Goblin Squad Member
|
First there were only two questions that could have reasonably directly applied to exploitiveness.
One had to do with being an influence on others. The other about manipulating others.
I think the Influence Question you refer to was:
1. I have a natural talent for influencing people. / I am not good at influencing people.
I checked the first one and still scored zero on the Exploitativeness scale.
And I didn't highlight my zero as a way of remarking on anyone else's score, but rather to highlight my own exquisite sensitivity to others' self-determination. I genuinely believe that others' choices are by default worthy of respect for the simple reason that they are their choices. It really does take a lot for me to get pushed past that default and begin to interfere with what someone else is choosing to do - and it almost invariably involves standing up for those who are being unjustly abused.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
First there were only two questions that could have reasonably directly applied to exploitiveness.
One had to do with being an influence on others. The other about manipulating others.
I think the Influence Question you refer to was:
1. I have a natural talent for influencing people. / I am not good at influencing people.I checked the first one and still scored zero on the Exploitativeness scale.
And I didn't highlight my zero as a way of remarking on anyone else's score, but rather to highlight my own exquisite sensitivity to others' self-determination. I genuinely believe that others' choices are by default worthy of respect for the simple reason that they are their choices. It really does take a lot for me to get pushed past that default and begin to interfere with what someone else is choosing to do - and it almost invariably involves standing up for those who are being unjustly abused.
I think that question is linked to either Authority or Superiority. It's not worth it to me to reverse-engineer the test enough to find out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The study itself is behind a paywall, so I can't extract the numbers which indicate how strong the evidence is, but it appears that the people who didn't self-identify as trolls are roughly average.
Which leads us to the retrospectively obvious answer that people who identify as trolls have personalities very far from typical people.
Thanks to Nightdrifter and Decius for (again) crunching the numbers.
What I don't get is this: If I were a troll I'd lie in order to troll the test. Is this the narcissism streak wanting them to brag about being trolls?
"People not self-identifying are roughly average"... does that statement actually say anything at all when this group is 95% of the people?
I'd be curious to look for correlation patterns: could you make a predictive model for self-identification? Is this about trolls, about who self-identifies or about how people portray themselves when they self-identify?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The study itself is behind a paywall, so I can't extract the numbers which indicate how strong the evidence is, but it appears that the people who didn't self-identify as trolls are roughly average.
Which leads us to the retrospectively obvious answer that people who identify as trolls have personalities very far from typical people.
Thanks to Nightdrifter and Decius for (again) crunching the numbers.
What I don't get is this: If I were a troll I'd lie in order to troll the test. Is this the narcissism streak wanting them to brag about being trolls?
"People not self-identifying are roughly average"... does that statement actually say anything at all when this group is 95% of the people?
I'd be curious to look for correlation patterns: could you make a predictive model for self-identification? Is this about trolls, about who self-identifies or about how people portray themselves when they self-identify?
I think, more than likely, that a short online psychological test is about as accurate as people's online dating profiles. Self-perception is one of the hardest perceptions there is. And I include myself in that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think, more than likely, that a short online psychological test is about as accurate as people's online dating profiles. Self-perception is one of the hardest perceptions there is. And I include myself in that.
DATING PROFILE:
Attractiveness: Both Shelyn and Calistria chase after me for my looks.
Trait: Gift to all women.
Job: Boy toy.
Favorite Quote: Yes, I am the center of the universe.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The study itself is behind a paywall, so I can't extract the numbers which indicate how strong the evidence is, but it appears that the people who didn't self-identify as trolls are roughly average.
Which leads us to the retrospectively obvious answer that people who identify as trolls have personalities very far from typical people.
Thanks to Nightdrifter and Decius for (again) crunching the numbers.
What I don't get is this: If I were a troll I'd lie in order to troll the test. Is this the narcissism streak wanting them to brag about being trolls?
"People not self-identifying are roughly average"... does that statement actually say anything at all when this group is 95% of the people?
I'd be curious to look for correlation patterns: could you make a predictive model for self-identification? Is this about trolls, about who self-identifies or about how people portray themselves when they self-identify?
I hadn't considered the effect of meta-trolling. Perhaps one could account for that by cutting off at some arbitrary point as "anyone who scored this high is probably trying to troll", but unless there's a clear place to put it (e.g. a handful of people scored within 2 questions of the maximum possible score for all traits, and the next nearest is a large distance down), then it becomes deciding what data to interpret.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd think it more likely that there are some who don't recognize their behaviour as trolling, or who know and exaggerate their exploits, than people who enjoy that type of schadenfreude but hide it.
People tend to glory in having an impact on others when they have nothing to fear, and anonymity is intoxicating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GamerDNA
EXPLORER
Explorer: 93%
Achiever: 53%
Socializer: 47%
Killer: 7%
The Explorer motto: "No stone unturned!"
