I posted about the conformity experiment of Asch. In short: lot of people gave obviously wrong answer to a question if his peers did the same. I called them stupid socials under the control of ape-subroutines.
Kristine Ask commented: "The person giving wrong answers in this test might very well have used logic. He/she simply thinks it's more logical to fit in with the group (as "the masses" offer increasing chances for friendship, cooperation, spouse, reproduction, business opportunities, learning etc.) rather then to give some scientist a correct answer to a test that has no relevance to him/her. "
If we add that in real life most questions are not obviously right or wrong, and even the "wrong" choice is just suboptimal but not fatal and the more primitive socials can go much further than just not mating with you if you disagree with them, you can very much accept Kristine's logic.
The only problem is that the test subjects did not use this logic. After the experiment they were interviewed alone. They did not say: "I was sure in answer A but I said B to amuse these idiots". They were stressed and uncertain about themselves, and made up pretty nonsense explanations about "optical illusions" to explain how this could happen by honest mistakes. They did not accept lying, nor they accused the others of lying. The test subjects were convinced that the bad answer was actually right or at least the others could honestly believe it to be right (due to optical illusions). So no, these people used no logic at all, they were just controlled by ape-subroutines.
However them being idiots does not question Kristine's logic (nor that the ape-subroutine was evolved according to this logic): in social situations you often better off saying technically wrong statements just to amuse or conform to the other people. This rises the question: who is the "ethical rational", the guy who gives correct answer, despite it's socially undesirable?
It's not a hard question since this figure is the common character of all TV-comedies: the guy who answers the truth about "does this hairstyle fits me?" or "do I look fat in this?" or "your previous partners were better lovers than me?" or simply tries to "define love" or something like that. They are funny exactly because they are telling the truth. If they were socially unacceptable and wrong, they would be just offensive jerks. However being socially unacceptable and right makes them funny. The audience sees that the guy is honest and just trying to help, so they love the character and laugh their ass off on his mishaps in the social space. Ross Geller anyone?
The "ethical rational" is the "loser nerd", the (usually male) guy who is good at technical things (jobs, money, health) but simply can't say the "right" things to people, especially to the opposite sex. While this character is exaggerated in TV-shows, such exists in reality in large numbers. Since there are lot of technical jobs, they have a space in the society and they are not hated by anyone, still, they are "losers". You have to go no further than WoW: those who don't chit-chat and "be nice" to others are "no-life losers" opposed to the 1000DPS "fun ppl".
The above is the reason why the successful businessmen, politicians, lawyers and such are anti-socials. The antisocial believes (and does) in the scientifically correct things but says the socially desired things. So he is "lucky" with jobs, money and health, but he is still loved and trusted by those who matter to him.
Note that there is no ethical way to be both successful in real things and with people as long as majority of the people are socials. To be "lucky" you must see the things as they are. To be "socially accepted" you must say the things as proper. To be ethical you must say what you believe. Since "as they are" and "socially desired" are almost mutually exclusive in our highly technical society (strike that, even in a computer game), you can only pick two from the three mentioned values:
Kristine Ask commented: "The person giving wrong answers in this test might very well have used logic. He/she simply thinks it's more logical to fit in with the group (as "the masses" offer increasing chances for friendship, cooperation, spouse, reproduction, business opportunities, learning etc.) rather then to give some scientist a correct answer to a test that has no relevance to him/her. "
If we add that in real life most questions are not obviously right or wrong, and even the "wrong" choice is just suboptimal but not fatal and the more primitive socials can go much further than just not mating with you if you disagree with them, you can very much accept Kristine's logic.
The only problem is that the test subjects did not use this logic. After the experiment they were interviewed alone. They did not say: "I was sure in answer A but I said B to amuse these idiots". They were stressed and uncertain about themselves, and made up pretty nonsense explanations about "optical illusions" to explain how this could happen by honest mistakes. They did not accept lying, nor they accused the others of lying. The test subjects were convinced that the bad answer was actually right or at least the others could honestly believe it to be right (due to optical illusions). So no, these people used no logic at all, they were just controlled by ape-subroutines.
However them being idiots does not question Kristine's logic (nor that the ape-subroutine was evolved according to this logic): in social situations you often better off saying technically wrong statements just to amuse or conform to the other people. This rises the question: who is the "ethical rational", the guy who gives correct answer, despite it's socially undesirable?
