Greedy Goblin

Friday, July 13, 2012

M&S, social, griefer, rational

I promised the "most important post" for Monday, but mostly I delivered some incoherent mess. Also, my nullsec plans aren't really griefing, while the logo image says griefing will make the World a better place. And where are the M&S and the socials, our old friends? Today I clean it up. Read the permanent page. No, it's not a "the really-really-really most important post", I won't post anything new. I'll just make sense now.

My nullsec plans are fully formed and I'll post them on Monday. You'll find griefing in it, on a scale that even the Goons could not dream of. Blogging my profit away post on Tuesday. In the light of the the above, I also recognized the value of Good Fights, you'll see that in Wednesday.

Please comment here about the permanent page and not the moron pictures below.

TrueVox sent a picture of "gwrda" (nice name). Can you figure out which level of development he is on?

Atrea found some who talked about the importance of rules. That should be lvl2. But he also bought out his - already overpriced - stuff for relisting, which clearly place him among the morons:
I guess you could figure out what Atera bought from the ISK.

You can join trading discussions on the Goblinworks channel.
Friday morning report: 96.7B (2B spent on main accounts, 1.3 spent on logi, 1.0 on Ragnarok, 0.5+0.5 on Rorqual, 0.9 on Nyx, 1.3 on Avatar, 2.6B received as gift).


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Serpentine Logic said...

You really should read up on the Gervais Principle and the four aspects of Situational Leadership; the concepts are articulated much better than your attempts.

Gevlon said...

I did and it looks neat but lacks all kind of solution.

Anonymous said...

There is a lot of truth in your "From M&S to rational" - however, I disagree completely with the last step.

That guy is in the equivalent of an EVE midlife-crisis - he did the peer recognition thing, he did the self-interested/anti-social competition thing (and tbh he probably did take on some leadership positions as part of all that) and now you say

"He can be told that he can and shall make difference in the large scale if he start looking for solving problems instead of making himself look better."

What meaningful "problems" is he supposed to solve? cure space-AIDS or intergalactic-cancer?

Unless he fully shares your philosophy (in which I case I guess changing the world view of everyone else in EVE would be a meaningful challenge) he will in my experience either "win EVE" (i.e. stop playing the game & metagame actively) or try something radically different without any pretense of looking for "meaning" (roll a RvB alt, try solo pvp in low-sec, ...).

If peer recognition and wealth does not motivate him, why would power still be of so much interest?

Anonymous said...

access to leadership positions only looks like a challenge/problem when you are new to the game.

Becoming the next Mittani or Montolio (or even vile rat/rob3r) is probably something you can't really plan but starting from the level one and a half step below that (the alliance director level) any leadership level always suffers from a lack of personnel (which is made worse as you have to rotate the few people there are through different positions and sabbaticals to prevent burnout).

As paradoxical as it may seem at first glance - as long as you are not completely stupid and have a lot of time to put into EVE you will quickly arrive at the point where it becomes harder to evade responsibility and power than to get it.

Orosei said...

Fyi, Gwrda is a Welsh word meaning 'Nobleman', or 'Optimus', someone who is better than you,or that you should look up to.
Makes it all the better to see them behaving like a m&s, but it is not just a random collection of letters like it seems at first.

Darkgold said...

On the Permanant page link, the rational goals are incorrect. The true goal of a rational is the ego, that he has done something for himself, not about making a difference. Making a difference is a by-product of doing something unique and amazing, the true goal of which is the ego. You seem to associate this with peer respect, which is mislead- the ego is more than peer respect, more than self-respect. Self-respect is a baseline requirement for an ego, peer respect is for socials.

Yagamoth said...

Question: Do you differentiate between "Anti-Social" and simply being "not-Social"?

Anonymous said...


Good question, the term asocial and anti-social seem to be used inter-changeably within the blog, and they have very different meanings.

It seems to me Gevlon is anti-social, as in he actively dislikes and wishes to "destroy" that which he perceives as social.

I am asocial, and do not care what social people do, and am perfectly fine with being "social" when needed, but it is not anything which is important to me.

Gevlon seems to be trying to remove social behaviour, while getting everyone to behave like him, which in turn would lead to that being the new social behaviour.

