Peterson is brilliant, in a very magically humanistic kind of way - very much like a shaman or a wizard. Read/listen to him, read "Design of Everyday Things" (classic 80s design bible), read Freud, read Jung, read Nietzsche, read Rand, read architecture almanacs, read UI and graphic design reviews, look at everyone's work, and work through it. Know others, but most importantly, know yourself, and your limitations. Understanding that you are limited both by others and by yourself is the most important thing for any designer to understand, and may be why I (you?) am drawn to Forge and its limited palette of blocks and crummy textures. Interesting question of the day: If the left is 'open' and the right is 'closed' respectively towards 'new ideas', why is it that some of the most interesting and compelling ideas that require an 'open' mind come from the 'closed' right of a given community? I have a theory, but it is not well-formulated. Yet. So don't ask, just answer. Second interesting question: Could one apply this analysis to game design as a whole? Specifically with regards to the openness to distilling the evidence of gameplay traits and patterns and re-applying them in ways that are extremely challenging to the 'open' mind of those who could not conceive of them/recognize them in the first place? Third interesting question: If the left of a community is so 'open' to their own ideas, but 'closed' to those ideas that are maintained and serviced by the 'closed' right, is it no surprise that communities that are too severely divided along the lines of the '"closed" reality' vs '"open" theoretical' will inevitably collapse due to the 'close'-fisted caretakers and producers of the community leaving the empty husk to be limitlessly consumed by the 'open'-mouthed hordes? Final thought: Leave not your mind too wide open that it slides out. **edit** read Aristotle first, read Plato only for entertainment
rough colorization with placement ideas - back cavern path not shown, but would either be up towards right from bottom floor with another, smaller waterfall, or would be down from top floor again to the right side where that little grenade X is located
Why do you have a section that's removed for 1v1? Not sure why you keep wanting your maps to all work for different player counts. Personally think that's taking away from your ability to really polish a map for one player count. You might be sacrificing refinedness for versatility. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not something I'd go into designing a map intending to do.
1000 days since last MCC update and Frankie promised us an explanation http://teambeyond.net/forum/topic/4...f-collection-discussion/page-2645#entry977057
eh, I know however, I think that the design is already kinda versatile, which is why I had the idea to offer a 1v1 edit, even though I doubt anyone would want to play that mode anyway
Very interesting watch, but I think this guy is pretty quick to generalize. Also he talks about riskiness as foolishness, which is completely ignorant of Expected Value Theorem. I also don't think that the different personality types are mutually exclusive. Are companies really run by conservatives? Elon Musk doesn't seem to fit this. Are lawyers really uncreative? I think lawyers must actually be very creative, because they must construct the best argument from a set of constraints. I also think anyone will work hard, long hours at something they are interested in. Forgers do this. Does that make them less creative, more dutiful people? I also don't think that creativity ~ smarts. A lot of designers say that in order to be creative, you should think like a child. They say to do this because children do not yet know about all of the bounds of the world, so they think more freely. A really smart person might be able to ignore constraints, but I think really ignorant or unaware people are better at this. Actually, I disagree with everything this guy says. Still interesting though.
His generalizations are just that, Generalized. Of course there are exceptions. He would be the first to tell you as a clinical psychologist that individuals are insanely complex and that there is a huge mix of personality traits from person to person. However, his generalizations are derived from a huge pool of studies and statistics that suggest that what he is saying rings true a huge majority of the time. It's the same with the correlation between creativity and intelligence. These aren't his opinions, but a rational conclusion based on overwhelming evidence. Also, I completely disagree with your definition of creative in this sense. Lawyers have to be extremely perceptive to create a defense within the law, but not creative. The core of creativity is breaking rules, or laws, which is what he was touching on when he referenced lawyers.
I think lawyers are creative because it is not of their interest to interpret the law most accurately. It is of their interest to create an argument that paints the law as being in their favor. I would call spinning the language of the law to your intention a version of breaking the rules. He actually says "creativity emerges when you put serious constraints on things." I understand that what he says is derived from studies, but without stating how the study was conducted, or explicitly defining some of the words he uses, his word cannot be taken as fact. I think it would actually be a huge mistake to believe what he says by assuming that the science must be good. I'm not disagreeing to disagree, but I really find that a lot of what he says conflicts with a lot of my understanding of the world. I can't say that I believe that what he says "rings true a majority of the time." Just saying that "the science says" is not valid.
