EmperorNorton1
Senior Member
i'd need to get my law degree to make my fantasies air tight from the monkey paw effect. but uh... maybe. thats a solid maybe.
Other Random question of the day
- Thread starter AlexneushoornTheGreat
- Start date
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Should more video games that normally don't have full voice acting use this feature?
Should more video games that normally don't have full voice acting use this feature?
Kaiju Cat
Demon spoon cat stand
yes, it gives the character more life in ky opinion.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Why is it that the third entry in a movie/video game franchise is usually the worst one?
Why is it that the third entry in a movie/video game franchise is usually the worst one?
EmperorNorton1
Senior Member
If a trilogy was not planned, than the creators of the original couldn’t lay hints or weave a storyline very well through all three movies if they didn’t know that there were gonna be two more.
But if a trilogy is planned, it usually goes better
But if a trilogy is planned, it usually goes better
Solivagante
UTC -6
It's not; the weak point in most trilogies is the middle, as the second book/game/movie is where the creators realized they were going to extend the plot, but couldn't fully wrap everything up. It's the transition point between a stand-alone first entry and a concluding final entry, and therefore the least likely to have a fully satisfying denouement.
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
I’m not sure it usually is. But when it is, I suspect it would have one of two main sources. One the core of the story or the ideas may already be effectively be exhausted. Ideas may exist for it, but hey are more the tacked on stuff or other possibilities and less looking into new avenues to explore that the original couldn’t cover or developing / seeing the consequences of the original events.
Another possibility is that the third movie is when it really becomes all about the executive-directed marketing. Perhaps a formula was established by the first two movies and now one must rigidly stick to it, or maybe unnecessary stuff ends up tacked onto the movie. Any movie, and more importantly any sequel can suffer from this, but as mentioned in the previous paragraph the third can be the one where what ideas there were left to look into may be gone, and we’ve started getting to “just milking it” territory. When a movie is less about having a good idea to realize and more about production-lining another of its kind a lot of problems can arise.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Why is it that when a kid friendly IP and an adult-oriented IP come out at the same time, the internet combines them together?
Why is it that when a kid friendly IP and an adult-oriented IP come out at the same time, the internet combines them together?
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
Uh....I can only think of one case like that off the top of my head.
But I would guess the answer would be something along the lines of "for the lols/memes"
But I would guess the answer would be something along the lines of "for the lols/memes"
RulerOfChad
I think it's time we should enact our REVENGE
Cuz people like to think that there is meaning to the world and hope everything is connected
TheJourneyman
New Member
It really depends on the game. When fallout introduced this in fallout 4, I actually liked it unlike some other people.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Not sure if I asked this one before, but...
Random question of the day:
What are your views on people who express their opinions as if they are facts?
Random question of the day:
What are your views on people who express their opinions as if they are facts?
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
Everyone does that, which isn't to say they do it all the time, much less about all things, but anyone who thinks they don't just lacks self-awareness. It's not entirely a bad thing either. In reality most things we express are opinions. We express them as though they were facts because we believe them to be true to reality. Anything you don't think is factual is not something you believe. If you don't think what you're saying is factual or has a high likelihood of being factual when you're talking about factual things you're by definition lying (which, I feel needs to be said, is different from being mistaken / wrong. Also note that when you say "I think that (X)" although you're uncertain about (X), you're not actually saying X is factual. What you're saying is factual is that you think X).
I think the vast majority of cases where someone might be "stating their opinion as facts" in the sense that seems to be implied by the question is critically found in that "high likelihood of being factual" area. Ideology, speculation, religion... But fundamentally, the reason to "state one's opinion as a fact" remains the same. It's the belief that is probably is (assuming the person isn't lying).
Now at some point there is a boundary between those things that are factual and those things that are purely subjective. I think the number of things that are subjective is actually very small, and talk of it is even less. As per the previous example if I say "I think the movie is really good", the "I think" is actual core in making this a factual statement. That is to say, irrespective of the movie's quality, if I think it's good then I'm telling the truth, if I don't think it's true then I'm lying. I also think quality isn't actually subjective either, but that's another discussion.
