1127 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Luc0s wrote...

But instead of believing we NEED emotions to make logical decisions, I see emotions as a hinderance of making logical decisions, unless, as you say, you have your emotions in check.

You make assumption that logical choice is better than emotional choice?

I consider both needed.

Example companies goal is to make profit. Now company makes some items and sold them. Every 1 million item cause lost of human life, because some design issue in items. How ever, company has two choice. Fix the issue or let every 1 million people die and pay the lawyers. Now most logical choices is just calculate what cost less for company to maximize the profit. How ever, that doesn't neccassary mean it was the "right" choice. What means logic failed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 04:58 .

[BellaStrega]

Luc0s wrote...

Good logic only takes emotions into account when it's needed or allowed. Sometimes you need to put aside emotions to make the most logical and unbiased decisions. Any true doctor, scientist or soldier (or any other job that requires logic) would tell you the same.

Speaking of logic, you just made an "appeal to authority." In this case, you're saying that any true doctor, scientist, or soldier would tell you the same. And this is after I already referred to an article on research that involves scientists saying the opposite - that emotions are inherent to decision making, and that people who lack emotions find it very difficult to make decisions.

Your appeal to authority is incorrect because you're not citing anyone, you're simply making a vague handwavey comment that everyone in those particular professions who is competent at their job would agree with you. This is an unsupportable claim. Also, some of those invoked aren't even specialists in a field that could explain the possible roles that emotions take in decision making. Soldiers aren't trained in neuroscience, and neither are most doctors or scientists. And by qualifying those who agree with you as "good" you make a backhanded appeal to your own authority, by preemptively qualifying those who disagree with you as incompetent or "bad" doctors, scientists, and soldiers.

Anyway, if you eliminate emotion entirely, you'd be unable to make decisions. Turns out emotion is pretty necessary and is a survival trait.

Tell that to your computer that makes thousands of decisions per second without a shred of emotion.

This makes no sense - my computer does not have a will of its own. It operates on instructions that were written by human beings to tell it what to do when any given thing happens. Its decisions are already mapped out for it by the programs that humans wrote that run on it. Human brains are not computers in the same sense as my desktop computer, and were most assuredly not coded by other humans. Rather, it's a different kind of system that is capable of learning on its own without the need for externally applied software.

Further, we get to garbage in/garbage out again - or GIGO. If you feed garbage into a computer, garbage will come out of the computer. If you give garbage data to a human, they're capable of evaluating it and coming to their own conclusions without crashing or formatting their brain.

Seriously, this is the biggest bull I've ever heard. Go back to school and learn some basic 101 biology and basic 101 psychology. While you're at it, see if you can get a course in basic 101 computer science too.

Resorting to insults now? Isn't that a bit emotional and thus illogical by your definitions?

I've taken 101 biology and 101 computer science, and I assure you that this combination of study taught me that human brains and computers aren't interchangeable. Perhaps you should consider remedial courses?

As for psychology, I read about it nearly every day, and while I am not completely up to date on the topic, I can generally track down most information I need, if I don't already have it. That's how I found the research that says that lack of emotions makes decision making difficult, but I see perhaps that actual science may not be welcome in this discussion.

I call bull on Hume.

Of course you do. You're emotionally invested in the idea that rationality and logic have nothing to do with emotion. 

[BellaStrega]

Luc0s wrote...

I never said I'm 100% free of emotions. No one is. But instead of believing we NEED emotions to make logical decisions, I see emotions as a hinderance of making logical decisions, unless, as you say, you have your emotions in check.

I don't believe we need emotions to make logical decisions. I found science that states that emotions are vital to decision making, and that people who lack emotions due to brain damage have severe difficulties making emotions. I am not making claims based on my beliefs here, but based on actual research I have read in neuroscience and psychology.

When you have full control of your emotions and you are aware of having them, you can put aside your bias and make rational decisions. If you don't have your emotions under control or you're not even aware of having them, then you're not capable of making rational decisions.

There is no such thing as full control of your emotions, nor do emotions automatically make decisions irrational. In fact, it seems that the less influence your emotions have on your ability to make decisions, the worse your ability to make decisions is. As I have pointed out several times, after referring to an article that describes the research. Even people who actively try to resist their emotions are still influenced by them.

I never said I don't have emotions. I merely said I at least try to analyze my emotions and acknowledge them. I acknowledge my emotions and try to put them aside when I need to make a rational decision.

I call bull. Evidence: You apparently don't sit around all day trapped by indecision. Therefore, emotions play a role in your decisions.

[AlexXIV]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I've met a logical calculator, but never a logical human.

@BellaStrega: While I don't agree completely with the arguments posed in that Cracked article (I "have" accepted being wrong plenty - it's the best way to learn!) - I can certainly appreciate all these factoids.

I do agree with your comment that "no one's immune" - but I believe that with constant training, you can be "more immune" than most.

