Griefers at the Engineers

Player variables? Player choice to play the game in one way or another? My knight took your pawn and you didn't like it because I feinted with my bishop? Maybe I hit the move timer with a certain glee that was inappropriate? C'mon. The rules are the rules. If players offend each other within the box, that's on the players. If the rules don't make sense, then the complaint is with the game designer, not the other players. This game, like all other mmos has evolving rules. Embrace it. Focus on the rules and not the players.
I'm fine with the rules

And I'm fine with the players.

This is your problem, not mine, and it's not one you've sufficiently qualified for me to care about.
 
Familiar enough. I know less than half of the studies you cited are not reproducible and a good chunk of them are contradicted in other studies.
You're wrong. Many of them have already been reproduced, multiple times.

And a good chunk of climate research is contradicted in other studies as well.

A contradiction does not alter reality.

One of my favourite studies of all time on the topic is one that looks at how to use human selfishness to save the environment. It's worth a read, because it directly cites a range of studies that replicate and confirm one another on the subject of human selfishness.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707135?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

One of the biggest problems facing the reproduction of scientific study, is data freedom. You have to keep that in mind. This stuff isn't easy when funding bodies behave like competing interests. Additionally, reproducing studies is only one factor of confirming results. An even stronger factor is the predictive power of the results. If I conduct a study and it's never reproduced, not once, but I use its results to predict outcomes with 100% or close to it success, that science can be confirmed that way. Remember that when you read the study above.
 
The problem with the studies he mentioned is the interpretation. The article he linked (note: not a study) is an interpretation of a series of studies that actually ignores the conclusion of most of them. It has a massive anti-capitalist ideological bent. Science has no political bias. It is fact, it is not, or we don't know. The article he linked is attempting to explain the results according to how it's seen through a particular 'lens'.
...
Are you still talking with me, above me or over me? :D

The studies I mentioned were a quick shot cause I couldn't find the original citations in a trice. The experiments I'm talking about already started in 1739 by David Hume and also neuropsychologists from today are examining this topic. From what I've gathered there seems to be a clear tendency for babies between 6 and 10 month for altruistic helpful deeds. These experiments and their results are, as far as I'm aware, widely accredited in professional circles. And just because these experiments were cited from various leftist sources doesn't make them any less true. While Dawkins on the other hand has a more than doubtable reputation amongst professionals. Not sure if you actually defend this pseudo scientist though...
...
And a good chunk of climate research is contradicted in other studies as well.
A "good chunk" is how far exactly in your terminology from a "majority"?


but thanks to this discussion I found how controversial and complex this topic actually is:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/
 
Last edited:
While Dawkins on the other hand has a more than doubtable reputation amongst professionals.
That depends on whom you consider as 'professionals', and judging by what you consider to be 'credible science', you're on the ideological end of things. Dawkins is more respected than you give him credit for, which is why I suspect you are basing your conclusion of him on your own selfish sense of disrespect for him. But that doesn't matter.

You're still arguing from authority. Credibility is determined by results, not the person who's providing the results. I've provided studies, direct links to them. I've been looking at the ones you claim to support your conclusions, and found so far that they don't. Perhaps you have something I haven't seen yet? Because so far, nothing you've shown me, when stripped of ideology, actually concludes what you claim it does.

And for the record, there are no legitimate scientific institutes on the face of the planet that reject, in any way, the work that Dawkins has done, or his credibility as a scientist. There are a few illegitimate ones, like so-called 'christian science' institutions. But no legitimate ones. Not one.
 
...
And for the record, there are no legitimate scientific institutes on the face of the planet that reject, in any way, the work that Dawkins has done, or his credibility as a scientist. There are a few illegitimate ones, like so-called 'christian science' institutions. But no legitimate ones. Not one.
Oh. I see now where you are coming from. You're one of those 'alternate reality guys' (to say it in the least possible political manner).
But you're right, doesn't matter. We just have no common ground for a fruitful discussion. But you are totally wrong if you think I'm refusing the evolutionary theory as such (only in Dawkins wild interpretations) nor am I a christian (I'm an atheist myself). My disdain for Dawkins actually came from reading one of his books that I started to read very open minded (was recommended by a friend), only to find such an unbelievable huge heap of hogwash.
 
