Direction, percieved unfairness, and the mainstream

I apologize for having devolved the previous thread. But thinking about it more, there were some generally interesting points that came up there, namely:

Most people in SL accept the tradeoff of SL not being fair in exchange for benefits. But, would the mainstream?

The reason I have been thinking about this is that I've observed - in myself, and in others I've interacted with, both adults and children - that when people say that something is "unfair", often what they actually mean is nothing to do with actual fairness, but that they perceive it as leaving them with no direction. And directionlessness seems to be among the top reasons why people don't stick with SL - so I'm wondering if they're tied together, or if these two different concepts of unfairness have come unstuck at some point.

Hmmm. I was aimless in SL for several months before I found the deaf and disabled community and found my niche. During that early time, I camped, shopped, do what newbies do, was mostly alone, and would certainly have left by now out of boredom if I hadn't found 'my' place. But never would have called it 'unfair' if I'd left, would have said it just wasn't for me, I couldn't find a lasting interest. Then, I found my community, and, *I* searched *them* out, it wasn't the other way around, no one came begging me to be a part of them, lol. I went looking for them, because this was my passion in rl, and when I found them, I worked hard to be part of them, to allow them to know me. I worked to be valuable to them because I wanted to be part of them. So I always felt it was on me, not them, to make my happiness in SL. I don't think I would ever have called 'unfair'. Even if it hadn't worked out, would have been on me, no one else.

People- particularly those of us from Western countries built around concepts like liberty and justice- will not give up fairness for anything.

*nod* That's part of the point, though. You wouldn't ever call it "unfair", but some people would. And if they did, they'd be told "life isn't fair, just deal with it and move on", and might well move on - even though in this case, the "fairness" wasn't objective equality (which life indeed doesn't have) but a purely subjective thing, and as you demonstrated, in this case the subjective view was wrong and there wasn't really any need to move on.

Interesting point Yumi.

I imagine what happens often is people have an idea already about what they 'want' out of thier experience....or, an expectation......and ultimatley build their attitudes and perceptions of what's going on in SL, based on that original concept. Not everyone, but probably many.

For myself....I never went into it with some ideal in my head....I simply wanted to explore and find out what this virtual stuff was all about. I see it purely from an artisitic stand point and what I take away from it, is only important to me in that appeals to that artisitic sense. It took me quite some time and trial & error before I found soemthing that was truly meaningful for me. It ended up being a blending or RL and SL. But I didn't ever feel any gripe toward LL because of what 'I' could or could not do.......I accept the status-quo pretty much. I don't really worry about the long term ramifications. While on the one hand, I really really enjoy and take much satisfaction from my experience thus far.....on the other hand....if it all went up in smoke tomorrow....I have enough faith in myself that I'd be able to move on just fine and find other creative venues to sink my teeth into.

I do meet a lot of folks who seem to be sort of stuck in their expectations/perceptions of what SL should be....and what LL should be doing/offering. And those are usually unhappy people. The one's who seem to be the most content, and who appear to enjoy the experience......are the ones who are able to go with the flow and remain open to the changes the new possibilites they bring to the table. I guess, maybe, they just don't take it seriously enough to get their panties in a ruffle. I don't.

I managed to inherit my dad's philosophy on life....take what's god out of it and enjoy it to the fullest....and don't stress so much about the ret of the BS.

The problem is that Yumi's definition of "fairness" does not seem to be quite mainstream...

There is no such thing as fairness ... you just need to learn to get a fair shake without it.

I didn't study the previous thread, whatever it was, so I don't know if this is even what the topic is about, but...

Seems that one link between fairness and direction is when rules (directions)--or the lack of them--are revealed. Stuff like trafficbots, tax loopholes, guerrilla warfare--those might be perceived as "unfair" because they violate rules that don't exist but that were assumed. (In the other direction, it feels "unfair" when rules are or seem to be introduced on the fly: how many angels may dance on an OpenSpace sim, for example.)

People come to virtual worlds with a preconceived notion that there must be "rules" that just don't exist in SL. There's often an expectation that there should be a way to "level up" if they could just discover and follow those "rules". People don't have the same expectation of, say, SQL Server; it's probably rare that folks quit using that program because it's "unfair"--until it loses data or something else that violates very real rules about program behavior.

So is the problem with expectations or with the program itself? Is it a flaw in SQL Server that it doesn't have an orderly way to "level up"? Is that the same flaw with SecondLife?

Begin perhaps with defining fair- There are several- but I will risk the assumption you mean - as per Webster Online -
6 a: marked by impartiality and honesty :
free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with> b (1): conforming with the established rules.

