What are your Ability Scores?

[metadigital]

The capacity to acquire knowledge does indeed differ between individuals, but several studies have shown that this varies much more to do with the way the individual treats failure than some basic quality.

 

Basically, a 'stupid' kid who fails to perform a task, says "I failed because I am stupid. Being stupid is a permanent characteristic and therefore there is no point trying again." The 'intelligent' kid says "I have failed because I am missing either a physical or mental tool. I will search for the missing tool be it physical or informational, and try again when I have it."

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is perfect proof of why psychology is a dangerous soft-science for non-scientists to wield as some sort of tool.

 

Are you actually suggesting that the only difference between two individuals at opposite ends of an IQ test (for example) is their attitude?

 

Horsefeathers.

[Walsingham]

Metadigital:

 

Psychology can be a soft or a hard science. I have no affection for those who make no attempt to scientifically evaluate their theories, like pop psychologists, but I also have immense respect for psychologists who persevere in trying to be scientific. It is not like physics or chemistry where one can manipulate the subject matter cleanly and without constraint. We cannot get stuck into it freely, but are always stuck on the outside, trying to infer the interior situation "as through a glass, darkly".

 

If you actually read psychology papers, particularly in cognitive psychology, you would, I am sure, alter your statement. Not all psychologists are content with waffle.

 

Your point about extreme ends is valid. There are variations at the extreme ends due to differences in the biological hardware. I've worked with autistic and Down's syndrome children, so I know what you mean. However, that does not mean that the intervening ground is distributed according to biology.

 

Eldar:

 

Your point is far less distant from mine than 213374U's and I find less to object to. I do think my interpretation is correct, but not so closely that I would be surprised if it turned out you were correct.

 

213374U:

 

You and I have gone as far as we can into this without getting down to facts, and since I do not have the time to hunt up the references I will, for form's sake, drop the point. However, I venture to suggest that if we did get down to facts we would discover that it is you who are talking through their hat, and I am in fact talking from a standpoint of scientific study. I conducted a 2 months review of this topic in 1999, and have tried to stay abreast of developments ever since. My objection was in any case that I was not simply making stuff up, but had thought about the issue, and it wasn't the stupidest <sic> comment ever made on this board! :D

 

I should also say that you are criticising the wrong man about attacking old ideas simply because they are old. I shan't list the ones I do support, because that would just send this whole thread out of whack with debates.

 

As my final word, you seem to have misunderstood the implications of this notion. It has nothing to do with fairness. Mother nature doesn't give a haemorraghic fever for fairness. It has everything to do with obliging people to go beyond their established mental 'comfort zones' and not be so content or simplistic in their thinking, and with society to cease discouraging them from doing so. It is also pertinent to a discussion on how 'intelligent' you feel you are.

