I think some of us need to have a good long sit down to think about how we are going overboard with the NPC meme. Why is that you ask? Well, for the past several days, the front page (and often several pages back) is absolutely Filled with the NPC meme. Now, in and of itself, the meme is amusing and provides a meaningful albeit somewhat shallow critique of group think, but I get the impression that people are behaving like as follows:
"Hmm, I wonder what I should do to get top internet points. Hey, look at all these great NPC memes. I think I will show everyone how original I am and make my own!"
Again, a few tweek/reposts cycles is one thing, but I think we've officially reached a point where it's gone overboard and we all need to take a step back and realize that we, or at least some of us, have succumbed to becoming NPCs ourselves by this shameless rehashing of a meme. I shouldn't need to explain the irony in this.
Sure, I know that most of us know it is a joke, but I doubt the meme would have such staying power if it didn't resonate with the average Voater at some level. And yet, in this rather depressing downward spiral of 'NPCedness', I've never really seen anything kind of critical evaluation of the whole concept of an NPC, which would be actual proof of, you know, NOT being an NPC. Where are the lengthy posts of a person bringing together and critiquing various
studies of group think to understand 'being an NPC' more deeply? Where are the people critiquing the methodology of the NPC paper of past weeks, pointing out the potential flaws in how they determined whether or not a person was having an inner dialog.
On that topic, if you are too lazy to go find and read the source yourself, I'll throw you a few bones.
Firstly, I assume that this is the paper resurfaced and kicked off this whole NPC meme of recent.
http://hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu/heavey-hurlburt-2008.pdf
Underneath the methodology section
2.1. Phase I: Screening Phase
The aim of Phase I was to survey a large, heterogeneous sample of college students, stratify them on the
basis of psychological distress, and take a random sample from each stratum
So, first, the pool of people were all college students, so likely do not represent the population at large.
2.1.1. Participants
Participants were the 235 female and 172 male students taking introductory psychology courses at a large
urban university
Same as previous point, but also, notice how small this study is.
2.2. Phase II: Descriptive Experience Sampling Phase
The aim of Phase II was to use the Descriptive Experience Sampling (DES) method to obtain 10 random samples of experience from each of the 30 participants advanced from Phase I so that the phenomena of inner experience could be ascertained.
So, not only was the initial population of the study small, but they culled it down to 30 people. This study is so small that it is little more than a novelty that may, I repeat, MAY point to something for a larger study to work on but, frankly, is far too subject to random noise to be worth anything.
2.2.2. Materials
Each participant in Phase II was given a portable, pocket-sized beeper (Hurlburt, 2007). The beeper emits a 700-Hz tone at random intervals ranging between 0 and 60 min with a mean of 30 min. The beeper has an on–off-volume switch that can be used to adjust the volume based on ambient noise levels. The tone is emitted through an earphone attached to the beeper. Each participant was also given a 3 in. 5 in. notebook in which to record notes about their inner experiences at each sampled moment.
2.2.3. Procedure
...Participants were asked to turn on the beeper during a time of their choosing and then to continue their everyday activities. They were to use the beeper until it had beeped six times. The participants were instructed to recall, immediately after each beep, the details of their experience that was ongoing at the exact onset of the beep and to jot down in the notebook whatever notes they might find useful to help them recall the details of their sampled inner experiences.
...During the expositional interview, the researcher (one of the two authors, randomly determined), interviewed the participant about the details of his or her experience at each sampled moment.
Now, this is anecdotal, but I know for a fact that, while I often engage in inner dialog, vision, and so on, I do not do it 100% of the time. Come to think of it, I would suppose that it would be Far less than 100% because when I am engaged with something, I am working on a level without words. So their methodology, potentially, has a good chance of missing all such events even though they happen. Also, they do not have the participants record the event at the time of it happening, but rather have them take notes and then recall it later. We all should know how shoddy memory is, and that during the time between the 'internal event' and the recounting, the person would have time for their memory to become heavily biased and even completely fabricated, especially if they knew what the study was about.
Also, note that the people recording the accounts. They were the ones asking questions. They were the ones writing down the notes. This has the potential to making the paper HEAVILY biased in the direction of whatever outcome the authors wanted. What they SHOULD have done was have other people, who have minimal knowledge and stake in the research, to do that part to limit biasing.
Here are the results.
https://imgoat.com/uploads/a79ea27c27/154203.png
Note that the results are AGGREGATE FREQUENCIES. Nowhere does it show that individuals engage in no internal dialog or other mental state.
TL;DR, this paper has several glaring flaws in it, and is representative of the Entire field of psychology, which is to say, a pseudoscience more dangerous than alchemy because it, by and large, wholly incorrect yet contains slivers of truth in it that can easily mislead the uncritical.
If this paper isn't the one which sparked this whole mess, then PLEASE show me the one which does, because nobody else has. And if I've made mistakes in my analysis that you catch, then good, that means that at least someone is applying a tiny amount of critical thought, and frankly, I'm not going to go through the effort to spoon feed anyone information about this topic than I already have for the same reason I don't send food to Africa.
Sort: Top
[–] Le_Squish 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Op, you faggot autist.
Meme is being spammed because it is hilariously triggering and has utterly disarming. NPCs can't go to their usual scripts. NPC meme is OP. Like everything that is OP, it will be abused until patched or balanced with another OP meme.
Also, NPC isn't a new concept. Humans been contemplating the emptiness of certain humans for a long time. The study, while having many flaws, is a glimpse that something uncomfortable may be proven if that avenue of study is further pursued.
[–] SukkhaMadiqqa 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago (edited ago)
Wow, look. A pre-programmed response for all of the NPC's to complain about the popularity of the NPC meme
[–] Redcobra 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
BORING
[–] Beta_Ray_Bill 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Eh, it's just a fad. It'll pass and pepes will come back or some qtard bullshit. Don't sweat it.
[–] forget-me-not 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
All I know is that I can't keep track of all the acronyms anymore. I have to keep reminding myself that it's basically sheep (not "non-person of color").
Good point, though. Many sheep are blissfully unaware of being sheep.
[–] xenoPsychologist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
so... you dont understand how memes work? is that what you are saying?
also, you want fewer npcs around here, quit importing them from third world sites like reddit. honestly, how hard is it?
[–] 0rion 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You are severely autistic....to the point where it's clear that you can't function among others. You need medication.
[–] QuickMafs 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
OP is a concern trolling Jewbot