Though it is a sign if megalomania to think that rules that apply to everyone don't apply to you. We all depend on our senses gathering information and our brain processing it properly. It is also known that our brain tends to assume things. For example if you read a sentence many times. And then read a paragraph in which this sentence comes up again just with one word different which gives it a new sense your brain likely assumes the sentence has the meaning of the sentence you repeatedly read before. Because fast reading usually leads to your brain guessing the lines you read rather then actually checking it word per word. Which is why for example if you take the test for a driver license in our country you first learn questions and the proper answers, and in the test you get ALMOST the same questions, just a bit different which makes a different answer the right one. And most people fall for it and choose the wrong answer because they assume what the question was rather than actually reading it properly.

[BellaStrega]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I've met a logical calculator, but never a logical human.

@BellaStrega: While I don't agree completely with the arguments posed in that Cracked article (I "have" accepted being wrong plenty - it's the best way to learn!) - I can certainly appreciate all these factoids.

I do agree with your comment that "no one's immune" - but I believe that with constant training, you can be "more immune" than most.

I do not completely agree with everything in that article either, but the author did cite research for all five entries that at least supports the concepts in question. It was easier to just link the article than link all the articles and studies it linked.

And I agree - becoming aware of how bias works can make it easier to stop and check your biases. It doesn't always work, I think, but it is an improvement.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Meh, philosophy's an interesting diversion for college undergrads. Hume was writing in the mid 1700s in a mode of pure speculation.

[Medhia Nox]

@Killjoy Cutter: Is that your philosophy?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Killjoy Cutter: Is that your philosophy?

What?

[Labrev]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]What are we talking about that has Shepard walking into no significant trouble?[/quote]The part where all results later in ME1, during ME2, and even spoilers about ME3 show no more trouble for the Paragons than the Renegades.[/quote]

[quote]Genre savy, and spoilers, however, do strongly tell us which way it's going.

Frankly you could make any number of 'ME3 hasn't come out, so you can't say anything' arguments. You could, but it would be foolish in the face of foreshadowing and prior patterns.[/quote]

Oh really? Prior patterns which show that victory at the end of ME2 is no more difficult to attain for a predominantly renegade important than it is for a paragon one? Patterns that show that show a paragon path leading to failure of a loyalty mission, relying on the dubious persuation system in the end? Patterns that show a major advantage in favor of renegade players on another loyalty mission?

That other loyalty mission being Samara's. You can literally not know anything about Morinth's interests and successfully convince her to take you to her place if you're Intimidation skills are high. There is an Intimidate line preceding every response to make yourself look good. No Charm. And when I've played, Paragon careers tend to need to do three things at the club to catch her eye, where Renegades have done it in just two.



[quote]Is it about saving the DA? Because it was made clear at that time that the risk involved was negligible, and no signficant advantage/disadvantage has come of it. [/quote]The Destiny Ascension choice was hardly a 'no risk' setup: it
was 'throw away reinforcements that would be fighting Sovereign', with
the result of failure being galactic extinction. That's heavy risk, but
the prize...[/quote]

Galactic extinction? Vigil's data file regained control of the Citadel.

The choice was simply which of the two you sacrifice: the Council, or Alliance forces. Anything else was overthinking. Like choosing the bombsite on Virmire to protect the bomb. Lots of people do it, but it's a non-issue.

Revisit ME: Genesis. At the point of the DA decision, no mention is made of the possibility that Sovereign will regain control of the Citadel. It was never a concern.


[quote]Actually, it's not. It's a mid-low persuade check.

Just more deliciously, it's a mid-low Paragon check to counter the paragon 'consequence'. Not even a Renegade equivalent.[/quote]

You are mistaken. If it were mid-low I'd have gotten it on speed-runs I've been doing lately. One of which had me taking Paragon options 75% of the time, still not enough to unlock Charm at the end of the mission. Only other disputes I couldn't settle w/ pursuade were the aforementioned - Vasir, Kelham, Catfight...



[quote][quote]Doesn't change the fact that Shepard failed the mission.[/quote]Except Shepard didn't. Paragon Shepard's mission was to save the people. Zaeed failed his mission, for revenge.[/quote]

Nope. The only objective of loyalty-missions is to secure the loyalty of a squadmate for the O4-mission. It's no different for "Paragon" Shep. Zaeed made it clear what his loyalty entails: kill Vido. Effectively, that's the mission. Failing to catch Vido means failure to execute the mission. After that point, it's up to him whether or not you get his loyalty, in spite of the mission outcome (which, again, is one of failure).

I stopped believing the "paragons always win" myth with this mission. If it were true, one would've been able to save the workers and then catch Vido. I figured as much when I first played and took the paragon path the first time. So much for that.