Hey! You're assuming that I'm assuming! Seriously, though. I promise you that I'm not just assuming that the studies are solid. I've studied and watched and read about clinical psychology for the past 6 months pretty extensively, and have found Jordan Peterson to be one of the most admirable in his field or any intellectual practice. You can find most of these studies in the description of his youtube videos or on his website/his universities website. Also, like I've already said, he's generalizing. Obviously not every lawyer ever is low in openness. Obviously not every business owner is conservative. Nobody has made those claims, so I'm unsure why you're hung up on them. In any case, these videos are supposed to conflict with your understanding of the world. That's what new and advanced Ideas exist for. I highly suggest that you dig deeper.
I think that very few lawyers are low in the creativity department, was my point. He claims that most are low. I think this guy is an expert at bullshitting, but it's still interesting.
So he generalizes lawyers one way, and you generalize them another way. The only difference is that he's actually conducted studies to back up his perspective. Even if you continue to disagree, please, by all means, dig deeper. Go to his website or watch more videos. It's fun at the least. Until then, I'm not particularly interested in arguing with someone who just states their opinion and then restates it as if it were an argument.
Well I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert because I'm not going to spend the time to do all the research, I'm just giving my thoughts. And even without conducting research, I can still tell you that a lot of his arguments are invalid based on logic. I can also tell you that the way he describes things is very inconsistent with how I see them. I'm not sure what researching creativity consists of, but my professional field is a creative one, so I feel that I'm qualified to give some valid input.
You can't just say "he's wrong based on logic" without actually explaining why... Well, you can, but not if you want to change anyone's mind. Also, like I said, it's supposed to challenge the way you look at the world. That's what psychology is. In my estimation, it would be extremely ill-advised to assume that your perspective on the world is fully formed and correct without any analysis involved.
I mean did you want me to give you a list of things he says that are inconsistent based on logic? I already pointed some stuff out earlier. And I didn't say that my understanding is perfect, but I don't believe a lot of what he says. I believe that a lot of what he says is wrong. I know you say he has done his research, but that doesn't mean that I will believe him no matter what. I'm sure you can recall a time you spoke with someone who told you about all this research they did on a topic, but they were still wrong. Conspiracy theories, for example, are usually well-researched, but not convincing..
It all depends on the kind of lawyer you're talking about. Most lawyers do have to be low in 'openness' because they are the readers, the grunts that put the whole picture together for a case. Being able to see loopholes does not mean that they are necessarily 'open', nor does their ability to apply these loopholes to arguments mean that they are 'creative' - maybe if they were to apply principles from a completely different discipline of the law, then you could say that they are creative, but with something as complicated, convoluted, and concrete as the law, you'll be hard-pressed to find a 'free spirit' down in the catacombs looking for heading 18839.49-B for the reason why you can't park in public streets in Santa Monica without a permit between 6:30 PM and 7 AM on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. If anything, the 'creative' or 'open' lawyers will be the ones presenting parts of the case in court, as they will need to be able work on the fly, and out in the open. From my own experience, however, even those lawyers are boring, and are constantly looking at their notes for pre-written arguments. So I wouldn't exactly call the professional space of the Law one that fosters or caters to the 'creative' in the sense that they have an 'open' (scattered?) mind. They are focused, and focus implies something is closed, to varying degrees. That is to say nothing of their personal lives, but to make it as a lawyer, you'll definitely have to be able to hunker down and do the grunt work. Peterson, though a psychologist, has hunkered down already, and has the gift of style and insight, of humanistic connectivity - he is 'creative' in a way, but the creativity he expresses is based on solid observations, and is hyper-focused, though widely applicable.
Butting in on psychology, I'm of the Mind you choose who you want to be. Barring some physiological constraint, our minds are powerful enough for us to make whatever choices we want. I'm not saying we can esp and ****, but anything happening from within your body can be isolated and controlled. Emotions mean nothing, it's just a fancy label for instinctual choices. Choose your own density
There is a mountain of evidence twice the size of Everest that suggests otherwise, but you do you man.
Hell, even artists, the traditionally 'open' and 'creative' people, have to hunker down and hammer down some kind of solid base for their artwork. That's probably why I can't stand going to modern art museums, as the art there isn't tied down to anything, except conceptually. The Beatles went Hippie, but their music was still tied to a solid musical base, tied to the proven, observable musical qualities of western pop, skiffle, rock, and later to traditional indian music - their songs became what I might describe as the 'chicken tikka masala' of music, tasting good, based on many different cuisines, but still tied to the most understandable staple-spice-sauce-protein combo that makes it recognizable and instantly readable/digestible. If they had completely left the realm of proven, recognizable music behind (like some composers decided would be a good idea - never mind the irony that they still needed instruments to play the music in the first place), by being too creative, they would have completely flown the coop and lost all credibility.
My response still applies, lol --- Double Post Merged, Aug 9, 2017 --- Jordan touches on this Idea. Creative people are constantly on the edge between order and chaos, ever expanding the order and ever venturing into chaos.