Greedy Goblin

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The fall of the goblinism

I've long supported the "all men for himself" individualist society, close to Ayn Rand's ideas, and somehow related to the Libertarianism.

Well, there is a reason why there are no such states in the world. It took me some time to notice why it is an impossible utopia.

This silly video game helped me understand that individualist society can not exists and any kind of political activity towards it is futile.

In the game such "society" would be the PuG-ing community. People who know that the other is also skilled band together for a common goal, and than dissolve. I've tried it and failed. My "goblin raiding" experiment gave a shining explanation why did I have to fail. With a Sarth+3 guild, both the more-or-less challenging Maly25 and the completely farm Naxx25 was completely different from any PuG or "social guild" experience.
  • People were online on time
  • They were prepared, had consumables, soul shards, ammunition, were repaired
  • When wipe happened they run in fast
  • Everyone listened to the raid leader
  • No one made loot drama
  • No one ever "DC"-ed (some DC-ed, but came back ASAP)
Despite I was bored in Naxx25, I was amazed by the professionalism that raid shown. They were bored even more, since they tried to do all kind of silly achievements and even came up with such like everyone being on the living side of Noth, and when the gate opened, just AoE all the undead trash.

On the other hand they were not "superior" people with supernatural skills. They played like me, that's why they offered me to join their guild any time when my RL allows it. However I had to see, that we are a minority among the sea of M&S, I've met in game all the time.

I see now why it's necessary to raid every week. Not because of the loot, that upgrade is nothing. Not because of the practice, since practicing on Heigan won't help you a bit at Freya. You must raid to keep the M&S out of your guild. If you run Naxx25, Maly25 every week and try on Sarth+2 or 3, the morons will show themselves and be kicked. The slackers leave on their own when they notice the expectations.

Raiding farm content "pointlessly" is just like going to an "average" collage. The point is not to learn anything. The point is to have a diploma that proves to your future employer that you are capable of getting a diploma, so you are not (completely) M&S.

When I started my PuG experiment I had the idea that 50-60% of the online playerbase is near my level. After organizing a few PuGs I've noticed that
  • 30-40% are so dumb that I could not even imagine (like legions who wanted to the PuG with 1100 spell power and not even understanding what's wrong with that).
  • 20-30% are not imbecile just dumb, being unable to follow such simple instructions as "do not put poison cloud to the middle of the room", or "DPS the zombie chews", or "watch out for the hole in the pipe" or "focus DPS on the skull gargolyle, not both of them".
  • 20-30% are intolerably slacking like AFK in the middle of the fight, don't run in, "DC", so show that they absolutely don't care about the run they volunteered for.
  • this leaves 10-20%. No, I'm not talking about Sarth+3 capable people. I'm talking about Construct quarter capable people. This 10-20% is not "good", merely "useful". Some of them are good, some of them are mediocre. But you can begin something with them.
If I choose someone randomly, I have 10-20% chance to find a useful player. Of these players, big ratio of them don't want to raid now, or don't want to raid that content or don't want to raid at all. Chances decrease further. So the "PuG community" is a dream. If you found a useful person who also want to raid the same content, you must stick to him by dragging him under the same guild tag. Not only to have him on your list, a friend list would do that, but also to make a raiding schedule, since otherwise the chances that you log on to raid the same time are small. You have to form a small island of competence in the ocean of M&S and defend it from the waves every week by testing the skills and work ethics of the members by raiding.

I wouldn't be so bold to directly extrapolate to the real world and try to explain the greatest of dilemmas of thinkers based on a game. However I do stop all kind of political activities as I see them pointless. "We", intelligent people can decide anything within our little circles, it won't work in a society where we are a minority. I will walk the lonely way of the goblin, following the moral of Jack Sparrow. I just leave one hint: if you think that in the real world there are no wast legions of M&S, check out the data of functional illiteracy of your country.