[quote]You could say that 'doesn't change the fact that Vido got away', but that's irrelevant because Vido getting away does not, in fact, have any major consequence. The difference between Zaeed loyal and Zaeed unloyal is one point on the Hold the Line score and that unloyal characters die if you take them to the baby Reaper: Loyal Zaeed is never a specialist regardless, and uneven Unloyal Zaeed is better at holding the line than everyone but Garrus and Grunt.[/quote]

What were you realistically expecting as an outcome? At best, it cripples them for a short time before they replace their leader. Otherwise, Zaeed is another Grunt. And depending on the mission, that 1 point difference can mean the life or death of a squadmate, or maybe more.



[quote][quote]So? Not all decision-making through the game is made equal, we all know that at this point.[/quote]Which is the point I've been arguing. Glad we agree.[/quote]

I should rephrase: not all decisions have equally large consequences/outcomes to them.



[quote][quote]The ME3 spoilers also negated the one redeeming quality of Shepard failing the mission, saved lives.[/quote]

Not from the spoilers I've seen.[/quote]

*spoiler - warning, noobs*

Zaeed goes on an excursion of his own to hunt down Vido again, with a squad. His squad all dies on the mission as the objective is completed. So, so much for the four (count 'em, it was four) refinery workers saved on Zorya, seeing as likely the same number of people died anyway in the ensuing mission to do the same thing. And who knows how many would die later as a result of Vido getting away, the dude shot a bunch of refinery workers himself that we saw back on Zorya. Yeah, I'm chalking up "L" here for the paragon path.
*end spoilers*


[quote]Did you just quote and argue with yourself?[/quote]

I accidently deleted your quote, but the response was aimed at what you'd said.


I saw what happened there after I posted, didn't bother fix.



[quote]And there you go again.[/quote]

You will excuse me for not going down this path. A certain Lotion left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Medhia Nox]

@Killjoy Cutter: Don't worry about it.

[phimseto]

I just had this conversation last night. A friend of mine who made a number of renegade choices (not to save the Rachni and to save the Collector Base) is not thrilled about the possibility that ME3 will equal "paragon = best choice" and "renegade = worst choice". I agree, and really hope that there's an investment in hitting players with the law of unintended consequences. If not, and paragon always works out for the best, then the entire trilogy exercise is almost completely invalidated. Paragon should not always equal "right" and Renegade should not always equal "wrong." My friend's choices in those instances were well-reasoned and not capricious, as I am sure was the case for most players, and due weight should be given to them. Life is rarely black and white, and neither should the consequences of choice in Mass Effect.

[Someone With Mass]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

That other loyalty mission being Samara's. You can literally not know anything about Morinth's interests and successfully convince her to take you to her place if you're Intimidation skills are high. There is an Intimidate line preceding every response to make yourself look good. No Charm. And when I've played, Paragon careers tend to need to do three things at the club to catch her eye, where Renegades have done it in just two.

While it's more practical to go Renegade on her, I had been more impressed if it was anyone else but Morinth, who's covered in the stench of the chicks who falls for bad boys.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Lumikki wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"Different way of seeig things"?
You mean "wrong way fo seeing things". Because not all perspectives are equally valid.

Who desides who's perspectives are more valid? You?

Explanations/arguments that back them up.

This whole "everyone/nobody is right/wrong" mentality is for losers. People who know they can't with with arguments, so insted they just try to not loose either.

That's the hole point, you are just trying to say you are right no matter what. I consider losers those who doesn't understand anyting else than they own perspectives. Notice I did not say have to agree with other perspectives. Thinking that you own perspective is allways right is first sign of issues.

I'm saying that I am right because I backed it up with something concrete. If I didn't have that backing me up, I wouldn't be claiming anything.
Once you do the same, we can talk.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You couldn't properly asses risk/reward and prioritize if your life depended on it.

We've been over this before, and your argument have ben lacking in proper support. You failed to provide any evidence TIM woudl turn agaist the races of the galaxy, failed to even provide proper motivation; you failed ot provide any concrete plan on how to defeat reapers or demonstrate that it's even possible to defeat them.
You have uttery faield to debunk my analysis of the reaper advantages and the disproportionate balance of power.

So, untill you properly adress those points, your theories have no legs to stand on.

I've prodivided evidence at every turn, and you either ignore or outright deny them (often without saying anything more than simply "no") while your own arguments are rife with contradiction (The C-Base is an advancement in technology jumping us centuries forward and therein poses a viable weapon against the Reapers, but it's not possibly a danger in the wrong hands - just to name one of many such contradictions).

Since it all obviously falls on deaf ears, I'm not going down this road again.

Stopy lying.

There is no contradiction because I never claimed what you're saiyng.

I never said the C-Base is not a danger, I said that it's a negligible danger compared to the reapers.

And oyu didnt' provide evidence. You provided a whole lot of hot air.
I asked you many times before to disprove my claims of repaer power. You didn't.
You don't have any proper idea, plan or even a workable theory on how to beat them. so either provide something, or gracefully remove yourself.

