|
Post by heirloomairloom on Jun 9, 2016 11:54:53 GMT
I think we can look to original four Aspects for insight here. Of those, Space and Time are a pair but Breath and Light aren't. So we can see that while Hussie isn't adverse to taking pre-existing parts of the system and pairing them off, he's not married to the idea either. (Alternatively, Aspect pairings could have been planned from the start, with him originally intending for Breath to represent what Void does now. The conclusion remains the same though.) Fully agreed--I had even considered making the point myself, but thought it might be excessive. Despite my wordiness, I give at least a little effort to being more concise! We can draw a similar analogy to the 'thematic name' discussion. Thief/Rogue is very clearly a thematic name pairing, which shows that such pairings are possible. But Lord/Muse and Prince/Bard are nothing like that--they're certainly not synonyms the way Thief and Rogue are, and any connection between the members of each pair is tenuous and debatable, exactly the opposite of the clear, obvious Thief/Rogue pairing. (The further absence of the most rational pair other than Thief/Rogue, namely Prince/Heir, is also a major problem.) Thus, it is fair to conclude that, while such word-thematic pairings are possible, they are not required, either. Using the name-meaning of a class is unreliable in both directions, because it doesn't guarantee that two classes are paired, but it doesn't guarantee they're not paired, either. In the "pair by meaning" discussion, I'm on the opposite side; I think name meaning is worthless as a guide, partially because of what Calliope told us (emphasis added):
However, there's a very important distinction between the two things. With the "pair by name meaning" thing, I am opposed to the position that meaning is definitive evidence of a pairing. I have absolutely nothing against it happening to be the case that a valid pair is also a pair where the word-meanings are closely linked--I just don't think anyone should be faulted for not using name-meaning as a key element of analysis. Contrariwise, on the "pairing of B1 classes" thing, I am constantly confronted by people who assert that they absolutely cannot be paired, because their titles pre-dated some or all of the systematic class-aspect...thing. All I am arguing for is that there is nothing wrong with pairing B1 classes, that it is a convenient result, a nice "perk" rather than solid "evidence" of pairing. Meaning, again, I don't think anyone should be faulted for doing it. I don't see "they were present in B1 together" as proof of pairing, but I don't see it as even a vaguely helpful disproof of pairing, either. I think you're underselling how important names are. We shouldn't look just at classes and ignore the other half of system. Looking at the Aspect pairings, most do have names with obvious connections to each other: Breath and Blood (both bodily substances), Space and Time (the two sides of the spacetime continuum), Heart and Mind (two metaphorical and/or literal parts of a person), and Hope and Rage(both emotions). Only two, Life/Doom and Light/Void, lack a clear link between their names. Taken together with the three confirmed class pairs, 5 out of 9 pairs have connected names. So while names aren't very good indicators of something's definition, there's a fairly strong correlation between something's name and its partner. Of course, this isn't enough to argue for any particular pairing, as there are plenty of examples of pairings with themed names that aren't canon (Blood/Heart, Space/Void, Bard/Muse, etc). Thus no one can say that a system without Knight/Page must be wrong. However, if someone comes up with a system where all four of their class pairs have nothing in common with each other name-wise, it should be pretty solid evidence against it.
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on Jun 9, 2016 19:17:25 GMT
Fully agreed--I had even considered making the point myself, but thought it might be excessive. Despite my wordiness, I give at least a little effort to being more concise! We can draw a similar analogy to the 'thematic name' discussion. Thief/Rogue is very clearly a thematic name pairing, which shows that such pairings are possible. But Lord/Muse and Prince/Bard are nothing like that--they're certainly not synonyms the way Thief and Rogue are, and any connection between the members of each pair is tenuous and debatable, exactly the opposite of the clear, obvious Thief/Rogue pairing. (The further absence of the most rational pair other than Thief/Rogue, namely Prince/Heir, is also a major problem.) Thus, it is fair to conclude that, while such word-thematic pairings are possible, they are not required, either. Using the name-meaning of a class is unreliable in both directions, because it doesn't guarantee that two classes are paired, but it doesn't guarantee they're not paired, either. In the "pair by meaning" discussion, I'm on the opposite side; I think name meaning is worthless as a guide, partially because of what Calliope told us (emphasis added):