So I would suggest that the difference between the kind of people implied in the question and the people the question states (everyone) is one of degree. It's the degree in which one can express beliefs one has less reason to be certain about versus beliefs one has more certainty about and the overall perception of that degree of assurance in wider society (an overall careful and skeptical person with an intense attention to the presence or lack of evidence could still be an avid conspiracy theorist precisely as a result of their attachment to evidence, whereas most people would dismiss the evidence they have and rate above the default baseline trust in institutions that is ultimately unfounded). While there are many potential reasons for high willingness to express opinions as facts, if I were to throw in a wild guess, I would suggest three major variables:
1. Personality traits, namely degree of self-confidence and self-esteem (thinking more highly of yourself means you'll put more weight and less scrutiny on your own judgement of a situation)
2. Social environment (certain social environments are more inviting, though this does not necessarily mean friendly, to expressing opinions in general and/or to framing those opinions in a less precise way that would indicate one is simply expressing an opinion. Further expressing an opinion as fact is easier if you know the group you're expressing it among already agrees with you, and conversely you'll tend to express it more as an opinion if you believe the group doesn't share that belief)
3. Awareness (I don't recall the name of it, but there is a bell curve that talks about this, where those who know a little about a subject tend to think of themselves as understanding more about a subject than either those who know nothing of it, and those who know more about it. The former group knows they lack knowledge of the matter because they know close to nothing, while the latter knows how much more there is to know, and how complex and nuanced that field is, such that even with them knowing more than the tip of the iceberg, now they can actually see past the tip and how much more there is they don't know. This also applies to non-academic matters of course, say when it comes to people, religion, the future, policy, economics, even sports and exercise and diets and whatever else. Truly there is wisdom in "I know that I know nothing".
Lack of awareness of the previous two points - of one's own personality tendencies and social environment cues - could also lead to more brazenly expressing opinion as fact.)
dangerfluff
New Member
I assume they're either A) an otherwise reasonable person who made an error or B) someone who regards others as lesser to elevate themselves and their opinions.
MxKit
They/Them
I mostly agree with dangerfluff, but I'd also like to add that in the case of A) sometimes it's not an error but a difference in communication styles. The degree to which people are likely to outright say "I think" or "in my opinion" or "to me," even though that's what they mean, each and every time varies... By which I mean, some people take it as obviously implied in certain types of statements, while some feel more of a need to couch their opinions and make certain everyone knows it's just their opinion.
"That book is so good!" and "that character is so annoying!" are statements that can, depending on the person, mean "I think that book is really good" and "that character really annoys me," or can mean "that book is good and anyone who doesn't like it is stupid or wrong" and "that character is annoying and anyone who likes them is deluding themself or is also annoying" -- though I would argue that in a lot of casual conversations, it's more likely to mean the former.
I would also add that in the case of B) it's not necessarily someone who'd think that's what they're doing at all. Some people also have a problem really conceptualizing that other people can really differ from them, and I feel like a lot of people have this issue when it comes to, like, one or two subjects but not necessarily everything. They respond to something in a certain way, and can't imagine other people being "correct" if they experience it in a different way. I think this is why food opinions can be so strong and so contentious, because for a lot of people their experience of certain foods is visceral: they find a certain food disgusting and can't imagine someone experiencing that flavor and not finding it disgusting, and they kneejerk at others claiming that they really like that flavor. But this can happen with anything: they like a certain genre of music, so if someone doesn't like it, they clearly aren't appreciating it properly, have bad taste, etc. If they are experiencing that music in the same way, after all, if something wasn't wrong they'd have the same response to it, right? And someone might be completely "all opinions are valid" about most other things but be really biased in the case of, eg, sports.
