vie
Greentike
Posts: 8
|
Post by vie on Dec 4, 2017 19:28:05 GMT
I mean, I feel like it's important to keep in mind that these are aspect-themed blurbs for a fun little online personality quiz. They are necessarily short and limited in scope. It's just some flavor for the quiz, not a compendium of fully comprehensive lore rundowns on every aspect and the overall system. Of course they cut stuff out and focus only on bits of the aspects easily applicable to the style of internet personality tests. The fact that they contain any new data for theorizing is like, a neat extra, not their actual function, and I think that the context in which they were created really needs to be taken into account when analyzing them.
On another note, I am... genuinely surprised to find an aspect wheel canonically endorsed? Especially since the text didn't mention it. The math does apparently show that it matters, though. Heart and mind being next to space and time is the biggest shocker to me, I would have expected them to closer to like, Breath and Blood. I wonder if anything can be made of which pairs are perpendicular to each other? Is it meaningful that, say, Hope/Rage 'perpendicular' to Light/Void (maybe belief axis vs meaning/knowledge axis like an objectivity/subjectivity thing)? Just how much does this geometry actually matter? Weird stuff, but potentially fertile ground for analysis.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 4, 2017 21:42:59 GMT
Of course that's all conjecture because I am not Mind-bound, but that's how I see it. One driven by this ideal would be inclined to think beyond themselves, or in other words, place less importance on their own self or desires. Who you are isn't as important as what you do. Right, I fully agree with this, that was my model of Heart vs. Mind prior to this test coming out. However, just because someone doesn't care about their Identity too much doesn't mean that said Identity will sublimate into undefinable fluidity like this description would seem to suggest. It just reads like the author of this test overshot when trying to make Mind the opposite of Heart. On a semi-related note, this highlights how odd of a result Mind is: A personality quiz where one of the answers is basically "You're the sort of person to not bother taking personality quizzes" I mean, I feel like it's important to keep in mind that these are aspect-themed blurbs for a fun little online personality quiz. They are necessarily short and limited in scope. It's just some flavor for the quiz, not a compendium of fully comprehensive lore rundowns on every aspect and the overall system. Of course they cut stuff out and focus only on bits of the aspects easily applicable to the style of internet personality tests. The fact that they contain any new data for theorizing is like, a neat extra, not their actual function, and I think that the context in which they were created really needs to be taken into account when analyzing them. On another note, I am... genuinely surprised to find an aspect wheel canonically endorsed? Especially since the text didn't mention it. The math does apparently show that it matters, though. Heart and mind being next to space and time is the biggest shocker to me, I would have expected them to closer to like, Breath and Blood. I wonder if anything can be made of which pairs are perpendicular to each other? Is it meaningful that, say, Hope/Rage 'perpendicular' to Light/Void (maybe belief axis vs meaning/knowledge axis like an objectivity/subjectivity thing)? Just how much does this geometry actually matter? Weird stuff, but potentially fertile ground for analysis. Yeah, but would writing two paragraphs per Aspect instead of one really have been too much text for us to handle? (Reminder that "Us" is "People who made it through Homestuck") Besides, if abridging to just the facets most relevant to the personalities of the demographic was the goal, they didn't do a very good job of it. One of the facets of Light missing is Relevance/Attention. I refuse to believe that "Attention seeker" isn't a common enough type of person that might take this test.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 4, 2017 22:27:09 GMT
Almost half of the canon characters don't have the Aspect that best fits them, and a few have personalities that are completely at odds with their Aspect's associated personality traits. I'm sure there are plenty of confident, even brash, heroes of Mind in Paradox Space who aren't at all burdened with choice paralysis. Which is exactly the problem with these new Aspect descriptions. They completely botch canon. The aspects work fine in canon, in the context of the classpect system. This new system is just half-assed. I don't think the test descriptions are meant to replace the canon information about the Aspects, just add to it. Time is still the Aspect of death, and people who are genuinely interested in the Space Aspect (such as through an interest in physics or feeling responsible for continuing their species's life cycle) are still inclined towards Space despite these not being mentioned, for example. And honestly, I don't think it's possible to make a system mapping personalities to Aspects that can perfectly describe all canon characters. Each Aspect description would either wind up so general it covered most of the cast or it would clasify some wrong as this one does or it would be so ridiculously specific to the canon characters that it wouldn't be able to be applied to most other personalities. I mean, I feel like it's important to keep in mind that these are aspect-themed blurbs for a fun little online personality quiz. They are necessarily short and limited in scope. It's just some flavor for the quiz, not a compendium of fully comprehensive lore rundowns on every aspect and the overall system. Of course they cut stuff out and focus only on bits of the aspects easily applicable to the style of internet personality tests. The fact that they contain any new data for theorizing is like, a neat extra, not their actual function, and I think that the context in which they were created really needs to be taken into account when analyzing them. On another note, I am... genuinely surprised to find an aspect wheel canonically endorsed? Especially since the text didn't mention it. The math does apparently show that it matters, though. Heart and mind being next to space and time is the biggest shocker to me, I would have expected them to closer to like, Breath and Blood. I wonder if anything can be made of which pairs are perpendicular to each other? Is it meaningful that, say, Hope/Rage 'perpendicular' to Light/Void (maybe belief axis vs meaning/knowledge axis like an objectivity/subjectivity thing)? Just how much does this geometry actually matter? Weird stuff, but potentially fertile ground for analysis. Yeah, but would writing two paragraphs per Aspect instead of one really have been too much text for us to handle? (Reminder that "Us" is "People who made it through Homestuck") Besides, if abridging to just the facets most relevant to the personalities of the demographic was the goal, they didn't do a very good job of it. One of the facets of Light missing is Relevance/Attention. I refuse to believe that "Attention seeker" isn't a common enough type of person that might take this test. Would you instead be willing to believe that "attention seeker" is a characteristic of Serkets instead of heroes of Light?
