So, Do you play FO4 as a male or female?

[BenevolentSpirit]

Eh something like that, but only "jesus in purgatory" would understand my message

[MrCrowley5878]

Both, but female most often.

[Fkemman11]

Both, but female most often.

 

MMMIISSSTTTEEERRR CCRRROWWEELLYY. Did you ride your white horse? :laugh: It's symbolic of course!!

 

Ahem. Sorry mate. My poor impression of a Rock Legend. :happy:

[su01rimi]

Wow - the discussion is profound. In psycholgy and psychotherapy you find a lot of schools with different views of the human nature. Unprofessional psychologists say that they know the truth -> thats not science (plausibility) - thats religion (believes). A psychol explanation is a hypothesis with statistically good probability for prediction or efficient therapy - nothing more. You cant explain a system you are part of - but you have to try. Searching for reasons or meanings is helpful in daily life. We have a need for explanations and we confound contiguity with causality - good thing, thats why rats survive - call it evolution or intelliigent design.

 

Back to my female char. theoretical cognitions are fine but my intuition is more important: it is good for me.

[Fkemman11]

If there were a bit more sexual content in the game, I would consider playing as a male. As is, though, I don't really see a reason since your significant other is gunned down right in front of you. I think it's kinda of silly to expect a player to not be hindered somewhat in their development of a new relationship with someone else. I mean, I personally would not go looking for a new love- interest right after my spouse's violent death. this makes me think that Beth intentionally "Shut The Door" on any inclusion of more sexual themes. Clever on their part, if not completely transparent.

 

I fully realize that in a fallout game it shouldn't really matter. But, for me it does.

 

As a point of reference, other games I have played let the player develop their own love- interest without any hindrance from a tragic "back- story". Several games made me feel quite affectionate for one(or two) of my companions. So probably I don't play as my gender because I feel a bit cheated in that regard. :rolleyes:

[Moraelin]

Wow - the discussion is profound. In psycholgy and psychotherapy you find a lot of schools with different views of the human nature. Unprofessional psychologists say that they know the truth -> thats not science (plausibility) - thats religion (believes). A psychol explanation is a hypothesis with statistically good probability for prediction or efficient therapy - nothing more. You cant explain a system you are part of - but you have to try. Searching for reasons or meanings is helpful in daily life. We have a need for explanations and we confound contiguity with causality - good thing, thats why rats survive - call it evolution or intelliigent design.

 

Back to my female char. theoretical cognitions are fine but my intuition is more important: it is good for me.

Yes, well, funny you should mention that, since for most of its history psychology didn't actually offer much in the way of actual evidence. That is, evidence that wasn't flat out made up. Starting with Freud, who either made up miraculous recoveries once the hidden signs from the subconscious were decyphered (when in actual reality the patient just ended up in a loonie bin) or just made up the whole case and patient out of thin air.

 

And it continued with stuff that was glorified cold reading (e.g., the Rorschach cards) and other stuff that was itself profoundly unscientific.

 

The fact is, there is no evidence that the brain even has the circuitry for some subconscious with a will and agenda of its own. What there is evidence of, as in, you can even watch it happening in real time on MRI, is a much more straightforward voting pro and against a course of action based on the previous associations you have in the synapses. If its dark and previously pressing the light button turned on the lights, there'll be a lot of signals driving up the vote to press the button. Whereas if, say, it was a red button and you got smacked around before for pressing red buttons, there'd be a lot of voting against.

 

It's basically just another form of reflex action, nothing profound or insightful.

 

What I'm trying to say is that literally there is no such thing as complex subconscious thought, and trying to find some is just an exercise in confabulation. The only things that are decided by subconscious thought are that kind of simple voting based on extrapolating from previous outcomes. If the previous experiences favour doing X, then you do X. If you have negative experiences with X, then you don't do X. It's really that simple.

 

And the subconscious "motives" are just those previous experiences, nothing more. And they can be literally as simple as liking to look at a woman's ass, or liking the voice acting more, or having gotten attention before for playing a woman, or such. Are they "reasons" for doing X instead of Y? Well, yes. It's not random. Are they some profound insight in your relationship with your parents? Nope.

[Fkemman11]

 

Wow - the discussion is profound. In psycholgy and psychotherapy you find a lot of schools with different views of the human nature. Unprofessional psychologists say that they know the truth -> thats not science (plausibility) - thats religion (believes). A psychol explanation is a hypothesis with statistically good probability for prediction or efficient therapy - nothing more. You cant explain a system you are part of - but you have to try. Searching for reasons or meanings is helpful in daily life. We have a need for explanations and we confound contiguity with causality - good thing, thats why rats survive - call it evolution or intelliigent design.

 

Back to my female char. theoretical cognitions are fine but my intuition is more important: it is good for me.

Yes, well, funny you should mention that, since for most of its history psychology didn't actually offer much in the way of actual evidence. That is, evidence that wasn't flat out made up. Starting with Freud, who either made up miraculous recoveries once the hidden signs from the subconscious were decyphered (when in actual reality the patient just ended up in a loonie bin) or just made up the whole case and patient out of thin air.

 

And it continued with stuff that was glorified cold reading (e.g., the Rorschach cards) and other stuff that was itself profoundly unscientific.

