Lol. The interpretation of this being a self righteous sly thread is too funny. It’s true that not everyone falls neatly into these arbitrary categories, not are these categories exhaustive.
The tryhards in Casual is actually the most objective. Fear of losing is absolutely a thing, but my point is that losing rank is a weak excuse. Therefore, I doubt it that that’s the case when people claim it. They simply want easy wins. The idea of winning without a competitive counterpart is live and kicking in HS, but that isnt the games fault. The sad part is when those tryhards feel superior, which consistent with ego centric personality.
im surprised a “world renowned psychologist” hasn’t posted on this thread claiming its utter non sense.
Enjoy the game.
The idea that Casual is so easy doesn't make sense. When you win, you will face stronger opponents. Your matchmaking rating will make sure of that. Your claim that Casual is for easy wins makes it sound like all the strong players get matched with the weak ones. That's not what's happening.
When you swap your deck to something silly, your matchmaking rating doesn't change until you start losing. When you complain about other people being try-hard against your casual silly deck, it is probably because you yourself were try-hard before. Otherwise, you would not be matched with them in the first place.
You’re right. I have a baby, and I have to concede a lot to help change his diaper or some random thing. I do make it a priority to concede rather than let the timer go. I’m sure there are times I can’t, but 99% of the time I do.
these are honestly just observations. Lol like the post that hoped this wasn’t my dissertation topic. My topic is psychometric development of a non cognitive construct measurement tool.
To one of my earlier points, the reason Type B perform over time better is their patience and creativity. I love watching WowHobbs and J4chiechan for their innovative approaches to the game.
Did the OP actually turn that into a post in praise of the beta male? Holy crap.
They're also wrong, about a lot things.
Personality meta type does not necessarily determine what decks you choose. I'm a "sigma" personality type and my deck choice really depends on my mood - do i want to spend twenty minutes and as many turns analyzing everything, thinking a few steps ahead, and trying to win with a soul crushing victory? Control it is. Bored and lazy? Meme deck. Salty from a losing streak? Face is the place. I could go on but meh.
The point about casual mode is also nonsense. I regularly play T1 netdecks, competitive homebrew decks, etc in casual to practice and get a feel for the deck before taking it to the ladder.
If you want some sort of bullshit, pseudo-intellectual analysis the post itself is indicative of the attitude held by mental health pros that makes them so ineffective (and sometimes harmful) when practicing their role in the first place. It's sad to think the OP will be practicing some sort of health service work one day, as their posting comes off like a reddit neckbeard inspired auto-circlejerk...or he's a somewhat decent troll. I'd applaud the latter.
This is a troll, right? Big words do not make your post correct by any means.
I could go on a long rant about all of the things that are wrong, biased, or downright silly, but others have already done a great job at that (nocontrol1111 and Andyammis especially).
PhD in experimental psychology, specializes in psychometrics. Not personality, not a clinician, uses terminology [psychoanalysis] that is obsolete. Clearly talking from a pure anecdotal perspective. That (s)he feels the need to add their credentials (student/candidate?) doesn't add shit to the observations. Its like me saying that I study in physics and therefore make a great salad dressing because I understand forces in movement and have perfected dressing.
I think anyone with basic common sense would be able to come up with the same analysis as OP, and possibly more in-depth. I would expect more from someone throwing those credentials around. It's quite lackluster.
wait, the staller may be genuinely thinikign hsi turns and all the optons, if you ever watched lifecoach, massan or trump you'd be aware of that...
... the staller might as well be a dedicated HS player that is also as dedicated, if not more, to his/her children needs. Parenting is all about being available whenever the need arise, which makes the stalling/roping, still annoying for your opponent - yes - but totally unintentional. No one could predict when that 5 years old was to shit himself #True(HS)Story
*Sarcastic tone intensifies* From my screen point of view, I can totally see clearly everyone's intentions and their crystal clear motives..!