Description:
It's not so much the wandering around and poking about, but that euphoric eureka moment the Explorer strives for. The joys of discovery do not necessarily involve geography, real or virtual. They may derive from the mental road less traveled, the uncovering of esoteric or hidden knowledge and it's creative application. Explorers make great theory crafters. The most infinitesimal bit of newness can deliver the most delicious zing to an Explorer.
Secondary influences
Explorer Killers enjoy seeing the world, meeting interesting people...and killing them. EKs love all discovery, but finding an edge over the competition is best. Always seeking new opportunity, an EK likely knows the ten best places to find certain types of opponents, as well as ten different ways for taking them down.
Explorer Achievers have been there, done that and have the t-shirt...in fact they have a plethora of t-shirts, badges, trophies and other rewards. EAs are the completionists of the gamer world. They like to find new places, quests, easter eggs, unlocks, maps etc. and check them off as have, visited or beaten. Like real world travelers, EAs enjoy collecting memorabilia that helps them relive their experiences later.
Explorer Socializers are the glue of the online world. Not only do they like to delve in to find all the cool stuff, but they also enjoy sharing that knowledge with others. Explorer socializers power the wikis, maps, forums and theory craft sites of the gamer world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(...) Perhaps one could account for that by (....)The study itself is behind a paywall, so I can't extract the numbers (....)(...)If I were a troll I'd lie (...)
If you had all the raw data you could do your multivariate analysis, identify the outliers and compare model & predictive strength with and without the outliers. But, having no access to the data there's nothing we can do except point out the lack of data.
But I find the statistics (meta-)discussion interesting. Every scientist - and especially those in social/phsychology/medical fields - should be kept on their toes when interpreting information. (In heaven journalists will understand statistics too, but teaching them will be hell).
@narcissism test-takers: I'm not going on about this because I score high on authority, but because I score high on superiority ;-)
"Never attempt to win by force, what can be won by deception."
- Niccolo Machiavelli
P.S Great read! Thanks Ryan. :D
Welcome back Qallz. :)
Not back, just popping my head in to make sure no one steals muh sexay Avatar. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who's sexay? You look like a boy.
As more time goes on I get the feeling this is turning into a mash-up of House of Cards with Game of Thrones that will be just as vicious as roaming gank squads but orders more passive-aggressive and hidden behind smiles and handshakes.
Then you have a book like The Source which tracks the descendants of a caveman named Ur through thousands of years of changing conquerors and religions in the Middle East, the Ur family never really caring who's in charge as long as food is available and they're left to do their own thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As more time goes on I get the feeling this is turning into a mash-up of House of Cards with Game of Thrones that will be just as vicious as roaming gank squads but orders more passive-aggressive and hidden behind smiles and handshakes.
I take it you're referring to PFO in general?
I agree, although I don't know either of those series. I think there will be more conflict than some people expect. Roving ganking squads will be the norm.
Who's sexay? You look like a boy.
You look like a cartoon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who's sexay? You look like a boy.You look like a cartoon.
Aww, thank you. *blush*
I take it you're referring to PFO in general?
I agree, although I don't know either of those series. I think there will be more conflict than some people expect. Roving ganking squads will be the norm.
I don't doubt it. But at the same time the devs want to avoid that in general and there's always a certain underhanded glee in the forums when two-faced backstabbing and political intrigue are mentioned.
FOR REFERENCE
Game of Thrones - "In the game of thrones you win or you die" Seven kingdoms forcibly united lose the supreme leader (murdered) and squabble amongst themselves just as the mortal threat from outside is reawakening too. Hijinks ensue. (Team Arya)
House of Cards - Oldish man is passed over for high appointment after his major role in getting the national leader elected so he plots the downfall of the party from within. Hijinks ensue.
House of Cards, both the BBC run and new American version, are available on basic Netflix. Watch the BBC version first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
House of Cards, both the BBC run and new American version, are available on basic Netflix. Watch the BBC version first.Is there a premium Netflix? Somehow I'm not surprised by that revelation.
Not yet, but if net neutrality is not protected, there could be.
I think what PS meant was a streaming-only (no DVDs) Netflix account.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...as i think this is realated to the original post, i would like to recommened a documetary to those who are interessted.
Horizon - Are You Good or Evil?
some very interesting points in there, e.g.
- how are strangers able to work together as a group?
- there is an interview with some of the instruction officers (i hope that says what i try to) for the marines in quantico about how and why the training the leads to the ability to kill someone had to change and what it is like today.
- where can you find the most psychopaths in your city?
- and of course, what can a society do to not make a psychopath a killer?
and others, sadly i could not find a direct video link i was comfortable to set a link to, i hope you can find the movie anyway.
otherwise, pm me
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Horizon - Are You Good or Evil?
