I can't really agree with that. Uldred was one abomination and they had cause to suspect something was up with him. Not being able to deal with it did show incompetency, in my mind. Dealing with abominations is their entire job. I can't imagine this situation would take down any circle, or what would the point of them be?
One abomination can cause a lot of damage even greater than what Uldred did, and dealing with abominations is not their entire job
Neither Maslow or his hierarchy are infallible.
http://billbennett.c...lows-hierarchy/
http://www.redwoods....y/maslows9.html
So he and any other person who would have me believe that a full belly and a heated home are all that's important or even most important can kindly shove it.
Friend you do realize most of the people criticizing are suggesting things be added, or rearranged, not that Maslow was wrong about any of the "needs".
Example, due to the citing of the sources i was able to track down a few of the people voicing their opinions on it, i actually recognized a few of them, none of them conducted much research that was comparable maslows own however but even assuming their proposed own hypothesis is correct. for example Alderfer's own rearranged hierarchy (his own thesis i read during university) all he seemed to focus was on extroversion and figurative societal needs and connection within groups, communities and self worth. He didn't even cover into the realm of actual physical needs and he found no fault with that being the prime need given that with out those being covered, the person in question cannot survive to ponder his extroversional worth.
And mr. bill bennent can kindly do his own cited research disproving the Hierarchy, at least Alderfer did his own research backed thesis, he was just shouting into the wind.
So out of those seeking to disprove the Hiearchy you have a handful who did their own smaller scale versions of Maslow's own experiments and either focused entirely on mental and social needs over the physical, either sought to simply rearrange it slightly or have absolutely nothing backing up their own thesis.
Maslow still seems solid to me, but you did well to bring up Aldefer, he actually was one of the few who had credible research backing up his claims, and had the hierarchy focused entirely on the mental aspect? He might even have a point, but claiming social standing and self worth above food and shelter? I don't think even the man himself would push that argument.
Edit: Occasionally i surprise myself with how much actual time and thought i occasionally put into this lunacy.
Ah well, God has deigned to combat you.
Friend you do realize most of the people criticizing people are suggesting things be added, or rearranged, not that Maslow was wrong about any of the "needs".
Example, due to the citing of the sources i was able to track down a few of the people voicing their opinions on it, i actually recognized a few of them, none of them conducted much research that was comparable maslows own however but even assuming their proposed own hypothesis is correct. for example Alderfer's own rearranged hierarchy (his own thesis i read during university) all he seemed to focus was on extroversion and figurative societal needs and connection within groups, communities and self worth. He didn't even cover into the realm of actual physical needs and he found no fault with that being the prime need given that with out those being covered, the person in question cannot survive to ponder his extroversional worth.
And mr. bill bennent can kindly do his own cited research disproving the Hierarchy, at least Alderfer did his own research backed thesis, he was just shouting into the wind.
So out of those seeking to disprove the Hiearchy you have a handful who did their own smaller scale versions of Maslow's own experiments and either focused entirely on mental and social needs over the physical, either sought to simply rearrange it slightly or have absolutely nothing backing up their own thesis.
Maslow still seems solid to me, but you did well to bring up Aldefer, he actually was one of the few who had credible research backing up his claims, and had the hierarchy focused entirely on the mental aspect? He might even have a point, but claiming social standing and self worth above food and shelter? I don't think even the man himself would push that argument.
Edit: Occasionally i surprise myself with how much actual time and thought i occasionally put into this lunacy.
Ah well, God has deigned to combat you.
That's all well and good except for the fact that according to Forbes and common sense:
“Needs are not hierarchical. Life is messier than that. Needs are, like most other things in nature, an interactive, dynamic system, but they are anchored in our ability to make social connections. Maslow’s model needs rewiring so it matches our brains. Belongingness is the driving force of human behavior, not a third tier activity. The system of human needs from bottom to top, shelter, safety, sex, leadership, community, competence and trust, are dependent on our ability to connect with others. Belonging to a community provides the sense of security and agency that makes our brains happy and helps keep us safe.”
You cannot have just one without the others or even neglect the others and call it fine. That's the entire basis of my criticism of the circle, and criticism of the hierarchy in general. You cannot simply pretend that 'shelter food, nothing wrong, paradise'. It is not that simple and it is not that easy. I also never stated or implied that his hierarchy is wrong, simply that is not infallible, which it is not. And that fufilling the bottom most is not good enough to call it a day, which it is not.
Mages probably do not feel that they 'belong' in Andrastian society, and how could they? Even in their circles, they're divided into fraternities and they may be able to get this need to meet halfway with the shelter and food. But it all comes crashing down on one bad day. Which is what counts and has been consistently shown in DA media. I truly wish it were so easy to throw a hierarchy at the Circle and go my way, but it is not.
and that's where "So he and any other person who would have me believe that a full belly and a heated home are all that's important or even most important can kindly shove it."
