80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

SwobyJ wrote...

This is why that 'London at Dawn' wallpaper from Bioware gives me so much hope

Me too. If they truly do have no intention of making post breath scene content, then that wallpaper, with its hopeful image of Femshep smiling in the sunlight, is a very, very cruel joke.

[BatmanTurian]

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

Basically, moderate people are pragmatists and not idealogues.. I would say anyone involved with the IT thread is moderate. We look at it objectively without really taking a full side (well, most of us). Anyway, even though this article talks about US politics, if you apply the basics to BSN, then all the posturing and ideology makes sense in the case of people who defend their choices. People asked to justify their positions become more entrenched and defensive. People who are asked to explain their positions and how it would actually work either make up stuff on the spot, or become more moderate.

Here is the snippet from the article that is pertinent:

"...attack ads work, in large part, because we don’t understand
them. Statements take advantage of a fact about human psychology called
the “illusion of explanatory depth,” an idea developed by the Yale
psychologist Frank Keil and his students.
We typically feel that we understand how complex
systems work even when our true understanding is superficial. And it is
not until we are asked to explain how such a system works — whether it’s
what’s involved in a trade deal with China or how a toilet flushes —
that we realize how little we actually know.


"In our own research we have found this pattern when people are asked to
explain how political policies work. In a forthcoming article in
Psychological Science, written with Todd Rogers of the Harvard Kennedy
School’s Center for Public Leadership and Craig Fox of U.C.L.A.’s
Anderson School of Management, we report on experiments showing that
people often believe they understand what is meant by well-worn
political terms like the “flat tax,” “sanctions on Iran” or “cap and
trade” — even when they don’t.

That’s not much of a shocker, of course. The real surprise is what
happens after these same individuals are asked to explain how these
policy ideas work: they become more moderate in their political views —
either in support of such policies or against them. In fact, not only do
their attitudes change, but so does their behavior. In one of our
experiments, for example, after attempting to explain how various policy
ideas would actually work, people became less likely to donate to
organizations that supported the positions they had initially favored.

Interestingly, asking people to justify their position — rather than
asking them to explain the mechanisms by which a policy would work —
doesn’t tend to soften their political views. When we asked participants
to state the reasons they were for or against a policy position, their
initial attitudes held firm. (Other researchers have found much the same
thing: merely discussing an issue often makes people more extreme, not
less.)

Why, then, does having to explain an opinion often end up changing it?
The answer may have to do with a kind of revelatory trigger mechanism:
asking people to “unpack” complex systems — getting them to articulate
how something might work in real life — forces them to confront their
lack of understanding.

The challenge in an election season that largely takes place in the form
of 30-second advertisements and fire-up-the-base rallies is that rarely
is anybody — candidate or voter — asked to explain his or her
positions. American political discourse, in short, is not discourse at
all.

So what can be done to turn it into one? The answer implied by our
research is not that we should all become policy wonks. Instead, we
voters need to be more mindful that issues are complicated and challenge
ourselves to break down the policy proposals on both sides into their
component parts. We have to then imagine how these ideas would work in
the real world — and then make a choice: to either moderate our
positions on policies we don’t really understand, as research suggests
we will, or try to improve our understanding. Either way, discourse
would then be based on information, not illusion."

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:21 .

[Restrider]

starlitegirlx wrote...

They said quite clearly no soldier and not even sure when it's taking place. Could be thousands of years in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if it had star trek similarities without soldiers per say but some other kind of person at the head. Doesn't have to be a soldier, but I'd be surprised if they removed the team and classes element at this point. That's kind of a staple/core component of it. Also, I can't imagine there not being a ship and travel involved. That was also key. So I think we're looking at something that just doesn't involve military.

Perhaps they'll explore some other element of the universe that they haven't even created yet. They'll probably come up with a band of people working together ala Final Fantasy 13. Just not soldiers or military related in any way. They could go STG style and not have it be a soldier but more like a spy. As long as they keep the classes, have a good story and I get a fem'shep' type character to play with my team, I'm in. Also, RPG is a must. They have to keep that part. I'd hate to not have the core RPG stuff we had with ME version 1. But we'll see.

I'm thinking that even though they won't call it soldier, it's going to act similarly just lacking in military aspect. If it's a hero it has to behave similarly though it doesn't have to be a soldier, so that class might not even exist if they stick with classes which I can't imagine them not having. To lose that is to lose essential aspects of the races, and I cannot imagine them losing the races. They are key. maybe they would add a few more, but to not have any of the ones we see would be insane and cost more creation wise since they already have these made. Ah well, I figure we'll know in 2015 or so.