However, there's a very important distinction between the two things. With the "pair by name meaning" thing, I am opposed to the position that meaning is definitive evidence of a pairing. I have absolutely nothing against it happening to be the case that a valid pair is also a pair where the word-meanings are closely linked--I just don't think anyone should be faulted for not using name-meaning as a key element of analysis. Contrariwise, on the "pairing of B1 classes" thing, I am constantly confronted by people who assert that they absolutely cannot be paired, because their titles pre-dated some or all of the systematic class-aspect...thing. All I am arguing for is that there is nothing wrong with pairing B1 classes, that it is a convenient result, a nice "perk" rather than solid "evidence" of pairing. Meaning, again, I don't think anyone should be faulted for doing it. I don't see "they were present in B1 together" as proof of pairing, but I don't see it as even a vaguely helpful disproof of pairing, either. I think you're underselling how important names are. We shouldn't look just at classes and ignore the other half of system. Looking at the Aspect pairings, most do have names with obvious connections to each other: Breath and Blood (both bodily substances), Space and Time (the two sides of the spacetime continuum), Heart and Mind (two metaphorical and/or literal parts of a person), and Hope and Rage(both emotions). Only two, Life/Doom and Light/Void, lack a clear link between their names. Taken together with the three confirmed class pairs, 5 out of 9 pairs have connected names. So while names aren't very good indicators of something's definition, there's a fairly strong correlation between something's name and its partner. Of course, this isn't enough to argue for any particular pairing, as there are plenty of examples of pairings with themed names that aren't canon (Blood/Heart, Space/Void, Bard/Muse, etc). Thus no one can say that a system without Knight/Page must be wrong. However, if someone comes up with a system where all four of their class pairs have nothing in common with each other name-wise, it should be pretty solid evidence against it. I will grant that it's true that most aspect pairs have similarities to them, but isn't it entirely possible that Aspects and Classes are nominally different? On your side, I could argue that Life/Doom seem to make sense to me, as being alive and being dead are essentially opposites, which results in 1/6 pairings making less sense than the others in my book. However, We have 3 confirmed pairings classwise, and 2/3 make little sense. These 2 could be the exceptions to the rule, as Light/Void is, but I feel that the balance of probability seems to fall more in favor of classes being less nominally related than aspects are.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 10, 2016 0:29:18 GMT
I think you're underselling how important names are. We shouldn't look just at classes and ignore the other half of system. Looking at the Aspect pairings, most do have names with obvious connections to each other: Breath and Blood (both bodily substances), Space and Time (the two sides of the spacetime continuum), Heart and Mind (two metaphorical and/or literal parts of a person), and Hope and Rage(both emotions). Only two, Life/Doom and Light/Void, lack a clear link between their names. Taken together with the three confirmed class pairs, 5 out of 9 pairs have connected names. So while names aren't very good indicators of something's definition, there's a fairly strong correlation between something's name and its partner. Of course, this isn't enough to argue for any particular pairing, as there are plenty of examples of pairings with themed names that aren't canon (Blood/Heart, Space/Void, Bard/Muse, etc). Thus no one can say that a system without Knight/Page must be wrong. However, if someone comes up with a system where all four of their class pairs have nothing in common with each other name-wise, it should be pretty solid evidence against it. The thing is, many of the names just don't fit the System as we know it. We of course have the Prince and Bard who, not only have confirmed functions that don't match their names, but I'm not entirely sure that those names even could correspond to any sort of Sburb Class. Bard maybe as some sort of abstract support class, but what the hell does a monarch in waiting mean for a set of Godly World Builders? And take the Sylph. That's an Air Spirit. It's not even a role/occupation like all the other Classes, and it's literal meaning ties much closely to the Breath Aspect that any sort of Class Role. Over all the years of Classpecting, I've seen many discussions on how characters and their powers/actions already don't match the basic meaning of their Class's name. So when the individual characters themselves don't match their Class names, I don't see how that suggests we must still consider the Class names when it comes to pairing.
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on Jun 10, 2016 0:53:49 GMT
Also, when have we seen class abilities/roles make sense with their names? Aspects make sense a bit with their names, but like, when were princes and bards supposed to destroy stuff in real life? I mean, sure, a lot of princes in media are huge dicks, but bards still make no sense. They play music and entertain, for god's sake. For absolutely all reasons they should not be destroying stuff.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 10, 2016 2:19:48 GMT
Also, when have we seen class abilities/roles make sense with their names? Aspects make sense a bit with their names, but like, when were princes and bards supposed to destroy stuff in real life? I mean, sure, a lot of princes in media are huge dicks, but bards still make no sense. They play music and entertain, for god's sake. For absolutely all reasons they should not be destroying stuff. There is an argument for it, but I think that argument is flawed for several reasons. I wrote a post explaining exactly why I think that, then accidentally clicked a link (trying to open a new tab to quote someone else) and lost the whole thing. Long story short: the argument goes "Irish Bards were poets and singers employed in royal courts in the Medieval period; during the late Medieval period and the Renaissance period, Jesters were also employed by nobility and royalty, so "Bard" can mean both things; Jesters were allowed to say shit that would get other people in trouble, some of the time, and that is a highly metaphorical form of destruction." In other words, by linking two vocational groups largely unrelated in both time-period and duties (Bards were