Edit: Almost forgot, for a clearer example of what I'm saying why don't you talk to a survivor of long term solitary confinement. Talk to them about their needs, about how well fed they were and how safe they were and then present them with Maslow's original hierarchy and tell them that 'it's ok'.
Good rebuttal though.
And I am an Atheist.
Sure, if they stay out of human lands.
Then by all means elves should stay in elven lands.....wait....
Then by all means elves should stay in elven lands.....wait....
I am all for mer-elves, if they want to reclaim the sunken Arlathan.
That's all well and good except for the fact that according to Forbes and common sense:
“Needs are not hierarchical. Life is messier than that. Needs are, like most other things in nature, an interactive, dynamic system, but they are anchored in our ability to make social connections. Maslow’s model needs rewiring so it matches our brains. Belongingness is the driving force of human behavior, not a third tier activity. The system of human needs from bottom to top, shelter, safety, sex, leadership, community, competence and trust, are dependent on our ability to connect with others. Belonging to a community provides the sense of security and agency that makes our brains happy and helps keep us safe.”
You cannot have just one without the others or even neglect the others and call it fine. That's the entire basis of my criticism of the circle, and criticism of the hierarchy in general. You cannot simply pretend that 'shelter food, nothing wrong, paradise'. It is not that simple and it is not that easy. I also never stated or implied that his hierarchy is wrong, simply that is not infallible, which it is not. And that fufilling the bottom most is not good enough to call it a day, which it is not.
Mages probably do not feel that they 'belong' in Andrastian society, and how could they? Even in their circles, they're divided into fraternities and they may be able to get this need to meet halfway with the shelter and food. But it all comes crashing down on one bad day. Which is what counts and has been consistently shown in DA media. I truly wish it were so easy to throw a hierarchy at the Circle and go my way, but it is not.
and that's where "So he and any other person who would have me believe that a full belly and a heated home are all that's important or even most important can kindly shove it."
Edit: Almost forgot, for a clearer example of what I'm saying why don't you talk to a survivor of long term solitary confinement. Talk to them about their needs, about how well fed they were and how safe they were and then present them with Maslow's original hierarchy and tell them that 'it's ok'.
Good rebuttal though.
Thank you when i actually put thought into debate i can get surprisingly decent at it, its just so much of this is back and forth bickering i can get bored rather easy. It's hard to actually care when its just mindless drivel being foisted back and forth for hours on in, just how much of that is thought provoking?
Forbes ah yes famed online spokesmen of Rutledge, We will get to why that Premise doesn't apply to Thedas quite rapidly. You see Rutledge maintains and Forbes supports that social connections are intrinsic basic societal and even survival based means, but it isn't so within the Circle. The Circle maintains a confinement or preservation system that operates outside of social constructs of the realm this argument was meant to be presented within, Namely base needs aren't met by social interaction or memes they are provided to the Mages in question via the circle.
Obviously when the basic premise this entire hierarchy is based upon is challenged and defeated in this manner, the entire argument for the supporting of Rutledge over Moslow crumbles. Moslows Hierarchy of needs is satisfied by the circle, Rutledge's isn't even applicable. Obviously Mages feel the need for social interaction, but given that need is also met by being among their own kind even if Rutledge's premise was applicable, Mages due to their guild are provided to in that manner as well, even though their base needs do not stem from it.
I like how you twisted Rutledge's premise to attempt to fit the circle though, that was inventive, i grant you that.
Oh and one final note.
And I am an Atheist.
So, how about that sudden delve into Scifi there, Pain?
The situation with Uldred seems kind of obvious. He'd just come back from a battle where almost everyone died. It seems like that would be a red flag to watch him maybe a little closer for a while. I'm not even saying put him in isolation, or anything, but you'd think they'd have at least thought about his circumstances.
So, how about that sudden delve into Scifi there, Pain?
...Don't talk to me about the Manga...
I am all for mer-elves, if they want to reclaim the sunken Arlathan.
Sure, and how about humans return to wherever they came from before landing upon Thedas' shores? Or the Qunari pack up out of Seheron and return to Par Volen?
I'm sure all groups would be delighted to do so.
Sure, and how about humans return to wherever they came from before landing upon Thedas' shores? Or the Qunari pack up out of Seheron and return to Par Volen?
I'm sure all groups would be delighted to do so.
I would consider it, but given the fair-weather friends that the Dalish prove to be - not to mention their lack of military strength - I care too much for the dwarves to let their only ally ignore the problem and not provide a large market. :/
Sure, and how about humans return to wherever they came from before landing upon Thedas' shores? Or the Qunari pack up out of Seheron and return to Par Volen?