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 4, 2017 22:43:31 GMT
Would you instead be willing to believe that "attention seeker" is a characteristic of Serkets instead of heroes of Light? From page 6/007522, ==> CALLIOPE: NO NO NO NO NO! THIS WON'T DO AT ALL! CALLIOPE: A LIGHT PLAYER? A LIGHT PLAYER??? CALLIOPE: HAVE YOU GONE MENTAL? WHY DON'T WE JUST BURN A BLOODY BONFIRE IN HERE! CALLIOPE: HE'LL SPOT US ANY MINUTE! ASSUMING HE ISN'T ALREADY ON HIS WAY TO BLOW US ALL TO KINGDOM COME!!!Calliope seems to think that the Light Aspect, and those bound to it have an inherent attraction, that they naturally grab the attention of others. Edit: also From page 6/007298, [A6I3] ==> The aspect ruling [Horuss'] life would always conspire to dampen his relevance.Aranea also attributes a lack of relevance to Light's opposite.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 4, 2017 23:09:17 GMT
Would you instead be willing to believe that "attention seeker" is a characteristic of Serkets instead of heroes of Light? From page 6/007522, ==> CALLIOPE: NO NO NO NO NO! THIS WON'T DO AT ALL! CALLIOPE: A LIGHT PLAYER? A LIGHT PLAYER??? CALLIOPE: HAVE YOU GONE MENTAL? WHY DON'T WE JUST BURN A BLOODY BONFIRE IN HERE! CALLIOPE: HE'LL SPOT US ANY MINUTE! ASSUMING HE ISN'T ALREADY ON HIS WAY TO BLOW US ALL TO KINGDOM COME!!!Calliope seems to think that the Light Aspect, and those bound to it have an inherent attraction, that they naturally grab the attention of others. Edit: also From page 6/007298, [A6I3] ==> The aspect ruling [Horuss'] life would always conspire to dampen his relevance.Aranea also attributes a lack of relevance to Light's opposite. Well I would say that the first is better explained by Light being the Aspect of Revelation, since Rose is threatening to reveal Calliope's location and this is the the opposite of what the paired Aspect Void does, revealing information instead of obfuscating it. The second I would call an indirect effect: Horuss was obfuscated by his Aspect, causing him to be less relevant. But that's neither here nor there. It would not follow that heroes of an Aspect of relevance are necessarily inclined to being attention seekers, as caring about relevance could equally be expressed by the opposite behavior of considering yourself irrelevant and instead obsessing over others who you deem as the real important people. Same thing with Hope not having religiosity as an associated character trait despite being the Aspect of belief, because people can equally firmly believe in a religion as they can that all religions are false.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 5, 2017 0:35:31 GMT
It would not follow that heroes of an Aspect of relevance are necessarily inclined to being attention seekers, as caring about relevance could equally be expressed by the opposite behavior of considering yourself irrelevant and instead obsessing over others who you deem as the real important people. Same thing with Hope not having religiosity as an associated character trait despite being the Aspect of belief, because people can equally firmly believe in a religion as they can that all religions are false. It would also not follow that Heroes of an Aspect of Knowledge are necessarily inclined to being relentless knowledge seekers. Yet the description seems to say that's the only possible type of Light person. That's the fundamental problem with this test. By ignoring Class altogether, its had to take the Class's purpose i.e. an Attitude towards an Aspect's concepts/ideas, and fold it into the Aspect itself. This not only guarantees that the test will never match the canon characters because they have diverse Classes, it also greatly limits the results of this test(since I'm sure we can all easily imagine a person who doesn't match any of these descriptions) and also undercuts the very definition of an Aspect by adding things that just aren't a part of it. So even if these descriptions managed to accurately include all the facts/concepts/ideas behind the Aspects, it'd still be basically useless to us.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 5, 2017 1:56:48 GMT
It would not follow that heroes of an Aspect of relevance are necessarily inclined to being attention seekers, as caring about relevance could equally be expressed by the opposite behavior of considering yourself irrelevant and instead obsessing over others who you deem as the real important people. Same thing with Hope not having religiosity as an associated character trait despite being the Aspect of belief, because people can equally firmly believe in a religion as they can that all religions are false. It would also not follow that Heroes of an Aspect of Knowledge are necessarily inclined to being relentless knowledge seekers. True. It isn't necessarily the case that Light players had to be knowledge seekers. But, in particular, Hussie did decide to make Light players relentless knowledge seekers and thus they are that instead of, say, original thinkers and and innovators of new ideas. Yet the description seems to say that's the only possible type of Light person. Rather, it says that that is the only kind of personality that inclines you to being named a hero of Light. Clearly we can see from Vriska that it isn't a strict necessity. That's the fundamental problem with this test. By ignoring Class altogether, its had to take the Class's purpose i.e. an Attitude towards an Aspect's concepts/ideas, and fold it into the Aspect itself. This not only guarantees that the test will never match the canon characters because they have diverse Classes, it also greatly limits the results of this test(since I'm sure we can all easily imagine a person who doesn't match any of these descriptions) and also undercuts the very definition of an Aspect by adding things that just aren't a part of it. So even if these descriptions managed to accurately include all the facts/concepts/ideas behind the Aspects, it'd still be basically useless to us. How then do you explain that the test's Aspect descriptions do correctly sort the majority of canon players, without being modified according to their class? For every class (except Maid), we have at least one example of someone who fits their canon Aspect's personality description as written at least as well as any other Aspect. That isn't to say that Classes won't have an attitude towards your Aspect being one of their associated personality traits, like Princes disliking their Aspect or Thieves wanting to personally own a lot of it. But I doubt they'll all have one, and the Aspect's personality descriptions already usually apply even without them.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 5, 2017 3:22:27 GMT
