Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

[Shopee]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

Yes I did.

Ok, well I'll just spell it out. Sorry, I was hoping you'd pick up on it, but sometimes I don't communicate well

When I look for entertainment I look for the kind of entertainment I like, not entertainment from the country I like.

It is obvious from this response that my statement breaks down on a personal level. Here you voice out that the generalization does not in fact apply to you. Follow me so far?


Well all those 'stupid sheep' have hardly been given a chance to explain themselves. Until you go through and ask each and every one of them why it is they go to Valkurm as opposed to Korroloka, and ask every single one of the JP players the opposite (while also noting that a good amount JP players do attend the dunes) all you really have the ability to say is:


Most North Americans go to Valkurm dunes, while some Japanese players go to Korroloka instead.


You have no right to call them 'stupid sheep', or make any other insulting remarks about their reasons for doing so. In the same way that I don't have the right to call you a Japan fanboy/girl due to my observations (I did so only in the interest of making a point, and it was not a serious accusation in case that was not clear).

I understand that fundamentally you are asking why (and this is good), however some of your comments have led me to believe (and I think rightly so) that you have a rather negative opinion of the NAs that go to Valkurm Dunes that you are also trying to argue. You have already come to a conclusion to 'why':


NA newbies are 'stupid sheep' and JP newbies are "better".

[Maju]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

I understand that fundamentally you are asking why (and this is good), however some of your comments have led me to believe (and I think rightly so) that you have a rather negative opinion of the NAs that go to Valkurm Dunes that you are also trying to argue. You have already come to a conclusion to 'why':

I have a negative opinion of people in general. Sheep mentality doesn't only happen in-game, I see it everywhere around me. I simply find it interesting how JPs seem to have been able to avoid the Valkurm trap it causes.

Another good one is the THF/NIN thing. /NIN hasn't in most cases been able to compete with /WAR ever since SE nerfed the TP floor abuse, yet you barely see any thieves who offer /WAR as a sub job option. I haven't seen any difference between JP and NA/EU in this matter, though.

Generally my opinion goes like this: At early levels JPs are the fast adapters and learners while NAs tend to suffer from either ignorance or stubbornness and are more often incompetent. Later on it evens out so that you can't really see a difference at all. Most are at least somewhat good (though I think overall player competence has significantly dropped from two years ago). Of course NA is sometimes preferred because it makes communication easier if you can talk without the weak translator.

[Shopee]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

I have a negative opinion of people in general. Sheep mentality doesn't only happen in-game, I see it everywhere around me.

And I see an unsettling amount of people who have decided that other people are sheep, and that they, are in fact special and see the light (along with other people that agree with them on certain issues) that everyone else is too mindless to have seen.

For example: I am sure lots of people are into Japanese entertainment right now. Anime, Final Fantasy, things like that.

It is obvious that you consider yourself to not be 'sheepified' when enjoying this entertainment. You are doing it of your own volition and your own appreciation.

Maybe you underestimate how much collective movements of human beings are driven almost entirely on an individual level.

[Macht]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

I love this response!

YOUR LANGUAGE IS SILLY!!

I've tried to build parties and then go to the tunnel, and then I have problems with impatience. You're heading there, you're Rank 10 so you get there pretty fast, but the Rank 1 or 2 may have never been there. Suddenly they think, "hmm, I've been walking for 20 minutes, I'm having an anxioty attack trying to avoid Goblins, and I was in an area where people my level were already killing." Next thing you know they disband, and you're looking for somebody else you'll have to drag kicking and screaming to Bastok.

I often play during a time where there are a lot of JPN players, so I've had pretty good amount of parties there. NIN, SAM, RNG, and DRG all went from Lv.14~19 or 20 in one simple, beautiful night.

I usually seek in Jeuno as well, then go where I'm needed, but I'm finding some people don't quite know how to use that damn /search command. Then again, I usually build my own parties during the Dunes range so I can go some place else. Maze or Tunnel, or the Peninsula.

Lol, you know the only time I had an anxioty attack was when I was trying to make my way back to kazham from the Elshimo region at lv. 27. Trying tailing goblins down a tunnel and then sneaking past them just right to avoid agro when they turn.

Think that is tough try doing it 5 times, that's an anxioty attack for you. On the upside when I had done that I made it through without any aggro. Still love the conversation the party had when they realized they had left me behind when they left.

I return to camp..
Me>> Uhh, were'd everyone go?
Leader>> Were are you?
Me>> Still in the Elshimo Region
Leader>> What? Didn't the WHM sneak and Invis you?
WHM>> No, I thought you were going to sneak and invis him.
Leader>> Damn, were on the airship going to be a while to get back.

I said skrew it and tried to get through myself. Four tunnels of avoid gobs of aggro (you are literally standing right next to them).