PS: commenters claimed that my measurements are wrong since I only see PuG people who are "naturally" inferior to guilded people. These comments want to ignore that 99% of the people have some guild tag, so merely being in a guild does not mean anything. I've been in social guilds myself and they are no way superior to PuGs.


Pzychotix said...

Whoa. You thought 50-60% were possibly at your level?

Geez, no wonder. 99% of pugs are complete M&S. The other 1% are already sucked up into guilds.

Stoico said...

You hit the nail pretty solid there. This is in big terms what a guild is. Some of us, do pick up some good friendships along the way, not a goblin like you ofc.. ;) But as you write, most do it to shelter themselfes from the crowd of M&S.

It all ofc, depends on how the guild is recruiting. As some guilds just take all in. But guilds just with minimum req., it fast alot better than the PUG jungle.

spinksville said...

But still, there's got to be some people like you who don't want to commit to a raiding schedule. So where are they and how do you find them?

Maybe some servers also have a better ratio than others (I know friends who have transferred to mine thought that the PUGs were much higher quality -- I have no idea why this might be though). How could you increase your chances of finding one?

aphex said...

Social Darwinism much? Why not just skip this step and go to eugenics right away?

thcgirl77 said...

well, duh. took you quite some time to realize that people do work better in a fixed team with a leader and not on their own with random people.

LarĂ­sa said...

I'm not sure about the numbers. I think you're overestimating the share of M&S in the WoW population. Or maybe it's just that your definition of what makes a non-M&S is much more narrow than mine. I guess I generally have a more positive view on the potential in other players. I tend to think that they could thrive and grow if they just fell into the right soil and got a little water and sunshine. But that's me.

Apart from this, I think you're quite right about the guild thing. I often feel too that's it's like a national park, a protected area, an enclave. We have put up some fences, we keep the M&S out and we know that we will play with decent, likeminded players, not having to go through the pain of losing in the PUG lotery.

Stephen said...

I have to say that it's really satisfying to see someone publicly conclude and elucidate (after their own experimentation) what a lot of high end guilds have known for a long time but perhaps been unable to explain.

Although the time consuming and complicated application processes for some guilds get mocked they exist for a reason. There are so many players who *think* they can join a high end guild but are in actual fact completely useless because:

- They don't have even the basic level of skill it takes.
- They can't commit to regular raid times for an extended period.

Incidentally the "them and us" mentality is something that helps guilds hold together. Once you've experienced life in a well run, well organised and efficient raiding guild you never want to go back to anything else (unless you want a complete change of pace and stop raiding).

Kring said...

We wiped two times in the vault yesterday before the group disbanded. The reason... the boss enraged two times because of terrible DD.

But it's my fault, I violated my own rule. Never PuG before 11 o'clock in the evening. After 11 o'clock the slackers go to bed. At least that's my experience. (Not everyone going to bed at 11 is a slacker. Don't turn that statement around.)

Grzegorz said...

The problem with PUGs is that most people don't care about them. You just join some crowd and most of them you won't ever meet again. In raiding guild/community you know whom you raid with and there is very high chance that it's not a one time experience. So just most of us don't want to act like M&S there. Farming 10 man Naxx myself this days and each week we try to complete achivements as way to improve our skill for incoming Ulduar.

But when we had two weeks break and I joined PUGs I didn't always act like pro. At the beginign of PUGs I try to judge raid as a whole. If I see after few pulls that we won't get far I just go into slacker mode. It's just that I join those pugs for fun, and not like I want to spend my whole attention on something that is futile. So if I see a potential in PUG I will do my best, but on those crappy ones I don't feel the need to act like pro player. Following goblin rules I should leave the pug the moment I notice it's futile, but often I just go there to waste some time or just join raids in progress which gets me locked out anyway.

Anonymous said...

i think your numbers are right, but you're only looking at pugs. 50%-75% of my guild (S+2 guild) will NEVER pug. They're all really good players, but theyre totally excluded from your analysis, since you'll never play with them unless you're on their friends list or in their guild.

rvanmil said...

