I have to say that catching up with this thread, I'm disappointed in how it's turned out. MProdigy, if you were studying cyberbullying, this was not the way to go about it. Your approach is unethical and inappropriate. I advise you to read up on informed consent. If this was an official study it would be thrown out by your attempts to incite others and then record their reactions. Even though I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond as constructively as possible, I feel like I wasted my time. If I knew this was just a random grab at getting people to react and not somebody trying to make an effort in analyzing the game and the playstyles of others, I wouldn't even have responded in the first place. These types of "social experiments" are not welcome for good reason. At least you're learning this on a semi-anonymous forum and not in a setting that could have longer lasting consequences.
Unless anyone really wants to talk about psychology and games, this is probably where I peace out.
I'm no psychologist but as someone with friends in pretty much all of these categories it's something I've thought about a bunch too. I don't know if this is the reason you brought this up, but I've noticed recently a gigantic inflation of hyper-competitive decks in Casual mode. In the last 3 or so days I haven't seen a single fun or experimental deck, only Dragon Priests, Aggrodins, Secret Mage, Jade Druid and the occasional Spell Hunter (which is not so bad).
Wild Casual is in a similar state for me, that's where the true scum of Hearthstone lurk, playing these top tier standard decks in what should be the least competitive space in the game.
casual has always been a stress for me. I remember when I first started playing Hearthstone before Gadgetzan where I played a Malygos Mage who always roped.
This whole thread reminds me of that scene in Good Will Hunting where they are in a bar and that guy is trying to impress girls by quoting crap he read in textbooks (OP). Then Will (the community) destroys him with the real-world perspective.
In MProdigy’s defense, (s)he has not been inflammatory in this post. I would be interested to hear your analysis of the data in this thread MProdigy. It appears the community does not believe your initial post and subsequent posts are PhD-level thinking. I would also be in that camp, but would be delighted if you would prove me wrong.
Personally for me, posts like this are unfortunate. Posts like this make the psychology/science field look bad. There’s way too much of that these days, especially here in America. Most people at the PhD-level in the hard and soft sciences are great at their work. If your project is genuine MProdigy, stuff like this just breeds mistrust between the public and actual experts. Yes I fully understand this is a game forum, but every interaction influences (or reinforces) beliefs.
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..!
IRB approved. In fact, social network analysis follows similar procedures, but those cases require more protection since real names are often used.
To sum up, when given the choice to ignore post, criticize post, or criticize person, the majority chose to criticize person. Very consistent with the literature. The question that is so hard to answer is why. I would need focus group data. Most people’s bravado goes out the door when in person rather than behind a screen, so people would not have the same demeanor.
i can say that this is a lot tamer than reddit. That was the most alarming forum so far. The one sentence postings are expected, but long thought out personal attacks are quite sad.
I rolled my eye's back so much while reading this. Its so obvious that you have an agenda. This post is more of a reflection of who you are as a player than anything else.
Mods should really freeze this discussion as it belongs to the Group therapy forum.
triggered like a rocket, the force is strong with this one.
IRB approved. In fact, social network analysis follows similar procedures, but those cases require more protection since real names are often used.
To sum up, when given the choice to ignore post, criticize post, or criticize person, the majority chose to criticize person. Very consistent with the literature. The question that is so hard to answer is why. I would need focus group data. Most people’s bravado goes out the door when in person rather than behind a screen, so people would not have the same demeanor.
i can say that this is a lot tamer than reddit. That was the most alarming forum so far. The one sentence postings are expected, but long thought out personal attacks are quite sad.
are you surprised? as someone who is on the way to get an expert in this field, you couldve anticipated on the incoming rage ^_^
IRB approved. In fact, social network analysis follows similar procedures, but those cases require more protection since real names are often used.
To sum up, when given the choice to ignore post, criticize post, or criticize person, the majority chose to criticize person. Very consistent with the literature. The question that is so hard to answer is why. I would need focus group data. Most people’s bravado goes out the door when in person rather than behind a screen, so people would not have the same demeanor.
i can say that this is a lot tamer than reddit. That was the most alarming forum so far. The one sentence postings are expected, but long thought out personal attacks are quite sad.
most people in gaming communities don't have the time to read through psychoanalyses forums. I actually thought this was very interesting although it seems like this is based off your personal experience in the game. Otherwise, I enjoyed reading it
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.
So my psychoanalysis of you is that you are the asshole who thinks that they aren't an asshole and wonders why everyone gets pissed at you. This is just pure pretentious assholery and you got called on it by damn near everyone. Welcome to life.
If it really is just an experiment you are an intellectually dishonest academic and your results are not worth publishing. Personally I think you are just backtracking on your silly bullshit now that you've been called out.