I'm sure all groups would be delighted to do so.
And hope the Dwarves crawl back to the earthy womb that berthed them and the elves crawl into whatever hole spawned them?
If we are going primordial here, i doubt ANY ONE is native to Thedas.
...Don't talk to me about the Manga...
On the bright side, it isn't as bad as the what's going down in Bleach?
Edit: I take that back. At least it isn't as bad as that one filler?
Modifié par BlueMagitek, 29 mars 2014 - 02:12 .
True, that is up in the air. But by the time the Warden gets there, mages are the only ones doing any killing because the Templars are either dead, possessed, or locked behind a bubble of Templar magic that was never explained.
I would consider it, but given the fair-weather friends that the Dalish prove to be - not to mention their lack of military strength - I care too much for the dwarves to let their only ally ignore the problem and not provide a large market. :/
The dwarves have allies?
No they don't. They have a reliable trading partner. If they had an ally in, I assume this is who you mean, the Chantry, there would be platoons of templars down there helping them fight the darkspawn and negating the magic of emissaries.
The dwarves have allies?
No they don't. They have a reliable trading partner. If they had an ally in, I assume this is who you mean, the Chantry, there would be platoons of templars down there helping them fight the darkspawn and negating the magic of emissaries.
I wasn't talking about the Chantry. Considering they aren't a state, I could hardly see how they would qualify as an ally...
The dwarves have an ally in the Grey Wardens, they could also make a deal with the various human/Tal Valosh (non Qunari Qunari, I can't spell at all~) mercenary groups (or even nations) for support. This doesn't fly with the old guard (see: Harrowmont) but it might fly with Bhelen. Heck, we see that they make deals with Tevinter in the DA:O DLC.
No they don't. They have a reliable trading partner.
The surface keeps them alive as much as their troops do Dragon.
With out the trade with the Surface their "final" city, would go broke and die.
That is how I role played my Pro-Circle MAGE Hawke with Merrill. "Merrill, babe, WTF you doing? This is dangerous! I cannot support this!" "Fine, Hawke! I WILL DO ON MY OWN!" ((flash forward to the finale)) "I'm siding with you, Meredith." Merrill: "..."
The only person that even said anything during The Choice was Isabela, and she still came with my Hawke out of Loyalty for not throwing her to the Arishok.
I actually love what she says to Orsino when he tries to win her over. Hawke's her people indeed.
I will never understand why some pro mages think all mages should be on the same side like their shared mageness somehow means they have the same ideals and treasure the same things.
Bleh.
I wasn't talking about the Chantry. Considering they aren't a state, I could hardly see how they would qualify as an ally...
The dwarves have an ally in the Grey Wardens, they could also make a deal with the various human/Tal Valosh (non Qunari Qunari, I can't spell at all~) mercenary groups (or even nations) for support. This doesn't fly with the old guard (see: Harrowmont) but it might fly with Bhelen. Heck, we see that they make deals with Tevinter in the DA:O DLC.
The Grey Wardens aren't the allies of anyone. They're politically neutral. But, the dwarves have a great deal of respect for the Wardens because they're the only surfacers who have any idea what the dwarves go through every single day.
They probably all value surviving.
They probably all value not being locked away in a prison.
They probably all value surviving.
They probably all value not being locked away in a prison.
Have you actually played the DA games yet david?
The Grey Wardens aren't the allies of anyone. They're politically neutral. But, the dwarves have a great deal of respect for the Wardens because they're the only surfacers who have any idea what the dwarves go through every single day.
The Grey Wardens aren't the allies of anyone. They're politically neutral. But, the dwarves have a great deal of respect for the Wardens because they're the only surfacers who have any idea what the dwarves go through every single day.
In theory. We both know that, in practice, they have many ties. Dwarves, the Chantry, Anderfels, Ferelden...
In theory. We both know that, in practice, they have many ties. Dwarves, the Chantry, Anderfels, Ferelden...
Yes, but as a whole, the order is politically neutral.
The same criticism(?) about some Wardens having titles can also be applied to other supposedly politically neutral groups, like Templars who aren't supposed to hold titles (Bann Elfstana's brother in Denerim) but doesn't stop them from wielding the authority of a viscount in Kirkwall.
Granted, I can easily see that as the Divine's, or maybe the Seeker's own social experiment like what the First Warden told the Hero of Ferelden with Amaranthine. It sets a precedent, and if it succeeds, may be used as an example for similar situations.
I actually love what she says to Orsino when he tries to win her over. Hawke's her people indeed.
I will never understand why some pro mages think all mages should be on the same side like their shared mageness somehow means they have the same ideals and treasure the same things.
Bleh.
You have, at that point in time, psychologically broken Merrill. Congratulations on your achievement.
Retour en haut