The Pug update:
If you want such bosses, we are permanently recruiting, just read the rules!
The daily blink comics reminded me of nepotism. The word nepotism is coming from "nephew" (in latin nepos), and means promoting and rewarding relatives and friends instead of people with merit.
The mentioned comic is a joke version of guild finder and has two options "GM's girlfriend is in the raid" and "GM's girlfriend is the same class and spec as you", obviously referring to the common issue that the GM's friends, especially the girlfriend is carried by the raid and has priority on loot.
Nepotism is something that I couldn't understand in general. I never felt any connection towards relatives just because they are relatives. But let's get to the mentioned point that is so cliche that it is satirized in a comic: girlfriend in raid. My girlfriend plays in the guild and raids too. She is usually damage #1 or #2. She gets loot just as everyone else: gold bid (and I bid against her for tier shoulder yesterday). She is rotated out if there is competition for raid spot.
The point is not "look how ethical I am"! Ethical would mean that for moral reasons I do against my personal preference. However - and that is the point - this treatment is obvious to me and I never thought of doing otherwise. I mean I have to think hard to understand why others favor their girlfriends in getting a raid spot or loot.
The answer that any social person would say: "you love your girlfriend and don't want to hurt her feelings". The answer is wrong and social at three points. No it's not "love" per se. Let's just skip this part by defining "love" as "valuing and wanting to continue the relationship with someone".
The first social part is "skipping her from raid or giving loot to other would hurt her feelings". I skip raids myself and it doesn't hurt my feelings. If someone else will raid in my place this week, what do I lose? Content? The boss is the same as previous and next week. There are two reasons why someone would feel bad for being benched for a boss: feeling excluded from a group (of friends) or loot. Now what is "loot" good for? To raid more. It's redundant. However for a social, loot is status symbol. There are even toplists for highest ilvl people, like it matters. Their bosskills matter. Their loot is just a tool. Not for socials! They want loot for itself, just like they want totally useless mounts and pets. So if you are a-social, you won't feel bad for being rotated out.
But the second is more important: "you don't want to hurt her feelings". To continue the relationship I shall preserve her well-being and not irrational feelings. Who is helping you more? A drug-dealer or a dentist? The first definitely give you better feelings. If my girlfriend is irrationally hurt for not getting a free ride to free loot, am I doing her a good service by giving her these? I think helping her understand that there is no free lunch and teach her to get her own loot is much better for her. If someone you love is making something stupid, you should stop him/her despite not being supportive definitely will hurt his/her feelings. The stupid thing would cause real damage.
The third is related to "helping" itself. Could I love her if she would suck in an activity that she spend so much effort on? Do I want to be connected to someone who can't even learn a damn video game despite trying (not playing at all is a completely different issue). The answer is obviously no. If I can't tolerate M&S in a 1-hour dungeon run, why would I tolerate one in my real life for years?! It comes down to the core social idea: "valuing people just because they are people (with feelings), and not for merit". I value people after their actions. I expect my girlfriend to be successful and effective in things she does with effort.
Being social guarantees nepotism, while being a-social makes you naturally immune to it.
Oh wait, the above reasoning says nothing about nepotism, as socials feel the same way about everyone. Why do they support relatives then and not random strangers? Simple: they spent much time with them and now they are connected. It has nothing to do with being blood relatives, that's why they carry "friends" who are not relatives. It should be called "friendism".
If you want such bosses, we are permanently recruiting, just read the rules!
The daily blink comics reminded me of nepotism. The word nepotism is coming from "nephew" (in latin nepos), and means promoting and rewarding relatives and friends instead of people with merit.
The mentioned comic is a joke version of guild finder and has two options "GM's girlfriend is in the raid" and "GM's girlfriend is the same class and spec as you", obviously referring to the common issue that the GM's friends, especially the girlfriend is carried by the raid and has priority on loot.
Nepotism is something that I couldn't understand in general. I never felt any connection towards relatives just because they are relatives. But let's get to the mentioned point that is so cliche that it is satirized in a comic: girlfriend in raid. My girlfriend plays in the guild and raids too. She is usually damage #1 or #2. She gets loot just as everyone else: gold bid (and I bid against her for tier shoulder yesterday). She is rotated out if there is competition for raid spot.
