose.  Now it is clear that few games, even RPGs, will be able to give players full control over their character design and such - but when choices have to be predefined it is best, for RPGs, that those predefined parts be more setting, set-up, and outside world views and reactions to the character from before the player gets his or her hands on the MC.

The worst part of this is what DA2 does.  It fails at this horribly by seeming to give you to the tools to shape your character (being an absolute jerk to Isabela, for example, and never being nice to her or giving her anything) and then having pre-rendered cut scenes or banter dialog or environmental aspects that make it play out like your character LIKES and is NICE to Isabela (every cut-scene where you greet her, banter where you pleasantly joke with her, and all the little easter eggs in Hawke manor.)  This was not needed - it would have been as simple as a few flags in the programming of the game, even just TRUE or FALSE Boolean, of such like "Has Hawke been nice to Isabela in dialog?" TRUE, then buddy-buddy banter plays, FALSE, it DOESN'T play.  This isn't difficult programming... nowhere near the complexity of dealing with clipping in animations or all the time they spend on making those cinematic cut-scenes play out.

---

To be fair, I have pre-designed characters for table-top RPGs before.  I understand the drive and desire and the benefits for story.  But I try to do that only about ten percent of the campaigns I run as I know full well the reason MOST people play RPGs is to create their own character, not to play some pre-made character.  And no matter how much fun players have with my stories with the pre-made characters, being met with another campaign with pre-made characters leads to groaning and dropping immediately into negotiations.

[Merci357]

MerinTB wrote...

For whatever reason (traditional non-game concepts of storytelling, I personally believe) BioWare feels the need to have the MC (main character, the player's main character he or she plays and controls) to be a very well defined character going INTO the story before the story starts.  There are merits to this, but not necessarily in a cRPG.  Adventure games with preset stories benefit the most from preset protagonists.  RPGs, which are meant to be your characters and your choices (as opposed to preset choices and events and just your skills at navigating those preset choices and events as in the majority of other games) benefit from the more control over the player's character that the game can give the player.  Each pre-defined trait of the MC is one more trait the player can't choose.  Now it is clear that few games, even RPGs, will be able to give players full control over their character design and such - but when choices have to be predefined it is best, for RPGs, that those predefined parts be more setting, set-up, and outside world views and reactions to the character from before the player gets his or her hands on the MC.

The more traits I can define as a player, the more likely I can enjoy a game. Examples would be The Elder Scrolls or Fallout games.
However, I happen to enjoy games like DE:HR far more. There I don't necessarily play "my" story, or can't shape "my" character like I'm able to in TES, it's the old 3rd person vs. 1st person discussion, I guess. And I happen to find a well crafted 3rd person narrative and story far more immersive and engaging. YMMV.
But there is a risk said predefined traits might not work for me. That's the case with the TW games, as finely craftes as they are. I don't enjoy them. That can't happen in New Vegas or Skyrim, because there I can freely choose a character that I like.

BioWare games are somewhat in the middle - I'm not forced to play as Adam or Geralt, but I'm still bound to a lot of parameters. For me, this approach is great - so far, but I'm quite sure for some it's neither fish nor flesh. And I'm sure sooner or later a BW games will not work for me.

And as a general not, not directed at you, Merin: I don't expect each and every game tailored to my preferences. If that would be the case, there would have been no progress since SSI's gold box games... - Some games are a hit, some a miss. But if you look at the whole package of RPG developers, there are a lot of offerings, and I happen to find always the next game to look forward to, even if the last one just wasn't for me. Varienty is a great thing, and I dislike this doom and gloom scenario that's prevailing here so often. Varienty because there are as many tastes as they are members on this board.

[MerinTB]

Variety IS good. And I can enjoy a wide range of games as well. I am speaking towards what I believe the ideal for character control in an RPG, not what I can only enjoy.

I certainly enjoyed playing Master Chief. I loved Westwood's Blade Runner. Breakdown is one of my favorite games, and so is Beyond Good & Evil. Not one of those games did I get to decide one thing about my character. But they also weren't RPGs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

To be fair, I have pre-designed characters for table-top RPGs before.

Here's why that's different in kind from what DA2 does:

If you hand me a pre-defined character for tabletop play, I can play him within the limits you've laid out for me.

But what DA2 does is had be a pre-defined character, but it doesn't tell me what the limits are, so I can happily playing the character only to have the game stop me dead and shout "WRONG!"

For all BioWare's talk that they want to avoid "gotcha" moments, DA2's roleplaying events are littered with them.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:56 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, I don't.  I don't need to assume they've misinterpreted the PC.  I just need not to assume that they've interpreted the PC correctly, which is what the rest of you are typically doing whne you claim that the NPC reaction somehow implies a specific delivery of a given line.

