Raven Daegmorgan
15 June 2008 @ 08:36 pm
Keene-ly Interested  

In an interesting development, Brian Keene deleted my comments critical of his rant on writers who don't write three books a year being lazy whiners, though I'm not quite certain why he did so.

You may be thinking I must have said something insulting in order for that to happen[*] (because that would be the only reason someone would ever delete someone's comments, right?) but I do promise that I behaved myself and kept what I said brief, polite, and as non-accusatory as possible.

Of course, I can't prove that because the comments are gone, so you're free to believe whatever you wish. Regardless, I think, perhaps, I'll fire off an e-mail and see what's what, though I suspect I will have to work up a good rant about human behavior appropriate to the situation. Well, hopefully I won't.

[*] Which, if you did think, would be an interesting reaction to note on your part, given that we're talking about judging the appropriateness of responses to a guy who called a bunch of other writers whiners and derided their work-ethic because they produce more slowly than he does.

 
 
Raven Daegmorgan
17 May 2008 @ 04:22 pm
The Importance of Fundamental Disagreements  

This is a post about logic and behavior. It is not about respecting your feelings but challenging them.

Still, I'd like to start this without pushing anyone's buttons, because affective heuristics happen, but I'm afraid the rest may not make as much sense as it might without starting by pushing some buttons.

For some of you, the history actually won't push any buttons or incite bias...still, I'll hide it behind a cut for those of you for whom it may, and you can jump down to the discussion and forego the history if you want to try it that way. Or you might try to short-circuit the probable reaction bias and give On Expressing Your Concerns a read to help consciously note the particular subconscious primate social instincts expected:

...history abounds with lessons on the price of being the first, or even the second, to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Nor are people hardwired to distinguish "expressing a concern" from "disagreement even with common knowledge"...If you perform the group service of being the one who gives voice to the obvious problems, don't expect the group to thank you for it...
...it creates bias... )

Disengagement is about protecting your personal and emotional space, and there is truth in the need to do this from haters and trolls and spreaders of nonsense, but there are also problems to be found with the logic of "disengagement" as it is defended by some individuals and groups. Some of those ideas might not be expressed openly, but are clear in a view of the pattern of argument and behavior of the group, others are expressed openly as obvious truths:
  • Everyone who disagrees with you has clearly never read your material or they would agree with you, and if they say they have they are lying.

  • Should anyone provably have read your material and still disagree, they clearly didn't understand it, are irrational, or don't want to accept its truth.

  • Everyone who disagrees with you is attempting to shut you down. Especially if they continue disagreeing.

  • Everyone who questions or attacks your truths also never attacks the side you are against, because if they are not with you they must be against you.

  • Everyone who questions or attacks your truths is helping support the side you are against, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Therefore, they are the enemy.

  • If someone makes you deeply, personally angry, they are a Nazi, and the issue is not with you.

  • Everyone who disagrees with the group truth is an ignorant fuckface who should be beaten up.

  • If someone questions or argues against group truth, ignore them because they are ranting asshats.

  • The only sane, rational, good discussion is that which reaffirms the righteousness of the accepted group truths and do not challenge it.
I think we've all seen this pattern before, unfortunately.

Any of you oppose the war lately? How did your war-supporting friends or acquaintances treat you or speak to you? Are you a traitor? Are you not a real patriot? Are you anti-American? Have any of them simply stopped speaking with you? Do they argue you are ignorant (or worse) because you refuse to agree with them? Do they think you should be beaten or physically assaulted to teach you a lesson?

...seen it before... )

...what's wrong with that..? )

...escaping the ego's needs... )

In no particular order, other posts discussing this topic more in depth at Overcoming Bias are Supercritical Uncriticality, The Halo Effect, One Argument Against an Army, Avoiding Your Beliefs' Real Weak Points, Burdensome Details, The Affect Heuristic and Affective Death Spirals.

They're all worth the read.

...closing thoughts and closing fallacies... ).