I remember reading about this a few weeks ago or so. Very interesting story. I've often asked myself some of those same questions, but have generally convinced myself I can't be a sociopath because I have such a strong emotional reaction to some things. I literally got choked up and couldn't talk for a while after watching Disney's Frozen "Let It Go" Sequence Performed by Idina Menzel with my wife.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your comment reminds me of the movie American Psycho (great movie, and on Netflix, for anyone interested who hasn't seen it). The lead character, Patrick Bateman, cares not a whit for other human beings, but cares deeply for music and the image he projects toward others. Not to say you are a sociopath or anything, but the moral I'm trying to convey is that, in my opinion, the why of getting choked up emotionally is more important than the fact that you get choked up, when discussing things like sociopathy. I am inclined to agree with you if you get choked up because you relate to the characters or something similar; I don't think it says anything about sociopathy or a lack thereof if you get choked up because the music/artistic piece is beautiful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Horizon - Are You Good or Evil?I remember reading about this a few weeks ago or so. Very interesting story. I've often asked myself some of those same questions, but have generally convinced myself I can't be a sociopath because I have such a strong emotional reaction to some things. I literally got choked up and couldn't talk for a while after watching Disney's Frozen "Let It Go" Sequence Performed by Idina Menzel with my wife.
This song gives me goose bumps every time. Great singer and heart touching!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was okay but if you want REAL tears give three minutes of your time to the Let It Go (Google Translate version) by Malinda Reese.
(Don't worry it's allowed under copyright, YouTube knows this, because of)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Generalizing from fictional evidence is a textbook example of cognitive bias. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, just that it was reached through methods that can reach any conclusion.
Generalizing from your statement, I could easily reach a different conclusion than you do...
(but that would require some type of "hollywood scriptwriters sometimes do proper research" argument which I would have problems defending, so not going to).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Generalizing from fictional evidence is a textbook example of cognitive bias. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, just that it was reached through methods that can reach any conclusion.Generalizing from your statement, I could easily reach a different conclusion than you do...
(but that would require some type of "hollywood scriptwriters sometimes do proper research" argument which I would have problems defending, so not going to).
If you picked a piece of fiction at random, you could use the base rate of fiction authors doing research as evidence. However, when you pick a piece of fiction based on how well it supports your position, you have to judge how well the research was done on that work, rather than use the average.
I've engaged in some levels of trolling, it really depends on the type.
Shock websites, for example, aren't too bad... Corrupting innocence is pretty bad.
I mean the term troll is too wide. Trolling by definition ranges from minutely annoying people for fun via pranks and change of topic, to insulting people and trying to make them feel bad, to openly attempting to ruin a person or extort things from them such as nude pictures.
On one end, it's no worse than some of your friends who make you laugh, on the other end its people who you'd probably want to bring physical harm to, in the middle it's just punks, those are the more common "Trolls" especially since half of them are actually just petty, angry people attempting to infuriate their supposed opponent.
Some people call the "trolling friendly-like" people "twolls". I kinda like the term.
Even if I took this in-character as Bluddwolf, it wouldn't have resulted much higher.
My guess is because Bluddwold has a sense of honor. He's not a jackass, nor does he seem especially sociopathic--he's just, well, evil.
Oh my God, I'm Flutteryshy ...
Misspelling the name of the cutest pony ever? CHAOTIC. EVIL.
Authority: 2.00
Self-Sufficiency: 2.00
Superiority: 3.00
Exhibitionism: 5.00
Exploitativeness: 2.00
Vanity: 1.00
Entitlement: 3.00
Total: 18
"Celebrities often score closer to 18."
My take from this: I am as good as a celebrity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
so, rather behind the times though I may be
The Narcissism test
I totaled: 16
Authority: 6
Self-Sufficiency: 1
Superiority: 3
Exhibitionism: 1
Exploitativeness: 4
Vanity: 0
Self-Entitlement: 1
Not exactly what I expected. Was going to assume over 20 for me.
Authority: You scored particularly high in authority, suggesting you see yourself as a leader or as someone who values power.
Superiority: You scored particularly high in superiority, suggesting you feel you are superior to most others.
Exploitative: You scored particularly high in exploitativeness, suggesting you don't mind exploiting others in order to meet your own needs or goals
Nothing too surprising in all, except the superiority complex. To be fair, I view all people as superior to others in their own way so, yeah. Expected a bit more vanity...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if I took this in-character as Bluddwolf, it wouldn't have resulted much higher.My guess is because Bluddwold has a sense of honor. He's not a jackass, nor does he seem especially sociopathic--he's just, well, evil.
Actually on the Alignment Test, Bluddwolf came up solidly Chaotic Neutral.