The point is not "look how ethical I am"! Ethical would mean that for moral reasons I do against my personal preference. However - and that is the point - this treatment is obvious to me and I never thought of doing otherwise. I mean I have to think hard to understand why others favor their girlfriends in getting a raid spot or loot.
The answer that any social person would say: "you love your girlfriend and don't want to hurt her feelings". The answer is wrong and social at three points. No it's not "love" per se. Let's just skip this part by defining "love" as "valuing and wanting to continue the relationship with someone".
The first social part is "skipping her from raid or giving loot to other would hurt her feelings". I skip raids myself and it doesn't hurt my feelings. If someone else will raid in my place this week, what do I lose? Content? The boss is the same as previous and next week. There are two reasons why someone would feel bad for being benched for a boss: feeling excluded from a group (of friends) or loot. Now what is "loot" good for? To raid more. It's redundant. However for a social, loot is status symbol. There are even toplists for highest ilvl people, like it matters. Their bosskills matter. Their loot is just a tool. Not for socials! They want loot for itself, just like they want totally useless mounts and pets. So if you are a-social, you won't feel bad for being rotated out.
But the second is more important: "you don't want to hurt her feelings". To continue the relationship I shall preserve her well-being and not irrational feelings. Who is helping you more? A drug-dealer or a dentist? The first definitely give you better feelings. If my girlfriend is irrationally hurt for not getting a free ride to free loot, am I doing her a good service by giving her these? I think helping her understand that there is no free lunch and teach her to get her own loot is much better for her. If someone you love is making something stupid, you should stop him/her despite not being supportive definitely will hurt his/her feelings. The stupid thing would cause real damage.
The third is related to "helping" itself. Could I love her if she would suck in an activity that she spend so much effort on? Do I want to be connected to someone who can't even learn a damn video game despite trying (not playing at all is a completely different issue). The answer is obviously no. If I can't tolerate M&S in a 1-hour dungeon run, why would I tolerate one in my real life for years?! It comes down to the core social idea: "valuing people just because they are people (with feelings), and not for merit". I value people after their actions. I expect my girlfriend to be successful and effective in things she does with effort.
Being social guarantees nepotism, while being a-social makes you naturally immune to it.
Oh wait, the above reasoning says nothing about nepotism, as socials feel the same way about everyone. Why do they support relatives then and not random strangers? Simple: they spent much time with them and now they are connected. It has nothing to do with being blood relatives, that's why they carry "friends" who are not relatives. It should be called "friendism".
29 comments:
Oh, I beg to differ. Nepotism is a series of unwritten contracts for favours. (Favourable treatment to GM's girlfriend may be certain types of unpublishable favours.)
There are justifiable reasons to help boost / provide favourable treatment to IRL friends or people that you are in constant contact with, because it creates the social obligation for them to return the favourable treatment to you. It's not about who 'deserves' what, it's about 'I help you, you help me, and we both profit'.
Perfect example - you and a guildmate run a random dungeon. Item drops which is an upgrade for him, but not for you. As someone who is self-interested, your optimal strategy is to need the item and provide / sell it to your friend, because you either get gold, or you get a favour.
You can expect A LOT of social rage here Gevlon about how much a supposedly selfish unsupportive deuchebag you are but that's the usual bread so straight to the point.
I fully agree with you and even if I wished so I couldn't more.
RL > in-game. That's social rule#1. If words spread out that you dissed your GF in a video game over a video game rules then you should be well aware that her friends will make sure you will turn into a geeky laughstock who values "games" over real life woman. Ofcourse any sane person knows its more to it then just that but yeah... sane person, rare as much as on the internet.
"Who would bother to read some geeky blog or take that geek seriously?"
I think the quotation above is enough to make my point understandable for you.
Wow. You are cold. I always thought girls wanted diamond rings and this sounds like you didn't even gave her a silver one. I guess yours is set for less!