It's not a hard question since this figure is the common character of all TV-comedies: the guy who answers the truth about "does this hairstyle fits me?" or "do I look fat in this?" or "your previous partners were better lovers than me?" or simply tries to "define love" or something like that. They are funny exactly because they are telling the truth. If they were socially unacceptable and wrong, they would be just offensive jerks. However being socially unacceptable and right makes them funny. The audience sees that the guy is honest and just trying to help, so they love the character and laugh their ass off on his mishaps in the social space. Ross Geller anyone?
The "ethical rational" is the "loser nerd", the (usually male) guy who is good at technical things (jobs, money, health) but simply can't say the "right" things to people, especially to the opposite sex. While this character is exaggerated in TV-shows, such exists in reality in large numbers. Since there are lot of technical jobs, they have a space in the society and they are not hated by anyone, still, they are "losers". You have to go no further than WoW: those who don't chit-chat and "be nice" to others are "no-life losers" opposed to the 1000DPS "fun ppl".
The above is the reason why the successful businessmen, politicians, lawyers and such are anti-socials. The antisocial believes (and does) in the scientifically correct things but says the socially desired things. So he is "lucky" with jobs, money and health, but he is still loved and trusted by those who matter to him.
Note that there is no ethical way to be both successful in real things and with people as long as majority of the people are socials. To be "lucky" you must see the things as they are. To be "socially accepted" you must say the things as proper. To be ethical you must say what you believe. Since "as they are" and "socially desired" are almost mutually exclusive in our highly technical society (strike that, even in a computer game), you can only pick two from the three mentioned values:
- You pick "loved" and "ethical": you are a social. Since you must believe and act according to the nonsense you say to amuse your peers, you'll be unlucky with jobs, money and health.
- You pick "loved" and "rational": you are an anti-social. Since you must amuse your peers and not believe their nonsense, you'll be lying day and night. Of course some (mostly the nerds) will catch you and will blame you being anti-social, but you'll always find another "victim".
- You pick" ethical" and "rational": you are a loser nerd who will have few friends and even less partners since you can't be nice with them as "being nice" would require you to lie and you don't do that.
42 comments:
Interesting concept. I see the 3 categories as a triangle (like a personality test http://media.texample.net/tikz/examples/PNG/personality-test.png)
I think the idea is that hopefully you find some friends who share your beliefs/ feelings so you can be honest with them, and save the blarney for work.
I think the idea is that hopefully you find some friends who share your beliefs/ feelings so you can be honest with them, and save the blarney for work.
If I had to choose between this and it's exact opposite, I'd pick the opposite. A sales representative who directs me to a competitor's store because they don't have a suitable product will definitely see me again when they do have some other suitable products. Likewise, I don't mind a politician voting opposite to what I wanted if he takes the time to prove that he/she was right and I was wrong. After all, that's what representative democracies are for: I might not have the time, intellect and access to all relevant data to make the correct judgement call, so I outsource it to someone who can. It's not unlike hiring an architect to design your house or a lawyer to figure out all of the intricacies of my current legal situation.
The trouble is that dealing with things "as they are" includes accepting the existence of irrational behaviour. Acting as if those ape-subroutines don't exist or don't matter is itself irrational.
Th correct rational response is not one of the extremes you list Gevlon, but a sensible balance. Go with the socials if the point in debate is either unimportant or their preferred solution is only slightly suboptimal, but disagree politely if it's important and the "consensus" solution is very poor.
That way you gain "social points" for cooperating most of the time, which means that you don't get ignored as "a troublemaker" when it's important. The key thing is to avoid being "the boy who cried wolf", who makes a fuss over lots of little things & hence gets ignored on the big things.
That's (approximately) what most people do all the time. Let minor stuff go for the sake of cohesion, but argue when something's important to them.
Please help me to understand where this example fits:
Person 1 and Person 2 are good friends. They have associated with each other for years, attend regular social events together. Person 1 jumps at the opportunity to screw Person 2 over in a business deal, knowing full well the unsavoury outcome for 2, but only if Person 2 doesn't find out. If Person 2 has a +60% chance of finding out, the deal is off.