It is my impression, and my opinion, that many times people who cry out as it's unfair really are only bemoaning how they are the ones that lost in a certain instance on what ever the subject of the 'it's not fair' cry.

My son complains about being sent to his room in punishment when he comes home with bad marks- never mind that he knows the rules ahead of time. If the rules really were not fair - in his case, bring home bad marks = grounded (there are levels, but is irrelevant), he would have protested when this was all layed out in front of him- forewarned is forearmed, if he didn't listen then- tough- he should have.

My psych teacher told me long ago, 'nobody said life was fair', but she was wrong I think, it is- we are all handed the same basic tools and it's up to each to do with as they will. Sure there are priviliges and societal/cultural differences that may or may not give others an edge- but the basics- those are there. Hell, people with disabilities -real physical challenges manage- who the hell am I to complain?

So mark me as disagreeing first that things are NOT fair and second that any one is entitled to 'Fair' - No one is Entitled to anything- you want something- you fight for it, you make it, you take your place, 'cause no one is ever going to just hand you anything- and that is as it should be.

Yumi's concern seems to be that the success she wants in SL depends on social factors that LL doesn't provide a game-like alternative for.

I have a problem with a philosophy. I am defining philosophy, by the way, as a zebra with green and white stripes. I can't ride the philosophy. Please help me.

Pep (It makes just as much sense as the OP's question)

That's true, but usually it's not just that they lost, but that they perceive that the loss will be permanent - in other words, it takes away their direction, because they feel they can't work towards winning anymore. The point is, however, that someone else might have had exactly the same thing happen to them and not considered it "unfair" because they retained their direction.



And this is the result of the confusion I was talking about - if the complaint that things are "unfair" does indeed come from a subjective view, then there's no need to start jumping into talking about the world and entitlement before we know if the subjective view is even correct or not. As above, what one person considers unfair another person might not, so there's no way the claim of unfairness can really be about a problem with the world.

But subjective is the answer then - perception is neither right nor wrong, it is opinion. One's own opinion.

I spend most of my time bored and alone (exploring those neat sims I explore, whenever I kick myself into exploring mode, can be fun, but most of the time I'll end up thinking what it might have been like if I wasn't exploring the place by myself; which especially comes up when I see couples stuff - one place the only things they had set up to tour the place were couple boats and blimps). Never really found my niche. Never thought it was unfair, though I was jealous of those that found a place.

Oh, and the search out thing. Only thing I'd want to connect rl/sl would involve art, and I'm too much of an amateur to join in the fun in that world. ("Have you tried the * * * process?" 'I have no idea what you just said, there are many things I do. Straight painting on a canvas; painting on two canvas' and sticking them together to add depth, trees, etc.; painting on tile and sticking to canvas, or just creating tile artwork; or stained glass; or little figurines; currently drew a picture in pencil and cut up some tile, gluing tile to the picture'; - but do not know any of the names for any of that stuff. Every time I have an art conversation they will start to talk about one or other thing they see in my work, and I have no idea what they mean and/or talking about, makes me really feel amateurish and out of my depth (it is one of the reasons I did an "art process" series - a series of pictures I took while I painted and filled in a scene and then imported in world, just to show, see I am the one doing this stuff, whatever this stuff might be called).

None of that involves unfairness. Or direction. I'm completely out of the mainstream, or the side-stream, or that small creek, or that pond over there of the various pieces of the artworld.

Course there is also the part where I'm not a "real" artist in terms of SL, because I just import my real life art creations and do not create in world. Another black mark against my name in the sl art world.

It depends on if you define fairness as equity of opportunity or equity of outcome. Equity of outcome can only happen by limiting those who excel.

You find such cool places. I'd go explore with you any time.

Where is Diana Moon Glampers when we really need her?

I normally agree with you, but we do have to part ways on this.
Not everyone has the same basic tools. Some people are stronger physically, some run faster. Some people are able to draw, some can sing. Anything beyond basic math is beyond me. strings of numbers are like snow on a hot stove in my brain. I won't even think about trying to script because it is to much like advanced math to me.

Should we all be given the opportunity to try, yes. But will all succeed in every task, not by a long shot.

My problem with Yumi, is that she wants to limit opportunities.

Lexxi,
Seems to me, all that stuff would actually only matter to another artist, whether you are a 'real' artist, or the 'hows' of how you put your work together and all that. I'm a consumer, Lexxi. I buy what I like, and don't need to delve deeply into how it got made or if you made it in SL or in RL and uploaded it. That stuff is nuts to me, if I like it and want it, I buy it. Don't you have some art pieces up, at Honeybear's mall? Where are you exhibiting, if not?