the oral historians of the Irish and Scottish, Jesters were entertainers and clowns, sometimes entertaining nobles), and then taking a highly metaphorical interpretation of what one of those classes of people did for a living and where they sometimes did it, the claim is that Bards were "members" of the royal court who "destroyed" people. I don't buy it, myself, as the criticisms above show. The only reason this link could be developed at all is because we already knew that Bards were destroyers linked to Princes. If we didn't know that, the above link would seem like a huge stretch to an outside observer. Such "hindsight bias" is a serious problem, particularly when we already have such limited data and cannot afford to have our interpretation of it compromised any further than it already is. Plus, and I think this is just as important: Prince/Bard is not only a real stretch to defend, it is not the most natural/obvious meaning-based pairing. That would be (as I said before) Prince/ Heir. The fact that Prince/Heir is not a pairing indicates that we absolutely cannot treat a strong, natural meaning-based link as any form of evidence. It is, at best, a nice perk--and sure, nice perks are nice, but an absence of nice perks, even a substantial absence of them, is not and cannot be good evidence against a claim. The absence of Prince/Heir proves that a strong meaning-based link is not "sufficient" (it cannot, on its own, prove pairing); the presence of Lord/Muse proves that a strong meaning-based link is not "necessary" (it is not required for a pairing to exist). When a condition is neither sufficient nor necessary, it is at best an adjunct and at worst a distraction. In other words... Thus no one can say that a system without Knight/Page must be wrong. However, if someone comes up with a system where all four of their class pairs have nothing in common with each other name-wise, it should be pretty solid evidence against it. I flatly disagree with this assertion. If it is not necessary that a pair of classes have thematically associated names, and it is not sufficient for pairing to show that they have such names, at best all we can do is talk about probability. But probability is completely useless when we don't actually know the distribution! This is the fundamental problem of inductive reasoning. The fact that we have gotten heads 50 times in a row on a particular coin says not one thing about what the next coin-flip will be, as long as each flip is in fact independent of the previous flips. Stating "we've seen half the classes or aspects pair up in ways that are thematically linked" doesn't tell us anything at all about what the distribution will be on the other half. I would also argue that it is not appropriate to apply the same thematic expectations to classes that we do to aspects. Aspects are thematic things, by their very nature, and that nature is fundamentally different from the nature of classes (which are, or appear to be, more about "actions"--what with the whole verb thing and all). We have been told, explicitly, that the "surface meaning" of classes and aspects is "deceptive." That, alone, should be enough to make "well you didn't really pay much attention to the thematic elements of the names!" a piece of non-evidence, neither confirming nor refuting any particular claim. Surface meaning is deceptive--we must avoid using surface meaning as evidence. I don't know what else we can extract from that statement. Dirk explicitly used surface meaning, and had to realign his expectations before he could properly "parse" his title. Besides, of the classes that remain unpaired, it's pretty damn hard to make a full theory that includes no thematic pairing whatsoever. Witch forms fairly thematic pairs with Seer, Mage, Maid, and Sylph; Knight forms thematic pairs (depending on who you ask, of course) with Page, Heir, Maid, or Seer (my "watch" verb seems pretty thematic to me); and Maid can go with Witch, Heir, Page, Knight, or Sylph. Avoiding any of those things is quite difficult to do. You'd have to go with something like Witch/Heir, Maid/Mage, Seer/Page, and Knight/Sylph--and apart from Witch/Heir, I don't think I've seen anyone argue for those pairings. (I do, however, pair Witch/Heir myself.)
|
|
|
Post by heirloomairloom on Jun 10, 2016 21:15:04 GMT
Also, when have we seen class abilities/roles make sense with their names? Aspects make sense a bit with their names, but like, when were princes and bards supposed to destroy stuff in real life? I mean, sure, a lot of princes in media are huge dicks, but bards still make no sense. They play music and entertain, for god's sake. For absolutely all reasons they should not be destroying stuff. There actually is a rationale for why Princes are destroyers. It's a reference to a running gag in the King's Quest series, where it is said that princes keep breaking through puzzles and traps because it is their inherent nature to destroy. Of course, that's so obscure that no one could have ever guessed it in advance and it wouldn't have made for a convincing argument even if they somehow had. Thus no one can say that a system without Knight/Page must be wrong. However, if someone comes up with a system where all four of their class pairs have nothing in common with each other name-wise, it should be pretty solid evidence against it. I flatly disagree with this assertion. If it is not necessary that a pair of classes have thematically associated names, and it is not sufficient for pairing to show that they have such names, at best all we can do is talk about probability. But probability is completely useless when we don't actually know the distribution! This is the fundamental problem of inductive reasoning. The fact that we have gotten heads 50 times in a row on a particular coin says not one thing about what the next coin-flip will be, as long as each flip is in fact