No, that's not all he said. "Everyone cares to some degree what other people think." "You do have to care to some degree what people think of you, one way or the other." "You gotta feel something when people laugh at you." These are all universal assertions.
Well, some of our brains behave in this manner. Some don't think this way at all. That's really my main point. It's just a vast overgeneralization. I know from my personal experience lots of counterexamples to this rule. I have a lot of money. But it doesn't make me any better than anyone else. And I know people with even more money. But that certainly doesn't make me feel poor. OK, but I can, which is why I find it hard to understand why others are subject to such feelings. Does that make sense? Is there a way for people who aren't subject to these feelings, to understand why others are? I'm guessing probably not.
Yes, those are all universal assertions. Excepting sociopaths, the autistic, and certain other psychological disorders, those are all universally accurate assertions, too. You might not care what all people think of you some of the time. You might not care what some people think of you all the time. If you don't care what ALL people think of you ALL the time, though, then you have a rather severe psychological disorder. If given a choice, would you rather your family be proud of you or disgusted by you? If given a choice, would you rather your old friends think of you as a good friend or a soulless bastard? Not caring what people think would mean that you find either of the two choices equally appealing. Hopefully these examples illustrate that you do, in fact, "care to some degree what other people think". You might care less than others. You might not care much about what most people think. I can practically guarantee, however, that there do exist people whose opinion of you is important to you, whether it's your significant other, your biological family, or your closest confederates. Cognitive biases are pretty universal. They're also pretty insidious. In fact, there's an officially recognized cognitive bias (called "bias blind spot") that explains how we're prone to seeing ourselves as less biased than others. As I see it, a large part of the "achievements" phenomenon is a result of the Scarcity Bias, which is our natural tendency to view items that are more scarce as more valuable simply due to their scarcity. For instance, researchers once had people sample cookies from two jars, one of which was quite full and one of which was nearly empty, and then rate which cookie was better. And you know what? People said the cookies from the empty jar were better, despite the fact that the cookies in both jars were exactly the same. If you'd asked these people beforehand whether the number of cookies in the jar would impact their perceptions of taste, I'm sure all of these people would have denied it... and they would have been wrong. Sure, some might have been less prone to the bias, but the simple fact is that the bias exists, and you could perform the same experiment in any population and you'd find evidence of it. You're right on one count- the "Joe Smith" example I provided is a generalization of the underlying phenomenon, a simplification used to make it easier to understand. And you might know examples that contradict the simplistic presentation of the concept that I provided. You don't, however, know examples that contradict the underlying principle, though. The idea isn't that Joe Smith feels objectively poor, it's that he feels poorer when he's surrounded by richer people than he does while surrounded by poorer people. You might know lots of people who make decent money and feel pretty rich. I bet you, though, that if they moved to a Brazilian favela, they'd feel richer. And if they subsequently moved to Beverly Hills, they'd feel poorer. Our tendency to measure ourselves against our peers is a time-tested cognitive bias universal throughout the human race and repeatedly demonstrated through rigorous studies. It is a tendency hardwired into our brains by millennia of selective pressures on our ancestors. While the degree of their presence or our abilities to overcome them might vary from individual to individual, they are still a natural and ubiquitous part of normal brain development.
This is the perfect example of that "Joe Smith" phenomenon I was talking about. We judge our achievements through the prism of our peers. If we accept your premise that accomplishments derive value from their difficulty, then it's a complete non sequitur to then say that the number of people who accomplish the task somehow changes the value of the task, because the number of people who accomplish the task does not alter the difficulty, which is what you initially said made the accomplishment meaningful. I just recently ran a 5k. For me, this was a difficult feat that involved months of training and preparation. The difficulty of the feat doesn't change whether you tell me only 5,000 people in America could have done it, or you tell me that 50,000,000 people in America could have done it. It's not like I would need to train for an extra month in the first scenario compared to the second scenario. The amount of discipline necessary, the amount of effort exerted, both are objectively and rationally exactly the same regardless of the number of people who have also accomplished the task. SUBJECTIVELY and IRRATIONALLY, though... then yeah, the fact that everyone else can do it, too, does serve to devalue the accomplishment. Which is why, as I said, there's no objective and rational reason to feel this way, even if there are several such subjective and irrational reasons.
Oh... I didnt understand this comment until I saw the FM's banner below your post. Well, FM, Nice banner!