Okay, hold on here... note how many of the characters oppose their Aspect's description or clearly fit in another better How then do you explain that the test's Aspect descriptions do correctly sort the majority of canon players Before we tumble down the rabbit hole any further, can you clarify what exactly your opinion/argument is? Mine is this: The test is rubbish. The quiz is absurdly simplistic and flawed. The Aspect descriptions are not only incomplete and questionable slices of the greater nuanced concepts, but the personalities they describe are an even narrower slice of the true possibilities still.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 5, 2017 4:01:05 GMT
Okay, hold on here... note how many of the characters oppose their Aspect's description or clearly fit in another better How then do you explain that the test's Aspect descriptions do correctly sort the majority of canon players Before we tumble down the rabbit hole any further, can you clarify what exactly your opinion/argument is? Mine is this: The test is rubbish. The quiz is absurdly simplistic and flawed. The Aspect descriptions are not only incomplete and questionable slices of the greater nuanced concepts, but the personalities they describe are an even narrower slice of the true possibilities still. My position is that Aspects are the concepts that make up the reality of Paradox Space on a fundamental level. Sburb assigns Aspects to players via an algorithm that takes many factors into account. One of these factors is personality. Discounting the general personality trait of "is interested in Aspect X", which always makes the algorithm more likely to name you a hero of Aspect X, Sburb has a semi-arbitray list of other personality traits for each Aspect, each of which increase your chances of being assigned that Aspect. Based on the personality test descriptions and the canon characters, roughly 59% of people receive an Aspect which maximally fits their personality. There are 14 canon characters for which this is not the case. Of those, four demonstrate at least one personality trait of their Aspect, but I think are more accurately described by others. These are Eridan (Rage), Kurloz(Hope), Gamzee(Hope), and Roxy(Blood or Life). One, Porrim, does not fit her Aspect at all, instead being better described by another, Hope. Two have personalities that are actively opposed to how their Aspects are described and are better described by other Aspects: Aradia(Doom and Space) and Meenah(Blood, Rage, and Time). One, Equius, is opposed to his own Aspect without fitting any other. The remaining five; Meulin, Nepeta, Latula, Cronus, Jane, and Horuss; lack any notable personality traits associated with any canon Aspect. Thus, based on the Sburb players observed, personality-Aspect agreement is a strong predictor for someone's classpect. My previous theories underestimated both how many personality traits were assigned to the average Aspect and how likely a player of that Aspect would be to have those traits. However, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to have the right personality for their assigned Aspect, nor do most people have every personality trait associated with their Aspect, nor are people barred from getting an Aspect whose personality traits are completely opposite from their own. I do however agree the actual questions on the test aren't very good, especially the ones that just ask what superpower you'd want.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 5, 2017 7:06:24 GMT
My position is that Aspects are the concepts that make up the reality of Paradox Space on a fundamental level. Sburb assigns Aspects to players via an algorithm that takes many factors into account. One of these factors is personality. Discounting the general personality trait of "is interested in Aspect X", which always makes the algorithm more likely to name you a hero of Aspect X, Sburb has a semi-arbitray list of other personality traits for each Aspect, each of which increase your chances of being assigned that Aspect. Based on the personality test descriptions and the canon characters, roughly 59% of people receive an Aspect which maximally fits their personality. There are 14 canon characters for which this is not the case. Of those, four demonstrate at least one personality trait of their Aspect, but I think are more accurately described by others. These are Eridan (Rage), Kurloz(Hope), Gamzee(Hope), and Roxy(Blood or Life). One, Porrim, does not fit her Aspect at all, instead being better described by another, Hope. Two have personalities that are actively opposed to how their Aspects are described and are better described by other Aspects: Aradia(Doom and Space) and Meenah(Blood, Rage, and Time). One, Equius, is opposed to his own Aspect without fitting any other. The remaining five; Meulin, Nepeta, Latula, Cronus, Jane, and Horuss; lack any notable personality traits associated with any canon Aspect. Thus, based on the Sburb players observed, personality-Aspect agreement is a strong predictor for someone's classpect. My previous theories underestimated both how many personality traits were assigned to the average Aspect and how likely a player of that Aspect would be to have those traits. However, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to have the right personality for their assigned Aspect, nor do most people have every personality trait associated with their Aspect, nor are people barred from getting an Aspect whose personality traits are completely opposite from their own. I do however agree the actual questions on the test aren't very good, especially the ones that just ask what superpower you'd want. Okay, so you're saying that 59% is a good success rate? Because I would have to disagree there. Barely above half isn't very good at all for something that is supposedly canon and was overseen, if not written, by Hussie himself. As for Sburb's algorithm: I'd say that "Interested in X", or rather "Interested in concept associated with X" is pretty much as far as it goes in terms of Aspect. Obviously people are complex and can have many interests that may span over several Aspects, in which case it's down to either which is the strongest, or decided by some other factors. In what way they're interested in X: that's the Class. I think the reason this test only has a 59% success rate with the canon examples isn't because of other, hidden variables. It's because it's not a very good test. That's not to say that those other variables definitely aren't a thing, just that they aren't the problem here. Finally, as bare-bones as his character is, I think Cronus fits the test just fine actually: Hope is about Conviction. Cronus is convinced that he's a nice guy, convinced that he has a shot at getting laid, convinced that Mituna is his friend, despite all evidence to the contrary on all those ideas. But even adding him to the success pool doesn't give this test a good enough success rate in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 5, 2017 23:19:49 GMT