independent of the previous flips. Stating "we've seen half the classes or aspects pair up in ways that are thematically linked" doesn't tell us anything at all about what the distribution will be on the other half. This is actually a textbook statistics problem. The solution is to get a Beta distribution for the probability of the coin's bias given the observed number of heads. Now that you have a distribution for the probability p that the coin will land on heads, you convert to the probability distribution of getting a result of heads by multiplying by p and finally integrate to convert that to an expected value. The answer is that the odds are pretty heavily in favor of getting heads on your next flip. Obviously this doesn't work if you already know that the coin is fair (p = 0.5), but that's the exact thing we're trying to find. But that aside, Thief/Rogue as a pair Stealing classes wasn't created by Hussie putting a bunch of words in a bag and drawing out three at random. It was created by the author intentionally choosing two class names that were similar to each other and which were directly related to the classes' functions. Obviously we know that he didn't do that in every case, be we know that he did it at least once. What are the odds that he did it exactly one time? Well pretty low, I should think. What kind of person would purposefully tie the names together for one out of seven pieces of a system and never do it again? There's quite a bit of room for evidence between "absolutely confirms/disconfirms a pairing" and "tells us nothing." That kind of extreme skepticism makes it impossible to theorize about classpects outside of what we can know for certain, and people must have reached the end of where that could bring them years ago when the last canon facts came out. So I ask what does constitute evidence for you? If we restrict it only to things that tell us for certain whether two classes are or aren't a pair, then the only thing we can say is that we don't know the last four pairs, and while that position is correct it isn't very useful for people who want to theorize. Even commonly held beliefs about the system are based on the sort of statistical process. To wit: we cannot say that there must be a pairing of female exclusive classes. What we can say is that there must be at least two female exclusive classes, but we have no certain knowledge that there is any relation between them. But of course arguing that would be ridiculous: our other three confirmed pairings share their exclusivity and two of them share their gender. Claiming that the system will be rounded out by two pairings between a female exclusive class and a male leaning class fits all the restrictions we can put on the system. But of course people take the pairs we have seen into account, as they should, and reasonably decide that Prince/Bard means there is going to be a pairing of female exclusive classes and Thief/Rogue implies a pair of male leaning ones. True enough, but a merely "thematic" pairing is over-broad. You can give someone a list of Class names and they'll get why Thief and Rogue are similar (because they are synonymous) without having to explain it or restrain what the word itself means (like moving from Maid to Shield-Maiden to pair with Knight). I would say that the only classes that have connected names are Witch/Mage/Seer (all magic users), Maid/Sylph (words meaning "a woman"), Maid/Heir (young people), Maid/Page (servants), and Knight/Page (knights + knights in training). Not that thematic name pairings aren't represented. Lord/Muse is an example, classes named after gods but in a way that you're unlikely to guess the connection unless you already know that they are a pair of super powerful classes. But you could create some kind of justification for nearly any combination of names you want, just as you said, and so that doesn't tell us very much.
|
|
|
Post by meowcats413 on Jun 10, 2016 23:35:05 GMT
Heyaa! I was wondering if someone could please help me figure out my classpect? It's okay if not, I see there isn't much discussion on that topic, but I'm just kinda curious.
|
|
loading
Raise of the Conductor's Baton
Posts: 435
|
Post by loading on Jun 11, 2016 0:45:30 GMT
From how little you've shared about yourself towards that extent, I would say Maid of Void. (On a more serious note, having some idea of your personality usually helps this sort of thing.)
|
|
|
Post by meowcats413 on Jun 11, 2016 2:00:43 GMT
From how little you've shared about yourself towards that extent, I would say Maid of Void. (On a more serious note, having some idea of your personality usually helps this sort of thing.) Hehe, sorry... I just didn't want to dump a bunch of information here with little to no context or warning. Anyways, on the technical side, I'm an ENTP, and I'll include an infographic I got from another website, and otherwise, I guess I'm like a mix between Terezi, Dave, Porrim, and maybe a little Jade? Sorry, I don't really know how to describe myself... Also, if it makes any difference, most tests I've taken have had me as some sort of Seer.
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on Jun 11, 2016 3:55:28 GMT
First, tests that don't utilize surveys such as ENTP are complete bullshit. Don't take them very seriously, if anything they just help a little bit. First, begin by describing your goals, how you would achieve then, your personality here and in real life, how you act towards others, and generally all that goes in your mental landscape. here's a cool thing:
Chapter One: Emotions What kind of emotions do you feel?
Chapter Two: Goals Goals?
Chapter THREEEEEE: Morals and Values What are your morals and values?
Chapter Four: Socalism/social shit How do you act socially?
Chapter Five: Pressure, emotional or physical. How do you handle pressure?
Chapter Six: Tasks and Problems How do you solve tasks and problems?
