272 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Reposting from status update comment:

the_one_54321 wrote...

As an aside to a thread I cannot post in; you can formalize a definitively uncertain process. I say this with confidence because it is the basis upon which much of engineering is founded. You identify the level uncertainty you measure it against the level of uncertain which has been previously determined to be acceptable.

In fact, this is exactly how storm water structure designs have been determined for decades. It's an entirely probabilistic approach to storm sizes. It is uncertain by definition. And it is also entirely formal.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:24 .

[bEVEsthda]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I would read Sylvanius to make a somewhat opposite assertion.
And the rest I would read you as misrepresenting "learnable" in order to seem to claw a point.

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." 

Well, yes you are. It's called common language. You see, if you have some emotional investment in applying "empathy" to all kinds of other things in social behavior, the result is only going to be an endless chain of miscommunications.

 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.

What "works" in this case, is language. A convergance of languages, spoken and body language. Thanks to the mutual adaption of the languages (which are very dynamic things), languages contains far richer messages (than the mere words a stranger would see) between individuals who know each other well or, at least to some degree, between individuals who have a relatable foundation, - as you put it. 

This is NOT "empathy". It's communication.

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.

I would suspect those books are really about other things?
The thing we would agree on is that understanding is much based on other things than the most superficial layer of spoken words.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:38 .

[Inujade]

(Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, so if someone has said this already I apologize)

I would posit that the fact that a few people on here have called the OP 'insightful' and saying things like 'I never thought of that before' is indicative of the real problem.

It's very true that in DAO you are equally railroaded into the plot. I'm not arguing that, since people can just go 'but why didn't we go to Orlais? Why didn't my Dalish go home after becoming a Warden? Why do I have to save Eamon?!' But I've met very few people --in real life and on these boards -- who DO make those complaints. DA2? Different story.

In DAO, although I WAS being railroaded, I never FELT like I was being railroaded. The assumption that my character would want to stop the Blight and would follow Alistair's plan of doing so seemed natural to me. If there was ever a time where 'the plot dictates' happened, the depth of the immersion was such that I simply didn't notice it at the time.

In DA2 (although I quite liked DA2 and the character I made just happened to fit the story pretty well, out of dumb luck), there were moments when the immersion was BROKEN because of 'the plot dictates.' I won't give examples; they've probably been covered ten thousand times already on this board, but anyone who supported the mages can think of a few major ones

That, I think, is the real problem here. Not that decisions were forced on the player, but that they were simply more jarring and overt in the sequel. At least that's my experience.

[bEVEsthda]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Reposting from status update comment:

the_one_54321 wrote...

As an aside to a thread I cannot post in; you can formalize a definitively uncertain process. I say this with confidence because it is the basis upon which much of engineering is founded. You identify the level uncertainty you measure it against the level of uncertain which has been previously determined to be acceptable.

In fact, this is exactly how storm water structure designs have been determined for decades. It's an entirely probabilistic approach to storm sizes. It is uncertain by definition. And it is also entirely formal.

And do you understand what that comment says?
Then please explain how it relates to the discussion you had here.

I'll make it easy for you. The fact that uncertainties can be formalized, doesn't mean that they can always be, in particular when you're uncertain what you're uncertain about. And that you think it can be done, doesn't mean that it is a done fact. You still have to do it. Finally, even if you formalize a process that contains uncertainties, those processes often end up having the property of being unpredictable. Unpredictable, even in a strict mathematical sense. Engineering exists in the islands of the predictable, or bets on a probability of being on an island.

Sylvanius statement though was: If you can't formalize the process, then you cannot reasonably be confident in the effectiveness of that process.
As usual, with Sylvanius, simple, clear, correct. (And from it doesn't follow that you can predict if you can formalize.)

 You can however guess  the outcome, consciously based on empirical experience and unconsciously, gut feeling, on subtle processes which are a beyond-huge undertaking to try to understand, explain or formalize.
That seems to be good enough for Sylvanius opponents here.
I don't really have a desire to involve myself in any of Sylvanius discussions, I don't have the time or patience, but my note would be: That the 'gut feeling' very often is dramatically wrong, and that what you thought/assumed empirical evidence would show, is often actually the opposite. Yet, we often get by with that. And sometimes when we don't, there are lots of talking, talking, in a process that adapts our languages to each others, that we may communicate better another time. This, to me, is communication, through languages.

If people would just take Sylvanius for exactly what he says, rather than trying to rephrase or extend his argument all the time, people might find him very easy to understand.
I do.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:15 .

[upsettingshorts]

I understand Sylvius fine.  I'm not disputing his analysis - it's perfectly sound, simply based upon a flawed or, put more fairly an atypical premise.  I can follow purely reasonable logic more easily, I imagine, than Sylvius can put himself into the mind of someone for whom human interaction has taught different lessons through life.  If anyone is lacking understanding in this conversation, it is Sylvius' failing to understand neurotypical psychology and interaction - which, in the context of that status update I posted, he somewhat admitted to:

Sylvius the Mad wrote in an update...

Sylvius the Mad needs to find an autistic psychologist.