Last edited:
Oh. I see now where you are coming from. You're one of those 'alternate reality guys' (to say it in the least possible political manner).
But you're right, doesn't matter. We just have no common ground for a fruitful discussion.
No, I'm one of those 'actual reality guys'. In actual reality, and all politics aside because they are irrelevant here, Dawkins is highly respected by legitimate scientific institutes. Can you name one that proves me wrong? Or are these childish reprimands and accusations all you have?

Something that you have to understand me is that I like being right. Which means if I'm wrong, I actually do really want to know. But in order to accept that I'm wrong and need to adjust my understanding, it will take evidence to convince me. Not ideology, not guesses, and certainly not vindictive attacks on my character, but evidence.

....only to find such an unbelievable huge heap of hogwash.
Hogwash according to whom and/or what evidence? Dawkins presents his, where's yours?

Also, if you recall, I said: "There are a few illegitimate ones, like so-called 'christian science' institutions. "

Note I said "like so called 'Christian science' institutions", which means it's not exclusive to them. There are many ideological groups that think they have a monopoly on scientific discovery, but don't have an ounce of scientific credibility to back it up, including but not limited to religious and political institutions. But religion and politics are not science. Not even remotely.
 
Last edited:
You're wrong. Many of them have already been reproduced, multiple times.

And a good chunk of climate research is contradicted in other studies as well.

A contradiction does not alter reality.

One of my favourite studies of all time on the topic is one that looks at how to use human selfishness to save the environment. It's worth a read, because it directly cites a range of studies that replicate and confirm one another on the subject of human selfishness.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707135?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

One of the biggest problems facing the reproduction of scientific study, is data freedom. You have to keep that in mind. This stuff isn't easy when funding bodies behave like competing interests. Additionally, reproducing studies is only one factor of confirming results. An even stronger factor is the predictive power of the results. If I conduct a study and it's never reproduced, not once, but I use its results to predict outcomes with 100% or close to it success, that science can be confirmed that way. Remember that when you read the study above.
Some things can be refuted though. I was not talking about altering or contradicting reality.

Predictive powers are all great and such but we are talking human behaviour, therefore sample sizes and even more statistics noise.

I also like replicability and cold fusion :)
 
Some things can be refuted though. I was not talking about altering or contradicting reality.

Predictive powers are all great and such but we are talking human behaviour, therefore sample sizes and even more statistics noise.

I also like replicability and cold fusion :)
Are you suggesting that human behaviour can't be predictable?

Because I would argue otherwise. It wasn't that long ago that human behaviour was completely unpredictable, but the more we learn through science, the more predictable it becomes. Science is a process of learning. What we don't know today, we will know tomorrow. You would have been more accurate to suggest that, as of right now, human behaviour isn't entirely predictable, because the reality is, a lot of what we do is very predictable to the point of raising the philosophical conundrum of do we even really have free will at all, because almost everything we do is as a response to external stimuli. Why did you respond to my post, for example? Was it free will? Why am I responding to you? I could choose not to as a measure of demonstrating my free will but who would I be demonstrating it to? Myself? And why the need to demonstrate it at all?

The fact is, there is lots about human behaviour that is very predictable. For example, resistance to ideas that one holds as personal values, such as the idea that one is not selfish, something that we try to convince ourselves of to selfishly feel more virtuous about ourselves.
 
Are you suggesting that human behaviour can't be predictable?

Because I would argue otherwise. It wasn't that long ago that human behaviour was completely unpredictable, but the more we learn through science, the more predictable it becomes. Science is a process of learning. What we don't know today, we will know tomorrow. You would have been more accurate to suggest that, as of right now, human behaviour isn't entirely predictable, because the reality is, a lot of what we do is very predictable to the point of raising the philosophical conundrum of do we even really have free will at all, because almost everything we do is as a response to external stimuli. Why did you respond to my post, for example? Was it free will? Why am I responding to you? I could choose not to as a measure of demonstrating my free will but who would I be demonstrating it to? Myself? And why the need to demonstrate it at all?