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 11, 2016 6:41:45 GMT
From how little you've shared about yourself towards that extent, I would say Maid of Void. (On a more serious note, having some idea of your personality usually helps this sort of thing.) Hehe, sorry... I just didn't want to dump a bunch of information here with little to no context or warning. Anyways, on the technical side, I'm an ENTP, and I'll include an infographic I got from another website, and otherwise, I guess I'm like a mix between Terezi, Dave, Porrim, and maybe a little Jade? Sorry, I don't really know how to describe myself... Also, if it makes any difference, most tests I've taken have had me as some sort of Seer. Interesting--it looks like you've used an expanded form of the Big 5 test. I'm not familiar with the "validity" category--it looks like some sort of meta-analysis saying how accurately the "overall" picture reflects the "detailed" picture. So there's a little less than a 20% wiggle-room on your stuff, if I'm understanding correctly. If I'm not, let me know! You're fairly extraverted and dramatically open to experiences, while super-minimally Agreeable, which would indicate (to me) some kind of low-to-moderate active class. Your neuroticism is low overall, but Vulnerability and Self-Consciousness subscores are high. When paired with your high sub-scores in Conscientiousness (orderliness, cautiousness, and self-discipline), I've got a fair idea of what I would think you are, class-wise. However, I'd like to ask a few more specific questions, if you don't mind. These will help narrow down possibilities on both class and aspect sides. 1. Do you feel particular "pressure" in your life to be or do particular things? Try to specify whether this pressure is more internal ("measuring up" to your own standards) or external (demands and requirements placed on you). 2. When you are faced with troubles and unexpected problems, how do you tend to react? For example, some people lash out and rage, others quietly seethe, and others still have calm acceptance--and there may be other responses as well (including mixtures--you might seethe for a while before exploding). 3. If your plans and goals are impeded or fail, are you more likely to find fault with yourself, the situation, or other people? (Note, it doesn't really matter what the real problem is--just the place you tend to start looking at for the problem.) 4. What sorts of things are really, really important to you? Obviously, Homestuck is pretty important, but what other things do you value a lot? Stuff like your hobbies, your favorite subjects in school, social or political causes you believe in very strongly, etc. Similarly, what sorts of things do you find SUPER unimportant, even though other people seem to care a lot about them? (As an example, "women in video games" is a cause many people feel very strongly about--but maybe you think it's all a bunch of hot air and can't understand why people make such a fuss about it.) 5. Finally, if you had to pick three aspects that YOU thought were most like you, which would you pick? Similarly, if you had to pick three aspects that were as far away from your personality as possible, which would you pick? The two sets don't need to have anything specific to do with each other, and you can even have some overlap between the two lists (but, uh, try not to make them completely identical...)
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on Jun 11, 2016 6:50:52 GMT
yeah classpecting isn't just clicking a few balls that range from yes to no it's a bit more complicated than that
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 11, 2016 7:41:48 GMT
I personally don't believe that a person's Sburb Title could ever be deduced from a internet quiz that's little more than an adaptation of the Harry Potter House test either. But if there was some test, however long and in depth it had to be, I believe that it would work best if it figured out the person's Aspect first, then looked at how they interacted with the Aspect to get the Class. The Class without the Aspect is a near meaningless label to me.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 11, 2016 8:06:37 GMT
I personally don't believe that a person's Sburb Title could ever be deduced from a internet quiz that's little more than an adaptation of the Harry Potter House test either. But if there was some test, however long and in depth it had to be, I believe that it would work best if it figured out the person's Aspect first, then looked at how they interacted with the Aspect to get the Class. The Class without the Aspect is a near meaningless label to me. Eh, I think there are some consistent patterns one can find. I would speak more specifically, but I don't want to accidentally shape Meowcat's answers.
|
|
|
Post by meowcats413 on Jun 11, 2016 14:00:19 GMT
1. Do you feel particular "pressure" in your life to be or do particular things? Try to specify whether this pressure is more internal ("measuring up" to your own standards) or external (demands and requirements placed on you). I don't have much external pressure on me (Most people in my life are really supportive of whatever I want to do), but I certainly have lots of internal pressure to do something important with my life, and not let it go to waste. If the problem is sudden, I usually lash out before telling myself to calm down (most likely with a cup of tea), though if it's something that's been coming for awhile, I seethe. If I'm being honest with myself, my first instinct is to blame other people... As for my hobbies, I love composing music, and I like to draw a bit, though I can't say I'm that great at it... I also like watching astronomy and nature documentaries from time to time, and I spend more time than is practical on taking every personality test ever to try to figure myself out. As for political causes, I guess I could be considered very liberal, I highly support equal rights no matter the criteria, and I find global warming a huge issue. Things I find unimportant would probably mostly be the teen drama I have to deal with in my social groups. (Like, seriously guys, so what if XYZ has a crush on ZYX??) I can't really think of too many political debates that I find unimportant, open discussion among people is good. I probably relate most to Mind, Void, and Space, whereas I'm not as big on Hope, Breath, or Rage.
|
|
|
Post by meowcats413 on Jun 11, 2016 14:48:15 GMT
First, tests that don't utilize surveys such as ENTP are complete bullshit. Don't take them very seriously, if anything they just help a little bit. First, begin by describing your goals, how you would achieve then, your personality here and in real life, how you act towards others, and generally all that goes in your mental landscape. here's a cool thing: Chapter One: Emotions What kind of emotions do you feel? It mostly depends on the situation. When I'm by myself or talking over the internet, I can tend to be a bit less in touch with my emotions (I've kind of been through a lot, so I learned to cut them off), though I'm usually fairly positive, despite being slightly irritable. However when I'm around others, I feel quite a bit more, tending to be more excitable and optimistic. A good phrase to describe my emotional viewpoint is, "I'm pretty optimistic for a pessimist." In the grand scheme of things, my goals are to make change in the world (hopefully for the better) and to learn and help others learn as much as I can. I'm not sure what you really mean by this, but I suppose I always try to look at things from an objective viewpoint to make a correct decision, and I highly value equal rights for everyone. It depends on who I'm around- near my friends I'm usually... Well, I'm usually Terezi. I'm the weird excitable shit who's always making strange jokes an obscure references, making everyone uncomfortable. Around other people and adults, though, I'm a lot more reserved and shy. Over the internet, I'm kind of a combination. I attempt to remove myself from the pressure and think about things clearly before making a decision. Think through what might work, and use that information to try a fuckton of different approaches until something works. Worse case scenario, I ask someone for help.