Leader>> Alright I'm getting on airship to come get you.
Me>> Don't need to now.
Leader>> Died?
Me>> No, made it to kazham.
Leader>> Dude! You trained gobs to the Kazham zone? That's not smart going to have a lot of people pissed at you.
Me>> Didn't get any aggro, there's no train to zone.
Leader>> Someone kill the goblins on the way?
Me>> Nope
Leader>> Bull****, no way you could make it through the tunnels without sneak and invis. Impossible to avoid aggro.
Me>> Well then I got one hell of a good guardian angel.

Not exactly what was said but close to something like that. Still didn't believe me so I had to prove it to him which made the fifth attempt on that. Don't know if the gobs still have that behavior but a hint on how I got past, the gobs when pathing in a line always had turned left.

[ValisOfValefor]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

(Off topic:Sorry this took so long but I couldn't resist with all the talk of anime)


And Speaking of Anime being superior (And it's very *nudge, nudge* *wink, wink* anti-american, and anti-facist). Let's Disco!!!!!!!!!

(I love the bell-bottom space suits)

(Back On topic) Still in all experience, it's your own preferance, you can party with your friends in a smaller area, or if most your friends have a bunch of high level jobs (and never come back like some of my friends) you can go to the dunes.

[Maju]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

Maybe you underestimate how much collective movements of human beings are driven almost entirely on an individual level.

I'd bet a worryingly major part of high schooler behaviour comes from peer pressure. Do you think people start smoking from personal choice?

This doesn't apply to you if you are American, but in Finland where I come from, we have obligatory military service for all healthy males. As an alternative you can pick civilian service, which lasts longer but is less binding and does not involve military training. Guess how many pick civilian service? Not many I tell you. Many, perhaps even a majority do think this through, but I know loads of people who picked military service because:

a) Their parents/relatives are conservative nationalists.
b) Because everyone else does it.

I believe b) is the most common reason. Neither of these reasons has anything to do with what the person really prefers. Sheep mentality ftw?

PS. This thread is now about as off-topic as it can get.

[Shopee]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

I'd bet a worryingly major part of high schooler behaviour comes from peer pressure. Do you think people start smoking from personal choice?

Unless peer pressure has some way of making human free-will impossible, of course it's a personal choice.

It's a personal choice for them to say "What others thinks of me matters", it's a personal choice for them to say "I want to be cool!". It IS ultimately a choice that they make, and no one can take that away from them.

This doesn't apply to you if you are American, but in Finland where I come from, we have obligatory military service for all healthy males. As an alternative you can pick civilian service, which lasts longer but is less binding and does not involve military training. Guess how many pick civilian service? Not many I tell you. Many, perhaps even a majority do think this through, but I know loads of people who picked military service because:

a) Their parents/relatives are conservative nationalists.
b) Because everyone else does it.

I believe b) is the most common reason. Neither of these reasons has anything to do with what the person really prefers. Sheep mentality ftw?

Actually it's all to do with what the person really prefers, otherwise they wouldn't have made the choice.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to act in such a way that you are acting against your OWN VALUES. The "I" in "I choose" cannot ever be removed because we are singular individuals.

[Maju]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

Unless peer pressure has some way of making human free-will impossible, of course it's a personal choice.

It's a personal choice for them to say "What others thinks of me matters", it's a personal choice for them to say "I want to be cool!". It IS ultimately a choice that they make, and no one can take that away from them.

Actually it's all to do with what the person really prefers, otherwise they wouldn't have made the choice.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to act in such a way that you are acting against your OWN VALUES. The "I" in "I choose" cannot ever be removed because we are singular individuals.

I see where you're coming from, though I don't quite agree. Sure, you choose to do something because you feel other people's opinions of yourself are more important than your own, however, as long as other people's opinions are a factor in your judgement, I don't think your choices can really be called your own. Ultimately it was those around you that affected your choice, not you yourself.

[Shopee]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

Ultimately it was those around you that affected your choice

But only because you chose to let them.

[Maju]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

But only because you chose to let them.

Yes, but that's a completely different choice already.

I'd say this topic is quite difficult. Very much like the debate about the existence of free will. Do we really have free will when all our actions are driven by motives? Did I go to the grocery store because I am free to do so or did I do it because I needed food?

[Shopee]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

Yes, but that's a completely different choice already.

Yes, it is indeed, but I'm not sure that would make it any less relevant =)

I'd say this topic is quite difficult. Very much like the debate about the existence of free will. Do we really have free will when all our actions are driven by motives? Did I go to the grocery store because I am free to do so or did I do it because I needed food?

I'd say that free will is provable simply because of the choice mentioned previously.

Everyone has the choice to choose what will influence their other choices. It usually ends up at a final, arbitrary choice. Where you cannot answer 'why?' in a satisfactory fashion. The fact that one can choose arbitrarily (although it's usually not on a concious level until you think about it, which is not often done) shows that free will does in fact exist.