I'm not sure your numbers are correct but I do agree that the amount of capable players seems very low. Because of this I've got a few simple rules I use myself, and so far they seem to work pretty well for me. Note that I am NOT committed to a raid schedule.
- never pug a 5man before ~11 server time
- never pug any raid at all
As for my guild, I only run the occasional 5man and voa with them.
I raid with a couple of other guilds who are always short on healers and don't mind me joining in later or leaving early.
The only problem I have is that I've not been able to do Malygos yet.

Tobold said...

But you never MEASURED the "online player base"!!! You only measured the "online PuG base", which are basically the rejects of the guild system.

It's like sending out e-mail spam offering free millions from an African dictator, measuring the IQ of the people who reply to that mail, and concluding that humanity is stupid! By looking at only people who apply to a PuG, you preselected the guildless, the morons, and the slackers. Inside the guild system, even the not-so-top guilds, the number of players behaving reasonably well is much higher. Your method of measurement just don't capture them.

Gevlon said...

@Tobold: 99% of the PuG members HAVE guild tag. Of course I cannot measure if they are members of some social guild or just spammed a city for signitures to make themselves a guild.

The previous Anonymous is maybe right that I don't see the topguild members in a PuG, but I see everyone else. And don't forget that I was in social guilds and they were no way better than the PuGs.

Herc said...

"People were online on timeThey were prepared, had consumables, soul shards, ammunition, were repairedWhen wipe happened they run in fastEveryone listened to the raid leaderNo one made loot dramaNo one ever "DC"-ed (some DC-ed, but came back ASAP)Despite I was bored in Naxx25, I was amazed by the professionalism that raid shown. "

This has been my experience on most of my WoW Raiding since Pre-BC, that's why we took alot of server firsts. I take it for granted sometimes and now that I'm not in one I miss the group/organization not the guild itself but how we did things. /cry

Enkhil said...

Interesting read, thanks Gevlon.

I always read you blog because you have interesting views on a lot of subjects, even though I often find them too black&white for my tastes.

It's the same in this case. While I agree that keeping out "M&S" are a major function of a guild, there are others that contribute to the fact that a guild group will always be far more succesful than any PuG. Some are even passive rather than active.

Most notebly the social factor. By this I don't mean friendship or friendly banter, allthough it can help a little. I mean the fact that people care about how they are percieved within a group by the other groupmembers for no other reason than the fact that they are part of said group.

I know you don't really believe in social values of guilds or groups, so let me illustrate with a small experiment I conducted myself some time ago.

I play Warhammer, a game in which you can jump into scenarios (battlegrounds in WoW) from any point in the world. If you don't form a group in advance, you get in there with totally random people, same as in WoW.

Generally speaking these PuG-scenarios are absolutely horrid. People don't assist, healers concentrate more on doing laugable dps then on healing, casters die in seconds because they are never protected, the whole nine yards.

After one scenario where we did reaonably, but didn't win, I decided to invite all the members of that scenario to form a premade group. 11 out 12 actually joined and I got another random from region chat and off we went.

I wanted to try first without any special instuctions or really "leading" in the way that you would lead a PuG raid in WoW. The first thing that I noticed was that even without a reall lead, people immidiately started playing differently. Healers healed, dps assisted, a little anyways, a tank protected the healers. It wasn't like we were suddenly steam-rolling or anything, but the difference was certainly noticeble. Purely the fact that the group had formed ahead of time, had changed people playstyles fundamentely.

After a couple scenatios, I started picking up a leading role. Assigning mean assist, setting out general strategy etc. Turned out people actually listened. Not, you know, great, but they listened. Had I tried to tell people strategies in the scenario chat channel, noone would have listened to me.

The reason for this change in paystyle in my opinion is that when people are part of a group, they care about how they are percieved in this group. They want to be thought of as at least adequate by the other members. Suddenly in their minds, the people that they are playing with go from "random people who say random studid things and are clearly inferior to you" to people who's opinion matters. all this, just because you're in the same group.