I would say it is anti-social also, based on the amount of time that is spent thinking about what socials do, and why it is bad. Asocials do not care what socials do or do not do, any more than asexuals care about sex, or atheists care about religion (not to be confused with anti-theism)

JackTheManiac said...

Commenting on the permanent page...

It's solid now- more solid than it's ever been. Still, I find it a little too black and white. I suppose I will voice my opinion here and eventually we'll get a clear, objective view... maybe. Sometimes trying to get a clear view of the world, to view it as simple rules, is impossible. Sometimes you must just react.

The first thing I disagree with here is the levels themselves. Perhaps you use these levels with the perspective of within Eve, which is fine. But you also give real life example, so I believe you want them to apply IRL, too.

My main gripe is that people can be M&S in some areas (say love life "I can't get GF why I suck") and social in their regular life, they work for their "group" or their own little appartment.

So, this guy fails at love and is frustrated. A M&S in that area. Yet social in others. He finds the seduction community (I do not endorse it and it is bad and dangerous - to anyone reading this, do not get into that bullshit excuse of a community) and he gets the (it has however since been proven wrong by seductionmyth) idea you can control woman, to make them attracted to you.

So straight up, he becomes antisocial in that area, skipping the social. I've seen it. Of course he will be frustrated since the community is mostly BS.

What I'm trying to say is this: While in retrospect the levels work relatively decently, someone can be level 1 in his love life, level 3 at work, level 4 in a videogame, level 2 with his friends and family and people he knows, etc...

And another thing...

I don't agree with your definition of rational. According to your scale I would fit in Level 3 Selfish One (weird title), as I do not grief but live for myself the way I want.

I don't think I'm a Level 3 Selfish One. According to your definition, Selfish Ones care only about themselves. Or about no one. This is why I think your definitions are too black and white. I'm rational (as a defining quality of my person). While I live for myself and I do not seek fame, glory or leadership, I was indeed burn by "the past levels" whether by being with others of these levels or being in them myself.

I seek solutions to change the world, yet I'm aware my actions will probably change nothing. Yet I enjoy being altruistic WITH THE PEOPLE I LIKE ONLY, because this brings benefits to everyone. Fighting gives nothing and is stupid, since being hurts or killed prevents enjoyment of monetary gains. I don't overspend, there are only a couple things I work toward and I understand you must spend less than you earn.

So, where do I stand?

Perhaps I misunderstand, and your levels are just a global view, much like Myers Briggs or other personality tests, where you can find other traits in other personalities type, yet you are another one mainly. Perhaps my feedback is useless still I find I should write it. Perhaps it will help make something even more solid, one day.

Anonymous said...

Yagamoth -

"anti-social" and "a-social" are two entirely different concepts, altogether.

JackTheManiac said...

And rational also differs from anti social and asocial. A rational can by social or asocial. Gevlon uses defitions for his views. Which is fine since its the closest ones for what he wants to say.

Anonymous said...

Rational can only be asocial. Social abilities are only use when it gain some form of benefit.

NP said...

I hadn't noticed how many non-EVE players read this blog, and/or people who read for a 'life philosophy' as well.

I don't understand how a strategy in a game is at all parallel to a life ethic. As a new reader, I wonder -- is this the audience Gevlon writes to? Is this what allows such incendiary rhetoric (e.g., enslaving populations as a moral need)?

I do not mean this as a troll; I am honestly curious.

Agent Black Cat said...

I've got someone buying me out to boost prices, too. I'm entirely happy to let him have his 10% margin since I'm making 100-400% on mu "underpriced" orders. I've already offered to bulk contract them, we're just haggling over price. I'm not sure how that works for him but it would sure make life easy for me.

Andru said...

@Agent Black Cat

Make sure to flood him with items, and when he stops buying them from you, restart competing with him on the market.

Then send Gevlon the inevitable letter.

Elbrasch said...

@NP well, the basic assumption as far as i understand it was that mmorpgs can be used as a simplified test field for ideas how people behaive in the real world because in a game there is no binding environment that forces specific behaivor (law, the little fact that death is permanent, parents are only a few examples). When you think about how often you hear the sentence "Lets play a game..." in team building courses and personality building courses, not only to train certain behaivor but to identify what "type" you are, then that asumption sounds plausible.
I don't play eve, i quited wow long before gevlon, but i stick around because this blog was one of the reasons why i researched into conservatism and accepted that i simply don't share the leftist principle (humans are good and only corrupted by society)of my environment.

