Greedy Goblin

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

A-social =/= alone

At first I dismissed them as trolls. But there were so many "you have a girlfriend, you must be social" or "you have a blog, you must be social" comments that I have to accept it as a widespread concern, despite being bizarre to me.

Two soldiers are not 2x stronger than one, that's why they don't wander around alone.
Specializing in tasks increases our overall performance, see comparative advantage.
In rare emergency situations we need help of other people.
Due to lack of artificial intelligence, we can only discuss ideas with other people.
These are just a few examples out of the million ways where cooperating with other people is a positive-sum action and bring us closer to our goals. Forfeiting these advantages because they include interaction with other people would be quite dumb. Other people are objectively existing entities, discriminating against them is completely unjustified.

But then who is "social" if everyone should cooperate with people? Simple: socials don't cooperate with people, they are with people. Socials put the cart ahead of the horse, they don't seek people to solve a problem together or get mutual advantage, but just because they are people. This can (and usually do) reach the bizarre position when they stick to people who have absolutely no utility (the morons and slackers) or even harmful to them (abusive relationships).

Another distinctive quality of a social relationship is that the social finds the partner unique and irreplaceable, despite it's obviously not true. With an a-social mind, even if the partner is the best available (well, it's just optimal to pick the best available), there must be a second best available to pick if the current one fails. For a social the replacement is pretty hard and usually a long crying period happens before even the seeking for replacement starts.

Finally, socials wish to be liked by their partners and very much prefer partners who like them over partners who are actually useful. Salesmen are a perfect example of partners who are outright harmful (will scam your money out of your pocket), but people prefer to "cooperate" with them due to their excellent ability to show (fake) respect and liking to their targets.

Finally, the "magic question", to decide if a relationship is utilitarian or social: "would it matter if your partner would be replaced with an android capable of the same stuff?"


PS: fitting advice from SMA: always use T1 guns and T1 ammo in your marauder.
Fitting advice from GSF: always use deadspace and faction items on an AFK Ishtar.
Fitting advice from LAWN: always be cap stable.
I guess the proper ship is fitted with deadspace cap recharges and T1 guns. I can't wait to see it!

17 comments:

Provi Miner said...

Wow that was horrible gob's gotta hand it to you.

because I like you I feel that you need to reexamine your position.

Lets break it down.

Here are your choices:

The most brilliant assistant you have ever had but you argue endless with them fight over every aspect of every detail, what you do produce is near perfect but due to the stress and conflict involved with getting everything tracking perfect your production sucks ass.

A good assistant who is more concerned with getting things done rather than being perfect and right. Here you production is solid the idea are useful you can accomplish a lot.

A suck ass assistant who is totally concerned with kissing your arse and gives a flip about doing anything useful. your production is bad (not as bad as the first paring but far worse than the second paring) The quality is only as good as you make it,

Your post makes it clear you see people fall either into the suckass group (socials) or the most useful (the utilitarian folks).

you miss the 40% that actually is good both in and about things. Helpful in the tasks, yet responsive and useful for real life.

So Rearden said...

Firstly I don't even know what you are talking about when you use the term "social" because you are being vague and using non essential units when trying to define the term. Define it in terms of genus and species would be preferable.

I completely disagree with you in regard to unique and irreplaceable. Just on simple physical attributes most people are completely different. Also, each individual is responsible for his own mind and thinking, people are volitional. As a result each person's mental content is unique to them. Since each individual is unique, and you only have a certain context of knowledge in regard to the person, that fact requires a specific valuation. Also you are wrong to mock people crying about losing someone who matters to them. Emotions are an automatic appraisal of your values, an effect of them to be taken as a secondary consequence. There is however a type of person who takes them as causeless and as a primary and is more akin to the type you try define in your social category.

There is however a concept Rand defined known as a "sense of life" that has to be taken into account. See the lexicon for more on the term http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sense_of_life.html. See also, Rand on love.http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html. Rand's basic point is that someone's specific view of themselves in relation to the world can be an enormous value to you in terms of concretizing a specific view of existence and that love is the response to that enormous sum that a sense of life represents.

Also I really don't understand you android-human distinction question. If they both act the same they have the same nature and are the same thing. If not then they are different and as such require a different valuation.

Gevlon said...