Thanks everyone, got all the data I need. I’m a bit surprised people spent so much time deconstructing my post. The things I wrote were obviously assumptions. The postings however are observable data, which is what I needed for a discourse analysis.
Cyber bullying is the reason for corpus data collection. This has been done extensively in forums like reddit and mayoclinic. Do people calmly and respectfully disagree with a persons thoughts, or, attack the person instead? The vast majority of cyber bullying occurs when someone’s statements are not the source of ridicule; rather, people attack the person without basis.
It was expected that people attack me instead of my ideas. The data will show the degree to which people blindly attack the person opposed to the person.
Saying my ideas are bullshit is the more rational response. Saying that the medical field is fucked and me practicing in the field is a catastrophe is quite an intense reaction. Especially over a pseudo player analysis.
In the same way that you've observed and analyzed player behavior, attributing you're own bias to the generalization of the individual agents you've encountered, your post and responses were analyzed. A personality archetype was assigned to you as a result and just like the implications inferred about the lives and aptitude of the people you labelled, so to have they have been established for you. Isn't the point of your profession to analyze people and use the results to predict their influence in society in order to help sculpt and improve them?
Why don't you take a a few hours to consider that the feedback may be valid (it has been enchoed by people of different backgrounds in various iterations) then apply it to yourself and work towards self improvement? The process of doing so could only make you a better person, even if the feedback itself is totally incorrect. In fact, you have a moral imperative to do so, as you would be objectively hypocritical if you avoided said self analysis and the feedback presented to you would then validate itself.
Here's the thing about life: someone will always be better than any single individual in some way - more perceptive, stronger, smarter, funnier, sexier, etc. The problem with so many mental health professionals is the very type of seemingly infallible solipsism that drives then to believe they have mastered their trade and could not possibly be wrong or somehow defunct in themselves. I have always wondered if it is a result of how the education they receive sculpts their psyche, the latent personality type they hold which attracts them to the field, or both. Probably both.
You should read I and Thou* by Martin Buber and hold it close in your future career.
It was expected that people attack me instead of my ideas. The data will show the degree to which people blindly attack the person opposed to the person.
Saying my ideas are bullshit is the more rational response. Saying that the medical field is fucked and me practicing in the field is a catastrophe is quite an intense reaction. Especially over a pseudo player analysis.
While I agree that a few people took this thread a little to far and started attacking you, in general I think the debate was kept at criticizing your original post, i.e. your ideas. The vast majority of contributers to this thread criticized your analysis and conclusions, rightly calling them out as assumptions (as you yourself have admitted them to be) rather than observations. If you expected that people would attack you rather than your ideas, then I would suggest that your hypothesis has failed as it is mainly your analysis that is ridiculed, not you (with a few exceptions).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You’re right. I have a baby, and I have to concede a lot to help change his diaper or some random thing. I do make it a priority to concede rather than let the timer go. I’m sure there are times I can’t, but 99% of the time I do.
these are honestly just observations. Lol like the post that hoped this wasn’t my dissertation topic. My topic is psychometric development of a non cognitive construct measurement tool.
To one of my earlier points, the reason Type B perform over time better is their patience and creativity. I love watching WowHobbs and J4chiechan for their innovative approaches to the game.
Geeze bro, I see why you're only a 'candidate.' Nothing of what you said has any factual basis, it's all conjecture.
Thread TDLR: (Psychoanalysis)
Did the OP actually turn that into a post in praise of the beta male? Holy crap.
They're also wrong, about a lot things.
Personality meta type does not necessarily determine what decks you choose. I'm a "sigma" personality type and my deck choice really depends on my mood - do i want to spend twenty minutes and as many turns analyzing everything, thinking a few steps ahead, and trying to win with a soul crushing victory? Control it is. Bored and lazy? Meme deck. Salty from a losing streak? Face is the place. I could go on but meh.
The point about casual mode is also nonsense. I regularly play T1 netdecks, competitive homebrew decks, etc in casual to practice and get a feel for the deck before taking it to the ladder.