Is that anti-social? Clearly there is a loved/ethical element to it, but it's quite calculating and devilish.
@Smeg: it's anti-social
@Sven: your solution is anti-social too. You look down on the socials, you treat them as children: you let them do small mistakes and stop them only if they would harm themselves and others. This is what good parents do. Except you are not their parent, you are manipulating them. You ACT as anti-social, you just CLAIM to be not one.
Do you really think 'nice' people are the cool/fun people?
Nice guys finish last. They get walked all over and aren't cool or fun. Predictable, maybe. These technical people you speak of probably consider themselves very nice. Society sees them as losers because they try too hard to be nice to people and are too scared to speak their mind, less they offend people.
From my experience people around me see me as an antisocial ass, although i never do anything bad or harmful to them, not even comment them and theyr life (like dr House would do). You may ask how so? Simple - i'm trying to not interact with theyr doings, in any way. I simply dont care, and its somehow written all over my face.
[Social]people require feedback for theyr actions and events. They require feedback for the mere fact of theyr existence!
"-Seeen that guy? He never say 'hi!' to anyone, can you believe it?
-Yeah, what an ass"
Anyone not interested in them automatically deems as an ass and 5-minutes short of Hitler.
Funny thing is - i'll return here later to see if someone comment this my very message. Isn't i'm social? *smiley*
@Nagbag: at first you are NOT anti-social, you are a "loser nerd". If you would be anti-social you would simply don't care, and its somehow would NOT BE written all over your face. You could make them BELIEVE that you care.
Looking back for replies is not social, as feedback about a question is a rational thing.
So basically you are saying:
anti-social > nerd > social
Aaaah, the joys of defining human behavior. I find the experiment in question pretty interesting. Lots of things to get from it, but I think you're simplifying it too much. Obviously the categories you suggest have some merit, but defining anything by concepts of being loved and ethics is pretty loose to begin with. I know a lot of successful businessmen that feel both loved and that what they do is ethical, tho to me it might seem they're taking advantage of people, and that his wife is a raving lunatic, and his friends just want a piece of the pie. Someone else might not even consider him successful.
Bottomline is its not very accurate to define human behavior by factors wich are largely defined by each individual.
Say you have a warrior tank, guild leader and decked out in togc25 gear, jewelcrafter and blacksmith, money in the bank. He runs the guild with a firm hand, and everybody in the guild is happy with this. Loot, progress and efficiency. In real life he's living alone, rarely leaves his appartment, and is living of his parents.
This guy fits into two of your categories on separate accounts, and questions your definitions in another way. And that is that people react differently to different situations. You do not take into account f.ex. knowledge of certain areas, confidence, social standing, religion, age, expectations, mood, mental issues etc.
Wow! Too long! Anyway, the only thing the experiment really tells us, from what I can read out of your posts, is that in the case that you are in an experiment, somewhere in the world, unknown country, age, gender and all, 75% answer the wrong answer to questions of probably no consequence to the people involved.
Where do racially motivated actions fall?
I see an old lady struggling with her shopping trolley, so i offer to help. If she's an old black/asian/hispanic lady I just walk on by.
@Smeg: The problem is not that you're NOT helping the black lady. The problem is that you're helping the white lady.
You wouldn't kick the black lady. The ape-subroutine driven discrimination is largely done via discriminated helping (for example donations to inland farmers what makes the African farmers starve)
Actually, my problem with this post is that from my point of view (a nerd's) it always seemed to me that socials are actually very unethical.
As in, every social person, does NOT believe in the crap they are showing others. It would certainly be a baffle for me to find out that socials genuinely believe in all those niceties they indulge themselves into, in order to be accepted by others.
They are all are lying... they are aware that these things are necessary to interact with others and they take pleasure out of the outcome(social integration).
The lack of skill and rationality of socials simply comes from a low IQ. Simply put, rationality is directly related to the grasp of Cartesian logic(unfounded personal understanding of the issue, correct me if I'm wrong), and more generally to mathematics. "I farmed it for free" is the best example...
This is where your definition of anti-social comes to a surprise for me.
To me:
Nerd = ethical + high-iq(=rational).
social = unethical + low-iq(=irrational)
anti-social = unethical, and ... what?