Yumi's question seemed to suggest to me something along the lines of the cynical authoritarian government policy that, "We can distract people from oppressive denial of civil liberties if we distract them with sports and wars."

No, people need to feel that they are being treated fairly- however they perceive fair- as much as they need to breathe.

People can choose their own directions in Second Life if Second Life were fair. The problem is that Linden Lab lies about what it provides with Second Life to entice people to come, and then makes secret, moving-target rules around which no one can plan.

People get upset when Linden Lab promises them that they can make "Money- yes, real money," in Second Life, then provides nothing but scams, no protections, no conflict resolution, and no way to meaningfully build a business.

Take money out of the factor. People get upset when Second Life promises a community, then provides more obstacles than tools to creating meaningful community.

Definitions of fairness vary, but the feeling that one has suffered a loss because one has been intentionally misled is almost universally felt to be unfair.

Another source of unfairness is playing a game in which one can't figure out the rules. Imagine living in a society in which the laws were hidden from citizens, but citizens were still subject to punishment for breaking the laws that they didn't know existed. Scary and unfair. But that's what Linden Lab provides with a lot of it's hidden rules, and ever-changing moving target rules.

For a lot of society, being treated fairly is often more important than actual success or failure at a task. People are far less upset at failure if they feel they had a fair shot at what they tried to accomplish. People are far less satisfied with success if they feel the acheived success unfairly.

It does not matter what other bells and whistles Linden Lab provides, nothing will ever substitute for the basic feeling that everyone needs to have, that they are treated fairly. And while people are going to reasonably differ over many of the details regarding what is fair, there are some basics that are pretty much beyond dispute.

Chris, grant you yes there are folks with more abilities, creative bent what have you- but we all strted out the same - hell I can't draw, sing sew, dance lots of things i cant do - and if i was meant to do math i would have been born with calculators sticking out of my arms - i guess i mean just basic basic sameness. While it can be argued that creativity and ability are born not learned, the tools to at least explore such aptitudes are there. Perhaps my phrase was too broad- so I will concede that certain innate abilities are not part of everyone's rezz kit - in RL or SL .

As for Yumi wanting to limit opportunities, I must not be following her threads carefully enough. I just get really annoyed at people that just cry woe is me constantly and that is where i threw my hands up in exasperation on that one thread a couple weeks ago about the project she did not do then got upset cause someone else did. I had missed where she may imply limiting others- that is intolerable, if that is so.

Actually I thought Yumi's points in the other thread were pretty good; it didn't derail anything for me.

There's such a thing as groupthink.

Imagine taking one member from PETA and one member of the NRA and sending them to each the other's rallies. Maybe they are *all* nutjobs in truth, but only the odd man out will feel that way.

* * * * *

I reflect sometimes on what was called the American Dream (which is neither pan~American nor much of a dream, really).

The idea that for someone who works hard they could have a place of their own, with a yard, maybe a car, raise some kids and generally be left at peace when old, not dying in poverty.

Forget about games, people left entire countries behind, in search of such a basic fairness! It's a real issue.

It's a cliche' dream perhaps. And that sort of dream went out the window a long time ago for most people. Well unless you are Michael Martin, in which case that sort of dream ended just this past Tuesday.


But back to the point, clearly I don't think there are two philosophies farther apart than Yumi's and mine, in practise. But does that make her wrong? I'm not sure.

Perhaps the question is best asked thus: what *would* we want a better grid to look like?

In that better world, would the clear victors in this world today still have what they do?

I challenge all of you to propose a better grid. That's really what I hear Yumi searching for. One upon which *you* thrive, ethically and in proportion to fair effort.

And anyone thinking today's grid as it is, is perfectly fair, is just kidding themselves.

This!!!!


RALEKTRA!!!! Get my boots!!!!!!

I'm not so sure that Yumi wants to limit others' outcomes...just wants to have the same level of success. Or "validation", a term I hate.

I'm reminded of the comment made by Syndrome, the villain in "The Incredibles"..."When everybody's super...no one will be."

SL mirrors life. Life isn't fair. Too bad. It is what it is. Live with it, learn to deal with it on its own terms...because it won't listen to yours.

Well- no one but Yumi knows with certainty what Yumi means- but - equal success is certainly not guranteed -

You just cannot depend on success, acknowledgement, validation- from outside!- You are the only one you need to impress - funny, again it seems to come back to personal responsibility and taking charge of your life and your own direction.