 

The fact is, there is no evidence that the brain even has the circuitry for some subconscious with a will and agenda of its own. What there is evidence of, as in, you can even watch it happening in real time on MRI, is a much more straightforward voting pro and against a course of action based on the previous associations you have in the synapses. If its dark and previously pressing the light button turned on the lights, there'll be a lot of signals driving up the vote to press the button. Whereas if, say, it was a red button and you got smacked around before for pressing red buttons, there'd be a lot of voting against.

 

It's basically just another form of reflex action, nothing profound or insightful.

 

What I'm trying to say is that literally there is no such thing as complex subconscious thought, and trying to find some is just an exercise in confabulation. The only things that are decided by subconscious thought are that kind of simple voting based on extrapolating from previous outcomes. If the previous experiences favour doing X, then you do X. If you have negative experiences with X, then you don't do X. It's really that simple.

 

And the subconscious "motives" are just those previous experiences, nothing more. And they can be literally as simple as liking to look at a woman's ass, or liking the voice acting more, or having gotten attention before for playing a woman, or such. Are they "reasons" for doing X instead of Y? Well, yes. It's not random. Are they some profound insight in your relationship with your parents? Nope.

 

 

I sort of agree. But there is much more going on in people's head than that. How do you explain the small percentage of the human brain that is actually used? You mentioned PTSD in an earlier post. Why would killing that tenth guy be any different than the first. So it is a little more complicated than simple "conditioning". :smile:

[Moraelin]

Well, actually we know the answer to both, thanks to neuroscience.

 

1. Actually you use all the brain, just not at the same time. The brain powers down the parts that aren't in use RIGHT NAO. It powers them right back up when they're actually needed.

 

2. PTSD shows all the signs of being stuck at trying to figure out how a traumatic situation could have been avoided. Aven the hormones that go on overdrive are those associated with learning.

 

But why is killing someone else such a big problem? Because of mirror neurons, which essentially are involved in everything from empathy, to learning by watching someone else do it, to watching porn. Essentially there is brain circuitry which make you feel whatever you see happening to someone else. It's why you wince when you watch someone get a mighty kick in the nuts at a football game.

 

So essentially, unless you're at least a sociopath -- which essentially seem to have that circuitry inhibited -- when you shoot a guy, you see yourself being shot. When you see your friend or foe being blown by a grenade, you see yourself being blown up by a grenade. Etc. It's why the stress factor of shooting someone is up through the roof, way higher than being shelled by artillery. (Which is what they originally thought causes "shell shock", the WW1 name for PTSD.)

 

2.a. On the topic of conditioning, well, I didn't say it saves you from PTSD. It doesn't. I said you might need that to shoot your first guy at all.

 

See, after WW2 and 'Nam, and all that, where about 98% of people never actually shot to try to hit someone, and that was out of those that were in actual combat, people started thinking how can they get people to actually shoot at the enemy. Because essentially one single man out of every 2 platoons was actually trying to kill the enemy, and the rest were just using up your resources and being targets for artillery.

 

So one thing we came up with was training people to basically shoot before they have a chance to think about it. You know, those training courses where targets pop up, and the par time is lower than you have time for any kind of thought. People are drilled again and again to just identify the target and shoot at any hostile head that comes out of cover first, and think later, until it's acting on pure reflexes.

 

It works, in that people actually use those reflexes, same as any other reflexes.

 

It doesn't seem to do much against PTSD, though. If you actually nail that son of a gun in the head when he poked his head out of cover, you stilll have a very good chance of coming back broken from the war. But, hey, that's one less enemy shooting at you.

[Fkemman11]

"So one thing we came up with was training people to basically shoot before they have a chance to think about it. You know, those training courses where targets pop up, and the par time is lower than you have time for any kind of thought. People are drilled again and again to just identify the target and shoot at any hostile head that comes out of cover first, and think later, until it's acting on pure reflexes."

 

OK. But, before u pull that trigger -you have to identify F/F- which kinda indicates that there is a thought process. Even in that split second. More likely is that you don't have time to FEEL anything and that's where PTSD comes in. So, with that in mind, why would I feel any differently about shooting that tenth guy than the first? Whether it be a man or woman doing the shooting wouldn't matter that much.

 

What I meant by conditioning is that you assert that everything in life is a conditioned response. What about instinct? What about the numerous situations where you have no experience to draw from. Some part of your particular personality comes into play there as it is new to you.

 

So your mindset is just as important-if not more- than your training or conditioning. Napoleon's numerous victories were due in part to his ability to INSPIRE a "fighting" spirit in the troops he commanded. Demoralized men or women do not fight well. There is a WHOLE package in every person- not just the intellectual part.

 

And here's an interesting thought on the subject of man vs woman. Is a woman any less a effective a combatant than a man- other than strength maybe. If so. Why? :geek:

[bmt12]

I only read the first few posts and the last few, this conversation got quite a bit deeper than I expected going in...

 

Because my number one reason for playing a female character is naturally the behind that I will be watching.

 

I also don't like to roleplay as anything remotely like myself, which is why I like playing lithe female characters who are in direct contrast to how buff I am in real life....

 

...not fooling anyone? Ok but I still like roleplaying as sort of off the wall type of characters and that often include female warriors-though most games especially set in ancient times have gone PC and make females just as capable and accepted as men in war...which is boring I want strife in RPGs.