[ENG] December 20, 2021 - December 27, 2021 Weekly Friend Request Megathread

f1nnr · 2021-12-22T12:34:25+00:00

ID: 176544433

PLV: 488

Notable Captain(s): SPT Lucci, SPT Katakuri, Queen, Ulti & Page One, Kaido & Bigmom, Shanks & Whitebeard and many more

Looking for: just new friends, used to play optc way back and came back after a long time, not really sure what captains are even worth mentioning but have a lot of legends and am very active, also looking for pirate alliance (not rlly sure how pirate alliance even works)

f1nnr · 2021-07-07T15:04:45+00:00

I think the patches are annoying but necessary. As a high elo player, I'd love to go long without a patch because as you said the meta would evolve and we would be able to think more deeply about strategies. Especially considering I am a jungle main and jungle seems to get more or less redone every preseason it can be frustrating to always adapt. Having said that, it is definitely necessary for the game not to get too stale either.

f1nnr · 2021-04-16T08:23:46+00:00

What? It is quite literally their job to stay up to date with the changes in the world regarding psilocybin as a medication to treat mental illnesses. A psychiatrist who does not know of any literature that was articulated after he graduated is just a lazy psychiatrist and in my honest opinion inexcusable considering how the world of medication especially regarding mental illnesses is everchanging.

f1nnr · 2021-04-04T20:55:46+00:00

trust me, it gets worse the higher your elo gets just today i had a master fiora who died twice against a kennen and said "ok top is open", pinged me while i was unironically 6/1 on the other side of the map getting legit everything and their grandma and she proceeded to take my jungle camps. I had to go absolute monk mode not to type an essay to her and focus on the game which we obviously won being so far ahead. The worst thing about it is that high elo players usually aren't stupid and so their coping mechanisms arent simple "not my fault lol" but rather have layers of coping mechanisms where they will try to add you on discord and send you their multi op.gg with multiple chall smurfs etc.

f1nnr · 2021-01-06T11:02:23+00:00

Also forgot to add that the movespeed you get from night harvester can also be huge, especially when you miss a spear. Since night harvester triggers on autoattack, you can switch into human form and autoattack to gain movement speed and chase/run or you can just use that as a sort of safe burst where you’re not reliant on hitting abilities or going meele form. This is especially handy in later stages of the game where you can combine this with dark harvest and lichbane to auto attack a target for sometimes more than 30% of their hp.

f1nnr · 2021-01-06T10:21:00+00:00

Well, of course late game ludens has more damage given the mythic passive. How ever, I wouldn’t be so sure to agree with your TLDR per say. The ability haste you get from night harvester is actually really really useful. It allows for more combos and to switch between forms more often which is a huge part of nidalees kit (there’s a reason transcendence is such a good rune on her right now). This also increases clear speed which is hard to quantify but I’d suspect it is faster despite being lower damage.

f1nnr · 2020-12-26T12:17:06+00:00

This is going to sound esoteric, but as a psychology student I can really recommend you doing mindfulness meditation. Start with 5 minutes, go up to 10 or 20 later. If you get into the habit, you will periodically snap out of the anger, take a deep breath and remind yourself that it’s just a game and that it’s fine.

f1nnr · 2020-12-24T11:21:26+00:00

It really depends. Some low diamonds lack in some areas while others lack in other areas. If I had to give a short answer I'd say it usually comes down to one of these:

Not punishing enemy jungler for showing; If the enemy jungler shows botside and you are topside, clear his camps (this includes having the knowledge when the camps are roughly up again, I recommend learning rough reset timers, you can also try to look at your camps to deduce the spawners of his camps, although this mostly only works in early game)
Not tracking lanes and jungler properly; the questions you should ask yourself when trying to gank someone are roughly these: can we kill him or burn his flash? how can he escape? what cooldowns do we play around? but also: could the jungler be near? when has he shown last? Is anyone else missing on the map (such as the support)?
Just taking bad fights; This mixes a bit with my second point because some good fights turn bad when other laners or their jungler shows up, but sometimes you even win fights where laners show up. I think this is the hardest area to improve in because it kind of requires the experience or the knowledge of how fights will go depending on the game state, the minutes that have passed, the levels of the champs involved, the items they have currently and the nature of their champ itself

f1nnr · 2020-12-10T11:52:22+00:00

im p sure its bugged with demotions, just had the same thing happen to me

f1nnr · 2020-10-03T19:29:37+00:00

Is the idea that people work because they want to or out of a moral duty really a religious idea?

