EVE General Discussion

I think people might hate the idea of it because it reeks of pseudoscience.

Tom cruise? Is that you?


Also, to say that it is pseudoscience is the easiest road to attempt to discredit it (and thus validate oneself). It is a term often uttered by people who do not understand the science in question, and therefore have no say in it's legitimacy. In order to discern the pseudo from the science, one must first understand the science.


To "reek" is not to "know" it is only to assume.
Your assumptions are not based on facts, and thus... well... It does not matter.

Wow. Lots of questions. Here we go:



There's more inherent risk in EvE than in other 'pvp' games - when you die in EvE you lose what you're flying, as well as your clone and implants, if you aren't quick enough to warp out. If you're in a big enough fight you also stand to lose things like a POS, a customs office, even an entire solar system. The greater importance that EvE places on succeeding in PvP leads to a greater fight or flight response, and a greater increase in adrenaline.



Haha. More or less, yeah. The difference is that EvE provides opportunities for class advancement, and Zimbardo didn't provide any opportunities for the prisoners to become the wardens. In my opinion that makes it even worse - it opens up all kinds of opportunities for revenge.



Oh snap. Nice question.Truthfully, I don't think there's too many parallels, although it's interesting that 'healthy' development in EvE flips some of Erik's stages around. For example, trust is an awful thing in EvE, and you do far better once you've figured out that nobody can really be trusted, especially people you don't know. The industry vs. inferiority stage really applies to PvP pretty heavily too, I think - I think I posted about this earlier. People who engage in PvP with a learning approach will always wind up achieving more success in PvP than people who enter PvP with a risk-aversive attitude.

I mean, there's some parallels, sure, but I don't think that Erikson's life stage model plots exactly the course of a newbie in EvE.



You would think. I can guarantee you that some people don't though. I think the general perception among players who complain about suicide ganks is that they perceive EvE as two halves - a 'safe' half and a 'dangerous' half. Most other players recognize that EvE is a spectrum of danger. Events like Hulkageddon upset the 'danger spectrum' and cause players in highsec to perceive it as less safe, so they complain.

And they kind of have a point - it's a half-full / half-empty situation. On one hand, CCP wants highsec to be a safe place - you have police responses, and global timers, and all that. But on the other hand CCP wants highsec to be subject to the same sandbox environment as the rest of the game - if you want someone dead in highsec, you can make them dead. The difference between the players who complain and the players who don't is how they perceive that argument.



1.) It depends on your research. The graduate student I work under has been here for six, because his data set isn't complete enough to write a dissertation on. In 'Merica, anyway.

2.) An IV is a variable that can be manipulated, and is predicted to have an influence on subsequent experiment outcomes. A DV is a subsequent result from an experiment. A Spearman correlation analyzes continuous numeric varialbes and reports the degree to which one changes in response to another, however, it provides no information on causality and should not be reported as such.

3.) The project I was considering doing was looking at the influence of rewards on subsequent behaviors. I would have found some participating corps or alliances and had them schedule an event, and offer pilots a large or small ISK reward. You would measure their subsequent attendance to the event, and then a week or two later, you would hold the same event but with no ISk reward. Theories by Lepper and Nisbett would indicate that pilots who received a high ISK reward for attending the event would be LESS motivated to attend the non-reward event, because they could attribute their attendance to receipt of the reward. Pilots who received a low ISK reward, on the other hand, would be unable to justify their attendance to the reward, and instead attribute it to interest in the event, making them more likely to attend the non-reward event.

Due to difficulties in implementation of such a paradigm, and an inability to ensure participation, and difficulties in getting basic IRB approval, I scrapped that idea in favor of looking at some biological controls over motivation, but it's still an interesting idea.

As far as validity goes, internal is generally the more important one. You want to verify that your experiment is examining the variables, and drawing the conclusions, that it is supposed to be drawing. External validity is nice, and when you have it that's great, but it isn't as important, and you can't JUST have external validity, it would make no sense.

** more responses below **

Why do I have an irresistible urge to wear my wifes panties when I log on my PvP alt to melt face? It is the only time I wear them.

Paraphilias lead you to do some weird things. I would guess that the first time you successfully PvP you (for whatever reason) had panties on, and now you've linked the panties to the feelings of euphoria that come with your PvPing.

Nanotech is neat stuff. Lots of opportunities for growth there - that field's going to get huge in the next 5-10 years and never really go away.

I know, right. Just waiting on one of those little wonder discoveries that result in exponential growth.



Why do people assume that ability is limted by the level of their qualification? A man can read, understand and teach without a lable.

:edit: that's even assuming that the level of education at BSc isn't already enough to school people who know nothing about the field.

I would guess it's for the same reasons as why people enjoy devaluing others' achievements - demonstrating your ability to others makes you feel good. And then also, perceiving someone as extremely knowledgeable but knocking them off their high horse also leads to feelings of satisfaction.

In generally, people act more civilized in face-to-face interactions, or in interactions when personal details are tied to the conversation. On a mostly anonymous internet forum, it's easier to strive for good feelings through expressing negativity and superiority towards others.

Actually, Spearman correlations are used for rank order data. For continuos data we use the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. At least in Sweden.

Why did OP make this thread? Because he has low self-esteem and is looking for validation on the Internet.

There's your psychology.