Okrane.S : So you define your own group to be the only ethical and intelligent group of humans... except for the possibility that some "anti-socials" might be evil masterminds.
I think you are missing a possible explanation for the results of the experiment. The subjects gave the same responses as the other people because it was more likely at the time that a large number of people were correct than that a large number of (presumed) strangers had all decided to collectively lie. The uneasiness they displayed was due to the fact that they were wrestling with this judgement, not that they were worried they would be not liked by the others.
While this reaction can lead to wrong answers, and should be thought about logically (like all social practices) instead of blindly followed, it is not neccessarily a bad practice, since in most cases it will lead to the correct answer without the need for more work.
If everyone is skipping a certain food at the buffet, I can assume they're right and skip it, or I can do work finding out why they are skipping it and then gather data to determine if their judgment is correct. If agreeing with them costs me less than doing that extra work, than I am making a rational decision with my own self interest as the goal, but it looks identical to a socially motivated action.
"You could make them BELIEVE that you care."
Don't have a reason to.
Or, rather, didn't find yet.
" i'm saying that i'm so anti-social that i have a constant need to say it."
Ths, actually, can be reworded to "[...]that i have a constant need to be heard of(about) it"
Semantics, i like it.
Pretty much spot on. I personally like the "loved" and "rational". It's the best way to get what you want.Essentially, self interest; which is what anyone really cares about.
Every action is motivated by self interest, even charity. The people that give to the poor aren't truly being selfless and caring, it's just that they feel much better doing so than having the money and seeing people begging on the streets.
@Nagbag: if you have no reason to, why do you comment it here. If you find absolutely no reason AND you are doing fine in your life (like they can't fire you from your job), than you are great!
BTW you were fooled by gevion with big i, a troll. Be more careful.
And I do not know why you keep, posting and deleting this little answer of yours...
I always believed that for you "anti-social" meant "nerd"(in your terms).
Now, with the current differentiation you've made its clearly not the case.
Therefore, if we refer back to my prior post where I wrote (which is a belief based on a lot of observations) that SOCIALS are actually UNETHICAL (i.e. liers in their interactions with other people at least - to ease up the term) that leaves me with the following dilemma:
socials = unethical and low-iq
anti-socials = unethical and high-iq.
So what you are actually saying is that you're using the same schemes as the socials do but put them into a better plan with your superior intelligence.
In other words you're just smart lier ..... in comparison with all the "socials" who are nothing but dumb liers ...
or, better yet, as you are rational (high iq) and they are not, you understand that the goal of their lies, i.e. social integration, is pretty much worthless and you use the same schemes as they for a greater result(profit), amirite?
All this to say that this post has confused me about your meaning of the term instead of clearing it... or maybe you were just trolling and letting people believe what they will of your random words... care to clear it up?
hahahaha gevion... awesome troll :D
I'm irracial (if there's such word) in every possible way.
I don't talk to personalities, i talk to theyr thoughts, expresses, sentences and challenge theyr logic. Only through arguin and careful evaluating pros and cons one can gain an answer. So yes, all this is useful to me and i have my pleasure reading this blog and comments.
When is your blog going to start being about wow economy/wow gold again? I have long been a reader and every day would boot up the curse client and your page. But lately, it's not worth it anymore. It almost seems your blog has become a "social" aspect in your life; your readers are your friends and you need to be this negative and this brimstone and hellfire in order to impress them to get the comments you need in order to be able to have a "conversation"(discussion? debate?) with your "friends"(readers). Maybe you aren't as antisocial as you would like everyone to believe? At any rate, can we get back to the useful information?
I must wonder how you explain very successful, highly social people? Because Oprah is renowned for her cutthroat business and hands off, ice cold management style.
You still write like a child. Ultimately the people who are most successful have excellent social skills and the ability to do their job very well.
I also admire your rampant self justification. Your method is better than any other method because it is your method. However Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (successful by any definition regardless of your personal feelings about either man) Have rich fulfilled personal lives, and are considered thoughtful, considerate reliable friends by their social circle. Between the two they have funded a foundation with the explicit goal of wiping out malaria, AIDS, and numerous fatal childhood diseases. So you tell me. Is your way better than their's, or just, like my 20 month old who I regularly guide and discipline, the ramblings of a child who thinks everything is mine, mine, mine couched in the language of superiority?