It shows that the why is simply "Because I choose so".

Then again, I'm sure this argument has some holes in it. Otherwise I would have solved an age old philisophical discussion, which would be quite extraordinairy, and rather unlikely.

It's enough for me at the moment though.

[Macht]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

Sorry don't agree with the statement of it being Impossible to go against ones own values.

Reason is taught even in ROTC of all places.

It's the idea of the 3 selves. Ideal Self, Reflective Self, and Actual Self.

Ideal Self (The self you strive to be)
Reflective Self (The self of how you think others see you)
Actual Self (The self of how you believe you are currently)

If the three selves are in agreement you will back whatever the idea or action is without resignation. However if anyone of the three are in conflict you'll debate it and eventually overwrite the choice that one of the three selves tell you to do.

It's a willing omission of your own choice. A person look at it in the idea of what good for oneself, what's good for another, and what's good for a greater number. Person choosing to sacrifice himself knows the act isn't good for him yet see's the act to be for something greater then himself. The guy wouldn't want to do it but still does it, also known as the reluctant hero.

We are able to make choices but just as willing to make that choice we can defy it in that same quickness. Well unless you are a Scientologist then you're logic would be you'd be unwilling to defy it because it's admitting your mistake and that when a person admits being wrong it actually hurts them physically were they can get gravely ill.

EDIT:

Just to prove the logic of your idea wrong. That logic would fall exactly in line of the plot of "iRobot" shows 3 different aspects. it's show one following a set choice (Robots obeying their 3 laws), it shows one following a leader's command without question (New model Robots being controlled by a mainframe AI), and then shows one following by a trifecta of the 3 laws (The Robot that acts of it's own will).

The robot acting of it's own will as the story states basically has 3 warring AI's. The choice can have 1 of the 3 images refusing it can all the way up to 1.49999~ of the 3 images refusing it, the decision of what's best to do in that person mind as it currently stands is what wins out.

The question is what is the person's view of right and wrong? What has that person's environment, culture, and friends/family influenced his vision of right and wrong to be? By the fact of making that question it means a choice isn't solely his, the choices made result at the minimum by 3 controllers. Himself, Culture, and Environment if Culture and Environment push for one thing the you will do that even though you yourself may refuse it.

We are not very signular, we are individuals but our decisions and behavior are governed by more then 1 thing.

EDIT AGAIN:

Ok, noticed the "iRobot" was missing another aspect. It also show the aspect of choices derived from flawed logic. Common to an extreemist fashion (the mainfram Ai itself).

There is another quandry though to the whole thing, the rare occassions were it seems like there is only 3 controllers and 2 are saying to act 1 way and the other 1 wins out over the other two. Quite often seen in the act of a person killing another even though culture and environment are often against blantant random killing (It must have a reason or purpose).

In some of the cases after doing it and questioned why they can't answer. Though can see that after it's occured they are following what the 2 out of the 3 minimum state. So then is it that there was maybe 2 other unseen controllers that influenced this or did that 1 alone truely defy the other 2?

[Shopee]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

Sorry don't agree with the statement of it being Impossible to go against ones own values.

Reason is taught even in ROTC of all places.

It's the idea of the 3 selves. Ideal Self, Reflective Self, and Actual Self.

Ideal Self (The self you strive to be)
Reflective Self (The self of how you think others see you)
Actual Self (The self of how you believe you are currently)

If the three selves are in agreement you will back whatever the idea or action is without resignation. However if anyone of the three are in conflict you'll debate it and eventually overwrite the choice that one of the three selves tell you to do.

It's a willing omission of your own choice. A person look at it in the idea of what good for oneself, what's good for another, and what's good for a greater number. Person choosing to sacrifice himself knows the act isn't good for him yet see's the act to be for something greater then himself. The guy wouldn't want to do it but still does it, also known as the reluctant hero.

We are able to make choices but just as willing to make that choice we can defy it in that same quickness. Well unless you are a Scientologist then you're logic would be you'd be unwilling to defy it because it's admitting your mistake and that when a person admits being wrong it actually hurts them physically were they can get gravely ill.

EDIT:

Just to prove the logic of your idea wrong. That logic would fall exactly in line of the plot of "iRobot" shows 3 different aspects. it's show one following a set choice (Robots obeying their 3 laws), it shows one following a leader's command without question (New model Robots being controlled by a mainframe AI), and then shows one following by a trifecta of the 3 laws (The Robot that acts of it's own will).

The robot acting of it's own will as the story states basically has 3 warring AI's. The choice can have 1 of the 3 images refusing it can all the way up to 1.49999~ of the 3 images refusing it, the decision of what's best to do in that person mind as it currently stands is what wins out.