If you want some sort of bullshit, pseudo-intellectual analysis the post itself is indicative of the attitude held by mental health pros that makes them so ineffective (and sometimes harmful) when practicing their role in the first place. It's sad to think the OP will be practicing some sort of health service work one day, as their posting comes off like a reddit neckbeard inspired auto-circlejerk...or he's a somewhat decent troll. I'd applaud the latter.
Wow...
Take it with a grain of salt, and move on.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
This is a troll, right? Big words do not make your post correct by any means.
I could go on a long rant about all of the things that are wrong, biased, or downright silly, but others have already done a great job at that (nocontrol1111 and Andyammis especially).
I wonder what this actual psychologist who also happens to play Hearthstone would think of this...
Custom cards :
CLASSES : Alchemist (CCC#5 | Phase V) | Chef (CCC#4)
EXPANSIONS : Year of the Scorpion (Year Comp)
PhD in experimental psychology, specializes in psychometrics. Not personality, not a clinician, uses terminology [psychoanalysis] that is obsolete. Clearly talking from a pure anecdotal perspective. That (s)he feels the need to add their credentials (student/candidate?) doesn't add shit to the observations. Its like me saying that I study in physics and therefore make a great salad dressing because I understand forces in movement and have perfected dressing.
I think anyone with basic common sense would be able to come up with the same analysis as OP, and possibly more in-depth. I would expect more from someone throwing those credentials around. It's quite lackluster.
Parenting is all about being available whenever the need arise, which makes the stalling/roping, still annoying for your opponent - yes - but totally unintentional. No one could predict when that 5 years old was to shit himself #True(HS)Story
*Sarcastic tone intensifies* From my screen point of view, I can totally see clearly everyone's intentions and their crystal clear motives..!
"What have you got there,
PinocchioMalygos?"Thanks everyone, got all the data I need. I’m a bit surprised people spent so much time deconstructing my post. The things I wrote were obviously assumptions. The postings however are observable data, which is what I needed for a discourse analysis.
Cheers. No hard feelings I hope.
What a douche. Nice backpedaling.
Im studying psych and this is all bullshit.
Cyber bullying is the reason for corpus data collection. This has been done extensively in forums like reddit and mayoclinic. Do people calmly and respectfully disagree with a persons thoughts, or, attack the person instead? The vast majority of cyber bullying occurs when someone’s statements are not the source of ridicule; rather, people attack the person without basis.
It was expected that people attack me instead of my ideas. The data will show the degree to which people blindly attack the person opposed to the person.
Saying my ideas are bullshit is the more rational response. Saying that the medical field is fucked and me practicing in the field is a catastrophe is quite an intense reaction. Especially over a pseudo player analysis.
In the same way that you've observed and analyzed player behavior, attributing you're own bias to the generalization of the individual agents you've encountered, your post and responses were analyzed. A personality archetype was assigned to you as a result and just like the implications inferred about the lives and aptitude of the people you labelled, so to have they have been established for you. Isn't the point of your profession to analyze people and use the results to predict their influence in society in order to help sculpt and improve them?
Why don't you take a a few hours to consider that the feedback may be valid (it has been enchoed by people of different backgrounds in various iterations) then apply it to yourself and work towards self improvement? The process of doing so could only make you a better person, even if the feedback itself is totally incorrect. In fact, you have a moral imperative to do so, as you would be objectively hypocritical if you avoided said self analysis and the feedback presented to you would then validate itself.
Here's the thing about life: someone will always be better than any single individual in some way - more perceptive, stronger, smarter, funnier, sexier, etc. The problem with so many mental health professionals is the very type of seemingly infallible solipsism that drives then to believe they have mastered their trade and could not possibly be wrong or somehow defunct in themselves. I have always wondered if it is a result of how the education they receive sculpts their psyche, the latent personality type they hold which attracts them to the field, or both. Probably both.
You should read I and Thou* by Martin Buber and hold it close in your future career.
This if pure joke.
no need PhD to write all this.
It's not even about psychology at all.