I'd also try everything available to give my RL friends / GF the loot instead of some dude/dudette i don't know.
Just can't help it, stenghtens the relation youknow.. having fun sharing loot with friends seeing eachothers characters grow stronger...
Then teaming up afterwards with your new shinies to kick some alliance butt
I entirely agree with you Gevlon.
Co-dependency in a relationship is often unhealthy, whereas a mutual respect and desire to be together because you want to be not because you can't cope on your own is far more honest.
I disagree Squish, nepotism applies where an unwritten agreement exists because it is a family relationship not friends, guildies or colleagues. Semantics perhaps because the principle remains the same, however, I believe Gevlon's definition is correct.
You went with 3 or 2 healers to down Cho'? Positioning in 2º phase? What was the dps'media for the kill try? Did you get 4 or 5 big adds in the 1º phase?
I'm asking because in my guild we're struggling in this boss.Bad, very very bad rooster we have. This is just for statistical info.
Thanks anyway, gratz for the kill and for your nepotism' explanation from an a-social point of view. I also never understood this, how could promoting a stupid and bad attitude be not hurting a friend/girlfriend/brother/s feelings?
@Squishalot: the mutually benefical ninjaing can't explain bringing a failing girlfriend to raid. Her presence decrease the chance of the kill.
@Saurfaraway: added a little detail to the text.
Chewy: "I disagree Squish, nepotism applies where an unwritten agreement exists because it is a family relationship not friends, guildies or colleagues. Semantics perhaps because the principle remains the same, however, I believe Gevlon's definition is correct."
I disagree with you (in case there was any doubt!). The difference is that the 'favour' is often repaid in the form of affection and social currency. We're inherently raised to trade favours for positive future utility - the same reason that you can train a dog to sit or shake is the same reason we offer favours to others - this has worked all our lives, so we're 'trained' to do so, even if we don't consciously do so.
@ Gevlon: Yes it can. You increase your chances of obtaining loot from 1/X to 2/X (in a non-GDKP raid, where X is the number of players who are allowed to roll on that item). As long as the probability of the raid wiping remains at least half of what it would be had you not brought her along, you are getting a positive return on her presence.
Of course, with Cata raids, this means that she can languish in DPS ranks, as long she can move out of fire.
Squishalot, you are confusing nepotism with plain ol' corruption: and out of those two, napotism is really the irrational one, since the one doing the nepotiizing (sic!) might not even get any real "compensation" for usurping whatever power they have (yes, including sexual favors you implied).
But back on topic. What is truly remarkable is that you Gevlon completely missed the underlying meaning of that joke: that at least some (if not all) female gamers only *can* get loot if it is provided by some kind of "unlawful" machination of their provider-boyfriends.
Moreover, it implies that it is only the women that employ such emotional-blackmail tactics that make their raidleading boyfriends turn into laughable weaklings.
And more-moreover, it implies that only males (and lesbian-females!) are in fact raid-leaders.
I laughed at the joke when I saw it - because of course, jokes need to use and expose the common or the stereotypical of the material they deal with. But laughing at it, and understanding where it comes from, does not prevent me from seeing the underlying and unintended implications too.
Thing is, you also stick to the female-male paradigm in your analysis - why is that? I am sure that there are many many more examples of nepotism between the M&S males ("we palyed togetherz since MC lulz") in the overwhelming majority of guilds. I guess it is because that relationship (male friends) does not bring out the "ugly" as well as the one with implied sexual overtones.
Also, admiring your honesty about not supporting your girlfriend in things she is bad at but insists on keep doing. Applied to myself, I would/did start despising the man that contributed and feeded my inability to admit failure/unableness.
There are two reasons why someone would feel bad for being benched for a boss: feeling excluded from a group (of friends) or loot.
There is a third: not being able to do what I like to do (raid)/feel like doing at that moment; and have to go do something else. It's something I prefer over a night of watching TV, do something else in the game, etc ...
Squish - I agree that we are inherently raised to trade favours but the trade is expected to provide a mutual benefit either current or future.