How exactly do you define the difference between misinterpreting the PC and and not assuming that they've interpreted the PC correctly? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, I don't.  I don't need to assume they've misinterpreted the PC.  I just need not to assume that they've interpreted the PC correctly, which is what the rest of you are typically doing whne you claim that the NPC reaction somehow implies a specific delivery of a given line.

How exactly do you define the difference between misinterpreting the PC and and not assuming that they've interpreted the PC correctly? 

I don't understand why you would think those are equivalent, unless you're assuming an excluded middle.

When an NPC reacts to what my PC said, I cannot know why they're reacting like that.  Nor can my PC (though I suppose I could design a PC who thought he did).

What these other players seem to be doing is assuming they know how any given NPC will react to any particular PC action, so then any NPC reaction that deviates from that expected response is thus contradictory.  The only way around that would be to assume that the NPC misunderstood, and thus was reacting to the wrong thing.

But I think it's crazy for you (or anyone) to believe that you know how an NPC will react.  You can't read their minds.  You don't know what thoughts are occupying them.  So why would you assume that they'll react in a predictable way?

When an NPC reacts, I don't know why they've reacted as they did.  All I know is that they did do it, and my PC can respond accordingly, drawing whatever conclusions would be in-character for him.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I don't understand why you would think those are equivalent, unless you're assuming an excluded middle.

Primarily because the two statements proposed are equivalent, unless your focus is on some middle spectrum where an NPC only partially misinterprets your response, which I think is beyond the scope of this discussion.

If someone misinterprets my PC, which means to not grasp my character's meaning, then they have, at least in part, not interpreted my PC correctly.

What these other players seem to be doing is assuming they know how any given NPC will react to any particular PC action, so then any NPC reaction that deviates from that expected response is thus contradictory.  The only way around that would be to assume that the NPC misunderstood, and thus was reacting to the wrong thing.

Which would heavily depend on how dramatic the misunderstanding is. That's where I think the expected response position comes from. As the game does not take into account my character's tone, it's odd when I'm not given the ability to remark on what my character finds to be bizarre behavior patterns coming from npcs. If I'm role-playing a character whose every comment is made sneeringly and with snarls, I don't expect npcs to think we're holding a casual, friendly conversation. It's absurdity, assuming my character is aware of how basic human interactions work.

But I think it's crazy for you (or anyone) to believe that you know how an NPC will react.  You can't read their minds.  You don't know what thoughts are occupying them.  So why would you assume that they'll react in a predictable way?

Primarily because based on in character reasons, typical human beings will respond to certain words and actions, and tones. The more non-sensical reasons I'm forced to provide for why characters continue to misunderstand my meaning, the more ridiculous the role-playing. I'd argue that reactivity is a critical element, which is not present in the form you suggest.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Primarily because the two statements proposed are equivalent, unless your focus is on some middle spectrum where an NPC only partially misinterprets your response, which I think is beyond the scope of this discussion.

That's not even close to true.  That would only make sense if I was forced either to believe that I was interpreted correctly, or that I was misinterpreted.

I insist that the rational position is to believe neither ot those things, because the workings of the NPC's mind are not available for us to examine.  We can't know whether we've been misinterpreted, so it is unreasonable to assume that we have been.

If someone misinterprets my PC, which means to not grasp my character's meaning, then they have, at least in part, not interpreted my PC correctly.

You can't know whether an NPC has failed to grasp your character's meaning.  All you know is that their visible reaction is not what you expected.  You can only reach the conclusion you suggest if you hold that there's a necessary and predictable link between the NPC's interpretation and the NPC's behaviour, and that's a foundationless claim.

Which would heavily depend on how dramatic the misunderstanding is. That's where I think the expected response position comes from. As the game does not take into account my character's tone, it's odd when I'm not given the ability to remark on what my character finds to be bizarre behavior patterns coming from npcs. If I'm role-playing a character whose every comment is made sneeringly and with snarls, I don't expect npcs to think we're holding a casual, friendly conversation.

It's fine that you don't expect it.  The problem occurs when you conclude from that unexpected behaviour that something is wrong.

It's absurdity, assuming my character is aware of how basic human interactions work.

How do basic human interactions work?  I maintain that none of us know that, because humans are vastly and weirdly different from one another.

Primarily because based on in character reasons, typical human beings will respond to certain words and actions, and tones.