Psychology has generally made no sense to me, and autistic people are wonderfully clear and preceise in their expression.

Maybe that will help.

It was to this that the quote above was posted in response.

If my explanations - or the explanations of other posters - are not useful to him, then I am in turn failing to express them in a form he can follow.

This is not the first time either of us have approached this subject, and in fact, neither of us has really said a single new thing to each other.

In short, my argument is basically:  He can be right and still be wrong.

And pardon me if I don't really have the patience to be lectured on paying attention by someone who can't even get the poster's name right.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 octobre 2011 - 07:28 .

[Yrkoon]

When  you can't successfully counter an argument, point out the opponent's spelling errors  instead. Nice.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 29 octobre 2011 - 08:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Not become neurotypical, but mimic neurotypical behaviour.

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

At least he recognises that they used to.

I would argue that games, as they refine their presentation more and more, are becoming less inclusive.  Action sequences exclude the physically disabled.  Imparting important information with tone or sound effects excludes the deaf.  Voicing the PC excludes many of the neurodiverse.

Merci357 wrote...

So you dismiss the idea of Emotional Intelligence?

Emotional Intelligence was thoroughly debunked by a series of academic papers in 2005.

Lord Aesir wrote...

Humans are social creatures by nature.

social, adj.

Of or relating to society.

That's your problem right there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

As an aside to a thread I cannot post in; you can formalize a definitively uncertain process. I say this with confidence because it is the basis upon which much of engineering is founded. You identify the level uncertainty you measure it against the level of uncertain which has been previously determined to be acceptable.

To put this in engineering terms, psychologists don't use large enough safety factors.

When enginners design a bridge, they don't allow for occasional failure.  They build that bridge so that it will not fall down.

That's the standard I want from psychologists.  Otherwise they're just marginalising the idiosyncratic, which is more than a little offensive.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In short, my argument is basically:  He can be right and still be wrong.

That you can make a claim like that and think it makes sense is why you seem unable to put things in terms I understand.  Because truth does have an excluded middle.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 octobre 2011 - 08:37 .

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

So you dismiss the idea of Emotional Intelligence?

Emotional Intelligence was thoroughly debunked by a series of academic papers in 2005.

Then you need to keep up to date and look at recent studies about the Trait EI model.

As an aside note - we are not talking about engineering, there is no marging for errors, obviously. Think about the weather forecast, maybe. Somewhat reliable with lots of data. The more you move into the future, the more it get's an educated guess. It's likely the weather in three days will be like predicted, but it can (and sometimes does) change. That's all im telling. When I go on holidays, it'll look up how the weather at my destination will be. Oh, warm and blue sky? Great, I'll still pack a sweater in my bag, just in case. That doesn't change my perspective about meteorology as a science.

Modifié par Merci357, 29 octobre 2011 - 08:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's the standard I want from psychologists.  Otherwise they're just marginalising the idiosyncratic, which is more than a little offensive.

I wouldn't categorize their position on idiosyncracies as marginalizing them.  However, I can see how it could be and occasionally is interpreted that way.   It depends not on their conclusions about how people are different, but how they choose to follow up on those conclusions.

However, if you are arguing for a General Theory of Psychology then I'm guessing they'd argue that humans are far too diverse in their makeup for that to be possible.

That's why people end up being classified into diagnosably different groups with different thought processes.  They don't deny or ignore the existence of idiosyncracies.  We're all different from one another, but there are some who are so different as to defy the label "typical." 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In short, my argument is basically:  He can be right and still be wrong.

That you can make a claim like that and think it makes sense is why you seem unable to put things in terms I understand.  Because truth does have an excluded middle.

I'm arguing in essense that you can be right in some cases - your own and indeed quite a few other atypical examples - and wrong in others, those I am claiming are typical.  You seem to be arguing that there is only one case to be right or wrong about, and any distinction between the two is at best arbitrary and at worst offensive.  Correct me if I am wrong.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Not become neurotypical, but mimic neurotypical behaviour.

Then they would have to invent the evidence that neurotypicals can already observe.  That strikes me as impossible to do on any kind of consistent basis, and certainly not in real time.  But then, I'm not autistic nor do I have any advanced training in psychiatry so I don't really have any sense of what their capabilities are.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 octobre 2011 - 09:05 .

[Darth Death]

What about survival? That's great motivation in itself.

[bEVEsthda]

Yrkoon wrote...

When  you can't successfully counter an argument, point out the opponent's spelling errors  instead. Nice.

Traditional tactic with some groups of people, <shrugs>. They pick it up from each other, together with the notion it's clever. Later, in other company, they maybe pick up the new notion that it's not so clever, and will never do it again, maybe even chastise people who do it, like you do now?  Anyway, life is a learning experience.

Regardless, I'm fine with that it was brought to my attention. It's not exactly a spelling error. I don't count through letters from left to right. Just like most people, I still see and recognize words as pictures, images. The problem here is that I'm slowly losing my eyesight. I do not see "Sylvius" clearly. I see something I assume is the image "Sylvanius". There is maybe some user here using the name Sylvanius? Whatever, I'll try not to do this mistake about "Sylvius the Mad" again.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote....
.