 

~~~

 

Does anyone feel that the other attributes can be debated?

[EnderAndrew]

How about Wisdom or Charisma?

 

How do you quantify Wisdom?

[Nartwak]

Psychology can be a soft or a hard science.

Yeah, sure.

[EnderAndrew]

In it's basic precepts science is merely observing within the scientific method and making hypothesis based on observations.

 

One could argue that psychology is a science, but the observations are often subjective rather than objective and quantifiable.

[alanschu]

There are aspects of Psychology that are scientific (the biological stuff), and parts that are not (the introspective stuff).

 

 

Trying to figure out why that person is doing what they are doing is not scientifically verifiable outside of correlations.

 

Realizing that schizophrenics have enlarged ventricles could maybe be argued as scientific (although it has little actual useful value, aside from recognizing a correlation).

 

However, learning the way the brain works and recognizing that various parts of the brain deal with specific information is scientific. Using MRIs and whatnot to determine brain activity while performing tasks is observable and measurable. Furthermore, subjects with brain damage in particular areas support our hypothesis.

 

I remember an interesting case study where a guy was shown a rose. He was asked to describe what he saw. His explanation was a convoluted red shape, with a green apparatus that it seemed to be perched upon. However, he could not make the recognition that it was a rose. He was then asked to smell it, and he immediately recognized it as rose. (I believe this patient was an epileptic, and had his corpus callosum severed to stop the siesures. Basically the left side of the brain and the right side of the brain could not communicate).

[Walsingham]

Neuropsychology is indeed very interesting, but not my field. Ender is correct of course, it is the scientific paradigm that makes it a science.

 

Anyway, no-one's having a crack at Wisdom or Charisma.

 

Are attributes even necessary in a game? Could you not have pure percentage skills for everything?

[alanschu]

I noticed this separation at my University.

 

Anything that has concrete scientific methodolgy with no introspection for PSYCO classes (I think they should have used PSCYH instead of PSCYO personally ) is part of the Faculty of Science. All other PSYCH () classes are part of the Faculty of Arts.

[Cantousent]

If we can't come to some sort of broad consensus concerning intelligence, do you think we'll have a working definition of wisdom?

 

Let's save Charisma for last. That one will be easy! hahahahaha

 

Actually, I do have something to say about Charisma, since I picked it as my best attribute at 14. I've often thought it was funny that my online persona seems so... stuffy. In the flesh, I'm kind of a goofy sort of fellow. I joke around a lot and tease people and basically act with good humor. When I make a joke online it often comes across as either serious or humorous with a meanspirited twist. Don't get me wrong, I have epic battles with my temper, but I'm quick to forgive and even quicker to laugh. There's something about online interaction that makes everything seem so formal.

[Walsingham]

I'm interested that you feel online stuff is so formal. Maybe you'd like to be a bit more formal and less of the fool in real life, but have got stuck in a way you aren't online?

 

I'm more forhright online than I am in real life. I rarely come right out and tell people they are wrong in my job, but I'll pipe up to you guys.

 

Charisma, is the quality that makes you able to manipulate people, for good or evil <sic> intentions. I know one chap (who works for a major U.S. defence analysis firm) who couldn't be sharper at handling people. But he also happens to be a sick S.O.B. who will pick people up only as a means to gaining their confidence and undermining them in a more serious way. Honestly, I've seen him spend all evening chatting to a girl, just to make her burst into tears at the end because he finds it amusing.

 

The above is may seem fairly innocuous, but I've seen him work to get people into telling him compromising personal details to ensure their 'cooperation' in future. No-one ever takes the threat seriously until they have it actually done to them, either. Clinically fascinating.

 

I suppose the closest approximation I can think of whould be Hannibal Lecter, who in the books is capable of handling just about anyone, and is superbly charming, even to those he intends to eat.

[Roger]

I've seen him work to get people into telling him compromising personal details to ensure their 'cooperation' in future.

Been there, done that. " And sociopathy will only contradict charisma at the end, so it isn't really the best example.

 

 

Charisma seems more like a good collective combination of strength, constitution, intelligence, and maybe even some wisdom -- in case one wants to augment the spontaneous conversation.

[metadigital]

I noticed this separation at my University.

 

Anything that has concrete scientific methodolgy with no introspection for PSYCO classes (I think they should have used PSCYH instead of PSCYO personally ) is part of the Faculty of Science.  All other PSYCH () classes are part of the Faculty of Arts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm interested that you feel online stuff is so formal. Maybe you'd like to be a bit more formal and less of the fool in real life, but have got stuck in a way you aren't online?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop psycho-analyzing him!

I'm more forhright online than I am in real life. I rarely come right out and tell people they are wrong in my job, but I'll pipe up to you guys. 

 

Charisma, is the quality that makes you able to manipulate people, for good or evil <sic> intentions. I know one chap (who works for a major U.S. defence analysis firm) who couldn't be sharper at handling people. But he also happens to be a sick S.O.B. who will pick people up only as a means to gaining their confidence and undermining them in a more serious way. Honestly, I've seen him spend all evening chatting to a girl, just to make her burst into tears at the end because he finds it amusing.

 

The above is may seem fairly innocuous, but I've seen him work to get people into telling him compromising personal details to ensure their 'cooperation' in future. No-one ever takes the threat seriously until they have it actually done to them, either. Clinically fascinating.

 

I suppose the closest approximation I can think of whould be Hannibal Lecter, who in the books is capable of handling just about anyone, and is superbly charming, even to those he intends to eat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a (made for tv?) film about that: two salesmen go to an out-of-town office, and the one manipulates the other into falling for a co-worker in that office (by talking her up to him, and giving his encouragement), whilst dating the woman, with the conclusion of the film being he was simply manipulating the guy so that he could out-perform him at work!

 

The fact that he left the other guy crestfallen with unrequited love for the co-worker (which raises interesting tangential isues about the meaning of "love", how easy it is to "fall in love", and how it may differ between individuals, but let's not cover that here and now), the co-worker totally jaded with both of them, in addition to his primary goal of a totally superior sales performance, only served to put icing on the cake. I can't remember the name of the film, but it was within the last ten years, IIRC ...

 