But you can;t know any given person well enough to perdict his behaviour specifically until you've been able to observe that behaviour for an extended period.  You might have spent a few dozen hours with each companion in DAO; that's not nearly enough time.

I'd argue that reactivity is a critical element, which is not present in the form you suggest.

That reactivity is always there.  You're asking for predictable reactivity, which reduces the game to a sandbox where you're moving all the pieces.

NPCs should behave independently of my preferences.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I insist that the rational position is to believe neither ot those things, because the workings of the NPC's mind are not available for us to examine.  We can't know whether we've been misinterpreted, so it is unreasonable to assume that we have been.

This is where someone usually chimes in with the equivalent of:  "But Sylvius, your rational position runs contrary to <insert number of years I've been alive> years of empirical observation and feedback.  Simply put, we have learned different lessons in life than you, and even if we cannot explain how it works to your satisfaction, that does not make our position or preferences incoherent,  nor without basis or lacking in value."

And yes, I know you shun empiricism in favor of rationalism.  That's fine, but it's perfectly reasonable in this situation to cite the former in defense of our interpretation of how conversations work in games, and indeed in life.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2011 - 08:15 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's not even close to true.  That would only make sense if I was forced either to believe that I was interpreted correctly, or that I was misinterpreted.

I insist that the rational position is to believe neither ot those things, because the workings of the NPC's mind are not available for us to examine.  We can't know whether we've been misinterpreted, so it is unreasonable to assume that we have been.

Both pathways lead to absurdity. If an npc misunderstands me, and as a result acts in a manner I don't expect, it's the same as if he understood my meaning and chose to act in that manner regardless. Both results create a scenario where I should be able to inquire into what I deem absurd behavior, which the game does not allow. Actually, it's even worse in the latter case since the npc is aware of my character's mentality, but is not the least bit curious into commenting on it.

You can't know whether an NPC has failed to grasp your character's meaning.  All you know is that their visible reaction is not what you expected.  You can only reach the conclusion you suggest if you hold that there's a necessary and predictable link between the NPC's interpretation and the NPC's behaviour, and that's a foundationless claim.

As Upsettingshorts points out, empiricism as a doctrine would probably disagree with you. Much like language, we are conditioned in basic human tone and body language. If I break down into tears on the street, most humans would probably infer that I'm sad about something. If I'm currently engaged in a shouting match and am throwing insults around, they're probably going to infer that I'm angry.

Basic human responses is what makes interaction possible in day to day life. It's exactly why I don't go around screaming at employees at the local mall, because I am aware of certain social expectations, what those tones indicate to the people around me, which impacts how I think any individual will receive my attitude.  

It's fine that you don't expect it.  The problem occurs when you conclude from that unexpected behaviour that something is wrong.

If the behavior is unexpected and I'm unable to inquire into its origins, then yes, I am going to assume that something is wrong.

How do basic human interactions work? I maintain that none of us know that, because humans are vastly and weirdly different from one another.

But you can;t know any given person well enough to perdict his behaviour specifically until you've been able to observe that behaviour for an extended period.  You might have spent a few dozen hours with each companion in DAO; that's not nearly enough time.

Great question. And it's a rather complicated matter, as humans possess any number of expected responses in any scenario. It doesn't remove the point that certain tones I employ should have npcs recognizing that tone. As I said, if I constantly snarl at every npc, I expect someone to comment on it at some point, particularly as I expect that in typical human reactions. Constantly snarling at people will, sooner rather than later, provoke questions regarding why I appear angry.

That reactivity is always there.  You're asking for predictable reactivity, which reduces the game to a sandbox where you're moving all the pieces.

Limited predictable reactivity, which is what I attribute to any normal human being. With any action, I expect there could be a variety of valid responses. But I also expect the ability to react when someone acts in a manner deemed unsettling. Bioware games have done this before, utilizing the "crazy npc".

Ex: The crazed blood-mage in the Brecilian Forest. Here's an example where the game deems it acceptable for me to comment on the man's mental status, as he is incoherent, in many ways.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Both pathways lead to absurdity. If an npc misunderstands me, and as a result acts in a manner I don't expect, it's the same as if he understood my meaning and chose to act in that manner regardless. Both results create a scenario where I should be able to inquire into what I deem absurd behavior, which the game does not allow.

The game doesn't allow it when the NPC acts as you expect, either.  The game can't model all possible behaviours.

Why are you granting special status to this specific case?

As Upsettingshorts points out, empiricism as a doctrine would probably disagree with you. Much like language, we are conditioned in basic human tone and body language. If I break down into tears on the street, most humans would probably infer that I'm sad about something. If I'm currently engaged in a shouting match and am throwing insults around, they're probably going to infer that I'm angry.