The fact is, there is lots about human behaviour that is very predictable. For example, resistance to ideas that one holds as personal values, such as the idea that one is not selfish, something that we try to convince ourselves of to selfishly feel more virtuous about ourselves.
Not denying human behaviour cannot be predictable, to some extent.

Variability does exist. Not everyone reacts the same all the time. I have not seen many studies where behaviour was predicted 100% of the time. Then there is pathology of course.

You are giving me a headache :cry:
 
Not denying human behaviour cannot be predictable, to some extent.

Variability does exist. Not everyone reacts the same all the time. I have not seen many studies where behaviour was predicted 100% of the time. Then there is pathology of course.

You are giving me a headache :cry:
That's the most annoying thing about discovery. It gives us headaches when it takes us to task on what we think we know.
 
I have no clue what topic this rollercoaster of a thread is on now but I posted this in another thread and thought it would fit here quite nicely.


I would argue that ganking brings more people into PvP. I have over a dozen players on my friends list that I met because I ganked them and they sent me a message asking how I was able to do it and in turn I took em under my wing and taught them how to PvP, build ships and helped em unlock engineers. When I played as a white knight (with IED) I never met anyone cause I could only fight players that were already pvpers.
 
I can't tell whether this is deliberately disingenuous or a genuine misunderstanding, but it's wrong either way.

  • On November 6th, 2012, solo online play was pitched as part of the original Kickstarter campaign:
    • "And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours..."
  • Shortly thereafter (the exact date is lost due to an update overwriting it) a clarifying FAQ entry was added, headed How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?:
    • "All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer."
  • On December 11th, 2012, this FAQ was updated to include the newly proposed single player offline mode:
    • "The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server."
  • On November 14th, 2014, the cancellation of offline mode was announced in Newsletter 49:
    • "A fully offline experience would be unacceptably limited and static compared to the dynamic, ever unfolding experience we are delivering."
(emphasis is mine)
Solo predated offline mode by more than a month, and had been part of the design for over two years when offline was cancelled. Solo was never "tacked on."
Thanks for the correction, my understanding was based on hearsay. /cheers
 
I have no clue what topic this rollercoaster of a thread is on now but I posted this in another thread and thought it would fit here quite nicely.


I would argue that ganking brings more people into PvP. I have over a dozen players on my friends list that I met because I ganked them and they sent me a message asking how I was able to do it and in turn I took em under my wing and taught them how to PvP, build ships and helped em unlock engineers. When I played as a white knight (with IED) I never met anyone cause I could only fight players that were already pvpers.
ITT: Internet intellectuals reveal their true colours and try to argue morality on a video game forum
 
Are you suggesting that human behaviour can't be predictable?
I'll disagree with both of you. There is not an just epistemological lack of knowledge which makes predictions difficult, but also a methodological problem. Because the structure of repetion is different in regard to complex psychological repetitions and the basic natural repetition(physical, chemical etc.). Natural repetition has no memory effect, it doesn't relate to former repetitions except by being ruled by the same natural laws. Psychological repetition on the other hand, if it happens in a sufficently complex neurological structure, includes a memory of its former appearance. This makes predictions very difficult, because it forces the inclusion of a virtual (in the logical sense) space of possibilities into the "rule" governing the repetition. This is an major field of research in modern neuroscience and also logics. This is also one of the reasons why some types evolutionary psychology are at the least problematic, if (!) they try to imitate the methods of physics. Statistical noise on the other hand is usually not that big of a problem, because the problem resides already the mathematical sets, since the inclusion of virtual possibilities opens up the Gödelian box of Pandora.
Additionally "free will" is in most philosophical concepts in no way random. Starting with Plato the truly free will is mostly understood as a will following the reasoning of the "logos". Which is something different from the modern concept of logic, but can be roughly translated as a combination of deductive and axiomatic reasoning. This makes this concept of free will quite predictable ;-)
 
Top Bottom