Lord Aesir wrote...

Humans are social creatures by nature.

social, adj.

Of or relating to society.

That's your problem right there.

And?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote....
.
social, adj.

Of or relating to society.

That's your problem right there.

And?

"Social" sciences are necessarily unscientific, as belief in the existence of society violates Occam's Razor.

Society exists in name only.  It is not a thing.  It cannot exhibit characteristics.  Therefore, nothing can be of or relating to it.

Things that don't exist cannot exhibit characteristics.

Merci357 wrote...

Then you need to keep up to date and look at recent studies about the Trait EI model.

Trait EI?  Seriously?  Trait EI is self-reported.  Self-reporting has no empirical value (or credibility) at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I wouldn't categorize their position on idiosyncracies as marginalizing them.  However, I can see how it could be and occasionally is interpreted that way.   It depends not on their conclusions about how people are different, but how they choose to follow up on those conclusions.

However, if you are arguing for a General Theory of Psychology then I'm guessing they'd argue that humans are far too diverse in their makeup for that to be possible.

Which is why I generally deride psychology as valueless.

I'm arguing in essense that you can be right in some cases - your own and indeed quite a few other atypical examples - and wrong in others, those I am claiming are typical.  You seem to be arguing that there is only one case to be right or wrong about, and any distinction between the two is at best arbitrary and at worst offensive.  Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm advocating a rational model because a rational model can be a universal model.  All fully-developed humans have the capacity for rational thought.  We can formalise a system and apply it universally, and then it won't exclude anyone.

Some people might have more difficulty using it, but the same is true of math, and math remains an extremely valuable construct.

Then they would have to invent the evidence that neurotypicals can already observe.  That strikes me as impossible to do on any kind of consistent basis, and certainly not in real time.

I'm not concerned with real time.  I don't even think conversation works in real time.  The spoken language is but a pale imitation of the written language (and that has been true ever since the invention of punctuation).

But then, I'm not autistic nor do I have any advanced training in psychiatry so I don't really have any sense of what their capabilities are.

I don't have advanced training, either.  I just read a lot.  And I'm certainly not claiming to be autistic.

And it's not just the autistic or other neurodiverse people (or characters) that are excluded by this new game design.  This new design excludes any character that wasn't specifically accommodated by the designers.  A character can no longer be dismissive, or condescending, or absent-minded, or indifferent.  The range of characters permitted by the more traditional BioWare game was vastly broader and more diverse than what DA2 permits.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm advocating a rational model because a rational model can be a universal model.  All fully-developed humans have the capacity for rational thought.  We can formalise a system and apply it universally, and then it won't exclude anyone.

So you want to turn humans into... Vulcans?

[Rafficus III]

I don't normally post on this board due to how sensitive these matters are, but good job TC. Your post was insightful and is something worth thinking on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm advocating a rational model because a rational model can be a universal model.  All fully-developed humans have the capacity for rational thought.  We can formalise a system and apply it universally, and then it won't exclude anyone.

So you want to turn humans into... Vulcans?

I'm saying that humans already are Vulcans.  They just haven't noticed yet.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm saying that humans already are Vulcans.  They just haven't noticed yet.

I just had this really vivid waking dream of a big war over this.  Your side lost, with you thinking in the end, "But why didn't they listen?" as you were cut down.

Note to anyone who takes this too seriously: 
FFS IT WAS JUST SYMBOLIC OF HOW OUTNUMBERED THIS POINT OF VIEW IS AND HOW UNWILLING
 A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD BE TO ACCEPT IT.  I DONT ACTUALLY WANT TO CUT SYLVIUS DOWN.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 octobre 2011 - 07:42 .

[Heimdall]

@Sylvius

Hmmm, I don't buy it.

[Tereval]

These kinds of complaints are logistical not plot based, why does no one realize that?
What you're asking for is something that programming simply isn't capable of yet, we can't create fully dynamic worlds that think for themselves and adapt, not yet. What you're asking for would be a 1,000,000 page tomb of a choose your own adventure novel, the actual time and work investment it would require to build a game without railroading is simply economically impossible at our current level of technological skill. Get over it and move on.
If you want to experience a fully realized world with real varied choices and consequences, go outside and live in the world, its your only option right now.

Narrative requires a certain amount of railroading, that is how stories are told. Do you call up George RR Martin and yell at him because he keeps bumping off your favorites and you'd like to read a different version of the book where so and so doesn't die? Some of you guys must be those DnD players who spend the entire time trying to derail the gamemasters story.

Given time and constant development like we have now you will eventually see games closer to those kinds of dreams but it will take time and support. Make reasonable demands, demand more flowing stories, demand better written dialogue, demand more solid narratives that have a limited number of incredibly well developed options instead of an infinite number of boring ones. Demand more complete games instead of half finished content and trickled out little DLC nonsense, DLCs weaken strong narratives by forcing gaps instead of allowing them to flow in a complete story. Make precise specific demands about specific things.

Modifié par Tereval, 30 octobre 2011 - 06:18 .