You seem to forget that we are talking to a colleague not a hostile interregator. Hell we tell about our grief Stark will probably feel obligated to defend that point against anybody that would try to smear Mathilde and Abel out of courtesy. We go with other options and people try to smear Abel then Starke won't have a reason to act.This whole conversation started because you laid out a certain possible outcome and discussed its implications. In that discussion, you considered only the effects of that scenario on Mathilde's reputation. I just felt the need to also add the effects on Abelhelm's reputation. It's fair to not care about that, or to think it's not our responsibility, but I don't think it's some complicated second order effect: if it is believed two people had a relationship, the immediate people implicated are those two people.
Again, DragonParadox was talking about a worst case scenario where people do use this to say Mathilde and Abel were romantically involved. I agree that it's not a likely outcome and I said as much, all I was saying was that if it does happen then the effects on Abel's reputation should be considered.You seem to forget that we are talking to a colleague not a hostile interregator. Hell we tell about our grief Stark will probably feel obligated to defend that point against anybody that would try to smear Mathilde and Abel out of courtesy. We go with other options and people try to smear Abel then Starke won't have a reason to act.
If it happens it won't be because we said to Starke. I don't think he is a rumer monger for one. My point is if there is such rumour already floating about, us talking to Starke now means Starke will feel obligated to defend it.Again, DragonParadox was talking about a worst case scenario where people do use this to say Mathilde and Abel were romantically involved. I agree that it's not a likely outcome and I said as much, all I was saying was that if it does happen then the effects on Abel's reputation should be considered.
Look, I was responding to a post that talked about the possible consequences of rumors regarding Mathilde and Abelhelm's relationship. The post didn't bring up the effects on Abel's reputation, so I brought that up. I said that if you are going to talk about those rumors, you should also mention Abel. That's it, that's all I was saying. I wasn't saying that such a rumor is likely, or that it is a likely result of voting Grief - I actually said the opposite.If it happens it won't be because we said to Starke. I don't think he is a rumer monger for one. My point is if there is such rumour already floating about, us talking to Starke now means Starke will feel obligated to defend it.
So if you are concerned about Abels reputation already Grief is way to go. If you don't think Abel have such rumours already it won't start here either way.
I agree with the spirit of this statement, but I think it's also worth bearing in mind that modern peoples living in modern cities are in a, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, totally alien environment. You have no instinctual priming on how to cope with a crush of people so far in excess of what humans are actually wired for (see: Dunbar's number). From a less psychological perspective, it's fundamentally the same mechanism with rising cancer rates; it's not just a matter of more accurate diagnoses and longer lifespans (though it is that, too), it's the presence of potentially harmful, artificial carcinogens and radionuclides which mammals have undergone essentially zero selective pressure to adapt features which allow them to safely filter them out (See: lead crime hypothesis). I could ramble for a long time on the nitty gritty, but my point is that it's very likely that as human society has moved further and further away from the environment which ancient humans existed in, and were shaped by, that atypicalities of both the mind and body will become more common, at least barring some kind of treatment. Though, given the abundance of uh, easily accessible trauma in the Empire, things probably more than balance out.Something I think is important for writers to keep in mind with writing in historical and fantasy settings is that people with all of these 'modern' diagnoses still existed, they just didn't have any sort of help in dealing with them and had to figure out their own ways to interface with a society that wasn't built for them.
A lovely update.
I agree with the spirit of this statement, but I think it's also worth bearing in mind that modern peoples living in modern cities are in a, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, totally alien environment. You have no instinctual priming on how to cope with a crush of people so far in excess of what humans are actually wired for (see: Dunbar's number). From a less psychological perspective, it's fundamentally the same mechanism with rising cancer rates; it's not just a matter of more accurate diagnoses and longer lifespans (though it is that, too), it's the presence of potentially harmful, artificial carcinogens and radionuclides which mammals have undergone essentially zero selective pressure to adapt features which allow them to safely filter them out (See: lead crime hypothesis). I could ramble for a long time on the nitty gritty, but my point is that it's very likely that as human society has moved further and further away from the environment which ancient humans existed in, and were shaped by, that atypicalities of both the mind and body will become more common, at least barring some kind of treatment. Though, given the abundance of uh, easily accessible trauma in the Empire, things probably more than balance out.
Goblins are really stupid, but they do come up with a good idea every now and then. 4 dwarf sized gronties carrying a platform is about as impractical a mount you can bring into combat.
I mean, that's my point.Well, sure, but evolutionary pressure over the mere 10,000 years or so we've had cities isn't enough to drive selection really- any changes in humans we've seen since then are almost certainly driven by sexual preferences rather than elimination of the less fit. Means there's no consistent impetus behind the stuff evopsych tries to explain. (Poorly, IMHO.)
I think you misunderstood. The point of the post is that it's been too short for evolutionary adaptation to cities. But that means that cities and modern life in general is something we're not adapted to. This means that modern life causes problems we where either issues aren't handled because they didn't occur before (problems because of too much sitting, for example) or even turns beneficial adaptions into problems (people getting extremely fat). And it's reasonable, though harder to prove, that the same goes for mental problems. I think it's pretty widely acknowledged that Facebook is bad for people, as an example. Or the way mechanisms for finding consensus can turn into echo chambers when you're not in a small group where you can't avoid the other members who have a different view.Well, sure, but evolutionary pressure over the mere 10,000 years or so we've had cities isn't enough to drive selection really- any changes in humans we've seen since then are almost certainly driven by sexual preferences rather than elimination of the less fit. Means there's no consistent impetus behind the stuff evopsych tries to explain. (Poorly, IMHO.)
Wrong thread, snorri is one over. Also if it's good enough for thorek it's good enough for snorri.It occurred to me in a kinda weird dream last night that this is functionally the same as a spider: eight legs and a central platform (thorax) to work from. Better, I suppose, because the legs are modular and can independently fight back.
A lovely update.
I agree with the spirit of this statement, but I think it's also worth bearing in mind that modern peoples living in modern cities are in a, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, totally alien environment. You have no instinctual priming on how to cope with a crush of people so far in excess of what humans are actually wired for (see: Dunbar's number). From a less psychological perspective, it's fundamentally the same mechanism with rising cancer rates; it's not just a matter of more accurate diagnoses and longer lifespans (though it is that, too), it's the presence of potentially harmful, artificial carcinogens and radionuclides which mammals have undergone essentially zero selective pressure to adapt features which allow them to safely filter them out (See: lead crime hypothesis). I could ramble for a long time on the nitty gritty, but my point is that it's very likely that as human society has moved further and further away from the environment which ancient humans existed in, and were shaped by, that atypicalities of both the mind and body will become more common, at least barring some kind of treatment. Though, given the abundance of uh, easily accessible trauma in the Empire, things probably more than balance out.
"Mathilde Weber! I am a Director of Marienburg, and I am your first evil ex-nemesis!"This has probably been discussed, but i wonder if this was actually an attempted attack on us, (I preemptively blame Marienburg).
It's been years, but someone actively looking to sabotage our reputation probably had a hard time getting anything out of the Karak, so that leaves our old contacts in Stirland.
... The idea that we have a nemesis in Marienburg which we never even noticed feels hilarious to me."Mathilde Weber! I am a Director of Marienburg, and I am your first evil ex-nemesis!"
"I'm pretty sure that's Wizard Chic actually."
"You will pay for your insolence!"
"If you're my ex-nemesis, what are you doing here, and where is my current one?""Mathilde Weber! I am a Director of Marienburg, and I am your first evil ex-nemesis!"
Meanwhile, at Mathilde's skull collection..."If you're my ex-nemesis, what are you doing here, and where is my current one?"