What you described there kind of reminds me of ME 2 - private sector, you know? For that matter, most of your squadmates are not directly soldiers/military:
Ashley/Kaidan are obviously militaries
Liara is a scientist/information broker
Garrus is C-Sec/Chuck Norris/military advisor
Wrex is just a merc/clan leader
Tali is on her pilgrimage and later... what is she later, some spec ops?
Miranda is kind of military
Jacob is like Miranda in that regard
Jack is a convict/psychopath/teacher (now that's a career change)
Grunt is just a grunt
Thane is a hitman
Samara a battle monk
Legion is a geth (they are everything and nothing at the same time)
Zaeed is another merc
Kasumi is a thief
EDI is an AI
James is military
Javik is more than military, yet that's not what makes him special
Edit:
OMG HOW ON EARTH COULD I FORGET MORDIN >.<
Mordin is a scientist with STG experience

Modifié par Restrider, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Jusseb]

paxxton wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

demersel wrote...

"An end for once and for all" track, that plays in control and synthesys ending is out of key.

The title fits perfectly, because if we are right, then Synthesis and Control is actually "An end once and for all".

You've just been brainwashed, huskified or liquefied.

What about the track playing in Destroy? Does it refer to the end of the Reapers/Indoctrination Attempt?

I was only referring to the name of the soundtrack, the soundtrack's itself i see no problem with them.

[Eryri]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

snip 

Thanks for posting that. I find this kind of research into people's biases very interesting.

[paxxton]

Jusseb wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

demersel wrote...

"An end for once and for all" track, that plays in control and synthesys ending is out of key.

The title fits perfectly, because if we are right, then Synthesis and Control is actually "An end once and for all".

You've just been brainwashed, huskified or liquefied.

What about the track playing in Destroy? Does it refer to the end of the Reapers/Indoctrination Attempt?

I was only referring to the name of the soundtrack, the soundtrack's itself i see no problem with them.

In fact, the track perfectly fits all the endings as each of them foreshadows a vastly different world after the war. The old world is coming to an end. It won't come back.

Modifié par paxxton, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:25 .

[BatmanTurian]

Eryri wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

snip 

Thanks for posting that. I find this kind of research into people's biases very interesting.

Yeah, no problem. I see the BSN as a collection of ideologies now and this helps understand why people become so aggressive when asked to justify their positions. In contrast, when engaging them on how their choices would work, they tend to become a little more moderate. I've seen this happen in discussions with Xil, though briefly.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:25 .

[paxxton]

Eryri wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

snip 

Thanks for posting that. I find this kind of research into people's biases very interesting.

And so we have fewer horses and bayonets.

[Bill Casey]

You know who isn't a soldier?

[Restrider]

What the hell did I just watch there, Bill?
Wasn't The Phantom Menace and Jar Jar Binks enough to undermine my love for the SW universe?

[BatmanTurian]

paxxton wrote...

Eryri wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

snip 

Thanks for posting that. I find this kind of research into people's biases very interesting.

And so we have fewer horses and bayonets.

My intention was not to inject politics into this thread, which will kill it. Let's leave that alone.

[Restrider]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
the results for the eigth poll are out. The list (!!!UPDATED!!!) has been updated and I would like to encourage you to participate at the tenth poll and my long-time survey about your choice at your first playthrough. Spread the word!
I also made another survey on a totally unrelated topic that still needs to be resolved.

And please think about a way to incorporate Anderson's behaviour in London and the datapad hinting that the beam is a huge con into one of the IT's Top Ten points. I'd also appreciate it, if you could provide me with links.

Modifié par Restrider, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:35 .

[paxxton]

BatmanTurian wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Eryri wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

snip 

Thanks for posting that. I find this kind of research into people's biases very interesting.

And so we have fewer horses and bayonets.

My intention was not to inject politics into this thread, which will kill it. Let's leave that alone.

Ok, it's only a joke.

[Hrothdane]

starlitegirlx wrote...

I could tell. Interestingly, that article does apply to politics, religion, pretty much everything where people have a belief or bias. Great sociological stuff. It didn't account for zealots though. Zealots don't seem to follow that path. I think they might even run opposite to it.