Brains and emotions can be weird and all we can really do is try to catch ourselves at that -- though I think it's also good to take our conversational partners in good faith and not assume someone is stating their opinion as a fact unless they make it clear they're doing that, because it's possible to kneejerk in the other direction, too: "X Movie is awful, it's so boring." "Speak for yourself! I loved it! You just didn't understand it and can't handle a movie that doesn't have explosions every five seconds!" "I was speaking for myself, I understood it just fine and love plenty of slow-paced movies, but have fun assuming things about me I guess?" is a conversation I've seen a few times before and it always feels like a shame that someone jumped to aggression unnecessarily.
"That book is so good!" and "that character is so annoying!" are statements that can, depending on the person, mean "I think that book is really good" and "that character really annoys me," or can mean "that book is good and anyone who doesn't like it is stupid or wrong" and "that character is annoying and anyone who likes them is deluding themself or is also annoying" -- though I would argue that in a lot of casual conversations, it's more likely to mean the former.
I would also add that in the case of B) it's not necessarily someone who'd think that's what they're doing at all. Some people also have a problem really conceptualizing that other people can really differ from them, and I feel like a lot of people have this issue when it comes to, like, one or two subjects but not necessarily everything. They respond to something in a certain way, and can't imagine other people being "correct" if they experience it in a different way. I think this is why food opinions can be so strong and so contentious, because for a lot of people their experience of certain foods is visceral: they find a certain food disgusting and can't imagine someone experiencing that flavor and not finding it disgusting, and they kneejerk at others claiming that they really like that flavor. But this can happen with anything: they like a certain genre of music, so if someone doesn't like it, they clearly aren't appreciating it properly, have bad taste, etc. If they are experiencing that music in the same way, after all, if something wasn't wrong they'd have the same response to it, right? And someone might be completely "all opinions are valid" about most other things but be really biased in the case of, eg, sports.
Brains and emotions can be weird and all we can really do is try to catch ourselves at that -- though I think it's also good to take our conversational partners in good faith and not assume someone is stating their opinion as a fact unless they make it clear they're doing that, because it's possible to kneejerk in the other direction, too: "X Movie is awful, it's so boring." "Speak for yourself! I loved it! You just didn't understand it and can't handle a movie that doesn't have explosions every five seconds!" "I was speaking for myself, I understood it just fine and love plenty of slow-paced movies, but have fun assuming things about me I guess?" is a conversation I've seen a few times before and it always feels like a shame that someone jumped to aggression unnecessarily.
EpitomicMess
New Member
I'm of the opinion that there are movies / video games / bands etc that objectively bad. And those things are gonna have fans. If someone likes something that's literally by all accounts bad quality, just let them enjoy it. Life's too short man
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Not sure if I asked this one before, but...
Random question of the day:
Why do people feel the need to bully other people knowing that bullying is hurtful?
Random question of the day:
Why do people feel the need to bully other people knowing that bullying is hurtful?
Kaiju Cat
Demon spoon cat stand
it gives them power and control.
EmperorNorton1
Senior Member
Power and control over something in their life, it’s a coping mechanism sometimes
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Not counting Flash games, have you ever played an unlicensed video game?
Not counting Flash games, have you ever played an unlicensed video game?
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
No answers yesterday. What a shame. Not sure if I asked this one before, but...
Random question of the day:
Who's one fictional mother you're glad isn't yours?
Random question of the day:
Who's one fictional mother you're glad isn't yours?
Kaiju Cat
Demon spoon cat stand
Mother Gothel because of how narcissistic she was to rapunzel.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Following up yesterday's question, who's one fictional father you're glad isn't yours?
Following up yesterday's question, who's one fictional father you're glad isn't yours?
Kaiju Cat
Demon spoon cat stand
This one is easy it’s professor Hojo from final fantasy 7 he experimented on his unborn son.
AlexneushoornTheGreat
Steve Rhino
Random question of the day:
Have you ever been in a fandom and after a while of being in said fandom, have you ever felt you don't belong there?
Have you ever been in a fandom and after a while of being in said fandom, have you ever felt you don't belong there?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