If you go one step further, a guild, which is basicly a permanent group, reinforces this even more. Of course this is not the only reason. After all, if they were kicked from the guild, they might lose their income (epics in WoWs case). But it helps a lot with keeping the guild together and improving performance.

This is basicly the same a football fans fighting against fans from a different club. They percieve their gorup as better for no other reason then the fact that they are part of that group. For the oursider, there's no difference at all. In Sociology this behavior is called "ingroup" behaviour.

That being said, people's behaviour can almost never be explained by one reason alone. They might behave in a certain way because of a whole numbers of reasons added together. Even though one of those reasons alone would not have been enough to cause said behaviour.

Now, you might say that you never feel this way when you join a group and dismiss it as "ape-subroutines" saying that other people shouldn't feel that way, but they do nonetheless. And dismissing this behaviour is the same as not locking your door, because people shouldn't steal.

Whoa, this turned into a rather lengthy comment. Hope it helps!

Barrista said...

Actually Gev, Ayn Rand's ideas do not necessarily conflict with the idea of having a guild. If the guild was very picky and did not allow lesser players into the guild or raids just because they are "cool", I believe that she would be fine with that. I've always felt that you used these views as a means to shun the guilds, but even John Galt bans together with Francisco and others when he needs to escape the M&S in his world. This is similar to what the higher end raiding guilds do in order to protect themselves. It is their own "Galt's Gulch".

As for objectionist views being a utopia, that would only be to another ojectionist.

I think your Sarth +3 list (People online on time, prepared, etc) is great at showing the difference between a good group and a lazy one. I don't think the lazy ones will finish the content and if they do, it will take them 7 days of raiding rather than the day or two of more successful guilds. I think these groups also would rather continue to try and fail than to actually take a look at themselves and admit they may be doing something wrong. I mean, they have 3k dps, so it can't be them! (FYI - that was sarcasm)

As for the slackers going to bed at 11? Many of us have jobs. I think this is totally realm dependent. It may just be that if you try to pug before 11, most of the better players are in a raid group that ends at 11.

bodphrah said...

I wouldn't go as far as saying a small amount of people are useful, I PuG alot because, its good practice, and to test my skills as a tank sometmes its handy to have a few idiots in the party, though I have noticed for most heroics I have done most people are able to do them with no wipes, but even a messy run can be flawless in case of deaths.

So i'm a bit confused by this argument.

Unless this applys to Raids only, in which Sath and VoA are so easy it's doable even with total morons.

Naxx though I have never PuG'ed

*vlad* said...

Raiding is about being able to rely on your members to turn up on time, to be prepared, and to do the jobs assigned to them.

With the a pug you are very unlikely to fulfill all or any of these requirements, irrespective of whether people 'can do 2500 dps on Patchwerk'.

I'm glad you finally understood.

Sydera said...

I'm glad you finally see the usefulness of raiding guilds. It sounds like your experience of guest-raiding with a good guild was a positive one! It's really great that you got an invite to come back when you can.

Actually, having a decent healer on backup is beneficial for most raiding guilds. It's an alternative to having someone respec if one of your regular healers can't make a raid (and that does happen--my attendance figures for the last few guilds I've been in say that attendance tends to be around 75-80% for raiding guilds). Most guilds have more "extras" in the dps and tank category than they do in the healer category.

Bell said...

As a guildless player who pugs everything, always comes repaired, prepared, does what she's told, shares food and consumables where able, follows directions, doesn't complain, is the first one to rez the dead, runs back when told to, innervates others, passes on loot if someone needs it more, admits mistakes and generally learns quickly...

Where do I fit in?

Hatch said...

Gevlon, I have a lot of respect for you for facing the weaknesses of that ideology.