My position is that Aspects are the concepts that make up the reality of Paradox Space on a fundamental level. Sburb assigns Aspects to players via an algorithm that takes many factors into account. One of these factors is personality. Discounting the general personality trait of "is interested in Aspect X", which always makes the algorithm more likely to name you a hero of Aspect X, Sburb has a semi-arbitray list of other personality traits for each Aspect, each of which increase your chances of being assigned that Aspect. Based on the personality test descriptions and the canon characters, roughly 59% of people receive an Aspect which maximally fits their personality. There are 14 canon characters for which this is not the case. Of those, four demonstrate at least one personality trait of their Aspect, but I think are more accurately described by others. These are Eridan (Rage), Kurloz(Hope), Gamzee(Hope), and Roxy(Blood or Life). One, Porrim, does not fit her Aspect at all, instead being better described by another, Hope. Two have personalities that are actively opposed to how their Aspects are described and are better described by other Aspects: Aradia(Doom and Space) and Meenah(Blood, Rage, and Time). One, Equius, is opposed to his own Aspect without fitting any other. The remaining five; Meulin, Nepeta, Latula, Cronus, Jane, and Horuss; lack any notable personality traits associated with any canon Aspect. Thus, based on the Sburb players observed, personality-Aspect agreement is a strong predictor for someone's classpect. My previous theories underestimated both how many personality traits were assigned to the average Aspect and how likely a player of that Aspect would be to have those traits. However, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to have the right personality for their assigned Aspect, nor do most people have every personality trait associated with their Aspect, nor are people barred from getting an Aspect whose personality traits are completely opposite from their own. I do however agree the actual questions on the test aren't very good, especially the ones that just ask what superpower you'd want. Okay, so you're saying that 59% is a good success rate? Because I would have to disagree there. Barely above half isn't very good at all for something that is supposedly canon and was overseen, if not written, by Hussie himself. As for Sburb's algorithm: I'd say that "Interested in X", or rather "Interested in concept associated with X" is pretty much as far as it goes in terms of Aspect. Obviously people are complex and can have many interests that may span over several Aspects, in which case it's down to either which is the strongest, or decided by some other factors. In what way they're interested in X: that's the Class. I think the reason this test only has a 59% success rate with the canon examples isn't because of other, hidden variables. It's because it's not a very good test. That's not to say that those other variables definitely aren't a thing, just that they aren't the problem here. Finally, as bare-bones as his character is, I think Cronus fits the test just fine actually: Hope is about Conviction. Cronus is convinced that he's a nice guy, convinced that he has a shot at getting laid, convinced that Mituna is his friend, despite all evidence to the contrary on all those ideas. But even adding him to the success pool doesn't give this test a good enough success rate in my opinion. It's a good success rate under the assumption that Hussie intended for Aspects to correlate to personality about 60% of the time. Obviously if he wanted it to instead be 100%, or 30% or 0%, this is a very bad set of descriptions. But you shouldn't theorize on how high the rate is, then turn around and use that theory to try to prove the evidence is wrong. Since nothing in test outright contradicts the comic (like it would if it had a giant banner at the top that said "all people with this Aspect have this exact personality, no exceptions") and demonstrates very specific claims that don't seem like they could have come from anywhere except Hussie's notes (I know of no-one who read the comic then decided that Space players were as a category more interested in redeeming people than players of other Aspects were) I think the most likely explanation is that this is all from Hussie's own private decisions on how the classpect system works, with him having decided on personality profiles for different Aspects in general earlier in the comic, then decided on a case by case basis whether and which of those traits he'd use in new characters as he introduced them.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 6, 2017 0:42:59 GMT
It's a good success rate under the assumption that Hussie intended for Aspects to correlate to personality about 60% of the time. Obviously if he wanted it to instead be 100%, or 30% or 0%, this is a very bad set of descriptions. But you shouldn't theorize on how high the rate is, then turn around and use that theory to try to prove the evidence is wrong. Since nothing in test outright contradicts the comic (like it would if it had a giant banner at the top that said "all people with this Aspect have this exact personality, no exceptions") and demonstrates very specific claims that don't seem like they could have come from anywhere except Hussie's notes (I know of no-one who read the comic then decided that Space players were as a category more interested in redeeming people than players of other Aspects were) I think the most likely explanation is that this is all from Hussie's own private decisions on how the classpect system works, with him having decided on personality profiles for different Aspects in general earlier in the comic, then decided on a case by case basis whether and which of those traits he'd use in new characters as he introduced them. Firstly, why should we just assume the success rate is meant to be 60%? Secondly, just because it is non-contradictory and makes specific, uncommon claims doesn't make it reliable or meaningful. "Eridan has 5 pairs of those striped pants" is also non-contradictory and, I assume, not been claimed before by anyone. Doesn't make it canon. But more importantly, doesn't make it useful. Even if true, that statement doesn't help us in any way analyse the story and draw new results that we couldn't before. My point here isn't that this test is non-canon or outright wrong. My point is that the information given to us is A) Very limited, B) An incomplete slice of the whole, true picture and C) Is reformatted for an entirely different context outside of the actual story. Therefore, my point is that it is not very useful to us for analysis of the canon Classpects.