Agent_Z said:
Not the best argument, that.
How? What way is it inaccurate? We actually have it on pretty good basis the significant correlation between optimism, happiness and extraversion. Histrionic tendencies tend to plague various extroverted personality types, but it's questionable how much they actually believe their catastrophizing ... on the flipside, we also see correlates between introversion and anxiety-prone disorders.
Histrionic people 'catastrophize' for the purpose of seeking attention... ironically this also helps them deal with bad tempered people due to their activities by 'selling' the idea that they are truly apologetic (assuming the respondent doesn't know them too well). Introverts
legitimately catastrophize... often exacerbating pre-existing conditions to other problems that manifest from simply being less geared to dealing with social implications of their behaviour or latent aspects of 'pre-depression' that cause them to suffer apathy in the face of their trials.
Alternatively, sooner or later, your boss will get sick and tired of you being late for work and fire your ass when your chronic lateness. Charisma alone can only take you so far.
This assumes they are chronically lazy. Being introverted often leads to social isolation and work aversion. You're more likely to get a desensitized, socially isolated person avoiding work than a histrionic person. This is particularly so when the histrionic person has internalized their work as part of their own 'mythos creation' of just how gosh-darn important they are as to driving their own ego and inflating their idea of self-worth.
Which has pros and cons... a definite pro, however, is they are often quite motivated in whatever they personally invest themselves into. They often fulfil that idea of 'leading by example' when they're 'at their best'. That even the times they're late that typcally serves to adjust their argument about how
usually they're on time. "Like, I was late this one time! Christ! You know me, I always get the paperwork in on time ... I mean how often do I cover for you when you need to nip off somewhere!?"
A histrionic person won't be late again ... at least not if it an be avoided anytime soon.
Also, charisma is a power stat. Pretending otherwise is a joke. The charismatic can convince a group of strangers to charge certain death. There is nothing that a charismatic person cannot do, whether in person or simply the people they compel to do so through sheer force of personality.
Charisma is probably second only to
being alive in terms of finding personal success. And even then, charisma alone can often immortalize you beyond simply your health will allow.
Which doesn?t say anything about their ability to get things done. Especially depending on their treatment.
Kind of does ... introversion and things like social isolation have demonstrable problems in terms of social engagement. Sure, 'treatment' is a thing ... particularly psychotherapy in terms of anxiety-related disorders, but ignoring correlation isn't doing the argument justice.
So does ?emo-trash? Batman.
Btw, I find it rather immature for anyone older than 16 to use ?emo? unironically.
I find it immature you would pretend that this is an argument.
Seriously, why? What's wrong with using a made-up shorthand descriptor phrase unironically? For starters, do you even know the definition of
ironically? Why exactly is the way I'm using it
not ironical? Why would it be bad to talk about an aspect of something one finds contemptible in terms of
obvious derision?
How about 'morose-trash' Batman, then? That would be ironical. No less
ironical than 'emo-trash' Batman.
I?d say 60s Gotham not being a shithole was due to the tone of the stories not how smart Batman was.
I'd say 60s Gotham is a result of the fact that Adam West's Batman wouldn't fit into the 90s morose-riddled reskins of Gotham City.
Quasi-magical thinking is something we do as children (typically between the ages of 2 and 7) but it?s something we?re supposed to grow out of as we get older.
No it's not. Quite clearly it's not.
If anything adults tend to grow more quasi-magical belief structures as they get older.
'Pull yourself up by your boot straps' ... despite the fact that in poverty stricken countries like the Philippines, worker take shabu jut to stay on top of the workload. They literally take drugs to
meet workplace demands. Still a poverty stricken country.
'Be the change you want to see in the world' ... despite the fsact that quite clearly there is a definite place for car bombs and other insurgency tactics when fighting as part of a resistance force against a larger imperialist power.
'Every vote counts' ... despite the fact that quite clearly that's untrue simply depending on multiple candidates you wish to support and with 'demoratic' sytems like first pat the post. If there is a candidate you really like, but will unlikely win ... and a candidate you will settle for ... and a candidate you never want to see in office. You literally have to go with the 'evil you would prefer' as opposed to the candidate you actually want in order to pretend like your vote actually matters.
And applying this practice to everything can be very dangerous. I mean, I could tell myself that if I jump off the roof of my house and I won?t be harmed but that doesn?t mean I won?t break many to all bones of my body. The reasons why people do things at all are many and varied.
This is not quasi magical thinking.
Quasi-magical thinking is basically fabricating ideas of control where there is none to actually be found. That you fabricate belief systems on the fly even if you deep down know that they are contraditory in nature, or they simply do not work when you honestly interrogate your own feelings and thoughts.
It is not simply jumping off a roof ...
When Han Solo tells C-3PO 'Never tell me the odds...' he doesn't legitimately believe odds do not matter. In fact he simply believes not knowing the odds in that moment will actually increase his odds of survival because it's likely less things he has to consider before acting.
And this is atually a very real phenomena examined in things like military science. The idea that if a conventional victory cannot be achieved, it's best to inculcate an idea the odds no longer matter ... you fight the types of engagements you'll lose if only to create opportunities to call oneself 'victorious' by reappropriation and redefinition of the conflict in the mindset of both your forces and the geopolitical ideals of the enemy which they engage with to determine why they sought to fight in the first place.
It's also an aspect of boardgaming known as 'hate drafting' or 'hate gaming' ... whereby you play not to maximize your odds of winning, but rather draft cards to deny another player access to it, to play the game to make yourself the least possible threat (if more than two players) or simply dictate the game flow or mutual game state for a round or two in order to buy yourself back into the competition.
There's a fascinating optional game aspect in a deck buider game of surprise, subterfuge, and resource management called
Arctic Savengers. And there's a card designed exlusively for three or more players scalld 'Sniper Team'. So at the end of every round the players use their remaining hand to bluff and win duels for acces to the contested resources deck. The sniper card is effectively pointless to you personally winning in a contested challenge ... but it can, as if with a single bullet from a distant snowdrift, determine the success of your two+ friends fighting by immediately checking one of their tribe cards.
And that might be the only card you brought into the duel that turn because you're digging through the trash or buying up cards for a stronger round next time.
That is like
quasi-magical thinking almost baked into a game mechanic. You can never win (that round) but you may win simply by having a fabricated idea of control over other players ... and that alone can influence how other characters play their hands in turn ... perhaps opting to bring more characters and saving more cards for future fights because they know you have two of those sniper cards in your deck somewhere, even as it statistically makes it harder for you to win just on their own.
That's not the exact definition of quasi-magical thinking, but it is a fascinating mindset
that you create in both yourself and others simply because of these somewhat self-depowering cards you elected to buy simply to fabricate an idea of control on its own in yourself and other players.
You have a rather simplistic view of introverted characters to say the least. And you?re ignoring a great deal of diversity in superhero works. These guys want things to and are proactive.
Arguments about trends are typically simplistic, doesn't make them bad arguments on their own. Pointing out how one makes an argument about
trends in comic book logic is merely a trend is somehow flawed is itself a bad argument.