 
 
Raven Daegmorgan
02 May 2008 @ 02:24 am
Peeing in your Potter  

I saw this via my friends list recently, and I thought "Awesome. Stick it to her, OSC!"

And then I started to see the responses to it, and the hi-larity which can only be found on the intarwebs ensued, because, "Oh Noes! You cannot mock or profane teh sacredn'holy Mother of Potter, the JKR herself!"

Holy Christ, people, she wrote some well-loved books, made a sick amount of money off of you doing so, and was criticized thereafter for being a hypocritical horse's bum. It is not like anyone is nailing Jesus to the cross.

But to hear Potter-fans react, you'd think so. The on-rushing tide of furious offense cometh!

JKR can do no wrong, apparently, and anyone who says otherwise is jealous, stupid, insane, or some combination of the above.

The Second Coming arrived, and pissed showers of gold down upon the heads of her adoring ones, and when someone said, "Hey, you know, this is piss!" they crucified him. Never mind that it really was piss.

Of course, you'd also wonder how most Potter-fans managed to read her work, given that responses to this come-uppance from OSC indicates the majority of them suffer from a serious deficiency in reading comprehension, to such an extent it seems unlikely they were actually able to follow the plot of the Potter books (maybe they just liked the way they smelled?). I've a feeling they wouldn't know satire if they looked it up in the dictionary.

Here's just one gem: "I've read each of the Harry Potter books more than once, and I didn't catch any similarity between Harry and Ender...I really enjoyed the Ender's Game book, but now it feels sullied after reading the diatribe."

I mean, really? You realize OSC is not actually claiming JKR stole his work, he's making a point that if you're going to sue someone you'd better make sure it isn't over a frivolous comparison. You realize that, right?

No, no, not the JKR fans.

At least not the ones who read the whole article before leaping to her defense, and nevermind the ones that claimed (faces full of shame) later that they hadn't really read the article before leaping to the emotional defense of their Lady Saviour and equally emotional attacks on OSC.

Hey, genocide in Darfur? You kids heard of it? Wizards and rich, white, petulant authors is more important than real people? Because, seriously, look at the number of posts the site was flooded with on that issue compared to any other issue you'd care to read about ever...

Of course, OSC is a stinking right-wing hack who calls himself a Democrat but praises Bush, the Iraq War, and Fox News, and thinks separate-but-equal is a good idea when it comes to them there gays ('cause we all know it worked so well with African Americans), so he's as full of shit as anyone else...well, more so being on the right.

 
 
Raven Daegmorgan
03 August 2007 @ 12:56 pm
More Crap from the Bull  

See, this is why I have no respect for Penn & Teller and their ilk. They portray themselves being moral rationalists and defenders of logic and mental freedom and individuality, as but really, they're nothing more than the Billy Graham's and Pat Robertson's of the far left.

The show features notoriously vicious anti-Catholics like Christopher Hitchens and Aroup Chatterjee. Viewers are told that she intentionally let the poor suffer, providing neither beds nor bathroom facilities. "She had the f---king coin and pissed it away on nunneries," says Penn Jillette.

Donohue said it did not bother him they called him "Catholic Boy" on the show, and not even when they referred to him with the F word since he could "only see good in her." But when they mocked the Catholic Church's teaching on the meaning of suffering; when the nuns who worked with Mother Teresa in the Missionaries of Charity were referred to with the F-word and the offensive C-word for female genitalia; and when they said of the poor that "They had to suffer so that Mother [F-word] Teresa could be enlightened," he protested. "They are behaved like monsters ... It turned into hate speech."
Yeah, because calling Nuns "cunts" totally proves your superior logical and moral position! Atheist "skeptics" and "rationalists" talk about the hate and discrimination and self-righteous divisiveness of religion, yet turn around and engage in it gleefully and unapologetically themselves. Well, kids, the behavior is downright sickening no matter who it comes from.

They all deserve to be drug up against a wall and shot (not that I'm advocating that, it's just what they deserve): "theist" and "atheist", all quite obviously cut from the same cloth.