I knew you read a bunch of Ayn Rand! :D

In my experience leading pugs, I've been lucky enough to get useful players more often than not (after screening them imperfectly in the armory), but I'd agree at least 80% of players (AND HMANS) are complete M&S. It's just that right now a ton of M&S aren't signing up for pugs because it's easier to get carried by their "friendly, helpful" scrub guild!

Soulman said...

Little off topic, anyone know a mod that will total up the buyout amounts of all your current auctions? I have 100+ auctions and I'd like to know how much potential gold there is without adding 100+ numbers. Haven't found this feature in Auctioneer.

J. Random said...

My main issue with Randian style thought is that while mostly useful, it really falls flat in a couple of areas, group dynamics being one of them. Let's see if I can explain this in a Randian way...

The problem, as I see it, is that the Randian style utility function has the variable [Social_Utility] set to a number approaching 0, whereas non-Randian's have a much much larger value.

There are many many benefits to 'being nice', and making friendly, some so obvious that I'm surprised that Ayn herself missed them. Here's a good one:

1. People change and have personal power/influence trajectories that are different, and separate from yours. One tries to make it so that over time, most of the people fall behind you in personal influence and one expects that some> of the people will pull ahead of you in it.
2. Being polite is essentially free (it costs no more mental power to be 'nice' than it does to be 'snarky') and allowing some slacking - while a current net loss of personal gain - is really a form of insurance against hardship.

By placing more value on your Social_Utility function, you create a safety net for yourself in case of massive failure due to circumstances beyond your control. People above you in the influence chain grant you respect because you have the admiration of the people below you in the influence chain.

Maximizing profit is not always the way to go to... maximize profit. Now, in WoW, things are different - the WORST that can happen is that an account gets hacked. You'll be a couple of days without your stuff and your G, but that's all well and good and it can be returned, and the NEED for a safety-net is very small.

My hypothesis is that Randian thought works very well in places where there are built-in safety-nets that the individuals protected thereby can mostly ignore. Once you start taking off the kid gloves, I suspect that the value of social interaction rises quickly.

Ken said...

There's some selection bias in your counts/conclusions. You need properly geared players for your PUG raids, which implies some raiding exp. However, they can't be locked out of the content from earlier raids or anticipated raids. So, these players must have been in guild raids, but aren't making the roster for raiding that week. That basically collects the worst M&S from raiding guilds that don't make the cut for their raids despite having sufficient gear.

The same goes for players replying to your requests for raids in general chat. Most smart players will look at their gear and realize they aren't sufficiently geared to do it and won't reply. When they do want to do the content they will join a guild and get on a regular rotation (and be locked out for your pugs). Only M&S fail to realize they don't have the gear to do Naxx25 and /r to you.

So, you're collecting the most concentrated M&S in WoW when you try to pug a raid. I think the fraction of M&S is not as high as you estimate (but still pretty high).

Dreadhawk said...

I've always said this about the quality of players in WoW. Shit rolls down hill and the creme rises to the top. When your looking soley at player performance the farther you go down the ladder of progression guilds from the best to weakest the lower the quality of the player. As you've said those guilds act like a filter and sub par players are passed down from the top till they reach a guild with a standard they can meet. The same is true of the good player he will continue to rise through the guilds till he finds one that meets his standard.

Carra said...

[quote]Once you've experienced life in a well run, well organised and efficient raiding guild you never want to go back to anything else (unless you want a complete change of pace and stop raiding).[/quote]

This sums it up nicely. Going from an average guild to a top guild was an eye opener. Suddenly people were on time. People brought potions. There was a queue system. Raid hours were raid hours and not guidelines. And runs go fast and smooth.

Pugging is like playing the lottery. Small chance you'll win the big lot and get a good tank, healer AND DPS. While in a guild, just take 4 people and you're pretty much guaranteed to finish the run in a good time.

Btw, interesting to see you assume that your average reader belongs to the 10% of intelligent readers. Asskissing!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a system for evaluating PUG-people could solve these issues?


Every time you've been in a PUG you "graded" the other members - either just overall or on a few specific points (Attention span, ability to react to unforseen events, fair when looting etc.)