I don't think you understand the word "ethical" since your use of it is not correct.
This post reminds me of a course I took in university. Basically we took any reality and attempted to classify it into one of three categories.
The ultimate takeaway from that course: An argument can be made for any reality to be classified into any category.
Cheers!
CK
OK, It's me again... while writing my last post I actually started to understand the actual meaning of your post. Again I must point out to the main flaw of your arguments so far: poor choice of terminology.
I'm gonna try to rewrite a short version of my understanding of your post in a different manner.
First of all I shall move away from using words like ethical, loved and social because of their heavy connotations. I shall thus try to find a more proper wording to express my ideas.
Here goes:
<<
Human success can be usually described in regards to two major lines: professional and private life success. Professional includes financial gain and satisfaction by the means of one's job, whereas private life refers to the social interaction one has with the others around him, his friends and partners.
In relation to these two it becomes clear that a human person has two sets of skills which determine its capabilities to handle each aspect of his life.
So, let's denote by "rational" (usually measured by the IQ) the capability to answer professional needs.
and by "emotional" (usually measured by EQ) the capability to answer private needs.
Using these 2 categories lets try to explain yours:
Your "anti-social": emotional-rational
-High EQ, High IQ
-At best: corporate mastermind
-At worst: small time bussiness runner or scammer.
Basically a person smart enough to understand the way the world works and the way science works. This is why he will easily get in command, and reap the true benefits (profit)
Your "Nerd": unemotional-rational
-Low EQ, High IQ
-At best: cutting edge scientist, or top management employee
-At worst: grinder (like programmer etc)
High IQ will be the source of his success. Even though totally capable of leadership and management he will fail at gaining the love of others which will fail to put him in command. He will obtain a part of the profit, due to his capabilities
Your "social": emotional-irrational
-High EQ, Low IQ
-At best: clueless middle-management
-At worst: wellfare leech
This social could be a leader, except his Low IQ will fail to put him on top of nerds who will find his weaknesses. He would like to get profit but cannot and thus contends himself with gaining the love of others which he is good at.
Remaining category: unemotional-irrational
-Low EQ, Low IQ
-At best: drunk factory worker
-At worst: criminal.
Worst kind of M&S...Need I say more...
>>
With this set in, let me just point out the flaw...
Your "anti-social" is an emotional-rational person. If anything, in English, the word "anti-social" cannot describe someone who is, in my categories, "emotional". Your "anti-social" differs from your "social" just by a superior intelligence... which has nothing to do with being social or not in the first place.
In English, what you are trying to picture as "anti-social" is very much a social person.
Therefore I believe a rewording is needed.
May I suggest:
for "anti-social": rational-emotional or social-rational...
for "social": social-irrational or irrational-emotional.
It is improper terminology like this that gives your posts a poor quality.
some serious feedback at this would be appreciated
Gevlon, what happened man? You seem old and jaded now, where was that idealistic goblin who was out to change the world?
You're old posts railed against 'social' behaviors, and how everyone should ignore and overcome them. Now you seem to have given up on your utopia. Does the hope still burn, or is it gone and you've given up the fight to change the world?
@Gevlon
"You look down on the socials, you treat them as children: you let them do small mistakes and stop them only if they would harm themselves and others."
That's not treating people as children. That's treating them as normal, flawed humans. We all get things wrong from time to time. There's just no point in going on the attack over very tiny little mistake - it just annoys people to no good purpose.
A good example: I disagree with your use of the word "social" as a category to lump together anyone who makes a mistake. But if I argued about that every time I posted, we'd never get around to discussing the actual subject in hand. So I let it go and use your definition to avoid straying off-topic.
Gevlon, If you had 0 readers of GreedyGoblin would you still blog?
I am very curious...
Okrane: no they are NOT lying. Haven't you read the Asch experiment. They CAN believe in nonsense if others say so. You think they are lying because they change their mind very often. You think they have a solid opinion like you and when they say otherwise, they are lying. They don't. They simply don't have solid opinions. They BELIEVE what is appropriate.