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 12, 2016 11:37:28 GMT
1. Do you feel particular "pressure" in your life to be or do particular things? Try to specify whether this pressure is more internal ("measuring up" to your own standards) or external (demands and requirements placed on you). I don't have much external pressure on me (Most people in my life are really supportive of whatever I want to do), but I certainly have lots of internal pressure to do something important with my life, and not let it go to waste. If the problem is sudden, I usually lash out before telling myself to calm down (most likely with a cup of tea), though if it's something that's been coming for awhile, I seethe. If I'm being honest with myself, my first instinct is to blame other people... As for my hobbies, I love composing music, and I like to draw a bit, though I can't say I'm that great at it... I also like watching astronomy and nature documentaries from time to time, and I spend more time than is practical on taking every personality test ever to try to figure myself out. As for political causes, I guess I could be considered very liberal, I highly support equal rights no matter the criteria, and I find global warming a huge issue. Things I find unimportant would probably mostly be the teen drama I have to deal with in my social groups. (Like, seriously guys, so what if XYZ has a crush on ZYX??) I can't really think of too many political debates that I find unimportant, open discussion among people is good. I probably relate most to Mind, Void, and Space, whereas I'm not as big on Hope, Breath, or Rage. Alright. Now, to explain a little bit of my own, entirely personal, approach to providing people with titles: basically, I really liked the whole "the game gives you titles to challenge you" thing, but at the same time, I think a title should reflect a person's personality or nature. So I try to split the difference. I look at "aligned" classes and aspects, and "opposed" classes and aspects, and try to pick just one from each category. Some people (like, for example, me...) have a really obvious aspect (in my case, Light), so that tends to be the natural choice for an "aligned" aspect. Other people (and I would say you are one of them) have a really obvious class, so the same applies for you. I generally try to go with a person's own perspectives on the aspects that are closest and furthest from their own thoughts for aligned/opposed aspects. So, in your case, I think Knight is the most appropriate class for you, followed by Maid. Maids tend to have expectations placed on them by outsiders--they're confident in themselves, but have to endure outside limitations. Knights, on the other hand, feel a great deal of internal pressure, pressure to "measure up" to the "code" of their aspect. They tend to be level-headed, when they can focus on external stuff to focus on (a "dragon to slay," metaphorically), but can become extremely screwed up when they're left to their own devices. If I had to pick an "opposed" class for you, I think it would probably be Rogue or maybe Sylph--you're not opposed to helping others, but it sounds like you really want it to be YOUR doing that the world, and the people in it, become better off. So Knight and Maid naturally pair well with your do-it-yourself, improve-the-world attitude, making them something you could slide easily into, while Rogue and Sylph would be a challenge, requiring you to re-think your approach to things. Based on your other responses, Mind seems to stand out as the most appropriate aligned aspect, though Space could also fit well (as its "isolation" could cover some of the personality attributes normally covered by class). Hope and Rage seem like the best opposed aspects. In sum, I think your title would either be Knight of Hope, or Rogue of Mind! Each of these things would present you with both familiar and challenging components. Which of the two you feel most drawn to...hard to say. What do you think? For my own part, the two titles I settled on were Knight of Light (as my avatar shows), and Seer of Breath. Light is the aspect I naturally default to--its wordiness, specificity, and emphasis on knowledge (as well as controlling probability to some extent) are imminently appropriate to me. Breath is the aspect I find most challenging, because it's so hard for me to just relax and let things happen--I take everything so seriously (even though I also laugh a lot). Seer is the class that fits me best, as I tend to favor a comprehensive analysis approach, and collect pieces of information like a belly button collects lint. Knight is (a) class I would find very challenging, as my "default" approach is very passive, but I find that deep down I have a difficult-to-satisfy desire to be active, leaving me conflicted no matter how I act.
|
|
|
Post by vaiyt on Jun 12, 2016 21:15:31 GMT
Well, since we're classpecting ourselves, I'll throw in my side.
I used to think of myself as an introvert, though I have no problem being sociable as long as it's a situation I have control over (such as telling a story, giving a lecture or an internet exchange where I can reveal things about me at my own pace). Being alone leaves me bored and insecure; I like having people to share my ideas with and a second opinion to make decisions less agonizing. I get irritated easily, but I'm not the kind to hold grudges. I tend to start a lot of projects and endlessly tinker with them without ever reaching the point I'm satisfied.
Towards the end of the comic, I've come to identify a lot with Dave, namely his struggles with expectations and masculinity. I live with a tremendous fear of failure, and that leads me to serial procrastination and taking the path of least resistance through life, coasting on talent everyone tells me I have but I don't believe in myself. Also like Dave, I had to deal with the constant specter of machismo thrust in my direction, a deal that never interested me and I was forced to constantly reject. Since my panic attacks have been getting worse, I can also add fear of death to the things I have in common with him.
When I am in trouble, I lash out. I get flak from my mother (who is a "seethe and suffer in silence" type) for doing that. Whenever things go wrong, I tend to think I must have misplaced something important, be it an object or a task, and berate myself for it.