However, in order for such a system to work a few obstacles would need to be overcome:

1 - Critical mass (The system needs to have quite a few entries in it before people wanna start using it)

2 - Your grade should increase more the first time someone grades you good, and less on subsequent recommendations. In effect we dont want Marvin to just rate his good friend Slick high 20 times - and vice versa - and effectively boost the score of two people who are M&S
This could be solved simply by only allowing one "grade" FROM any given user TO any given user.

3 - Anonymity - without it people dont speak truth.

4 - Guild restriction - you cannot grade anyone in your own guild.

5 - Expert opinions - the higher graded those who recommend you are, the higher the "weigth" of their grade on your average.

(and probably more)

Such a site could potentially create a "meta guild" on each server - a "guild" that is perhaps merely a chat channel with a password rotated monthly - and emailed to the "QPUGs" on that server. (People above a certain grade)

Making an addon to support this "extended friendlist" would be even better - it could even make it possible to get ratings on people in-game.

Utopian dream? Perhaps - I would gladly lend a hand with the programming of such a site.

Anonymous said...

There are multiple PUG organizers on my server who have organized successful, regularly scheduled PUGs, and done so in a fashion that I think Gevlon would greatly approve.

The best one that I've run with is a weekly Naxx25 PUG that clears it in one night, in 3-3.5 hours. Loot is handed out according to the RL's judgment of who *performed* the best.

Many people think this sounds terrible, but those are the cleanest Naxx25 runs I've done. People are on time, everyone eats food and flasks, and usually every boss is a one-shot.

And that's just one example - there was a fairly similar Naxx25 PUG going on before that RL transferred servers, and there are other regular PUGs advertised on the realm's forum - which is key, as Enkhil pointed out that pre-forming the group produces much better results.

Btw a lot of having repeatedly successful PUGs does have to do with that "reputation" factor; I've lead a lot of Vault and OS PUGs, and have a lot of people on my friends list who trust that a PUG I lead will succeed and that the loot will be handed out properly.


One-Eyed Jack said...

This is a brave post, Gevlon. It's not often you see people admit the weakness of their own theories publicly. Kudos.

I'm a huge proponent of success. While I admit more variation than an objectivist does in what constitutes success, trying doesn't even count in horseshoes. Failure is failure, and if we can't criticise failure, what can we criticise?

However, many libertarians and objectivists, because they are so critical of co-operative people, fail to adapt to co-operative situations to the point where they actually end up failing. Then they blame that failure on the co-operative people.

The problem, ironically, is that the libertarian isn't competitive enough. They actually worry about silly things like who is at "fault". They don't see co-operative people as just a part of the environment to be benefited from, but actually set out to either criticise the environment (which is pointless) or change the environment (which is crazy).

PeeDub said...

Just to get this out there,

There is no necessary exclusion of libertarianism ideals and "niceness". We just don't think the government should be nice *for* us. I'm nice enough on my own, thankyouverymuch.

FrostPaladin said...

Fabulous post. There is one bit of data you didn't analyze though:

There is a large group of self sorting people that never make it into you statistical sample. They have already dropped off the map. They are in a guild that is functional and farms content, and they never pug. They clear Naxx in one or 2 nights, maybe do Maly, probably don't do 3 Drakes. Like in Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" they have moved off and formed their own secret little group and don't show their faces. It's particularly easy at this point in the content b/c most are geared out, need almsot no new enchants, and can make up repair costs by doing 2 daily quests or something. Consumable feasts are paid for with DEed purples.

I don't know how to estimate this percent of people, but they are out there, I've sort of become one of them lately. My guild is probably mostly of the "just about make the useful" mark, with 8 or so truly good people, and probably a couple M&S. Our major problem is that people are becoming bored and only log in half the time.... which is how the couple M&S have slipped in, exactly like you described in your post.

bobturkey said...

@Bell - My guild, anytime you are ready ;-)

Lokima said...