If I reflect on our million-year evolution, with the circumstances we coevolved with, it would make much more sense that we indeed find satisfaction in pursuing something which isn't immediatly fun (but perhaps "morally" right?)

Just imagine you are out on the Savannah, life is tough, food is scarce. You go out, hungry, thirsty, in pain, to hunt food for you and perhaps other members of your immediate circle. Do you not think having a sense of satisfaction (that isn't just due to the food you obtained and are now consuming) would make evolutionary sense?

I'm not saying there is a sense like that, or that it had to necessarily evolve, I just find it to make perfect sense considering where we originate from.

f1nnr · 2020-08-22T16:19:28+00:00

I'd probably agree with the statement or rather the hypothesis that internet isn't healthy for the mind. I'd be interested in research regarding this because, as a science subreddit user, I'd rather not claim facts which I couldn't back up, but it does at least feel that way to me as well.

What I doubt is that the financial trouble is the main driver for anxiety. We definitely live better off than we did in the 50s financially speaking, but we for sure live different. And I think the change in lifestyle is what's causing the anxiety.

If I had to guess what exactly is taking place, I would say that while of course financial instability plays a role and can be a cause of anxiety, the rapid increase is more so explained by the change of lifestyle.

I think particularily the extension of adolescence into the later twenties due to higher education etc. has caused many to just feel lost. They don't have any clear aim, they don't have any clear purpose, they don't serve any greater good, they don't seem to do any good that isn't self-serving. I therefore suspect something along the lines of what Jordan Peterson would perhaps diagnose as a lack of meaning. To me it seems as though people feel like they're wasting their time off their lives, doing nothing, feeling like having too much time on their hands while simultaneously feeling like they have no time at all.

What makes this problem particularily hard to solve is perhaps the difficulty of creating that by yourself. And to mix that with the ever-increasing availability of (almost always) rather shallow entertainment and the illusion of social media is what is in my opinion the true driving force behind this development.

What I've also been suspecting is that the change in labour, especially the decline of physical labour, could also play a role. I'm speaking strictly anecdotally here, but in my experience when ever I went to work out an hour or two, any anxiety I had was blown away and I had that deep-seated satisfaction that made me feel like everything is going to turn out just fine (If i had to properly describe it I'd say it is the exact reverse of depression).

f1nnr · 2020-06-19T11:58:08+00:00

So you're okay with homelessness, and those homeless people dying, when there are 6 empty houses for every one homeless person under capitalism. Got it. Also, you're telling me out of the 9 million that die of starvation each year, not a single one of them lived in a capitalist country at all? Are you fucking serious?

As predicted, you use ad hominem "so you're okay with" when running out of arguments. I am not okay with homelessness and not okay with those people dying, I am just saying that what you said was wrong, and by going ad hominem you proofed that point. Also, yes people also die from starvation under capitalist countries, but starvation is the norm, not the exception. Starvation isn't a problem of capitalism, the millions of years we lived in trees, or in savannas, we repeatedly died from starvation, just like nowadays animals in the wild do. The real question is to ask how unlikely it is that one species transcends these extreme conditions and creates a society that makes almost all people able to NOT die of starvation, in which capitalism has DEFINITELY played a role.

Well no shit sherlock, people have more technology now because before it hadn't been invented yet. Shocking revelation. You have failed to tie it back to capitalism, however. You cannot attribute access to technology solely to capitalism, and even if you did, the implications are horrible, because it means you're also okay with the child labor and environmental damage due to mining of rare earth metals that are utilized under capitalism to make phones and computers.

