Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6738521" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm rather exhausted by saying &quot;here's my argument: A -&gt; B -&gt; C&quot; and your response being something along the lines of &quot;sure, but what if you change B to F, then A !-&gt; F !-&gt; C, so that doesn't work for me.&quot;&nbsp; And then I reply, &quot;but I clearly said B, not F.&nbsp; F isn't anywhere close to the example I was talking about.&quot;&nbsp; And then you go, &quot;but F, man, F.&nbsp; F makes what you say not work.&quot;It's very frustrating to continue to have a conversation where the basic premises I use are changed in the counter argument, which is then used to say that my basic premises are incorrect.&nbsp; It's this crazy circle of an argument.&nbsp; Especially when you show up at the last bit and say &quot;but you must show that the barrister deviates from neutral by two standard deviations in order to claim that he's lawful [this is a paraphrase, of course].&quot; I don't even know how to respond to that.&nbsp; What's a standard deviation?&nbsp; Heck, what are we using to measure the samples?&nbsp; Likert scales?&nbsp; A Briggs-Myer instrument?&nbsp; If we can't agree on the definitions, I have absolutely no idea how to agree on a standard deviation.&nbsp; Scratch that, I have no idea how to determine a standard deviation of alignment at all.&nbsp; Plus, the probability distribution is unlikely to be well behaved.&nbsp; Feh, my head spins.So, when you complain that I'm not answering your questions, I have no idea how to even get into the neighborhood of answering some of your questions.&nbsp; I suppose that's a personal failing on my part, but I'm quite happy with the work I've done in this thread at the moment re: alignment.&nbsp; Solidified a few things that have been kicking around in the old noggin for a bit.&nbsp; That, and I got an idea for this great new NPC in my game.&nbsp; Oddly enough, he's a LE barrister.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6738521, member: 16814"] I'm rather exhausted by saying "here's my argument: A -> B -> C" and your response being something along the lines of "sure, but what if you change B to F, then A !-> F !-> C, so that doesn't work for me." And then I reply, "but I clearly said B, not F. F isn't anywhere close to the example I was talking about." And then you go, "but F, man, F. F makes what you say not work." It's very frustrating to continue to have a conversation where the basic premises I use are changed in the counter argument, which is then used to say that my basic premises are incorrect. It's this crazy circle of an argument. Especially when you show up at the last bit and say "but you must show that the barrister deviates from neutral by two standard deviations in order to claim that he's lawful [this is a paraphrase, of course]." I don't even know how to respond to that. What's a standard deviation? Heck, what are we using to measure the samples? Likert scales? A Briggs-Myer instrument? If we can't agree on the definitions, I have absolutely no idea how to agree on a standard deviation. Scratch that, I have no idea how to determine a standard deviation of alignment at all. Plus, the probability distribution is unlikely to be well behaved. Feh, my head spins. So, when you complain that I'm not answering your questions, I have no idea how to even get into the neighborhood of answering some of your questions. I suppose that's a personal failing on my part, but I'm quite happy with the work I've done in this thread at the moment re: alignment. Solidified a few things that have been kicking around in the old noggin for a bit. That, and I got an idea for this great new NPC in my game. Oddly enough, he's a LE barrister. [/QUOTE]

Verification