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 6, 2017 1:43:09 GMT
It's a good success rate under the assumption that Hussie intended for Aspects to correlate to personality about 60% of the time. Obviously if he wanted it to instead be 100%, or 30% or 0%, this is a very bad set of descriptions. But you shouldn't theorize on how high the rate is, then turn around and use that theory to try to prove the evidence is wrong. Since nothing in test outright contradicts the comic (like it would if it had a giant banner at the top that said "all people with this Aspect have this exact personality, no exceptions") and demonstrates very specific claims that don't seem like they could have come from anywhere except Hussie's notes (I know of no-one who read the comic then decided that Space players were as a category more interested in redeeming people than players of other Aspects were) I think the most likely explanation is that this is all from Hussie's own private decisions on how the classpect system works, with him having decided on personality profiles for different Aspects in general earlier in the comic, then decided on a case by case basis whether and which of those traits he'd use in new characters as he introduced them. Firstly, why should we just assume the success rate is meant to be 60%? Secondly, just because it is non-contradictory and makes specific, uncommon claims doesn't make it reliable or meaningful. "Eridan has 5 pairs of those striped pants" is also non-contradictory and, I assume, not been claimed before by anyone. Doesn't make it canon. But more importantly, doesn't make it useful. Even if true, that statement doesn't help us in any way analyse the story and draw new results that we couldn't before. My point here isn't that this test is non-canon or outright wrong. My point is that the information given to us is A) Very limited, B) An incomplete slice of the whole, true picture and C) Is reformatted for an entirely different context outside of the actual story. Therefore, my point is that it is not very useful to us for analysis of the canon Classpects. Because Hussie published the official Aspect personality descriptions, and so we can calculate the number ourselves. I mean, he probably didn't consciously choose exactly that percentage instead of a vague "more than half" but still, if he had meant the percentage to be much different he would have either written the characters differently or gone back and changed the Aspect descriptions to better fit the characters he did write before he published them. I would say that all information about the Classpect system has been incomplete and limited, and is incomplete and limited still. Regardless, the test expands on what was previously known and I see no reason as to why it would have left out anything within its own remit (that is, information about the general personalities of heroes of a given Aspect) and think that the absence of a characteristic in the description should be taken as indicative of that characteristic not being common for that Aspect. It is very useful, even in the case of canon classpects, because it makes statements about segments of players as a whole. We no longer have to try to reverse engineer common Life character traits based on generalizing from only three examples. So we can now say that Witches of Life, as a consequence of being heroes of Life, have a tendency towards the given Life profile, alongside a similar Witch profile that has yet to be revealed (but which I would guess will include "cheerfulness" somewhere) and, possibly, some traits that are unique to the combination of the two.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 6, 2017 2:16:01 GMT
Because Hussie published the official Aspect personality descriptions, and so we can calculate the number ourselves. I mean, he probably didn't consciously choose exactly that percentage instead of a vague "more than half" but still, if he had meant the percentage to be much different he would have either written the characters differently or gone back and changed the Aspect descriptions to better fit the characters he did write before he published them. There's a big difference between Publish and Create. We don't even know for sure if he even looked at the test before endorsing it. But even if he did, even if he had a major part in it's creation, this argument only holds if he's perfect and could reliably come up with the exact match rate he wanted. Besides, like I said before, and you've also said before: This test isn't about the Canon Characters, it's been specially made as a quick personality quiz for us internet weirdos. Trying to take that and fold it back into a context it was never made for isn't guaranteed to reliably give you the same results. So you reckon that the descriptions are as complete and comprehensive as they need to be. That anything not mentioned by them like, say, Luck is actually not a part of the Aspect and never has been? I know before you said Luck was omitted because it's not a personality trait, and you're right it's not. But y'know what else? Knowledge isn't a personality trait either, it's an abstract concept, just like Light. The description gets around this by rephrasing it as "Interested in Knowledge", but as it happens "Interested in Luck" is also a viable phrase. So I'm struggling to see any good reason why Knowledge would been included but Luck/Fortune wouldn't. (needless to say, I, and hopefully everyone else, outright reject the notion that Luck isn't a part of Light)