 
 
Raven Daegmorgan
19 May 2007 @ 02:01 pm
Where Ashes Fall Down  

Ok, so I was getting excited about the Ashcan Front until I read this:

...unless you have illicit access to printing or photocopying at your workplace it's going to cost you more per unit in time and materials to make ashcans than it would to use a POD printer to print books. And of course we can't guarantee the number of copies you'll sell. So you have to consider the risk that revenue from sales won't cover your expenses.

But this isn't the profit taking stage of indie publishing. This is the development stage. In effect, the expenses here beyond your sales revenue are an investment in getting what you need to carry through on your design goals and deliver on your game's potential.

We think that if you're working on a roleplaying game, and you've playtested and refined it and yet you're still not satisfied it's reliably delivering on your goals, that expenses incurred doing an ashcan that returns input from engaged hobbyists are well worth it...
Where it falls down... )

 
 
Raven Daegmorgan
01 August 2006 @ 08:17 pm
Friendship and Gamemasters  
So, I was reading a thread at the Forge and thinking about the situation.

How many of us have been in that situation? Where we can't or won't tell the gamemaster that we aren't having fun because we don't want to upset them and destroy our friendship?

It strikes me that this is a friggin' bizarre social situation pretty unique to gamerdom (and thank the gods it is at that). Could you imagine going out to the movies and not being able to tell your friends that you didn't enjoy it like they did without risking your friendship?

Yeah, gaming is that fucked up.

Of course, I can see a gamemaster being more touchy over his game than a movie he has no personal creative investment in, given that the game is something the gamemaster usually puts a good deal of time, energy and emotion into.

But even so, when you consider similar creative endeavors involving similar personal investment and sharing such with a peer group -- such as sharing your stories in a writer's group -- can you imagine the same behavior among gamers being accepted or considered positive, productive, or acceptable in those venues?

Imagine attending a writers' group, receiving negative feedback, or feedback that your style of storytelling wasn't enjoyable to the group, and then disowning the group or individual(s) as pushy assholes instead of taking their criticisms or stylistic preferences/differences to heart?

Can you imagine sitting and reading a friend's stories, and you can't stand his writing because either it is downright bad or you just don't enjoy the type of story he writes, and yet doing it every week, smiling politely, telling him how great his stories are and how much you enjoyed them, thus encouraging him to do more of the same, because otherwise you will be cursed at or disowned as a "good person"?

I can't, either.

Yet, in gaming, the gamemaster shares a story and an activity with a group of friends and expects them to suck down whatever he hands out by the spoonful, smiling the whole time regardless of their real feelings, or risk creating bad feelings and destroying friendships!

Wow. That is completely fucked up.

Here's what I realized when I compared the situation to a writer's group: at some point in the past, gamers stepped over the line from creator to auteur. And I'm not talking theory wonks or elitist narrativists or whomever your subcultural scapegoat-of-hatred happens to be: I'm talking blue collar Joe Gamer.

The problem attitude of auteurship is not a feature of elitists or fringe factions, but is condoned and experienced as natural and normal by the general gaming public, and is engaged in by the members of that public when given the chance (ie: when it is their turn at the gamemastering helm, because the hobby has trained us that's how gamemasters are supposed to act).

The whole thing is, "I wrote this play, you watched it, and now you will clap and tell me how much you enjoyed everything I did because I went through all this trouble for you." It's the friggin' artiste entitlement complex suffered by prima donnas.

Now, many folks don't have the prima donna gamemaster, but tellingly, even when your gamemaster isn't the prima donna type, the attitude is so deeply ingrained and accepted as standard in the hobby that players still fear risking its appearance. They will sit meekly through numerous sessions without saying anything to their gamemaster out of an expectant, general unease with doing so.

The idea of this being "normal" is so firmly ingrained in our hobby culture that pointing it out as fucked up earns one derision, snarled put-downs, accusations of elitism, and cries of beating the bad, wrong fun drum.