And as I've explained, empircism allows us only to predict the behaviour of people, not of persons.  To predict the behaviour of individual persons in this way we would either need vastly more data about each individual person, or to assume (baselessly) that all people are relevantly similar.

Basic human responses is what makes interaction possible in day to day life.

Interaction isn't possible in day to day life.  Action is possible.  Interaction is a fantasy.

If the behavior is unexpected and I'm unable to inquire into its origins, then yes, I am going to assume that something is wrong.

Why do not assume something is wrong when you cannot inquire into the origins of expected behaviour?  Why is the standard set by your expectations?  Why not my expectations?  Or the median set of expectations?  Or some documented standard of behaviour?

What's special about your expectations?

Great question. And it's a rather complicated matter, as humans possess any number of expected responses in any scenario. It doesn't remove the point that certain tones I employ should have npcs recognizing that tone. As I said, if I constantly snarl at every npc, I expect someone to comment on it at some point, particularly as I expect that in typical human reactions. Constantly snarling at people will, sooner rather than later, provoke questions regarding why I appear angry.

Are you really surprised that the game's design doesn't support extreme cases such as that?  You're effectively asking the game to protect you from yourself, so that you aren't allowed to do the things that would annoy you.

How about you just don't do them, and then we'll both be happy.

Limited predictable reactivity, which is what I attribute to any normal human being. With any action, I expect there could be a variety of valid responses.

But only valid responses.  Valid by what standard?  Do you really want NPCs never to behave in a way that makes your character think "whoa, that's weird".  You're asking for a social environment that is much simpler and less interesting that the real world.  Why?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This is where someone usually chimes in with the equivalent of:  "But Sylvius, your rational position runs contrary to <insert number of years I've been alive> years of empirical observation and feedback.  Simply put, we have learned different lessons in life than you, and even if we cannot explain how it works to your satisfaction, that does not make our position or preferences incoherent,  nor without basis or lacking in value."

It does if they are misapplying those empirical lessons, and they are.

The empirical data are for people, not individuals.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It does if they are misapplying those empirical lessons, and they are.

And our assertion is that we are not, and this is confirmed to us on a daily basis. 

Without being us, you are not in a position to dispute the validity of the claim.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:22 .

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The empirical data are for people, not individuals.

So your position is, it doesn't work because it can't work always?

One misunderstanding while applying said data doesn't make it always a faulty process. Empathy can only go so far, and of course it's not always working. While people in general will act in the expected way, that does not imply that every individual will, there are always outliers. And here comes, besides life experience the ability to read body language, even on a subconscious level - you'll notice some of these outliers and know someting is different. But - of course, it doesn't work always. And few games work with gestures and facial expressions, beyond the most basic expressions only L.A. Noire is the single one that comes to mind. However, it's an integral part to understand others, and it's simply missing in games. Give it another decade.

Modifié par Merci357, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:38 .

[upsettingshorts]

Merci357 wrote...

So your position is, it doesn't work because it can't work always?

I do believe that this is Sylvius' position, yes.  I'm only posting this instead of waiting for his response just to make sure I'm guessing correctly.

Also while I appreciate what you're saying about the benefits of features such as those in LA Noire, I'm not sure Sylvius will.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merci357 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The empirical data are for people, not individuals.

So your position is, it doesn't work because it can't work always?

Not quite.  I hold that because it doesn't work always, it in fact never works, and those instances where you think it did work were simply luck.

I'm not judgning the outcomes, I'm judging the process.  A bad bet is still a bad bet, even if you win.

Empathy can only go so far, and of course it's not always working.

Empathy never works.  Empathy is just you projecting your own emotions onto others.  If they're relevantly similar to you, then it looks like you correctly sensed their emotional state.  But since it fails whenever you're presented with people who are not relevantly similar to you - say, people who don't emote, like the autistic - that shows that you're not actually sensing their emotions at all.  You're just guessing.

As such, I would argue that a game like Origins, which allows a disconnect between expression and reaction, more accurately models real world conversations than anything that forces a relationship between the two.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And our assertion is that we are not, and this is confirmed to us on a daily basis. 

Confirmed by your own demonstrably broken standard of evidence. 

Surely you must see how circular that reasoning is.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Confirmed by your own demonstrably broken standard of evidence.

No.  It is my assertion that you are unable to process of the kind of evidence we - those of us who claim that such is an obvious part of human interaction, that is - collect, and thus are incapable of considering it reasonably.  Ergo, your logic on the subject is permanently and irreparably flawed by the bias inherent in your perspective.