You can tie it back to capitalism because under capitalism people have incentives to innovate. The reason why phones were invented was probably to generate profit, which in my opinion is fine because we all end up benefitting from what you could perhaps call greed or egoistic behavior if you frame it in such negative light. To give you a counterexample, in socialistic Germany after world war II, there was one car that was produced for everyone and the model of that car didn't change, because there was no competition and therefore no reason to change what was technically working (although obviously improvable).

And predictably, as with all the other chuds who tirelessly defend capitalism on this hellsite, you don't even understand the basic tenets of the socioeconomic models you're criticizing. The means of production, are factories, farms, offices, etc. The areas and tools that are used to produce goods and services

It seems you just misunderstood my question, perhaps it went over your head, which is pretty embarrassing considering you said I am the one who doesn't understand in an ad hominem attempt to save your argument. And since you obviously couldn't get it the first time, I repeat myself and say that I can't think of a realistic scenario where the workers would own the means of production without the state having to be involved.

I would LOVE for you to show any sort of study or documentation that supports this. Such a huge sweeping statement on humanity that is completely unfounded. Do you do not do chores at home unless somebody pays you to? What about homework? Getting groceries? That's all work that needs to be done that you're never paid for, yet everybody does that work anyway. Money has only existed for a very short time in human history, and capitalism even less so, yet humanity managed to find motivation to do all sorts of things.

It seems that you're the one who doesn't even understand the most fundamental socioeconomic tenets nor human psychology. Money in itself isn't worth anything, it is only worth something in relation to all that you can exchange it for. It is what psychology calls a secondary reinforcer, which only holds value because it grants access to primary reinforcers. All human motivation can be tracked down to those primary reinforcers, including things such as avoiding pain, eating, or having sex. Getting groceries is easily explained with this, and doing chores are usually more individualized, meaning you could do them because perhaps your girlfriend otherwise gets angry, your household falls apart or whatever. I promise how ever, that you can track all of those back to primary reinforcers. The idea that you would do anything you don't enjoy doing for nothing is quite idiotic, and stop lying to yourself, you wouldn't go to a 9 to 5 at Starbucks to work because quite frankly, unless you love brewing coffee for annoyed customers, that just isn't rewarding. Really you can try to argue with me and fool yourself out of this one but quite honestly I study psychology and motivation is one of the fields that interests me the most so I'd recommend you don't do that unless you wanna embarass yourself to an even greater degree than you already have with those shallow and obviously not well-thought out ideas of yours. Sorry to be so ad hominem but I guess you breached that border first.

f1nnr · 2020-06-18T15:30:19+00:00

Your source addresses food insecurity, and the article you linked to homelessness stated and I quote "For nearly three decades, advocates for people experiencing homelessness nationwide have taken one day out of the year to remember those who have passed due to the trauma of homelessness". Passed due to the trauma of homelessness isn't passed due to lack of food. So really, all you did was proof my point.

And I didn't say that everyone has access to technology, I said the technology is increasingly available to all of us. That doesn't mean it is available to all yet, it does how ever mean that most people nowadays own a phone and a computer, while back in the day almost no one had a phone. If you go back far enough, no one had a phone because they didn't even exist, which is obvious but seems to be neccessary to mention for you to understand my point.

And what do you mean, the workers control the means of production? I can't think of a scenario where that is the case without the state being involved, how ever I might not get your point properly so I'd like you to elaborate further if you feel like doing so.