Nepotism is the offering of favours simply because of a family relationship whether it offers benefit or not. If your argument is that there is always a benefit to the benefactor then I can kind of see your point but strictly speaking that isn't nepotism. (I did mention that we might be into the semantics here).
Think of game theory. The GM gains extra by favoring friends and family if and when the situation is in reverse. Either it is a favor or gold or even a social thing like a GF's 'love'.
In the loot council the GM gets favored if he favors the council (or council's friend).
My guild has been struggeling with Cho'gall for quite some time now and I'm really ashamed that we're nowhere near close to a kill even with voice chat. Sigh ... maybe I should really consider joining The PuG.
On another note, I think that Zenga has an excellent point which you frequently seem to forget:
There is a third: not being able to do what I like to do (raid)/feel like doing at that moment; and have to go do something else. It's something I prefer over a night of watching TV, do something else in the game, etc ...
The raiding game can be seen as a life-style choice. Something one plans ahead, so being benched for whatever reason is unacceptable. I choose to raid (and do only that!) on those specific nights of the week.
@ chewy: I'm happy to agree with you on the definition of nepotism, if you'd agree that, in that case, it's not nepotism that Gevlon is observing in-game, but simply a subconscious trade for future benefits.
@Squishalot: if I favor X, I naturally "un-favor" the others. It's true that X may return the favor, but all the others will hate me.
Such system is only benefical if
* X has the power to return the favor
* the "others" will not have the power to punish me for favoring X
"Being social guarantees nepotism, while being a-social makes you naturally immune to it."
Bullshit. I am as social as they come, but I show my wife I love her by going the extra mile for things she values, not by stealing video game doodads from other people with minimal effort.
You've totally missed the point of nepotism. It arises when a person in power calculates (accurately or not) that personal loyalty at some future date is worth more than technical competence in the present. The fact that this can be to the detriment of everyone else is not that person's problem. Therefore it is entirely consistent with goblin values.
@ Gevlon: Of course, and that's why I used the example of the random dungeon - you're grouped with three other people whom you're likely never to see again.
Even in a raiding environment, they're not likely to take action against you (i.e. the GM) as in the social world, it would result in repercussions on the members who complain about being 'un-favoured'.
Even if it were pure nepotism, you'd still get negative reaction from those you're raiding with. So the fact that such raids occur with 'RL's gf in raid' suggests that others do not have the power to punish the RL / GM, and therefore, it's appropriate for the GM to consider that in their decision-making.
"We're inherently raised to trade favours for positive future utility - the same reason that you can train a dog to sit or shake is the same reason we offer favours to others - this has worked all our lives, so we're 'trained' to do so, even if we don't consciously do so."
And then those who decide to take advantage of this system are referred to as s.o.b. or goblins.
Perhaps I simply view things differently from the norm, but nepotism is by no means an issue of social vs not social. In fact, I'd say that nepotism is the epitome of selfishness/enlightened self interest.
Entering a relationship is all about the extension of self. At its heart, a relationship is 'you + me become we/us'. This is very different from other social interaction, where cooperation and finding mutual benefit rules. Within a relationship, self interest is what's good for US. The idea of finding mutual benefit between a couple is as absurd as the idea of having to choose my actions to find benefit for and seek accord between my right arm and my left foot.
In a raid, or in any action in life, we will seek benefit for us, and we will advocate for us as fiercely any individual would advocate for himself.
So yes, certainly you should favor your g/f over other random friends. Self-interest demands that you favor that which is part of your sense of self.
Also, your comment about whether you could love someone who isn't good at something she spends a lot of time working on is just silly. That's almost troll bait, I'd say. M&S are bad at playing, but that doesn't mean everyone who's bad at playing are M&S. Fallacy of the undistributed middle!
I'm sure you could overlook poor hand/eye coordination in your g/f just as much as she could overlook a poor singing voice or an inability to appreciate opera or whatever in you.
There are 'worthy' people who still suck at this or that. Imperfection in one small area doesn't mean they are tainted and unlovable.