It seems sort of crazy that this thread has turned into you accusing me of a "severe psychological disorder". What are your professional credentials, and how exactly can you diagnose me by reading a few messages in an internet forum? I do care what I actually do. But if other people misperceive what I have accomplished, that's their problem, not mine. I might want people to know my abilities so that they listen to my advice in areas where I am expert, or so that I get the opportunities I should, but I don't care at all other than that. If that makes me unusual, fine. But it doesn't make me some kind of psychopath, that is just nuts. It's not a "disorder", because it doesn't interfere with my participation in society (I am extremely successful). But some of us *are* less biased than others, so you have to consider that too. And some of us aren't subject to biases like "Scarcity Bias". Researchers can show that on average some people have these biases. But they can't show that everyone does, and it's not true.
He wasn't substituted for Spider(see pic). He is a separate and completely new hero from the rest of the crew. As a Warrior, I would think he's going to be primarily Melee but with tough skin(somewhere in-between Spider & Beetle with attacks not as powerful than Spiders and skin not as tough as beetles but definitely a force to be reckoned with) and very balanced/all purpose. I could be completely wrong being the scrolls mentioned Chuck Mantis is the baddest bug period, but I also know FM wouldn't make him overkill compared to all the other heroes. I personally can't wait to see how he plays out because a lot of people contributed what skills/abilities they though he should have when asked from FM on their fb page. No doubt Mantis is going to be a great addition to series.
Sorry for the double post. :/ Ever since the new Hero packs were introduced and I unlocked all of Worms gear, it has always had me wonder if FM would ever implement an ability for Worm, that would allow him to utilize the dual pistols he wields on his backpack? Man that would be a sweet addition to have dual wielding pistols similar to Fly's(maybe a slightly faster rate of fire), and be able to move slightly faster while equipped but in return have slower rate of regeneration or something to offset and balance it out. I for one would use it to make Worm more mobile. What do you guys think?
Wow, that's a long discussion on the value of achievements I know some people may feel slighted (obviously NOT our intention), but achievements are indeed unaffected by Treasure on/off. We actually did bring it up internally for discussion, but ultimately felt that gaming achievements are there more for personal satisfaction and to simply "guide" you into getting more playtime out of the game if you choose. This is unlike say leader board scores, which give enjoyment directly based on the comparison of scores with others. We just didn't see achievements in the same comparative/competitive light that the leader boards are so didn't think it would be a big deal :/ Mind you its not that we have an issue with limiting achievements with treasure on, or really feel strongly either way -- perhaps in hindsight it would've been a better idea -- but we just figured it wouldn't be that big of a deal, and really don't want to pull the game from submission with the way Apple queues have been going (would be at least another day or so to implement, a day to test, and then we'd lose the 4-5 days we currently have of being in review)... Anyway, again we apologize for those who feel jipped, but at least for now it is what it is If its any consolation we'll talk about disabling achievements/stats with treasure on for the next update
you're probably right. heh. what is funny is that after I made that post, I was thinking about it some more, and thought through essentially the same logic that you posted; I used running as an example. haha. as far as the 'irrational' reasons, I think it is simply because humans tend to be insecure... and I would have a lot more to say on the topic but I don't want to try to type it up. and this is the Bug Heroes thread anyway...
Hey, I'm a new member here but I've gotten Bug Heroes and been playing for quite a bit. It would be really cool if we could have a honeybee hero that acts as a medic. She would be one of the weakest heroes in the game, but she would spawn worker bees that could defend, attack, or heal her or any other character. I got the idea from those pesky Ladybug Healers.
Welcome to the forums Definitely a very cool idea... we threw around the idea of a "horde" type hero when making some of the new heroes, but the AI of individual units makes it a bit tougher to implement :/ Thanks for the suggestion though
how will this be paid? When you release the "skin packs" how will they be paid? will they all be just one big in app purchase? or will you buy them 2 at a time like the others? if they are all one in app purchase people will just buy them in stead of buying the original heroes, but if they are 2 at a time, some people like me who bought all of the other in app purchases will not want to buy the same guys all over again with different colors and a few abilities... I love the idea of skin packs! i just dont want to spend too much money for a few changes... appleisaac
Yep, iJay hit it dead on. The skin pack will be one $.99 purchase, but will not unlock content from other IAPs you do not own. So basically, you get more value the more hero packs you already own. But even if you don't own any other heroes, you're still getting 4 alternates for a buck. I think you guys will be surprised at how much the skins add!