Your re-write is correct, yet you don't see why EQ can be "learned"? (The emulation of IQ can be learned. If I study a lot, I can give just as good answers as someone who figured it out in 10 minutes). To have "high EQ" you must say irrational things. To do that you must either be irrational, or a liar. One of the major traits of pathological definition of anti-social is "superfacial charm, lies all the time for personal gains". That's what these "high EQ-high IQ" people do. The "high EQ - low IQ" people don't lie. They just stupid enough to believe what they say.
@csdx: no I didn't give up at all. I am now proving that you can't be "ethical" as long as they are around. I'm also encouraging the "loser nerds" to stop trying to help the socials with constructive critism. It doesn't help. Smile at them instead and sell arrows in stacks of 100
@Sven: what make you think that if you'd attack my wording I'd start a pitiful argument over it? You are doing it again: you believe that it's you who always must be "smarter" because the other is dumb or social enough to get offended. You CAN attack my wording. You CAN come up with better one.
@Jeff: Oprah is social to you??? Strange idea. You are also a close friend of Buffet and Gates if you know so much about them. Or you just read the articles their PR agents pay for?
@Dozenz: lying all the time is surely not ethical.
I wonder if Gevlon is a racist person, since he loves to throw people into categories.
He certainly seems to have no morals or motives other that attention and greed.
"The antisocial believes (and does) in the scientifically correct things but says the socially desired things. So he is "lucky" with jobs, money and health, but he is still loved and trusted by those who matter to him."
You are also missing a fourth part which is that to say the socially desired things, you must have social skills to do so in the first place. A rational could be very unethical (lieing all the time), but simply not have the social skills to succeed.
Have a look at
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/12/%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1-%E1%BF%A5%CE%B5%E1%BF%96/
It's related and in the context of this entry quite interesting.
[Willem Buiter
Professor of European Political Economy, London School of Economics and Political Science; former chief economist of the EBRD, former external member of the MPC; adviser to international organisations, governments, central banks and private financial institutions.]
If the communities you interact with require conformity before you can be socially accepted you're spending time with the wrong people. As staggering as this may seem, you can take on a mentoring role without having to patronise your companions.
How? Simple. If a misconception comes up that relates to an area that matches my skill set, I'll correct it. The reason I'm not treating my friends like children is that this relationship is reciprocal - there are plenty of times when I'll find myself corrected by them in areas where they are better informed than I am.
For example, I'm a lawyer, so if a misconception regarding the law or legal system comes up, I'm the go-to guy. I'm aware of my own limitations in IT and some of my companions are experts. I'm grateful when they improve my understanding by correcting misconceptions in that field.
In fact, your entire blog works on a similar premise. If everyone disliked being challenged, nobody would read it. You can be socially accepted without having to compromise your principles. Sure you might not be accepted by everyone, but guess what? Nobody is, not even the "socials" you're so fond of slamming.
@Gevlon
"what make you think that if you'd attack my wording I'd start a pitiful argument over it? You are doing it again: you believe that it's you who always must be "smarter" because the other is dumb or social enough to get offended. You CAN attack my wording. You CAN come up with better one."
I'm trying to focus on what you actually say, rather than what I imagine you might think, as that would be guesswork. I'm disagreeing with you and explaining why, with examples.
You have no idea what I think beyond what I write. Have I ever said that I "always must be smarter because the other is dumb"? Nope. That's just something you invented.
Hi Gevlon,
Just wanted to drop by and post for the first time. I found your blog around July and had a great time reading it whilst reaching my goal of the gold cap :)
I hit this goal on the 27th of July 2009, starting around the start of May. WoW had gotten stale for me so I set off for the challenge of reaching the gold cap :)
Just wanted to share the tips I can remember to your readers that actually work. I know they work, because they got me there.
1. I was profiting on inscription way before I found this blog, but it helped me pick up the use of quickauctions and use my time more efficiently. I played on Barthilas Server - US, and found that competition absolutely kills your time efficiency. During my gold time I was competing with around 5 other sellers + one Chinese gold farmer using the method. I managed to drive off 4 of the sellers within weeks with severe undercutting, but one wouldn't go away. She would log in as soon as I logged off and under cut me. In the end I just resorted to making a banker with a ridiculous name with altcode symbols in the name just to make sure she couldn't track me when I was online/logged off. I recommend this. The other seller was a farmer, I knew this because at any time in the day I would log in and he'd be in the same spot (TB auction tent) on his DK mount. Every single day, at any time, all day. Only time I saw him move was when he'd run to bank/post box. I guess the farmers have found this method.