I don't think nepotism is a social concept but rather a evolutionary reality. My relatives contain many of my genes, it is in my distinct advantage to give them aid to further the transmission of those genes. By giving favors to family members I can "selfishly" promote the furthering of my own genes and ensure better survival. Likewise they will do the same for my offspring and the cycle will continue, theoretically creating the best possible environment for the "family".
Obviously there are exceptions to this, since we have freewill and it can be more beneficial to eliminate a distant relatives advantage to further your own.
As a side note, I don't really like nepotism. It just exists.
This may be an odd post to trigger this thought, Gevlon, but I think that the asocial vs M&S paradigm suffers from being too granular.
I don't think it's wise to model behaviour as if there were an M&S "gene" that you either carry or you do not. The majority of people I interact with tend to fall somewhere in a two-dimensional gradient of skill and social-dom. They shift their position slightly depending on context, too.
As a social player myself, I didn't find it offensive or shocking that you'd refuse to give your girlfriend special treatment with regard to loot or whatever. I'd personally find those sorts of favours highly annoying, as they imply I need the help, they taint my accomplishment and of course they taint the social regard others have for me.
What is stupid is your statement that you'd find it difficult to tolerate your girl if she (hypothetically) failed at something she spent a lot of time working on. I think we all have finite aptitudes to various things we do, and the quality of her perseverance at some activity for which she just isn't suited ought to outweigh the mediocre outcome of her efforts. A common bit of wisdom in military leadership is that grunts (the tenacious strugglers) make better soldiers than gazelles. (the naturally talented who breeze through training)
I think the real reason is self interest. Bringing the girlfriend means she won't disturb him with another activity because she is not raiding. It also means he has not killed his chance for getting lucky.
"Being social guarantees nepotism, while being a-social makes you naturally immune to it."
I also call bullshit on this statement. But not because of your definition of nepotism.
You cannot just DECIDE to be either social or a-social as you define them. And it's certainly not a binary state of being, anyway.
Our ability to react or not to react to a social pressure is generally referred to as maturity, and takes a lot of effort, insight, and self-confidence to develop over time.
You make it sound like a button you can turn on/off.
@Michael: extended self don't explains it all. Most people don't ninja for himself. Why do they ninja to their girlfriends?
@Michael: extended self don't explains it all. Most people don't ninja for himself. Why do they ninja to their girlfriends?
Err... duh? Tit-for-tat.
As you said a few posts ago, everyone you can consider a "friend" in WoW is a (virtual) coworker; they can leave at any time for any reason, rendering any accumulated social capital with them useless. Conversely, your girlfriend shares your bed (hopefully), and kindnesses in-game can translate into real-world reciprocity. And vice versa, of course - in-game snubs can lead to sleeping on the couch IRL.
Re: Nepotism, we can over-complicate things, or we can simply use the cliche "You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family." This seems like a negative, but generally speaking, your family will be the one group most likely to tolerate your bullshit, help you at personal cost to themselves, and otherwise be stable allies in your corner. Obviously the family relationship gets twisted from time to time, but when it works, it works extremely well.
I think most of us have family members who have some desirable skill (mechanic, computer repair, accountant, lawyer, etc) we have used in the past for free. That is basically nepotism.
So... you'd ditch your girlfriend if she took up a hobby that she wasn't good at?
I'm afraid Gevlons theory here goes against thousands of years of evolution. The human race has become the dominant race on the plant because of Nepotism!
Our urge to protect and favor our own kin/tribe/country over others is what has allowed mankind to grow to the level it has.
That's pretty basic and accepted anthropology.
If people were all a-social we would still be a bunch of dumb ass naked solitary hunters eating raw frogs in the forest.
@Last anonymous: I don't question that. However now we don't need it anymore, just like hair on our face/legs. Without it we would have frozen. But it doesn't mean we should look like monkeys.
@previous anonymous: I would keep helping/critcizing/advising her until she get better or gets enough and leaves me.
@ Gevlon: I'm still waiting for you to respond to myself and everyone else who is noting that what you refer to as nepotism is nothing more than opportunistic behaviour, especially when you have authoritative power (e.g. the "others" cannot punish you for favouring "X").
Post a Comment