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 7, 2017 0:09:25 GMT
Because Hussie published the official Aspect personality descriptions, and so we can calculate the number ourselves. I mean, he probably didn't consciously choose exactly that percentage instead of a vague "more than half" but still, if he had meant the percentage to be much different he would have either written the characters differently or gone back and changed the Aspect descriptions to better fit the characters he did write before he published them. There's a big difference between Publish and Create. We don't even know for sure if he even looked at the test before endorsing it. But even if he did, even if he had a major part in it's creation, this argument only holds if he's perfect and could reliably come up with the exact match rate he wanted. Besides, like I said before, and you've also said before: This test isn't about the Canon Characters, it's been specially made as a quick personality quiz for us internet weirdos. Trying to take that and fold it back into a context it was never made for isn't guaranteed to reliably give you the same results. Hmm, you are correct that other than the poison curing thing under Life, there's basically nothing that specifically references circumstances that would only happen on adventures. So you could be right that there are extra personality traits, but only ones that wouldn't apply to an average person. So "is motivated by making money" couldn't be an extra Life trait, but "wants to overthrow her culture's government" might be. So you reckon that the descriptions are as complete and comprehensive as they need to be. That anything not mentioned by them like, say, Luck is actually not a part of the Aspect and never has been? I know before you said Luck was omitted because it's not a personality trait, and you're right it's not. But y'know what else? Knowledge isn't a personality trait either, it's an abstract concept, just like Light. The description gets around this by rephrasing it as "Interested in Knowledge", but as it happens "Interested in Luck" is also a viable phrase. So I'm struggling to see any good reason why Knowledge would been included but Luck/Fortune wouldn't. (needless to say, I, and hopefully everyone else, outright reject the notion that Luck isn't a part of Light) Anything not mentioned as a personality trait for the Aspect, except as covered by the caveats mentioned previously. Luck is a part of the Light Aspect, but it is not a personality trait of Light players (or at all). Knowledge gets so much emphasis probably because it's connected to a personality trait that's common enough to appear in normal people, and also because the author is clearly just padding out the Aspect description to get it to the same length as the others. You can see the same thing happening with Doom. They could have padded it out by mentioning "Light players are obsessed with luck" too, but they were presumably working under the constraint of only mentioning things that would be useful for a personality test.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 7, 2017 0:12:38 GMT
Anything not mentioned as a personality trait for the Aspect, except as covered by the caveats mentioned previously. Luck is a part of the Light Aspect, but it is not a personality trait of Light players (or at all). Knowledge gets so much emphasis probably because it's connected to a personality trait that's common enough to appear in normal people, and also because the author is clearly just padding out the Aspect description to get it to the same length as the others. You can see the same thing happening with Doom. They could have padded it out by mentioning "Light players are obsessed with luck" too, but they were presumably working under the constraint of only mentioning things that would be useful for a personality test. What about "Risk Taker"? That's a nice way to parse "Interested in Luck", and definitely a common enough type of person to warrant representation in a personality quiz.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 7, 2017 0:36:31 GMT
Anything not mentioned as a personality trait for the Aspect, except as covered by the caveats mentioned previously. Luck is a part of the Light Aspect, but it is not a personality trait of Light players (or at all). Knowledge gets so much emphasis probably because it's connected to a personality trait that's common enough to appear in normal people, and also because the author is clearly just padding out the Aspect description to get it to the same length as the others. You can see the same thing happening with Doom. They could have padded it out by mentioning "Light players are obsessed with luck" too, but they were presumably working under the constraint of only mentioning things that would be useful for a personality test. What about "Risk Taker"? That's a nice way to parse "Interested in Luck", and definitely a common enough type of person to warrant representation in a personality quiz. Habitually taking risks doesn't necessarily require an interest in luck, nor does an interest in luck necessarily lead to a being a risk taker. Indeed, if you fear bad luck as much as Vriska you might be inclined to take fewer risks. So, assuming that the author didn't want or wasn't allowed to make up new information to add, they wouldn't have been able to call Light players risk takers.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 7, 2017 1:03:39 GMT
What about "Risk Taker"? That's a nice way to parse "Interested in Luck", and definitely a common enough type of person to warrant representation in a personality quiz. Habitually taking risks doesn't necessarily require an interest in luck, nor does an interest in luck necessarily lead to a being a risk taker. Indeed, if you fear bad luck as much as Vriska you might be inclined to take fewer risks. So, assuming that the author didn't want or wasn't allowed to make up new information to add, they wouldn't have been able to call Light players risk takers. Vriska only feared bad luck because of her status as an unfledged Thief. Once she began to master her role, she took huge risks all the time because they always worked in her favour as per her powers. Her Class is an important factor. If you're saying the description shouldn't have 'Risk Taker' because a Thief of Light doesn't match that pattern, then it stands to reason that it also shouldn't say 'Knowledge seeker' because of a Prince of Light wouldn't match that pattern either.