I used to have a lot of interest in hard science and space as a kid, but as I grew up my interests shifted to history, sociology and communications theory. I like learning about the depth of the human imagination - myths, art motifs, story tropes, character designs, symbols. Those details are often more interesting to me than the stories themselves! In fact, it's why I'm typing this, the Classpect system is easily my favorite element in Homestuck, and I even ended up creating a similar custom system for myself (which I might present at these forums somewhere down the road).
I find changing society to be more inclusive and fair to be an important thing, though I feel powerless to do anything on the macro level so I try to teach individual people to be more compassionate in the vain hope of making a difference. On the other hand I find interpersonal drama to be boring and not worth bothering with (see inability to hold grudges above). I used to take part in a lot of forum drama as a teen, but mostly that stemmed from me being angry that people would waste everyone's time in petty internet politicking when they could be having fun or doing something productive.
If I were to pick an Aspect for me, it would be Rage, then Blood, then maybe Mind. Aspects that I find challenging are Hope (sorry, magic is fake as shit) and Time (I HATE TIME TRAVEL, and mortality, and finishing things).
|
|
|
Post by amiabletemplar on Jun 15, 2016 1:15:18 GMT
Vaiyt: Sounds to me like your two titles would (probably) be Knight of Time, given both the identification with Dave and the other stuff you've said which seems to resemble Knight-y struggles, or...possibly Rogue of Blood. The latter because you identify with Blood, and have a desire to see society made better but aren't sure how to achieve it, coupled with your somewhat un-Rogue-y (even vaguely Thief-y, with the whole "I'm okay to socialize as long as *I'm* the one setting all the terms and defining the interaction" thing) attitude.
Other possible options would be Maid of Time(/Hope)|Sylph of Rage. Sylph of Rage in particular is interesting, since Rage is generally seen as a rather "dark"/"foreboding" aspect, while Sylph is (generally) understood as a key support/force-multiplier class.
|
|
|
Post by Neptz on Jun 15, 2016 2:16:06 GMT
Well, since we're classpecting ourselves, I'll throw in my side. I used to think of myself as an introvert, though I have no problem being sociable as long as it's a situation I have control over (such as telling a story, giving a lecture or an internet exchange where I can reveal things about me at my own pace). Being alone leaves me bored and insecure; I like having people to share my ideas with and a second opinion to make decisions less agonizing. I get irritated easily, but I'm not the kind to hold grudges. I tend to start a lot of projects and endlessly tinker with them without ever reaching the point I'm satisfied. Towards the end of the comic, I've come to identify a lot with Dave, namely his struggles with expectations and masculinity. I live with a tremendous fear of failure, and that leads me to serial procrastination and taking the path of least resistance through life, coasting on talent everyone tells me I have but I don't believe in myself. Also like Dave, I had to deal with the constant specter of machismo thrust in my direction, a deal that never interested me and I was forced to constantly reject. Since my panic attacks have been getting worse, I can also add fear of death to the things I have in common with him. When I am in trouble, I lash out. I get flak from my mother (who is a "seethe and suffer in silence" type) for doing that. Whenever things go wrong, I tend to think I must have misplaced something important, be it an object or a task, and berate myself for it. I used to have a lot of interest in hard science and space as a kid, but as I grew up my interests shifted to history, sociology and communications theory. I like learning about the depth of the human imagination - myths, art motifs, story tropes, character designs, symbols. Those details are often more interesting to me than the stories themselves! In fact, it's why I'm typing this, the Classpect system is easily my favorite element in Homestuck, and I even ended up creating a similar custom system for myself (which I might present at these forums somewhere down the road). I find changing society to be more inclusive and fair to be an important thing, though I feel powerless to do anything on the macro level so I try to teach individual people to be more compassionate in the vain hope of making a difference. On the other hand I find interpersonal drama to be boring and not worth bothering with (see inability to hold grudges above). I used to take part in a lot of forum drama as a teen, but mostly that stemmed from me being angry that people would waste everyone's time in petty internet politicking when they could be having fun or doing something productive. If I were to pick an Aspect for me, it would be Rage, then Blood, then maybe Mind. Aspects that I find challenging are Hope (sorry, magic is fake as shit) and Time (I HATE TIME TRAVEL, and mortality, and finishing things). somewhat same here except several things: i never grew away from science and astronomy. in fact, astronomy is the best subject for me to study about. fuck this gay earth (that's a joke by the way, i really like earth) my fear of death is much, much bigger and not just of myself but others as well. i frequently had panic attacks back when i was younger when i thought i'd die or others i cared about would die. it crippled me but i got over it. even now i still get really uncomfortable when i see mass death events. i have a huge fear of tornadoes and earthquakes, although i don't freak out when i see them in images or videos. i never really got much in trouble but the few times i did i just ran away from the problem which was what worked then i cried a lot and got berated by my mother which hated crying. (she was a good woman though) also i cried a lot a lot a lot as a kid, especially when i wanted situations to get better. if you denied me something i really cared about you'd bet i'd cry. sure most kids do this but i did it until i was 17 i love being alone. i do not feel uneasy when i am alone. i similarly can only carry conversations to great extents when i initiate it or i'm talking to a very close friend. when it is not me that initiates my responses are usually simple. i hate wasting time on things i don't enjoy. arriving at home even at least 10 minutes later than i usually do will make me grumpy (granted, for a total of like, 30 seconds) i am a very envious person. however, i do not let my envy control me most of the time. if i can get my hands on something i've always wanted easily though i'll totally do it. typically my envy involves about people having more free time than i do, people enjoying and playing games with friends (which is something that rarely happens to me because i never have the money to buy anything online, and while i am open minded about games i tend to have rather specific taste.), people with skills better than mine (especially art). but you usually won't see this happening unless we're talking in private. i am lazy i like dave, but i can't identify with him. i like him because he's funny. i like funny people. i hate people who use jokes as a excuse to verbally abuse people. the only homestuck character i can identify with sollux and he cool i had and have a very easy life compared to most people in the internet so i can barely relate to anyone and anyone can barely relate to me. i hate it. aesthetics is everything to me. i am the kind of guy who chooses pokemon on how awesome they look, not how easily they can win battles. never got past the second gym because i don't care about type weaknesses. i am the kind of guy who spends hours on terraria trying to find vanity equipment. i like looking awesome and i like things that look awesome. enough said.