IRB approved. In fact, social network analysis follows similar procedures, but those cases require more protection since real names are often used.
To sum up, when given the choice to ignore post, criticize post, or criticize person, the majority chose to criticize person. Very consistent with the literature. The question that is so hard to answer is why. I would need focus group data. Most people’s bravado goes out the door when in person rather than behind a screen, so people would not have the same demeanor.
i can say that this is a lot tamer than reddit. That was the most alarming forum so far. The one sentence postings are expected, but long thought out personal attacks are quite sad.
I'm not so sure you can reliably discern between attacking the ideas and attacking the person in this case. Your flimsy deception was basically an open invitation for people to attack you.
When you state at the top of your post that you are a PhD candidate, and then your post is full of so much patently absurd analysis, it's perfectly normal for people to think you are a troll with absolutely no training in psychology whatsoever.
When a reader thinks they have uncovered a fraud, the likelihood of personal attacks increases tremendously. You don't need a PhD to understand that.
(FWIW, I honestly assumed you were a high school student and was ready to ignore the whole thing until I skipped to the end to see if anyone called you out.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Legend makes up 0.5% of players because 99% of those that play this game are playing it on the toilet. The 0.5% that actually take the time to visit and contribute to forums make it to legend.
IRB approved. In fact, social network analysis follows similar procedures, but those cases require more protection since real names are often used.
To sum up, when given the choice to ignore post, criticize post, or criticize person, the majority chose to criticize person. Very consistent with the literature. The question that is so hard to answer is why. I would need focus group data. Most people’s bravado goes out the door when in person rather than behind a screen, so people would not have the same demeanor.
i can say that this is a lot tamer than reddit. That was the most alarming forum so far. The one sentence postings are expected, but long thought out personal attacks are quite sad.
By my count here are the numbers through your post #57:
# attacking only post: 14
# attacking only person: 5
# attacking both: 12
# attacking neither/off topic: 11
# chose to ignore the post: ~2,000 views; 57 replies. I'm too lazy to count people instead of posts
I threw out all of the OP's posts and my post. As this is subjective analysis, my bias might also be influencing the counts. A better analysis might also be to count people instead of posts, as some people have posted more than once.
Despite my assumptions, I do not see how you can conclude from those data the majority chose to attack the person.
Sham science. As others have stated, not even close to PhD-level analysis.
I find the lack of data disturbing. Also, isn't the number of people who viewed but didn't post relevant? I would have expected most people to ignore, not post.
Also, it bothered me to see words used like "worst" without any criteria for what makes one behavior better or worse than another. If the doctoral candidate bit had been left out, then it is just another opinion. But the credentials of the OP should matter.
Throwing out credentials as the ethos for a piece of rhetoric is what allows for a rational critique of someone's person when the rhetoric itself is analyzed. This thread has been like watching a politician in a debate say that because they're a good Christian, their policy making on social justice is valid, then seeing their opponent expose their failure to demonstrate Christian values while also deconstructing the policy.
Backtracking and saying it was all a thinly veiled illusion to elicit a response instead of responding to the points offered is extremely intellectually dishonest, and again, supports the solipsistic neckbeard theory while further validating the various forms of criticism provided here. C'mon bro, the denizens of the internet are a bit smarter than you may have expected and you can't really spin this one any further.
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.
I like the fast decks, the slow decks and the combo decks.
they are all good for different times.
sometimes 30 min + games are too much though and you have to break out the zoolock for speed. and sometimes you just want to mess around and try crazy shit with a combo deck. Other times you want to grind them down till they concede or die of fatigue.
This whole thread reminds me of that scene in Good Will Hunting where they are in a bar and that guy is trying to impress girls by quoting crap he read in textbooks (OP). Then Will (the community) destroys him with the real-world perspective.
In MProdigy’s defense, (s)he has not been inflammatory in this post. I would be interested to hear your analysis of the data in this thread MProdigy. It appears the community does not believe your initial post and subsequent posts are PhD-level thinking. I would also be in that camp, but would be delighted if you would prove me wrong.
Personally for me, posts like this are unfortunate. Posts like this make the psychology/science field look bad. There’s way too much of that these days, especially here in America. Most people at the PhD-level in the hard and soft sciences are great at their work. If your project is genuine MProdigy, stuff like this just breeds mistrust between the public and actual experts. Yes I fully understand this is a game forum, but every interaction influences (or reinforces) beliefs.
Throwing out credentials as the ethos for a piece of rhetoric is what allows for a rational critique of someone's person when the rhetoric itself is analyzed. This thread has been like watching a politician in a debate say that because they're a good Christian, their policy making on social justice is valid, then seeing their opponent expose their failure to demonstrate Christian values while also deconstructing the policy.