That you equate empathy between two neurotypical individuals with a neurotypical individual being unable to empathize with an autistic is evidence of this.  Of course the latter doesn't work.  They're not thinking or behaving in the same "language."

As such, your argument is based upon the idea that someone who speaks only in English can only understand someone who speaks only in Ancient Etruscan by luck.  And that would be true.  But if both people speak English, even different dialects of it, mutual understanding is not an accident.

However, there are people with more training and education in the subject than I that can probably correct me on the details while explaining better.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Surely you must see how circular that reasoning is.

Surely you must see that your atypical thought process prevents you from considering that it does work for others, and the notion that it must fit your standard of evidence to be considered reasonable is in of itself unreasonable.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

My standard of evidence is the very definition of reasonable.  It is based upon reason.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That you equate empathy between two neurotypical individuals with a neurotypical individual being unable to empathize with an autistic is evidence of this.  Of course the latter doesn't work.  They're not thinking or behaving in the same "language."

If this were true, then this supposed language should be learnable.  There must exist a primer for it somewhere.

Everything learnable is learnable from a book.

As such, your argument is based upon the idea that someone who speaks only in English can only understand someone who speaks only in Ancient Etruscan by luck.  And that would be true.  But if both people speak English, even different dialects of it, mutual understanding is not an accident.

Empathy is generally presented as a far more fundamental core characteristic of humans that spans all cultures.  It supposedly works all of the time.

Except it clearly doesn't.

Surely you must see that your atypical thought process prevents you from considering that it does work for others, and the notion that it must fit your standard of evidence to be considered reasonable is in of itself unreasonable.

If you can't formalise the process, then you cannot reasonably be confident in the effectiveness of that process.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:45 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If this were true, then this supposed language should be learnable.  There must exist a primer for it somewhere.

Everything learnable is learnable from a book.

False, unless it is your assertion that someone with autism can become neurotypical through some kind of formalized procedure.  None of the listed therapies here would claim to do any such thing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Empathy is generally presented as a far more fundamental core characteristic of humans that spans all cultures.  It supposedly works all of the time.

Except it clearly doesn't.

I'm not responsible for how it is "generally presented."  Empathy works when a relatable foundation exists to begin with.  Without it, it will not work consistently.  Given great enough differences, it will fail to work at all.  However, the people who make the same kind of arguments I do are likely typical in the respect we're covering, and therefore have significantly more experience encountering others we can relate to and empathize with than those who are less typical.

This is what David Gaider was getting at when he said that the games no longer allow the player to roleplay someone with Aspergers.  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you can't formalise the process, then you cannot reasonably be confident in the effectiveness of that process.

There have been plenty of books and studies that attempt to do this, I'd wager, most of them probably based in the social sciences.   However, my area of study is only tangentially related to the ones I'm speaking of, so my knowledge of the details involved is... basic at best, and I can really only speak from experience with confidence.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:57 .

[Heimdall]

So Sylvius' position is that human reactions are impossible to predict?

Really?

Humans are social creatures by nature. With that comes the ability to interpret the moods and predict how others will act. There is a margin for error, some are better at it than others and there are outliers who do not function like the majority of the population. Cultural and other differences also play a factor.  However the idea that it never works seems to me unreasonable.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:56 .

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My standard of evidence is the very definition of reasonable.  It is based upon reason.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That you equate empathy between two neurotypical individuals with a neurotypical individual being unable to empathize with an autistic is evidence of this.  Of course the latter doesn't work.  They're not thinking or behaving in the same "language."

If this were true, then this supposed language should be learnable.  There must exist a primer for it somewhere.

Everything learnable is learnable from a book.

And there are books, if you would bother to look them up. But, since you've already made up your mind, I doubt Emotional Intelligence, or Body Language (in general) would be fields you'd like to study.

As such, your argument is based upon the idea that someone who speaks only in English can only understand someone who speaks only in Ancient Etruscan by luck.  And that would be true.  But if both people speak English, even different dialects of it, mutual understanding is not an accident.

Empathy is generally presented as a far more fundamental core characteristic of humans that spans all cultures.  It supposedly works all of the time.

Except it clearly doesn't.

Not always =/= never. Who claims it works always besides you?

If you can't formalise the process, then you cannot reasonably be confident in the effectiveness of that process.

So it's unreasonable to listen to decades of life experience? So you dismiss the idea of Emotional Intelligence?  I possible can't read you, and never will - you and your views are alien to me. With most people within the same cultral background it's working as intended.

Modifié par Merci357, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:00 .