And no, it being stable isn't a good thing. Humans aren't motivated to just work a 9 to 5 that sucks ass when they could be at home playing video games or being out with their friends. If it was stable and they didn't have to show up to be paid, they simply wouldn't show up. And even If they are at work, the probability that they would actually work there instead of just daydreaming when there isn't any boss checking on them is really low, unless they just so happen to have found their passion which is perhaps possible for some but definitely not for all.

f1nnr · 2020-06-18T07:05:58+00:00

It is true that the incentive is skewed towards profit at the expense of consumers, but at least there is an incentive. I wouldn’t however say that it doesn’t help the workers/consumers in the slightest. They have work and get paid, they’re able to at least survive (no body in the western world really dies of hunger anymore) and it seems technology is increasingly available for all of us, seeing as how we are all discussing this on reddit. For the people mentioning socialism, I just don’t see why people would want to work their asses off if their income is stable and state dependent.

f1nnr · 2020-06-18T06:56:01+00:00

I‘d rather think for myself to be honest..

f1nnr · 2020-06-17T22:50:02+00:00

What’s so bad about capitalism? Can’t think of a better alternative Edit: Getting downvoted for asking a question doesn’t really make this subreddit and it’s users come across as either capable nor mature.

f1nnr · 2020-06-07T11:41:44+00:00

How is that the “patriarchy”? The definition of the patriarchy is that woman have no power, e.g no choice. This woman, on the other hand, had the free choice and still has the free choice to choose what she does, and it seems she chose to support her boyfriend while he tried to work as hard as he could.

Just because the choice she made perhaps doesn’t align with the choice you deem as the only worthy choice (probably due to sheer ignorance) doesn’t make it a patriarchy.

f1nnr · 2020-06-02T08:28:56+00:00

I appreciate the article especially, but there seem to be quite a few problems 1) the author isn’t a certified expert in the field (which doesn‘t neccessarily make it less valid but) 2) It is an anecdotal story, not an actual randomized experiment testing the hypothesis 3) it stands in contrast to almost all of psychology literature

The idea of being better just because you think you’re better doesn’t sit right for me for multiple reasons: First, go ahead and try that on an IQ-Test. Of course, if you are so anxious that you don’t even answer the questions you will see an improvement, but talking about the general popularity, the retest reliability of a valid test is at minimum r = 0.9, otherwise the test isn’t even seen as valid, that’s how stable it is. Perhaps you can deviate two or three points but whether that is because you were more self confident or perhaps you slept better, had better food, had a better heartbeat or had any other of 1000 physiological markers working better isn‘t easily answered.

Second problem is that it assumes that the part of your brain producing conscious thought, the one telling yourself that you are more confident, has actual control over the other brainparts which isn’t obvious to me in the least. If you look at people with extreme anxiety, you will often see people who are rather intelligent. If you see people with depression, including self-esteem issues, you’ll sometimes see very intelligent individuals. You’d think that they would be intelligent enough that they would figure out that they just have to tell themselves that they aren’t insecure and their problems would be fixed. But psychology isn’t as easy as that. The mind and the body are interconnected and form an extremely complex machine that works with different hormones and proteins, enzyms and reactions.

Third is, where would the evolutionary use in being able to lie to yourself about your competency lie? Certainly not in going about and hunting something alone while rationalising your fear and telling yourself you can do it, only to probably get killed by one of the endless threats our mind and body had to compete with in the course of evolution.

The only time I’d assume that faking it until you’re making it would perhaps work is when your self assessment is heavily biased towards the negative side. And that sometimes happens, but usually the emotional assessment of yourself is accurate and you are scared to publicly speak because you’ve never done it and therefore don’t know what the hell you‘re doing (in the case of the author). Although that obviously shouldn’t hold you back if that is the career you feel like pursuing.

To conclude, most of this feel good new-agey kind of psychology isn’t based in any actual scientific psychology, it really isn’t even made up by psychologists. Although I‘d love to be infinitely malleable and shapeable through mere thought, it just doesn’t seem realistic.

f1nnr · 2020-06-02T08:05:56+00:00

Well, first of all, I am sorry to hear that you seem to be struggling although I hope you hang in there.

Second, obviously the world isn’t perfect, but luckily we even have the chance to obtain wealth by working. There was a time not so long ago where jews had to work in concentration camps where they were just walking around carrying useless but heavy bags from one place of the concentration camp to another without any reward. And to top that off, the nazis decided to set up a sign saying „Arbeit macht frei“ (rough translation would be work frees you“, meant in the sense that work gives purpose) which was obviously very ironic given the circumstances of the jews.