JackTheManiac said...

@ Anonymous: Someone can be rational AND social. Meaning he can do rationally, do the wisest thing, work the right way, and yet take true pleasure and enjoyment hanging around with people (at the right times) and take pleasure in being liked.

Rational and social are not mutually excluse. Rational is not the contratry of social.

Rational - Irrational
Social - Asocial
Introverted - Extraverted.

An extraverted Rational has good chances to be social. Extraverted people NEED other people.

Of course an introverted asocial has more chances to be rational.

Not all rational people seek pure profit with no regards to others. Some rational people may enjoy hard work and monetary gain, yet truly enjoy socializing with other people.

Socializing is not evil, it's perfectly permitted. The problem is when it takes all your life and your goal is to be liked - that makes you a moron slacker or social.

A rational person manages his life intelligently. Some like people, others don't. DON'T SEE THINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE. Read my above comments. Different areas of life, different levels.

bogartnumberone said...

Ah, by your definitions I seem to be somewhere between being a griefer and a rational person. I'm pretty okay with this.

That said, I disagree that having some vague feeling that you need to make a difference in the world is a good thing. I don't see any need to change the world unless either I see that it is broken or there is some direct benefit to myself in changing it.

Xintrosi said...

Did you read Atlas Shrugged, Gevlon? I'm currently making my way through it and Ayn Rand hits the idea of rational self-interest as being the prime motivator for useful movers and shakers (I was under the impression you held at least a little to Objectivist philosophy) pretty hard.

Yes, these people solve problems for the world, but that's not the motivation... the motivation is self. So I guess in L4, world problems may be solved if that's what the person chooses to focus on, but if they experience flow solving less expansive problems, then that's perfectly alright with me. Even if that "problem" is ridiculously insignificant by society's standards.

kacper said...

Dear Gevlon,
I enjoy your philosophy posts very much, and abstract, comprehensive visions are my thing as well, so hey, thanks.

This is, of course, a comment about the permanent page.

I guess we're building the just city here? And you are its philosopher-king? All right, my prince, here we go.

Firstly, I think your classification of people can and ought to be empirically tested, with, say, an on-line questionnaire. Do blue-collar workers want love and acceptance more than respect? Do people who "want to make a difference" also think that peer love and respect are useless?
In short: are real people divided into groups, that have the characteristics you describe?
I think the concept of M&S vs the rest would be reflected well enough in reality, but I'm not so sure about the rest.

I don't know if you're familiar with the psychological notion of the locus of control?
It seems to be a theme in your classification. Sort version: people who believe that what they do matters tend to be better adjusted. Sounds obvious, I know, but so does all psychology, when said plainly (except for the silly stuff).
BTW, do you think there is a straight correlation between climbing your ladder and IQ? If there is, then there are genetic constraints to speak of.

"Their unquestionable belief is if you are good, the world is good with you."
What do you mean by this? If you mean that: "when you do good things, good things happen to you", then it is mutually exclusive with the second sentence (about people having no control over their lives).

Moving on...
So what's wrong with the socials? That they support the M&S? Well, if you want them to stop, wouldn't it be more efficient to change the social norms for them to follow (11th commandment: "Don't help people who don't really need help"), rather than change particular people's whole world views (To make them "antisocials") one by one?

The antisocials. I hate the name, because they want respect, and I can't really think of anything more social than that. But I get why it's there.
So you're okay with antisocials as long as their little, meaningless competitions are "controlled"? In games they are constrained by what is allowed by the program, but what constrains them in reality? They might all start competing about who can rob the most people, but somehow they don't. Could it be because of social norms?

The rationals. I take it that you'd like for everyone to be a "rational", who wants to solve the problems of the world? To me that sounds like a nightmare, a recipe for disaster. I'd hate to live in a neighborhood in which every person wants to poke their nose into other people's business.
Much more tragedies were created by the village genius, than by the village idiot.

Could you state your goal explicitly?
Is it to minimize the number of M&S (1) or to elevate as many people as possible as high as possible on your four-stepped ladder (2)? (Or maybe something else?) Because the two are very different things, and you haven't made a case that (2) would even be desirable.

