hehe came across this video and I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about. the position you are defending is not social darwinism it is eugenics, social darwinism is the natural selection of economic and political institutions. hehe here I was preparing my arguments against social darwinism and how it is not viable due to the fact that darwinian systems tend to produce extremely specialized subsystems that are more volatile(albeit more efficient given an unchanging environment) than systems that are regulated(i.e selective pressure against) against specialization. the reason why this is necessary is because is that the economic environment is a lot more prone to change than say a natural one. and if you have any understanding in darwinism you would know that it is specialized systems that are the first to go under while generalized ones are more likely to survive.
in economic terms I believe the specialized systems are called bubbles(I am no economist nor am I a biologist for that matter)
but alas this argument will fall on death ears because you are not a social darwinist for all I know.
anyway on to eugenics I agree with you that it would be better if we had mechanisms that would insure that better genes be passed on more thoroughly but again I disagree with you with the method for I believe your method would not have the desired effect, because the generational turnover rate is too big for a darwinian method to work for it is rather slow. also here is where I would make the moral argument and while I am not swayed by this argument alot of people are(and that is what matters because it is said people who construct society) for the method you propose is negative eugenics meaning people have to die or would otherwise not be able to reproduce.
also you assume this will weed out people with negative traits I submit to you that the contrary is true for it is generally poor people who are more inclined to have children, this is programmed into them so that they can ensure their
"Being tied to one through-line or theme with little depth to it isn't enough to make a character interesting for me."- you have to understand that I just laid out tanya's unique and consistent psychological profile based on 3 of the 5 personality traits. I could have done the other 2 but my comment was getting long(and though they are consistent they do not really matter also tanya is average in neuroticism and she is low but not too low in extraversion ). the fact that you could do that with tanya is itself proof of the nuance put in her character. you would be hard pressed to create a complete psychological profile of most characters in any medium. and yes it is the nuances that point to this(nuances that you fail to grasp): like tanya keeping her shit organized and tidy(i.e. her gun) is something an orderly(a subset of conscientious) person would do
" Psychology doesn't apply to a fictional story when it fails to add layers onto i
ts characters."-psychology underpins a characters under"Being tied to one through-line or theme with little depth to it isn't enough to make a character interesting for me."- you have to understand that I just laid out tanya's unique and consistent psychological profile based on 3 of the 5 personality traits. I could have done the other 2 but my comment was getting long(and though they are consistent they do not really matter also tanya is average to high in neuroticism and she is low but
not too low in extraversion ). the fact that you could do that with tanya is itself proof of the nuance put in her character. you would be hard pressed to create a complete psychological profile of most characters in any medium. and yes it is the nuances that point to this(nuances that you fail to grasp): like tanya keeping her shit organized and tidy(i.e. her gun) is something an orderly(a subset of conscientious) person would do
" Psychology doesn't apply to a fictional story when it fails to add layers onto its characters."-not all people have layers for what you describe as layers come about by internal contradictions tanya is a very conscientious person and part of being conscientious is being orderly and part of being orderly is sorting out your wants and desires, tanya rationally knows what she wants and values, and any contradictions to that are only due to emotional upheaval.
"You've described the sum total of characterization for not just Tanya, but for the entire show's 12-episode run"- most of the character traits are made evident by episode 2, if you are able to pay attention to any degree and are able to read between the lines
"if there was any semblance of depth"- this phrase is an interesting one because one has to think of what do people mean when they say this, people can for example point to examples of character who have dept but they generally have a hard time describing it. I think a character with depth is a character who has deeper subconscious motivators to the actions. and I think ones personality is one of those motivators, for it is hard to change ones personality.
and tanya has a very interesting personality, because it is similar to the personality of hitler, though I think hitler may have been more agreeable than anime tanya.
No comments:
Post a Comment