2. Second tip is capitalize on the average person's impatience. During the month I managed to snag many, many greatness decks at around 4k-4.5k. I would then wait the obligatory 2-3 weeks(cant remember exactly), and then flip them for 5.5k+, averaging at least 6k a sale. Most I sold one for was 7k. This method made me a decent margin of my 214k.
3. Saronite->Rings->Dust. Was doing this last year haha, absolutely dominating Barthilas. Think I was the first one to do it on Barthilas, and got my first Mammoth by this method. Then I quit, came back and method was still working, just more people had caught on. Don't know what the 3.3 patch has done to this method, as I no longer play.
4. Leatherworking-> Dark Leggings (?) -> Dream Shard.
Easy money making method. Buy borean leather, craft heavy, craft those leggings that require water/air and then de into the guaranteed dream shard. Back when dream shards were 18g, borean leather 6g.
5. Flipping items. Works. I suggest testing lower valued items to build your confidence, before moving to larger volume/ risk. I started off around level 10 flipping copper bar stacks, before at the end flipping saronite and epics. Margin is large, but you need patience and confidence. If your the type to worry about things excessively this isnt for you.
6. Monopolize a market. I know you don't recommend this, but I tried it and it can work. I had a few trials with it, starting off with mithril ore and frost lotus. Mithril Ore was a complete failure, and frost lotus was a decent profit. My advice here is to choose a niche market. My favourite thing to monopolize was truesilver ore. I would buyout the auction house and relist it in stacks of 5 for 50g. I would laugh as the people who abuse me would the turn up buying the stuff. Never underestimate the impatience of the average player.
7. Freya's room herbing. I had some correspondence with a mid level guild who would let me into their Ulda save and harvest herbs in Freya's room. Quite interesting and nice money.
8. Never do something that bores you. I had interest in flipping items so I had a great time doing it. Flying endless circles around Sholazar/Icecrown just managed to get me annoyed and bored and so I gave up early.
9. Cooking recipes/Enchanting Recipes. Buy, resell higher. Just make sure the time effort is worth it.
10. Enchanting rods. Wow. Selling the rods for 50/100g was just ridiculous and over the top. Was amusing to see all the people buy them.
So there are some tips for your readers. Hope they were still relevant and interesting. Much thanks for the interesting reading in your blog Gevlon. Wish you all much success in my goals :)
Woops, one more tip. Most important I could remember.
11. CAPITALIZE on the Chinese farmers. Couldn't remember the countless times a farmer has sold me his whole bank for ~50% of market value if I said "how much for all". Always whisper the farmers asking "how much do you have", "how much for all", for people selling excessive amounts of ore/leather/herbs.
Much love :)
Except that people can't play a role for a while without, eventually, becoming it. How do you get around that? This process of making yourself likable through deception seems to encourage ape-subroutines.
More specifically how does spending billions of dollars to save lives of people you have never met, will never meet, and may not use the gift of life you have given them in a way you approve of mean anything but complete M&S behavior in your worldview?
As for how do I know the kind of people Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are? Regardless of resources no one maintains the reputation Messers Buffet and Gates have by ruling with and iron fist that would make Kim Jong Il squeamish.
More to the point, prove their publicity wrong, it should be easy. In the age of the internet the government with the most advanced computer technology on the planet cannot keep websites and records 100% secure, how on earth can Messers Buffet and Gates. Show me the proof that they are manipulative amoral evil geniuses who would kill their own children to get ahead if that is what it takes.
ASCH experiment was extended. The participant and stooges were in different rooms and 'quesiotns' came up on a screen (judgements about colour as in ASCH's experiment).
Despite never meeting the other participatns, nor ever meeting them afterwards, the participants still conformed to the majority.
Reasons for this I believe are because we rely upon other people interpretation of the world because our senses can fool us. Literally we cant believe our eyes when others convince you of a false face. Many opitcal illusions will show how our senses can be tricked by circumstances. The logic comes from working out what must be happening when there is a conflict of stimuli.
Post a Comment