The question is what is the person's view of right and wrong? What has that person's environment, culture, and friends/family influenced his vision of right and wrong to be? By the fact of making that question it means a choice isn't solely his, the choices made result at the minimum by 3 controllers. Himself, Culture, and Environment if Culture and Environment push for one thing the you will do that even though you yourself may refuse it.

We are not very signular, we are individuals but our decisions and behavior are governed by more then 1 thing.

EDIT AGAIN:

Ok, noticed the "iRobot" was missing another aspect. It also show the aspect of choices derived from flawed logic. Common to an extreemist fashion (the mainfram Ai itself).

All of this argument is based on an axiom:

Ideal Self (The self you strive to be)
Reflective Self (The self of how you think others see you)
Actual Self (The self of how you believe you are currently)

That these three selves exist.

You have yet to give an argument that these theoretical selves exist in such an independent manner. Obviously I do wish to be something, there is obviously a self I am now (or see myself as), and I obviously have an idea that there is a certain way that others think of me.

However, these are all concepts. There is no given reason as to why they would be independent entities in themselves. My logic is not proven wrong by I, Robot (not "iRobot"*) because my logic does not revolve around three 'selves'. The fact is you and I have very different conceptions of the 'self' and until you can point out why three selves exist instead of one, you cannot argue that my logic is wrong. All you have succeeded in doing is point out that using your base axiom, my view is inconsistent.

This is akin to saying that a Christian's beliefs are wrong on the base axiom that the Bible is a lie. Sure, based on that axiom it's true, but that doesn't translate into an effective argument against the Christian faith. You have to first establish that THEIR axiom is false which you have not done.

You have proposed the three selves but done nothing to prove that this is in fact how the mind works, nor disproved my conception.

*- It was called I, Robot (although the i may not have been capitilized in the advertisements) named after, not the "i" series of apple creations but the short story compilation by Isaac Asimov which was far better than the movie, and something which I heartily recommend you reading.

There is another quandry though to the whole thing, the rare occassions were it seems like there is only 3 controllers and 2 are saying to act 1 way and the other 1 wins out over the other two. Quite often seen in the act of a person killing another even though culture and environment are often against blantant random killing (It must have a reason or purpose).

In some of the cases after doing it and questioned why they can't answer. Though can see that after it's occured they are following what the 2 out of the 3 minimum state. So then is it that there was maybe 2 other unseen controllers that influenced this or did that 1 alone truely defy the other 2?

This would merely be the actual, singular self, deciding not to let those two factors influence it for some reason or another. The I was refusing the environment and culture any influence because they are not selves and do not have any power other than what the self gives them.

[Macht]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

All of this argument is based on an axiom:



That these three selves exist.

You have yet to give an argument that these theoretical selves exist in such an independent manner. Obviously I do wish to be something, there is obviously a self I am now (or see myself as), and I obviously have an idea that there is a certain way that others think of me.

However, these are all concepts. There is no given reason as to why they would be independent entities in themselves. My logic is not proven wrong by I, Robot (not "iRobot"*) because my logic does not revolve around three 'selves'. The fact is you and I have very different conceptions of the 'self' and until you can point out why three selves exist instead of one, you cannot argue that my logic is wrong. All you have succeeded in doing is point out that using your base axiom, my view is inconsistent.

This is akin to saying that a Christian's beliefs are wrong on the base axiom that the Bible is a lie. Sure, based on that axiom it's true, but that doesn't translate into an effective argument against the Christian faith. You have to first establish that THEIR axiom is false which you have not done.

You have proposed the three selves but done nothing to prove that this is in fact how the mind works, nor disproved my conception.

*- It was called I, Robot (although the i may not have been capitilized in the advertisements) named after, not the "i" series of apple creations but the short story compilation by Isaac Asimov which was far better than the movie, and something which I heartily recommend you reading.



This would merely be the actual, singular self, deciding not to let those two factors influence it for some reason or another. The I was refusing the environment and culture any influence because they are not selves and do not have any power other than what the self gives them.

The three selves prove their existance when you hear what a group sees you as. This is the 4th aspect of the three selves. It is possible for your Reflective self not to truely match how someone see's you. Often when your Reflective self does match then you are very aware to the other's around you. Proof of being aware of the others would be your ability to effectively use Tact.

[Shopee]

Re: Why are NAs obsessed with Valkurm?

The three selves prove their existance when you hear what a group sees you as. This is the 4th aspect of the three selves. It is possible for your Reflective self not to truely match how someone see's you. Often when your Reflective self does match then you are very aware to the other's around you. Proof of being aware of the others would be your ability to effectively use Tact.

But that in no way establishes that they exist as selves, I am well aware that there is a concept of how I think others see me, and how they see me, but that in no way necessitates those concepts becoming entities capable of decision making.