This reminds me of the main problem I've noticed with the Socratic Method when you put it into practice; if the person doesn't believe that the flaw in their logic is a problem for whatever reason, the Method does not work.

[BatmanTurian]

starlitegirlx wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Eryri wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

snip 

Thanks for posting that. I find this kind of research into people's biases very interesting.

And so we have fewer horses and bayonets.

My intention was not to inject politics into this thread, which will kill it. Let's leave that alone.

I could tell. Interestingly, that article does apply to politics, religion, pretty much everything where people have a belief or bias. Great sociological stuff. It didn't account for zealots though. Zealots don't seem to follow that path. I think they might even run opposite to it.

Very true and we have a few of those running around.

[BatmanTurian]

paxxton wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Eryri wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Interesting article in the NY Times. Research shows that when people are forced to explain how policies they support work, rather than why they formed the opinion on the policy, they tend to become more moderate.

snip 

Thanks for posting that. I find this kind of research into people's biases very interesting.

And so we have fewer horses and bayonets.

My intention was not to inject politics into this thread, which will kill it. Let's leave that alone.

Ok, it's only a joke.

I know, it's just walking the line.

[BatmanTurian]

Hrothdane wrote...

starlitegirlx wrote...

I could tell. Interestingly, that article does apply to politics, religion, pretty much everything where people have a belief or bias. Great sociological stuff. It didn't account for zealots though. Zealots don't seem to follow that path. I think they might even run opposite to it.

This reminds me of the main problem I've noticed with the Socratic Method when you put it into practice; if the person doesn't believe that the flaw in their logic is a problem for whatever reason, the Method does not work.

Which is why you ask them to explain how their solution would work, then you cut them off when they start making stuff up to explain it. People need to stick to facts, not delusions.

[BatmanTurian]

starlitegirlx wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

starlitegirlx wrote...

I could tell. Interestingly, that article does apply to politics, religion, pretty much everything where people have a belief or bias. Great sociological stuff. It didn't account for zealots though. Zealots don't seem to follow that path. I think they might even run opposite to it.

This reminds me of the main problem I've noticed with the Socratic Method when you put it into practice; if the person doesn't believe that the flaw in their logic is a problem for whatever reason, the Method does not work.

Which is why you ask them to explain how their solution would work, then you cut them off when they start making stuff up to explain it. People need to stick to facts, not delusions.

If only we could make that happen. There are a lot of deluded people out there. Indoctrianted too. I try to avoid most of them.

I know, but this helps explain why people stay deluded, because they don't think about how their solutions would work. Your posts about indoctrination of people IRL made me remember this story, which I found at FARK.com, a snarky news aggregation site that I frequent.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:06 .

[BatmanTurian]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Scary stuff IRL. I realized some years ago that too many people choose to NOT think. Almost deliberately. They pick options that require no thought. Sheeple. And then they puff up on whatever bias or belief they accepted without any investigation or understanding or knowledge regarding it. I'm amazed when I choose to listen to what people have to say (often I ignore most people due to the ignorance factor), at the sheer nonsense that comes out of their mouths. And not just people, but the news, the media, commercials... everywhere I turn I see utter insanity or complete BS interspersed with some actual factual information and ideas that are useful and worthwhile, but mostly, garbage and trash. And this is what society runs on these days, with more of the trash getting thrown into the mix on a regular basis. I think of the youth of our society and wonder how that's going to work out for them. In a thread like this, I find hope. Some other threads though not all thankfully are a bit scary. Very scary if it's lots of trash talk. This thread might be one of the most intellegent ones I've come across on BSN. Constant interesting and intelligent ideas. Some fascinating speculation and investigation and some sharp thinking and willingness to not conform to societal norms. Heck, most people think we ITers are crazy and deluded. Yet, we press on. For me, I love bouncing around these ideas as much as playing the game. And it's nice to find people who think more deeply about things rather than take everything at face value. If anything, I would think that makes me less deluded as I have the willingness to investigate and openess to see what I will find when I do.

I think it's strange that they think we are deluded, but when we show them why a face value interpretation is rediculous, they become so angry, rather than challenging their own views. I've seen us being called sheep, when in fact, we are the most independently-minded group on BSN. It seems to me sheep would be people who just accept things as they are rather than looking more than skin-deep. There's a lot of projection on this forum that I find unhealthy.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:43 .

[paxxton]

We're steadily approaching page 2286.