[Killjoy Cutter]

AlexXIV wrote...

xentar wrote...

Hmm, let's see... Punching a reporter in the face. Totally logical and professional.

Paragon choices are as logical as renegade choices. The only difference is that the one side believes that burning bridges is the safe road and the other side thinks building bridges is the safe road. The only thing is that if you burn a bridge you know that nothing is going to cross it anymore. If you build a bridge, you don't know what is comming across. So you can argue that burning bridges is good because it won't get you into trouble anymore, and also that building bridges is good because you may get support you need. This is why people keep argueing in circles. You can't say which is the better, more logical, strategic choice. Because they are just using different logic and strategy. You could as well argue about whether shooting people is better than argueing with people. Sometimes the one will prove to be better and sometimes the other. Depending on the situation.

Holy crap, a nuanced and considered and fair position on the Paragon/Renegade subject!?!  I didn't know those existed any more!

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

 remove yourself.

You keep saying that like you have some kind of power to make it happen.  Heh. 

[Someone With Mass]

Then again, compared to the Reapers, all dangers are negligible.

Cerberus can however be a threat to Shepard and the work that he/she is trying to do in order to counterattack the Reapers, since their goals are clearly not aligned with each other. That could be a reason enough for some to not give them potential weapons.

[Lotion Soronarr]

BellaStrega wrote...
Also, confirmation bias. You'll never even be able to come to a different conclusion as long as you only acknowledge data that supports the conclusion you like best, never mind acknowledge that others have valid reasons for their decisions.

Considering how it' been abused by you all....

A bit earlier people were rebutting my claim that every single instance of studying reaper tech ended wiht a decisive advantage with "sure, it worked beofre - which only makes it more likely to fail now!" :D

Irconicly those same people then bring up Cerberuses "record of research faliure" then as an argument. The irony. It hurts.


The differences of oppinion come from different data or interpreting data differently. Also biases and irroational hatered. Yet data in itself is objective. It just is. Problem is people giving them meaning to suit their agenda.
Proper examination should lead you to the same result.

Yet I doubt you ever will do it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Then again, compared to the Reapers, all dangers are negligible.

Cerberus can however be a threat to Shepard and the work that he/she is trying to do in order to counterattack the Reapers, since their goals are clearly not aligned with each other. That could be a reason enough for some to not give them potential weapons.

Or, you know, their "remarkable" track record...

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A bit earlier people were rebutting my claim that every single instance of studying reaper tech ended wiht a decisive advantage with "sure, it worked beofre - which only makes it more likely to fail now!"

And never mind the lost team and near-disaster at the derelict Reaper... or fiasco of the research team studying Object Rho... or the loss of an entire mining colony when they uncovered a Reaper artifact (ME2 N7 mission)... or, well, we get the idea. 

It's something of a very risky mixed bag, this "Reaper artifact" thing.


And there's always the track record of their other projects... Overlord... Teltin... creepers, husks, and Rachni...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 décembre 2011 - 05:48 .

[didymos1120]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

That other loyalty mission being Samara's. You can literally not know anything about Morinth's interests and successfully convince her to take you to her place if you're Intimidation skills are high. There is an Intimidate line preceding every response to make yourself look good. No Charm.

Yes there are Charm options in the Morinth conversation, for every single answer you can give (except the "magic" right ones that let you automatically win without persuasion). If you didn't see them, your Paragon score at the time was insufficient, or your game glitched in a most unusual way, or you're talking about something else in a way that doesn't make much sense. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 20 décembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[gosimmons]

I agree, I hope ME3 is less inclined to making us play one way or the other.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

The Destiny Ascension choice was hardly a 'no risk' setup: it
was 'throw away reinforcements that would be fighting Sovereign', with
the result of failure being galactic extinction. That's heavy risk, but
the prize...

Galactic extinction? Vigil's data file regained control of the Citadel.

TEMPORARY. If oyu botheredto listen to what Vigil was saying.
He said the file will corrupt security protocols, giving you some time, but it will only be MOMENTS (exact word used).

The choice was simply which of the two you sacrifice: the Council, or Alliance forces. Anything else was overthinking. Like choosing the bombsite on Virmire to protect the bomb. Lots of people do it, but it's a non-issue.

Revisit ME: Genesis. At the point of the DA decision, no mention is made of the possibility that Sovereign will regain control of the Citadel. It was never a concern.

As it was presented in game, it was always a concern.

You will excuse me for not going down this path. A certain Lotion left a bad taste in my mouth.

Defeat tastes bitter, doesn't it?

[Someone With Mass]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Or, you know, their "remarkable" track record...

That too.

As fo the "equal" consequences, I think there are plenty of those in ME3.

Not that any of them are out to punish the other.