@Provi Miner: I'm quite aware that the World is not black or white, but to write a post, you must talk about archetypes who are. Also, there is no fighting with the brilliant assistant. Arguments over measurable things (like a ship fit) isn't a fight as no emotions are involved and the other one responds to arguments. Fighting happens against socials who ignore arguments and stick to what they've learned and accepted as axioms.

@So Rearden: "socials" aren't defined here, try the main page: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/p/from-m-to-rational-play-to-win.html
I'm also fully aware that emotions are an automatic appraisal of your values. I mock socials exactly because they value their connections to people instead of the goal they built the connection for.

"If they both act the same they have the same nature and are the same thing." is obvious to us, but absolutely not to socials. They spend most of their time trying to figure out internal states (feelings) of people. "Does s/he really loves me?" is their favorite question, despite the utility they receive from a "truly loving" partner is the same as they receive from one who cheats on them without their knowledge.

Arrendis said...

Arguments over measurable things (like a ship fit) isn't a fight as no emotions are involved and the other one responds to arguments.

Unless one side exhibits a propensity for refusing to admit error. Someone can be absolutely brilliant and yet possess a massive blind spot where their own efforts are concerned. Alternately, two very intelligent, but socially underdeveloped people can completely miss that they are seeking subtly different goals, and wind up clashing often because of an inability to properly communicate.

Arrendis said...

"Does s/he really loves me?" is their favorite question, despite the utility they receive from a "truly loving" partner is the same as they receive from one who cheats on them without their knowledge.

This is untrue. A partner who is unfaithful is unfaithful - they have demonstrated a willingness to betray any trust you place in them. Thus, they cannot be trusted not to be stealing from you as well, or deceiving you in order to mask counterproductive behaviors. Loyalty and social bonding reduces the potential for counterproductive behavior by ensuring that each partner actively wishes to ensure the well-being and success of the other.

Further, 'if they both act the same they have the same nature and are the same thing' is only true when you can measure the totality of their actions - the partner who is faithful, and the partner whose indiscretions you remain unaware of are not acting the same, you are simply oblivious to the harmful behavior being perpetrated against you.

Gevlon said...

@Arrendis: One who refuses to admit error is a useless person and should be avoided. He is usually kept for social reasons.

Alternatively if he provides utility in other fields, the proper approach is not arguing with him, let things happen his way (assuming of course that his way is more profitable than not having him).

Gevlon said...

@Arrendis: they can't betray trust never placed in them. You might noticed that I don't have high expectations from people.

Not stealing from me is guaranteed by lawful punishment and not social bonds. See how far trust goes in EVE where stealing is not punished.

Counterproductive behaviors can't be masked, because their effect is obvious (something fails). If I'm unaware of a harmful behavior, it's not harmful as it's pretty impossible to be unaware of harm done to you.

Zaxin said...

" With an a-social mind, even if the partner is the best available (well, it's just optimal to pick the best available), there must be a second best available to pick if the current one fails"

So a-socials form no attachments to their partners?

That would be those incapable of emotions, not those who do not need social interaction.

The reason "socials" cry when a long term relationship breaks down is the same reason that you probably do not understand why people cry when friends/relatives die. A relationship ending is considered similar to a bereavement. You may not form emotional attachments to family or your partner, but, that is not a-social behavior.

I am one of the individuals who says that you are social because of the way you blog, you misunderstand it to mean that I say "You are social because you have a blog". This is incorrect. An a-social individual can write a blog, but they are not worried about convincing others of their arguments by using emotive language. I say that you are social because you are intent on convincing others of your success with your projects, that your posts are not purely based on logical arguments (Goons are evil, I must destroy them, look how good I am at destroying them).
I say that you are social because you care about what other people are doing in the game "Look at how I am going to make fun of this person who I do not know, care about or have ever encountered in game".
Your posts are not dispassionate, your posts are full of emotion, they are full of dislike towards Goons.
An a-social would not care about what Goons or any other group are doing in game, and most certainly would not care enough to post many articles deriding them. They would rather post factual articles which the reader can take or leave, without the need to sell a product.
You are selling that goons are evil and must be destroyed, because you have taken a personal dislike to them.
You have posted numerous times about how many people are reading your blog, or how many people are in your channel, or how many people are donating to your cause. If you do not care about what others think, why do you need to show how successful you are by using a social metric?
Even using your wealth as a "Look how successful I am" is a highly social trait. Why do you care if someone thinks you are rich or poor in game, or in real life? Do you need their acceptance and approval?