If you want (1), however, then here are my suggestions.
M&S exist IRL because someone is paying for their upkeep (housing, food, etc.). It can be (a) the government or (b) private citizens.
To remove (a) vote (donate money, etc.) for parties which want to abolish welfare.
To remove (b), fight for as free a society as possible, and let natural competition do the rest.

Gevlon said...

@Kacper: the empirical test is completely true, but I don't have the means to do so. An on-line questionairre would be totally useless due to self-selection bias.

I don't think IQ is significant factor here (assuming one is not a retard)

The socials believe that if you do good, the world will be a better place for everyone. They don't believe that it will have a direct control on their lives since the goodness of the World affects everyone.

Antisocials are controlled by punishment and not social norms. The jail is reality, not a social construct.

Socials cannot be stopped from helping M&S as long as they are socials. They want to "do good" and what can be more good than giving food to the hungry? In other terms: altruist social transfers are the only action in the world which have no direct personal "victim". If you protect the trees, the lumberjacks become unemployed and they won't love you. On the opposite, they will call you names. Any action - no matter how progressive it is - has victims. Giving aid to another man has no other victim than yourself, so you get love (from him) and no hate.

My goal is to elevate people on the ladder. My personal reason for it is to minimize the M&S.

Political means won't work, simply because the socials and the M&S together are 90% majority, therefore any democratic system will flood the M&S with welfare (and go bankrupt in the process, as we see it)

kacper said...

yeah, you're probably right about the self-selection bias.

The antisocials.
Jail may be physical reality, but it was constructed by society, and law is a purely social construct.
Here's the thing: if all people were elevated to the level of antisocial, which you say you would be fine with, who would police them? Surely not themselves, as they loathe to follow orders, and believe social norms to be optional.
That situation would, of course, never occur, but there's more. Society needs some critical mass of decent people, who follow social norms, because at some point it would become impossible to police. Further, trust is a valuable commodity in the real world. Whereas in WoW you can just click a few buttons and be sure that you are buying what you see on the screen and for the price you see, the guy you're trading with IRL can pull out a gun and take all your stuff. Trust is even more important in large operations, and it seems (from the description) the antisocials would be as likely to hold their end of the bargain, as screw you over and go back to their con-men peer group.
In a society of too many antisocials economic growth would be severely stunted.

The socials.
Now I get what you're saying much more clearly. I would say it like this: socials work for positive emotional reinforcement (love), and run away from negative emotional reinforcement (hate). And there's no negative emotions in helping people. Pure behaviorism.
This could sometimes conflict with them being beholden to social norms, as some social norms require that they take actions which expose them to negative reinforcement. It is fine, people have conflicting motives all the time.
Your statement that the socials cannot be stopped from helping the M&S implies that the reinforcements must take precedent over the social norms for the socials, as some social norms would require them to stop helping leeches. (But that's just details.)
By the way, do the M&S really love the socials who help them? Do they heap praise and thanks on their benefactors? I think the love is mostly in the socials' heads.

I think I found the mother-problem, which spawned all of the baby-problems I've been raising.
I think the problem is extrapolating observations made in video games to real life. The crucial difference in this case is that there is only emotional reinforcement in games, but in the real world there is emotional reinforcement, and physical reinforcement (pain, hunger, cold, etc.).
Your classification talks only about emotional motivations, and I believe it is one of the reasons it would fall apart on the higher levels when confronted with people operating in the physical world.

As I side note I'd like to disagree with the idea that all actions have victims. Giving aid to someone doesn't make you their victim anymore than feeding your dog makes you a victim of the animal, or going to the movies makes you a victim of Hollywood. If you want to do it, for whatever reason, there is no victim. Also, trade has no victims (it is mutually beneficial).
But I do take your underlying point that helping people altruistically is one of the precious few activities that have no negative emotions involved. (As I wrote earlier.)

I'm glad we agree that democracy is idiotic and inevitably self-destructive.
But gentlemen should fight for lost causes while they wait for a decent monarch.

I must admit that discussing ideas with you is the most fun I had in a while without taking my clothes off.

(Sorry if you're seeing this comment twice, my connection is acting weirdly, and I wanted to make sure it was sent.)