|
|
|
Post by arbitraryTemplar on Jun 17, 2016 0:59:57 GMT
I... think maybe we should have a seperate thread for Classpect... what would you call them, quizzes? Tests? I just don't think they really belong in this thread for some reason, in spite of it being a general discussion thread.
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 17, 2016 1:07:17 GMT
I... think maybe we should have a seperate thread for Classpect... what would you call them, quizzes? Tests? I just don't think they really belong in this thread for some reason, in spite of it being a general discussion thread. Back on the old Forum there was such a thread, where the OP linked to a bunch of said tests. But from what I recall, the thread was entirely just single posts of "I got X" with very little discussion. Most of the people who wanted to discuss would just hop on over to the Classpect Discussion Thread to hear what the "Experts" had to say mostly because if they tried to spark up a talk about what their title meant, someone would tell them to head on over anyway. Additionally, a lot of the people who posted in that thread were new members, fresh into the fanbase, but since this forum much smaller and obscure than the original and that the end of the comic has decreased the influx of new members, such a Thread would probably get even less action.
|
|
|
Post by vaiyt on Jun 18, 2016 3:39:52 GMT
I liked the "Apply Classpects to characters in other works" thread. It was pointless but really fun.
|
|
|
Post by ashercrane on Jun 27, 2016 23:23:58 GMT
I liked the "Apply Classpects to characters in other works" thread. It was pointless but really fun. I will totally remake it if anyone will actually plan to post in it. In a topic switch, as the last message was posed ten days ago, have we discussed the Ancestor's classpect: Dancestors or Descendants yet? Like, are we all in agreement that they have the classpects of one or the other? And, on the off chance that everyone agrees they get it from the Dancestors, how does Mindfang fit with the Sylph of Light role of Aranea?
|
|
|
Post by obsidalicious on Jun 27, 2016 23:53:54 GMT
In a topic switch, as the last message was posed ten days ago, have we discussed the Ancestor's classpect: Dancestors or Descendants yet? Like, are we all in agreement that they have the classpects of one or the other? And, on the off chance that everyone agrees they get it from the Dancestors, how does Mindfang fit with the Sylph of Light role of Aranea? They are an odd bunch when it comes to their pseudo-Titles that's for sure. Some of them, like The Condesce, the Signless very closely match their A1 Alt-selves, while others like Mindfang and The Grand Highblood appear to be more similar to their descendants. Others like The Summoner could arguably go either way. I don't there's ny particularly meaningful reason for this. I think either Hussie hadn't yet planned for the Beforans and their Titles at that point, or he knew that they would be very minor characters and didn't mind them being much looser with their Titles. If I had to commit to one or the other for all of them, I'd say they should match their Beforan counterparts i.e. The Summoner is a Rogue of Breath etc. Comparing to the humans, the B1 Kids' Guardians follow this pattern; B1-Mom Lalonde is much more a Rogue of Void like the Roxy she is, than a Seer of Light like her daughter. It seems fairly reasonable that this pattern would extend to the Trolls too. But as you say, If we were to ascribe to this model then there are some considerable outliers, Mindfang especially. Trying to fit her as a Sylph of Light is difficult, but not necessarily impossible. I can think of a few rather weak arguments for how she could be a Sylph, one being that the Dolorosa is kinda Light-y as she physically glows and she 'restored' her in a very indirect, convoluted sense in the Dolorosa would've likely been slated for death had Mindfang not gotten her hands on her. Another possible argument could be on her obsession with Dragons; trying to restore her own fortune by gaining the power/favour of the creatures that destroyed her fortune in the first place. But like I said, both very weak arguments, I'm more than happy to just consider as more Thiefy that Sylphy and just accept that there's no solid pattern.
|
|