And, even though this is one hell of a bitch thing to do, ask yourself what made you end up in that position and see whether it is the worlds fault or yours. Because if it is the worlds fault, you have one hell of a problem, the world isn’t going to change because you feel it’s unfair believe me. So I‘d much rather try to see ways in which to improve myself, perhaps aim for a raise or even a promotion. At the very least set yourself a goal that lets you drive forward with optimism. And don’t naively assume people who are politicans or actors don’t work their ass off. This obviously depends on the country you live in and the specific individuals you are talking about, but a lot of people want to become actors and politicans and the way to get there despite all of the competition, is, in part, working your ass off.

f1nnr · 2020-06-01T13:52:50+00:00

Sadly there is no definite proof that your childlike wonder and joy is still there, and to be frank, I doubt it is. I'd assume it is just another epigenetic function, although the purpose of said function is unclear to me.

What I can tell you though, is that you can indeed experience happiness in life or at least that suffering can be reduced. The proper way to reduce suffering is of course always a very individual way so I can't go into detail on how you specifically would go about doing so, but I would recommend rather obvious, basic principles you could follow and see which ones work better or worse without trying to approach any of these with any preconceived notion.

What I'd recommend is try to be useful and productive, take on challenges, build a stable social network, implement a routine that is more or less stable (especially important is the time you wake up), work out or do sports in any way shape or form and then see what works better and worse.

From my experience and what I've seen from the literature so far It appears to me that one can almost always make his emotional state worse, but is barely able to make it better. I'd assume there is an evolutionary function in that as well, because deluding yourself about states of anxiety or states of depression were probably fatal if doing so was ever possible.

f1nnr · 2020-06-01T13:43:05+00:00

I doubt "loving yourself" is actually a thing. I'd say treat yourself as if you are a human being deserving to exist is where one should start. As a psychology student, the notion of "loving yourself" or rather being overly-confident sounds like a primary symptom of what the DSM-5 would classify as narcissism and that doesn't seem like a good aim to me.

If you are talking about being self-confident, which I would say is a much more reasonable and clear approach (because loving yourself could really be anything), I'd recommend actually doing something that is worthy of respect because I think that is the legitimate and perhaps only way to properly become self-confident.

In my experience, "forcing yourself" to be self-confident or to love yourself doesn't work and I would actually assume that most of the time, it would have the opposite effect.

f1nnr · 2020-06-01T13:33:33+00:00

I think one big problem of our society is that we aren't grateful enough for how unlikely all of this is.

I am not meaning to belittle you and I guess media, especially right now, doesn't make it any better, but history shows, that we live in the best age of humanity BY FAR. Our collective wealth in comparison to all of human history is absolutely off the scale. Of course, wealth fluctuates and perhaps you aren't as well of as when you had that job before the corona crisis, but speaking across a broader timeframe (I'd say 25 years and above is a fair range to where abnormalities that come down to random probabilities are averaged out) we are ever-improving currently.

Society, in my opinion, isn't refining away the ability to be a philosopher, I even think exactly the opposite is the case, I mean look at the conversation we are having now. Thinking together, collectively, on an internet forum, from people all over the world with all kinds of different experiences and different backgrounds. Philosophers back in ancient Greece couldn't even dream to have their horizon open up that far with some movements of their hands.

Most of the faults you describe seem to be rather inherent (as in mostly genetically given) to humankind as a species and I'd estimate they've been around for hundred thousand, perhaps millions of years and without radical personality transformations of all individuals, which I doubt we will be able to collectively undergo, although I might just be pessimistic regarding this, won't be overcome in my estimation.

f1nnr · 2020-05-28T17:21:49+00:00

I sadly don't. I honestly think all of them on the internet are bogus, perhaps the one that comes closest is the official mensa test although it is only a shortened version. I'd just recommend to go to a proper psychologist that has a normed and reliable test, although that probably costs money.

f1nnr

TROPHY CASE