But since WHEN was this NORMAL, ACCEPTABLE behavior that deserved justification and defense? In what other activities is this social dynamic tolerated or accepted as natural and good?

Who here has either been that player or been the gamemaster discovering that one of your players has been bored and frustrated for the last six months but didn't want to speak up because they didn't want to "hurt your feelings"?

If you can't disagree with your friend or critique his efforts -- especially in an activity you are jointly involved with -- without risking your friendship, there is something seriously wrong. If you are a creator and can't deal with someone not liking your shit, there is something seriously wrong.

And if the subculture supports and defends that situation as reasonable, there is something even more seriously wrong.

Think about it. Then bitch slap the next person to try and justify, defend, or handwave the situation away as either not a problem or somehow acceptable or reasonable. Do it for me. Do it for yourself. Do it for your hobby. Because this is not a healthy behavior.
 
 
Raven Daegmorgan
14 April 2006 @ 07:49 pm
On the Rejection of Studied Observations  
I have just finished [ed: April 4th] reading "The Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke. I also just read some reviews of the book on Amazon, and of course there were reviewers complaining both mildly and agitatedly about Clarke's depiction of and statements about religion. Here's the thing: I would bet money the majority of those complaining are of a somewhat devout religious background.

Unfortunately, it has been my long experience that the hosts of such complaints suffer, in varying degrees, from the following mental disease[1]: an intellectual and emotional attachment to a subject that makes them unable to deal with honest criticism of that subject, even (if not especially) rational, factual criticisms or observations that showcase obvious negative characteristics of the subject.

There is an infection by the concept that pointing out anything negative about another individual or idea is a blatant show of contempt for the-individual-expressing-that-idea or for the idea itself; the value or rationale in making a declaration that dissects their choice subject and presents anything negative about it is accepted without question as null.

Read more... )

Now, I could just complain about the behavior, but that serves little purpose without providing an actual solution to the problem of this behavior. The solution is thus: the ability to actually observe negative feedback as valid, regardless of whether you disagree or agree, to remove all feelings of dis/agreement from the equasion and observe the feedback on its own merits to determine whether or not the feedback is useful or presented with a solid foundation. If the premises of the observation are solid, and supported by facts or research, does the observation have positive, useful application?

This is where the fright factor comes in: the positive, useful results often require a change of attitude or reworking of old core beliefs and behaviors, and for whatever reason (most likely having to do with the way the brain learns about the world and develops until adulthood), the human brain -- whether or not the person themselves is -- is terrified of this prospect. It is the same reason people quite literally go crazy -- from having nervous breakdowns to severe depression to climbing bell towers with rifles -- when their life circumstances change too drastically from the norm.

Read more... )

-----

[1] I hear the screaming reactionary monkey troupe coming, so I'd better explain this for them. When I say mental disease, I mean just that. It is not a derogatory insult, it is an objective description of a condition that obstructs natural, healthy function.
 
 
Raven Daegmorgan
19 August 2005 @ 07:32 pm
Releasing the Tension  
Well, I'm feeling alright today, time to let out some air and just breathe.

I've done a bit of artwork here and there, one piece that Seth is still musing over for Alyria (the cover I contracted with him last year), and one piece that will never see the light of day because it was just done to relax -- yes, I spent a few hours (three or four) on it, and it does have form and structure, but it was just basically screwing around on the canvas.

I put up Orx for sale on RPGNow last week, and just today put up The Way of the Magus: On Language and Research. The latter hasn't been approved for sale yet, but it feels GOOD to finish something.

No writing this week yet (lots of editing and layout tweaking) unless you count the occasional post to either the Forge or RPGCreate. I left the DnDContact list because the moderator and I were having a serious personality conflict. Basically, I didn't hold to his brand of moderation, which was based on the idea that no one can ever say anything at any time that might be remotely interpreted as insulting. That means: no criticism allowed, of anyone, ever, in any fashion...because all criticism is baaaad. The typical attitude bred in an overly-PC environment.

Read more... )