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 7, 2017 1:19:27 GMT
Habitually taking risks doesn't necessarily require an interest in luck, nor does an interest in luck necessarily lead to a being a risk taker. Indeed, if you fear bad luck as much as Vriska you might be inclined to take fewer risks. So, assuming that the author didn't want or wasn't allowed to make up new information to add, they wouldn't have been able to call Light players risk takers. Vriska only feared bad luck because of her status as an unfledged Thief. Once she began to master her role, she took huge risks all the time because they always worked in her favour as per her powers. Her Class is an important factor. If you're saying the description shouldn't have 'Risk Taker' because a Thief of Light doesn't match that pattern, then it stands to reason that it also shouldn't say 'Knowledge seeker' because of a Prince of Light wouldn't match that pattern either. If you rig something so that you can't fail, is that really risk taking behavior any more? I'd say that's almost the exact opposite. And that was something she was doing from the beginning, long before she developed control over luck: AT: bECAUSE, i WAS THINKING ABOUT THE NUMBERS, aND, AT: iT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE A FAVORABLE OUTCOME, AT: nO MATTER WHAT THE DICE DO, I would also deny that Princes of Light aren't more likely to be knowledge seekers. Kurloz, Eridan, and Dirk all have at least some agreement with their own Aspect's personality profile despite being Princes, and someone who "uses knowledge to destroy" certainly has an incentive to find more knowledge to destroy with. Even someone who wants to destroy knowledge may seek it out, to decide which pieces of knowledge he should destroy or just because he wants to keep all knowledge to himself, his motivation for destroying it being that he wants to make sure no one else learns it. And of course, the ones who only destroy luck or destroy with luck shouldn't be any less inclined towards being knowledge seekers.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 7, 2017 2:09:39 GMT
If you rig something so that you can't fail, is that really risk taking behavior any more? I'd say that's almost the exact opposite. And that was something she was doing from the beginning, long before she developed control over luck If Vriska stuck to low stakes coinflips, you'd have an argument, but look at the probabilities she manipulates: Letting the floor collapse from under a Dersite soldier, confronting Bec Noir where her only hope was to get 8 8s for the second time in a few days. She really pushes the probabilities to their limits. But not only that, risk isn't just about the odds, it's about the consequences too. The price she'd pay for failing these sorts of rolls are pretty severe. So as much as Vriska can rig the mundane probabilities in her favour, she still taking risks in a meta sense in that she pushes her rigging ability to its limits and banks far too much on their outcomes. Not to mention that Rose and Aranea also have a reputation for risky behaviour. Aranea's Game Over plan, and Rose's game-upending rampage for example(s). I agree that, at their deepest core, Princes are still Heroes of their Aspect and they still pursue that Aspect in some specific way. But I was more referring to the whole description, the very particular person described by it; that is definitely not a Prince. As you say, if a Prince of Light was pursuing Knowledge, it would be to destroy it, so they and others can remain blissfully ignorant. They are driven, but not to "learn and understand". They aren't "dedicated to knowledge for knowledge's sake", they are dedicated to it's suppression.
|
|
|
Post by Gab on Dec 7, 2017 2:23:32 GMT
On a semi-related note, this highlights how odd of a result Mind is: A personality quiz where one of the answers is basically "You're the sort of person to not bother taking personality quizzes" Yes, but this is a problem all personality quizzes have by nature! Of course it wouldn't. Don't you think, if these had been written for the theorists, it would have been entirely different? It's important to remember that "Us" in this context, i.e. all people who will read these Aspect descriptions, also includes people that have never read Homestuck before at all. The aspects were clearly written for the benefit of the uninitiated. Part of what's exciting about these descriptions though, is that they are the very first time canon has confirmed the theories about them! The aspects were never spelled out in canon, and while the theories have sometimes been basically taken for fact by the community, only now are they actually canonically corroborated. I wouldn't say it's that simple. I think they were more trying to boil the aspects down, or at least the description of them, to a single core concept. It would just be distracting to, in one case, go "oh and something about luck or relevance" without it tying coherently to the main thing about Knowledge. And while I can't find evidence of the title "Sign of the Risk-taker" anywhere in there, such traits would broadly be covered by the signs, Blue and Rust in particular being close to that mark I think. That's the fundamental problem with this test. By ignoring Class altogether, its had to take the Class's purpose i.e. an Attitude towards an Aspect's concepts/ideas, and fold it into the Aspect itself. This not only guarantees that the test will never match the canon characters because they have diverse Classes, it also greatly limits the results of this test(since I'm sure we can all easily imagine a person who doesn't match any of these descriptions) and also undercuts the very definition of an Aspect by adding things that just aren't a part of it. This is true. For this reason, the one I gave above, as well as the overall optimization for the sake of a more casual audience, the aspect descriptions are somewhat generalized and oversimplified. Even the weighty paragraphs we're supplied ultimately only touch on the basics of each aspect. No one can deny this is the biggest flaw with the whole quiz. I don't personally know if I'd really call it a "problem," though. And for the record, I can't imagine putting in the work trying to quantify a type of person who isn't going to fit adequately into 1 of 288 slots. Now that is an oversimplification. There's much to glean from these descriptions. Probably their most valuable asset compared to Homestuck is that they are not interwoven with each character's personal mythologies. These are PURE descriptions of the Aspects. There are also intricacies and angles I don't recall hearing much about prior to these. Especially regarding Doom. Even though, to those who have been doing the work for years now, it's a lot of old news, it's a brand new perspective on all that old news. Scientifically speaking, it's quite valuable. Which is exactly the problem with these new Aspect descriptions. They completely botch canon. The aspects work fine in canon, in the context of the classpect system. This new system is just half-assed. I see no reason to think so. Why do you?