Backtracking and saying it was all a thinly veiled illusion to elicit a response instead of responding to the points offered is extremely intellectually dishonest, and again, supports the solipsistic neckbeard theory while further validating the various forms of criticism provided here. C'mon bro, the denizens of the internet are a bit smarter than you may have expected and you can't really spin this one any further.
I have to say that catching up with this thread, I'm disappointed in how it's turned out. MProdigy, if you were studying cyberbullying, this was not the way to go about it. Your approach is unethical and inappropriate. I advise you to read up on informed consent. If this was an official study it would be thrown out by your attempts to incite others and then record their reactions. Even though I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond as constructively as possible, I feel like I wasted my time. If I knew this was just a random grab at getting people to react and not somebody trying to make an effort in analyzing the game and the playstyles of others, I wouldn't even have responded in the first place. These types of "social experiments" are not welcome for good reason. At least you're learning this on a semi-anonymous forum and not in a setting that could have longer lasting consequences.
Unless anyone really wants to talk about psychology and games, this is probably where I peace out.
This is an interesting thread.
This whole thread reminds me of that scene in Good Will Hunting where they are in a bar and that guy is trying to impress girls by quoting crap he read in textbooks (OP). Then Will (the community) destroys him with the real-world perspective.
In MProdigy’s defense, (s)he has not been inflammatory in this post. I would be interested to hear your analysis of the data in this thread MProdigy. It appears the community does not believe your initial post and subsequent posts are PhD-level thinking. I would also be in that camp, but would be delighted if you would prove me wrong.
Personally for me, posts like this are unfortunate. Posts like this make the psychology/science field look bad. There’s way too much of that these days, especially here in America. Most people at the PhD-level in the hard and soft sciences are great at their work. If your project is genuine MProdigy, stuff like this just breeds mistrust between the public and actual experts. Yes I fully understand this is a game forum, but every interaction influences (or reinforces) beliefs.
IRB approved. In fact, social network analysis follows similar procedures, but those cases require more protection since real names are often used.
To sum up, when given the choice to ignore post, criticize post, or criticize person, the majority chose to criticize person. Very consistent with the literature. The question that is so hard to answer is why. I would need focus group data. Most people’s bravado goes out the door when in person rather than behind a screen, so people would not have the same demeanor.
i can say that this is a lot tamer than reddit. That was the most alarming forum so far. The one sentence postings are expected, but long thought out personal attacks are quite sad.
apparently having the insight of a high-school student qualifies you for a PhD. Great troll MProdigy, I salute you.
People are mean?!!! ON THE INTERNET?????
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Legend makes up 0.5% of players because 99% of those that play this game are playing it on the toilet. The 0.5% that actually take the time to visit and contribute to forums make it to legend.
By my count here are the numbers through your post #57:
# attacking only post: 14
# attacking only person: 5
# attacking both: 12
# attacking neither/off topic: 11
# chose to ignore the post: ~2,000 views; 57 replies. I'm too lazy to count people instead of posts
I threw out all of the OP's posts and my post. As this is subjective analysis, my bias might also be influencing the counts. A better analysis might also be to count people instead of posts, as some people have posted more than once.
Despite my assumptions, I do not see how you can conclude from those data the majority chose to attack the person.
Sham science. As others have stated, not even close to PhD-level analysis.
I find the lack of data disturbing. Also, isn't the number of people who viewed but didn't post relevant? I would have expected most people to ignore, not post.
Also, it bothered me to see words used like "worst" without any criteria for what makes one behavior better or worse than another. If the doctoral candidate bit had been left out, then it is just another opinion. But the credentials of the OP should matter.
Throwing out credentials as the ethos for a piece of rhetoric is what allows for a rational critique of someone's person when the rhetoric itself is analyzed. This thread has been like watching a politician in a debate say that because they're a good Christian, their policy making on social justice is valid, then seeing their opponent expose their failure to demonstrate Christian values while also deconstructing the policy.
Backtracking and saying it was all a thinly veiled illusion to elicit a response instead of responding to the points offered is extremely intellectually dishonest, and again, supports the solipsistic neckbeard theory while further validating the various forms of criticism provided here. C'mon bro, the denizens of the internet are a bit smarter than you may have expected and you can't really spin this one any further.
they are all good for different times.
sometimes 30 min + games are too much though and you have to break out the zoolock for speed. and sometimes you just want to mess around and try crazy shit with a combo deck. Other times you want to grind them down till they concede or die of fatigue.
I like them all.
"Apple sauce, bitch"