Social Vulnerability: Daddy Issues (?)

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...The opposite of good?

In what way is a true belief that causes you act crazy less of a problem than a false belief that causes you ask just as crazy but no crazier?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

But simply having a delusion doesn't require acting differently in any way either.
I could believe aliens live on Pluto. But knowing what others think of such an idea, I never mention it or have it affect my behavior.

It would be a quirk. Your belief in whether or not there are aliens does not affect your behavior on Earth nor does your belief that they live specifically on Pluto. Even if you mention it it will get you no more then one or two points of Social Stigma: minority group(for having a minority opinion) at worst.

Now believing your construction foreman was an alien and was actually on an espionage mission in preparation for an invasion is a problem.

[Lia Valenth]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

In what way is a true belief that causes you act crazy less of a problem than a false belief that causes you ask just as crazy but no crazier?

Because if your right you have some boons. If your wrong your crazy with no benefit.

For example, from the disadvantage itself, if you believe “The government has all phones tapped.” you may almost never use a phone, or require complex codes, etc. This makes you hard to contact, causing a good opportunity for dramatic irony. If you gain information others need to know but you will not trust phones to contact them, or if they gain information you need but can't contact you, things can spiral out of control quickly.

If you are wrong you are seen as crazy, are hard to contact, and gain nothing from it. If you are correct your still seen as crazy and hard to contact, but your distrust of phones may turn out to be a huge boon. Assuming the information is something you don't want the government to know, anyway. If I was the GM I would make that the case at least a few times so your disadvantage comes up in play directly.

However, socially, there is no difference. As the disadvantage is for the social effects, it should not come up. The only difference is in other effects. The belief that ice cream improves computer performance would cause you to break a lot of equipment, likely causing you to not easily hold down a job, and increase cost of living if you want a computer and cell phone...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

In what way is a true belief that causes you act crazy less of a problem than a false belief that causes you ask just as crazy but no crazier?

I'm deeply confused as to how you think this is a relevant response to my posts. Seriously, what is it that you think I said?

In response to your post in isolation... A true belief wouldn't cause you to act crazy. It may cause you to be seen as crazy. Sometimes (including in some of the Basic Set examples) the actual acts are going to matter for things other than how people see you.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Bruno

As a woman I'm going to come in to this conversation. Trusting "older men" (not necessarily elderly men) blindly is contra-survival.

A 20 year old woman with the Delusion that older men are all nice and have her best interests in heart is approached by a man in his 40s who says he needs her help lifting something heavy out of his van. It's riiight at the back of the van so she'll have to climb in to get it.

How do you think this story is going to end?


Blindly and completely trusting strange men because of some superficial trait (age, hair colour, race, apparent profession) is bad for anyone. It's worse for women.

I don't know how the story is going to end, that's the problem. The man in his 40s could just want to lift something heavy out of his van. Of course he would probably want a guy's help just to begin with(don't ask about that; deciphering petty chauvinism isn't the point).

But suppose on the other hand the woman in her 20s is abused and kept as a personal sex slave by her um...boyfriend.... She was also abused by her father. And she associates all men with cruelty. Then she meets a man in his 40s. Except the man in his 40s is an off duty cop(with an engaging if imprudent hero syndrome rather like Jamie Reagan of course) and if he heard her story would take her to the station and have her put in a rehab, and lock up her um...boyfriend for a very long time.

That is a problem too. Irrational distrust based on superficial associations can be as hurtful as irrational trust.

To exist in humanity one has to find a balance. Most of the things one does such as drinking tapwater, or crossing on a crosswalk are based on the assumption that people will do what they are supposed to do.

The true lesson is moderation in all things. Including trust.

[Flyndaran]

Fear of the bush moving due to wind is less deadly than lack of fear of the bush moving due to a hungry leopard. Just a tad.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

In what way is a true belief that causes you act crazy less of a problem than a false belief that causes you ask just as crazy but no crazier?

The French at Waterloo when they took off and ran said, "We are betrayed." The real reason they were running was of course they were defeated. In either case they were acting crazy(because disorganized men are actually in more danger then those retreating in formation). But it was true that they were defeated. It was true in the technical sense that they were betrayed(because everyone was betraying everyone else in Europe as always and a disproportionate number of traitors would be likely to bet against Boney who after all was a has-been) but false tactically because no one on the field was betraying them. But the falsity of the betrayal did not affect the fact that they were defeated. Thus the false belief and the true had the same effect.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'm deeply confused as to how you think this is a relevant response to my posts. Seriously, what is it that you think I said?

In response to your post in isolation... A true belief wouldn't cause you to act crazy. .

Give an unclear answer, get a confused response. And a true belief is as capable of getting people to act crazy as a false one. How many people have you seen in fiction getting into trouble because they believe things like "my husband is trying to kill me!", "shapeshifting aliens are infiltrating our cities!", "Revelation is upon us!", "I am a princess from a land on none of your maps" and "my child has disappeared and everyone is denying she ever existed!" and either they are freaking out unproductively or are just trying to convince people of an unsupportable proposition that is totally out of their ken?

[Flyndaran]

Acting on instinct even when less effective than as trained is not remotely crazy.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Give an unclear answer, get a confused response. And a true belief is as capable of getting people to act crazy as a false one. How many people have you seen in fiction getting into trouble because they believe things like "my husband is trying to kill me!", "shapeshifting aliens are infiltrating our cities!", "Revelation is upon us!", "I am a princess from a land on none of your maps" and "my child has disappeared and everyone is denying she ever existed!" and either they are freaking out unproductively or are just trying to convince people of an unsupportable proposition that is totally out of their ken?

When the bonkers is real and rational, the rational becomes bonkers.