"30-40% are so dumb that I could not even imagine (like legions who wanted to the PuG with 1100 spell power and not even understanding what's wrong with that)."

This made me laugh, but it was the kind of laugh when you understand the premise of the joke but don't understand the context due to the joke teller's lack of information. Truth be told, if it was a healer, 1100 is a decent starting point. Hell, raid buffed I barely pull 1800 and I top overall healing.

Point is, can you please be more specific when you call someone out next time?

But other than that, great article! I am extremely glad I've found this gem of a blog.

Kring said...

I checked, my lvl 70 (!) priest who never raided has 940 spell power... unbuffed... without the holy talent...

How can you have only 1100 on 80? And how should that be enough for Naxx?

Anonymous said...

guilds are random people that have earned experience together and get to know each others playstyle / habits. pugs are random people that have no experience together and dont know each others playstyle. I did 7 naxx runs with my guild, on run 1 we had 2 wings clear in 8 hours with about 20 wipes, on run 7 we had naxx clear in 3.5 hours without wipes. this clearly proves that only experience and teamwork built through knowing each other and the encounters and has nothing to do with puny politics or raidleadership.

Barrista said...

Peedub is correct. Not only are libertarians not against cooperation, but neither are objectivists. The people who are making this assumption have faulty logic. Gevlon stated he is anti-social. Gevlon likes Rands philosophy. Rands philosophy must be anti-social. If you found out that Gevlon was, IRL, a catholic would you assume catholics were anti-social? No.

Rand never states that you should not be cooperative, but that you shouldn't be so on such an uneven scale that you are carrying the other person. Those here who are in HC raiding guilds or get themselves into other situations where they /kick a person who is an underperformer (or just refuse to let them tag along) are doing the exact same thing.

Working with the same people week after week will get you through naxx before having a good raid leader? What a load. My guild has yet to clear it though we have the same core group of 8 every week. I actually cleared it with another group which I had never run with before. Knowing the encounters is exactly what raid leadership is. I think you must have good leadership somewhere in the group, but it may not be obvious or it may be spread around.

One-Eyed Jack said...

I wasn't universalizing from Gevlon. There are a couple of issues with objectivism that can tend to make objectivists anti-social:

a) An epistemology that rules out "enjoying another person's presence" as an objective good.
b) The rejection of co-operative goods as goods.

By a), I'm referring to the belief that social people must be being irrational by tolerating the slacker. However, from the social person's perspective, tolerating the slacker is only bad if the damage the slacker does to some other good outweighs the enjoyment one gets from the presence of the slacker. So, a social person "likes" the slacker (enjoys the slacker's company) while the objectivist, who can't fit such goods into the epistemology (it's not measurable), assumes the social person is being irrational.

By b) I'm referring to co-operative goals like "winning the baseball game" or even "killing Patchwerk". When a group accomplishes something, a person feels a sense of accomplishment by belonging to the group. Objectivists need to rewrite these goals to turn them into non-cooperative goals ("I want to see content and get loot"), because their definition of self-interest doesn't allow them to identify with a group.

If I'm wrong about the objectivist epistemology and definition of self-interest, let me know.

PeeDub, you were right to call me out on confusing objectivism and libertarianism. I was responding to Gevlon, who claims to be both, but I let myself blur the distinctions in the process.

Yaggle said...

I agree with all this completely. But it's pretty cool that you did not assume, and ran your social experiments to find out for yourself. Although there are so many M&S in RL, one thing I have noticed is that you never know where and when that 1% will show up. Sometimes it is who I never expect and it's always a nice surprise. I look forward to reading about more experiments.

Anonymous said...

Working with the same people week after week will get you through naxx before having a good raid leader?

no, it was meant like this: working with the same people week after week will get you through naxx before a good raid leader can get a random group through naxx, simple as that. raidleadeship being "hidden" must be a joke, except if your mixing up expertise and leadership.. or taking both for the same.