There are many individuals who wish to portray themselves as not feeling emotions. A small subset of these are actually Patrick Bateman, the remainder are Renfields.

Gevlon said...

@Zaxin: if I write to people, I must use the language of people. I could always write "the Goons who openly deny meritocracy and claim that nepotism and unquestioned obedience is the proper way of living", but it's much longer than "Evil Goons".

I never claimed that destroying Goons is a selfish goal. I stated openly that it's a "make the World better" goal, something I wish to contribute to the mankind. I mean not beating some guys in a video game, but teaching people that nepotism and obedience is actually performing worse than meritocracy and what could be better way to do it than beating up those who spearhead nepotism and obedience?!

Also, unless I wish to preach to the choir, I must somehow take the attention of socials, which can only be done their way: "look how successful I am". Without that they wouldn't even consider my statements.

Hanura H'arasch said...

@Zaxin: "There are many individuals who wish to portray themselves as not feeling emotions. A small subset of these are actually Patrick Bateman, the remainder are Renfields."

This is stupid, you're born a psychopath, I don't see how you could become one (brain surgery maybe?). What you can do however, is not letting emotions intervene with relevant decisions of yours.

Besides, where is the point in trying to portray yourself as a psychopath? Seems like "See how great I am!" all over again.

maxim said...

In this formulation, socials come across as strawmen that don't actually exist outside of maybe mental institutions. Nobody who is sane is deindividualised to that extent, no matter your opinion of them.

Another issue is that you are being very binary - either social or not, no place in between. Actual living humans cannot ever be described in such binary terms.

Void said...

Well you can't be surprised by people wondering about this.

Given that you favour certain qualities in partners spending time to find the best possible one, even if done on instinct, is a justifiable investment of time. Even more general given that you already agree that you might need other people cultivating skills that put you in a high social position gives you more oppertunity to access them as ressource (workforce, protection, mates etc..).

Interstingly enough this beeing strongly related to procreation/genetically strong offspring most poeple don't have to be told/need this kind of justification - except a) they actually do not care, which is an anomaly and usually medically diagnosed in the first world at some point or another or b) they do care, but they lack the talent to actually justify investing time into improving "hanging out" and instead go for hard skills/sciences (and this still is an approach to increase social rank, just indirectly, looking for respect -- nerds, spaceships...).

On the other hand it seems reasonable to reevaluate how much value you get out of beeing social in an internet game - but given that you think about this stuff usually starting in your 20s it is unlikely that one is going to change one's fundamental, by now, ingrained behaviour patterns (esp on a micro rather than macro level).

Alessandro said...

I fall for the magic question (I would not replace, I'm a bit social I guess)

But consider an evil variation:

"If your girlfriend could be replaced by a perfect android that does everything - somethings even better, but there's a catch: your girlfriend will be killed in the process".

I think even you would not accept such replacement, because of a empathetic link for your girlfriend. Does feelings count as social? Since they clobber rational thinking.

Gevlon said...

@Alessandro: if the android does everything she does, then she isn't killed as the android would be her. It would be the same person in a new, enhanced body.

I would gladly transfer my own self into an android body that knows no illness, disability or death.

Anonymous said...

I would gladly transfer my own self into an android body that knows no illness, disability or death.

be careful what you wish for. Death is a good thing. Without death, living has no meaning.

Anonymous said...

Off topic a little but there is nothing wrong with that ishtar fit apart from the fact the pilot was afk. Em defense against santa mara and his gang of merry laser captors. cap stable because it matters in pve and a cloak to hide from passing roams. Also a cyno so the rest of theta squad can dog pile in if tackled. it's actually a great fit. too bad he was probably watching porn at the time he died.

Anonymous said...

" if the android does everything she does, then she isn't killed as the android would be her. It would be the same person in a new, enhanced body

I would gladly transfer my own self into an android body that knows no illness, disability or death."

That's a very strange point of view to take. Even if all your qualities are copied by an android, you would still be you and still be in your own body. If you are replaced by a machine and subsequently killed, you simply will be dead, while the machine will (pretend to) live your life. Your consciousness is tied to YOUR body, not to something that has some vague similarity to you.

Besides, I find it rather worrying that you skirted Alessandro's initial question...