Notional
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Notional
-
-
On 1/7/2019 at 12:44 AM, beecee said:
Earth does have a second Moon of sorts...It's called " Cruithne "
https://www.businessinsider.com/cruithne-is-not-earths-second-moon-2015-3
Not that Business Insider is a scientific authority, but I want to see how you respond.
0 -
Now, I'm not sure if anyone has tried to compile such a list, but I'd like to suggest a joint effort to compile a collection of several books, resources, websites and the like, that allow you to learn about all sorts of things.
I think I'm not alone here when I say I want to learn a MILLION things, but I don't want to get 30 different degrees. I want to study, and research and learn and experiment, but without having to pay thousands of dollars in tuition.
I'm looking for things like khanacademy or Udemy. Youtube channels like Crash Course. Good books like the ones they usually have us buy for college. A compilation made by learners, for learners. I was surprised to not find this as a sticky on this subforum. Should we make it a sticky?
Thank you.
0 -
In what way does having different inherent personalities contribute for the survival and prosperity of humans as a species, throughout the process(right term?) of evolution?
As I understand personality is a combination of nature and nurture, but I'm referring more to the nature side. Also, bear in mind, nature also influences how we respond to the nurture part. So the same factors, will influence the nurture aspect of personality-building differently.
Surely, specific kinds of personality will be more useful to survive and procreate, so shouldn't that have funneled down throughout human evolution? Just as we look so similar physically, shouldn't we also be just as similar personality-wise? I suspect I may be able to answer this, but I want to read what you have to say. I know only that I know nothing.
0 -
20 hours ago, Space Babe said:
I agree with your opinion, in general. It is undeniably true that the real world cannot be equally compared with the virtual world. There are many factors that influence our behavior and image that we display online.
When it comes to creating an image in the virtual world, the option of showing our true self is not the only possibility. On the contrary, it can also represent a chance for a person to manifest his ideal self - similar to an alter ego; A person can decide to manifest his ideal self in the virtual world in order to either create a false impression of someone who he is not, or to satisfy the perfect illusion that other people have of him.
Either way, it shows us that sometimes, when a person wants to be a better version of himself, but cannot achieve it from various reasons, he is willing to use the possibilities of the virtual profiles to lie himself and others that he has, subconsciously achieved his ideal self, which in reality is not true.
When it comes to your example about the aggressive gamer, that is very different than a profile on social media where everyone can see the false or real image you put on display in the virtual reality.
In a virtual game, there are no profiles of the gamer's life, but just his method of playing, which by the way, is also manifested or performed by all the other gamers in the game - because that is how you beat the game and beating the game is the main goal of the gamers.
A gamer cannot act the same as a popular Instagram model, simply because their profiles are created for different purposes - and with that, they both act differently.
However, there might be a similarity in all of this, and the answer lies in the final goal that the person wants to achieve;
Namely, the Instagram model presents a perfect life in the virtual world and is influencing other people to be just like her. If there is a girl who is not popular and insecure, and she wants to change all that, will see what it takes (or at least what she thinks) to become popular and loved. In other words, she will try to act like the Instagram model.
In the other hand, we have a gamer who is playing an aggressive game and has the highest scores, always beating the game. He, directly or indirectly, influences the other gamers to play similar to him in order to get better at the game. So, if we have a gamer who is not very good at the game (he is slower, doesn't want to "kill" his fellow players), he will soon notice the best gamer and will try to act and play aggressively, just like him in order to achieve a higher score.
Agreed, I don't have much to add.
If you're into doing research on this, I recommend looking into Roleplaying worlds online. Games like World of Warcraft have servers solely dedicated to roleplaying. Basically, everyone (or most players) adopt a role in a makeshift society. There are also many roleplaying scenarios in the game Second Life. One of the most obvious patterns is that players will usually be insecure people, unhappy with their real life, escaping into a virtual one.
1 -
9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
I'd keep it simple. I'd look for an absence of what we typically describe as a personality.
Is bald a hair color, or a lack of hair? Does this mean I have a tattoo because a lack of them is a tattoo in itself? You'd have to redefine "lack" and "absence" to have them be something different wrt personality. Or redefine "personality" so that a lack of one isn't actually not having a recognizable one.
I think any reaction to stimuli outside that required by our physiology is possible evidence of personality. It doesn't require pleasing objects. If I tap someone's patellar tendon and get a knee jerk, it's practically a mandatory response, but if they smile or frown or draw back or scream after I do it shows me a distinct individual is behind the reactions to the response.
Well put.
0 -
On 1/31/2019 at 8:56 PM, Phi for All said:
Easy enough to test. Raise some children without the typical objects around and see if they still have a personality.
Just out of curiosity, how do you picture a lack of personality? And wouldn't that be a personality in itself?
Also, even if you remove "typical objects" from the child's environment, there will always be other objects around which to create a personality (I'm not advocating the notion).0 -
On 1/15/2019 at 9:01 PM, Space Babe said:
People have only one real self, but it is their decision whether they will manifest it or not. This also depends on the acceptance of society. It is a known fact that most people want to feel accepted in society, or in other words, have the feeling that they belong somewhere. However, society does not accept all types of personalities and it often mocks some people for them trying to be what they truly are.
Therefore, the real self can be manifested in the real world, but only if it is accepted by society, or if the individual simply does not care what other people think of him. The other alternative is for the person to pretend to be someone else (that is, to manifest a personality that is acceptable or what is expected from him by society) in the real world, while the virtual world (often anonymous) gives him the chance for him to manifest his true self in a virtual environment where no one knows him in real life. That way, he can finally achieve the impression that he belongs somewhere.
I just want to point out what you already know but that I think deserves mentioning:
Sometimes it might be understood that you're implying (by saying an individual will often only show his true self online, where social acceptance is not that big an issue) violent gamers are actually very dangerous and would kill people if it wasn't for laws and social conduct. I just want to point out killing people in video games, for example, doesn't equate to a higher likelihood that someone will kill real people in real life (were it not for laws and social conduct). In my understanding, a virtual environment can't be compared to real life on equal grounds, because no one actually gets killed or physically hurt in a game, so anonymity isn't the only difference when we change from real life to online life.
An individual killing people online is perhaps the equivalent of a tiger cub gnawing on their brother's ear. The tiger cub isn't planning on actually eating their brother, they're engaging in a playful practice of what is inherent to their nature. To kill. Humans too are inherently violent (to an extent). Especially men, who produce larger quantities of testosterone (which has been shown to be linked to increased aggression).
I just wanted to clear that up to anyone reading this.
Someone who often roleplays a villain might simply be seeking to experience the thrill that accompanies it without actually harming anyone. Empathy is an important factor influencing behavior, not just peer pressure or laws or social conduct.1
Learning outside of college
in Science Education
Posted · Edited by Notional
Well it depends on how large it becomes. I guess posting some well-formatted links in the OP would be alright, this might become a sticky. If it becomes too big I think making a free website would do the trick.
I wonder if I could make a wiki page about it, in fact.