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 7, 2017 23:06:12 GMT
If you rig something so that you can't fail, is that really risk taking behavior any more? I'd say that's almost the exact opposite. And that was something she was doing from the beginning, long before she developed control over luck If Vriska stuck to low stakes coinflips, you'd have an argument, but look at the probabilities she manipulates: Letting the floor collapse from under a Dersite soldier, confronting Bec Noir where her only hope was to get 8 8s for the second time in a few days. She really pushes the probabilities to their limits. But not only that, risk isn't just about the odds, it's about the consequences too. The price she'd pay for failing these sorts of rolls are pretty severe. So as much as Vriska can rig the mundane probabilities in her favour, she still taking risks in a meta sense in that she pushes her rigging ability to its limits and banks far too much on their outcomes. Not to mention that Rose and Aranea also have a reputation for risky behaviour. Aranea's Game Over plan, and Rose's game-upending rampage for example(s). Even if all canon Light players were habitual risk takers, you can't generalize from three Light players to conclude that Light players as a group tend that way. In fact, by doing that and adding to the canon Light description something that wasn't in Hussie's notes previously would mean the test author wasn't doing a good job at conveying Hussie's intended definition of the Aspects. You're suggesting they do the very thing you're complaining about them doing. I agree that, at their deepest core, Princes are still Heroes of their Aspect and they still pursue that Aspect in some specific way. But I was more referring to the whole description, the very particular person described by it; that is definitely not a Prince. As you say, if a Prince of Light was pursuing Knowledge, it would be to destroy it, so they and others can remain blissfully ignorant. They are driven, but not to "learn and understand". They aren't "dedicated to knowledge for knowledge's sake", they are dedicated to it's suppression. I think you're leaning too heavily towards one particular part of the Prince of Light definition, especially to the exclusion of the equally valid "one who uses knowledge to destroy." But I think there is a miscommunication here. I am saying that, among the population of men who notably destroy knowledge, the ones who get named Princes of Light are disproportionately likely to be "driven to learn and understand" no matter how low those actual percentages might be. But it could also be that, within the population of Princes of Light, there are proportionally less people "driven to learn and understand" than there are in the general population. Neither statement disproves the other, and though it's impossible to know with our current information whether or not the general effect of preferring knowledge seekers as Light players overcomes the specific effect of knowledge seekers being less likely to destroy knowledge, it seems plausible that it would be the case.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Dec 8, 2017 0:07:35 GMT
Even if all canon Light players were habitual risk takers, you can't generalize from three Light players to conclude that Light players as a group tend that way. In fact, by doing that and adding to the canon Light description something that wasn't in Hussie's notes previously would mean the test author wasn't doing a good job at conveying Hussie's intended definition of the Aspects. You're suggesting they do the very thing you're complaining about them doing. I just think that between the two options of A) The test is imperfect and/or abridged and B) Luck isn't a part of Light despite all the references and explicit links to it throughout Homestuck, I think the first option is far more likely. We know Hussie wrote Homestuck, we don't know who wrote this test. Not to mention that 8000+ pages is more likely to give a complete picture than one paragraph. You were the one who made the initial observation that these descriptions don't match well with many of the players. I've always agreed with you on that point. Not sure how we got here, so I'll reiterate my initial point: Yes, this test's descriptions don't match up with many of the canon players very well. But I disagree that this definitively proves that non-personality factors are involved in the Canon. Not that I disagree with that notion either, I'm just saying that it's not proof because other explanations exist such as A) The test wasn't written very well and/or B) This test is for an entirely different sort of people, in an entirely different context, through an entirely different delivery mechanism, so we can't expect its inner workings to properly apply to the canon. Obviously you disagree with option A here, but what are your thoughts on B?
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Dec 8, 2017 0:41:19 GMT
Even if all canon Light players were habitual risk takers, you can't generalize from three Light players to conclude that Light players as a group tend that way. In fact, by doing that and adding to the canon Light description something that wasn't in Hussie's notes previously would mean the test author wasn't doing a good job at conveying Hussie's intended definition of the Aspects. You're suggesting they do the very thing you're complaining about them doing. I just think that between the two options of A) The test is imperfect and/or abridged and B) Luck isn't a part of Light despite all the references and explicit links to it throughout Homestuck, I think the first option is far more likely. We know Hussie wrote Homestuck, we don't know who wrote this test. Not to mention that 8000+ pages is more likely to give a complete picture than one paragraph. Well yes, but that's a false dichotomy. The descriptions don't even purport to cover the Aspects, but the people who have them. They all begin with "Those bound to the aspect of ___ are..." rather than "The aspect of ___ is...". You were the one who made the initial observation that these descriptions don't match well with many of the players. I've always agreed with you on that point. Not sure how we got here, so I'll reiterate my initial point: Yes, this test's descriptions don't match up with many of the canon players very well. But I disagree that this definitively proves that non-personality factors are involved in the Canon. Not that I disagree with that notion either, I'm just saying that it's not proof because other explanations exist such as A) The test wasn't written very well and/or B) This test is for an entirely different sort of people, in an entirely different context, through an entirely different delivery mechanism, so we can't expect its inner workings to properly apply to the canon. Obviously you disagree with option A here, but what are your thoughts on B? I agree with B, except in the conclusion. Despite the fact that it was written for a different situation, it does properly apply to canon, though any additional information released in the future might make it more accurate. Note that more accurate doesn't necessarily mean sorting canon players into their canon aspects more often. Additional information could mean more players do get their Aspect, but it could also mean people move from being best described by their canon Aspect, or by none at all, to being best described by a different one.
|
|
|
Post by Gab on Dec 8, 2017 1:41:00 GMT
A thought:
The concept of luck or fortune, particularly GOOD luck, could be parsed through the language of Knowledge. Or specifically, the known, versus the UNknown.
The concept of luck deals with chance, which is random, or unpredictable. A million tiny influences that lead to one result, seemingly untraceable. But if you can control your fortune, you are subtracting the amount of truly random influence on circumstances around you, replacing it with a much more reliable, predictable outcome. In a sense, replacing the unknown with the Known.
After all, if you can say reliably, and be right, that certain events will always occur in your favor, such as always winning a coin toss, it can't really be called "luck" at all, because it isn't. It's more like fact, written by you into the fabric of reality. A fact you happen to have Knowledge of.
If that sounds like a bit of a stretch, I think Rose's navigation of the furthest ring helps connect the two themes nicely. Her Knowledge helps clear a route, reliable and steady, through the otherwise unfathomable timespace of the void.
And while I obviously write this for the sake of Vriska, I have also considered lately that she is someone who clearly understands that Knowledge is power, and she amasses the former to obtain the latter in many ways.
|
|