(I will give a cookie to anyone that can name it.)

[Cantousent]

It's not even that complicated, Walsingham. In real life, I think I am able to use body language to convey information. I also read body language quite well.

 

I don't want to be more serious in real life. I want to be less serious online. The problem, I suspect, is that I view all writing as somewhat formal.

 

...And I promise not to play psychiatrist to you if you promise the same to me.

[metadigital]

...

                        Oh, Officer Starling... do you think

                        you can dissect me with this blunt

                        little tool?

...

[Walsingham]

Eldar, you are quite right. It just shows how pointless psycho-analysing people can be. It's fun, but not to be taken seriously. I apologise.

 

But how come you can't be less serious online? We could have a random drunken thread, only for posting in when three sheets to the wind.

[metadigital]

Neuropsychology is indeed very interesting, but not my field. Ender is correct of course, it is the scientific paradigm that makes it a science.

 

Anyway, no-one's having a crack at Wisdom or Charisma.

 

Are attributes even necessary in a game? Could you not have pure percentage skills for everything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wisdom must be related to an internal frame of reference, tempered with the necessary experience to produce a model that will answer all tests asked of it in a satisfactory manner.

 

So it is not just experience: learning from experience; putting that experience to good use, to predict and prevent the same-, and even partially-related-, incidents, and resolve scenairos to an advantagrous conclusion.

 

Certainly, any definition of wisdom I can think of, most people tend to increase their wisdom over time; I can't think of a normal situation where many would lose it, either.

[Cantousent]

Eldar, you are quite right. It just shows how pointless psycho-analysing people can be. It's fun, but not to be taken seriously. I apologise.

 

But how come you can't be less serious online? We could have a random drunken thread, only for posting in when three sheets to the wind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That made me laugh out loud. :D

 

Maybe my online role isn't to be goofy. Maybe I'm more of the introspective type online. I think each of us carves out a place for himself in every place he considers important. I spend a lot of time here reading and writing about a variety of subjects, so I've already created my online persona. I could change it, I know. I even want to change it sometimes. ...But it has become the most dreadful of things -- comfortable. So, I imagine I'll remain as I am. Nevertheless, I'll participate in the errant "three sheets to the wind" threads I happen to see.

 

As for Charisma, I think of it as the element of a person's personality that exerts influence over other people. A charismatic person need not issue orders, although being obeyed based solely on your personality would definitely make you charismatic. Rather, a person might be the "conscience" of the group, providing a moral baseline by which others see their actions. He might be the impetus for actions, making suggestion without actually issuing orders. He might merely be the focal point for a group of people.

 

A selfish person will undoubtedly use influence for his own purposes. Most folks look upon their friends with more benevolence, and so they'll not really use their influence fpr a cause so much as exert naturally. Some folks try to use influence in ways that they believe will help individual members grow and improve.

 

If intelligence is difficult to define, then wisdom and charisma are damned near impossible. I've given some examples but not an actual definition. I'll wait for someone else to do so. Please, though, no dictionary definitions!

[metadigital]

Eldar, you are quite right. It just shows how pointless psycho-analysing people can be. It's fun, but not to be taken seriously. I apologise.

 

But how come you can't be less serious online? We could have a random drunken thread, only for posting in when three sheets to the wind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... Maybe my online role isn't to be goofy. Maybe I'm more of the introspective type online. I think each of us carves out a place for himself in every place he considers important. I spend a lot of time here reading and writing about a variety of subjects, so I've already created my online persona. I could change it, I know. I even want to change it sometimes. ...But it has become the most dreadful of things -- comfortable. So, I imagine I'll remain as I am. Nevertheless, I'll participate in the errant "three sheets to the wind" threads I happen to see.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could always create a new avatar, that way you could indulge all those dissonant person

[Walsingham]

Well the next time I get bladdered I will be sure to try and start a drunken thread.

 

thinks: I should go get bladdered RIGHT NOW

 

I've been quite influenced by Zen philosophy, so from that standpoint I would define wisdom as a sense of detachment from the self. Thus wisdom permits us to act contrary to infantile or bodily desires. To help others, or undergo pain for selfish or even violent ends. It assists in the clear understanding of problems. It also helps us rationalise stressful or emotinoaly disturbing situations so they are less disruptive.

 

I think that one reason people seem to get wiser as they get older is the realisation that the self is neither so important, nor so permanent as we think. The body we inhabit changes shape and desire. The things we believe in so passionately as youngsters are revealed as less clear-cut. We come to realise that many things simply do not matter as much as we thought.

 

The exception to this, Meta, is the mid-life crisis. Where we start dating women who are far too young for us, riding motorcycles, and getting bladdered for no good reason.

[metadigital]

Don't forget it is almost mandatory for women to date younger men, now. (My partner is older than I am, although you would think I were a cradle robber if you saw her ...)

 

I have always been very precocious. I have been thinking about getting a motorbike for several years now, which is pretty apt for me ...

[Walsingham]

Charisma wise, I reckon Bob Geldof has it in spades. I don't agree with everything he says, but he says it so well, I feel happy going along.

[alanschu]

Eldar.....INTROSPECTION IS FOR THE WEAK!!!

 

*ZAAAAAAAAAAP*

 

 

See, adding some Onomatopoeia or even l33tspeak will instantly degrade your writing to a less than formal style

[Cantousent]

hahahaha

 

Well, I've allowed others to take home some laughs at least. That should score me some points, shouldn't it?

[Walsingham]

I went out last night and got drunk, but was too drunk to start a thread, when I got home.

 

Curiously enough, I met some bloke completely at random in the pub, and we turned out to be working on parallele projects. Many good ideas swapped, along with beer drunk. Luck, anyone?

[Musopticon?]

Fate.