One Hour One Life Forums

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I am asking how you would implement increased sexual inequality in the game and how these sexual differences could be traded between individuals.

Different pips for hungry work would make sense.  Perhaps hungry work would be the same until 14, and then male characters would have less for hungry work.  That wouldn't make trading all that direct between people though.  If the game had mating mechanics, then trading could be more direct, since some negotiation like the following seems plausible:

"Why should you be the father of my children?"

"Well you get the extra benefit of more firewood, butt logs, stumps, and iron for your children, since I can get those things more easily than you can." (though the idea would probably get said more concisely in game)

If hungry work were reintroduced for sheep, such would make even more sense.  And well, the removal of hungry work for sheep, I think, made mass sheep killers more annoying, since they more likely became effective.

Obviously men will not be shoveling snow off driveways or opening stuck pickle jars in OHOL.

I'm not so sure that pickle jars is a good example.

  Why does everything have to be so sex-focused, Spoon?

Intrasexual trade has no relevance to sex by definition.  It isn't sex-focused.

You need to look beyond the size of someone's boobs and consider them as a whole person.

Sexual characteristics are part of how people are.  In order to consider how people are, we have to consider *all* of their parts.  If we aren't considering someone's sexual characteristics, then we aren't considering them as a whole person.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

If the game had mating mechanics, then trading could be more direct, since some negotiation like the following seems plausible:

"Why should you be the father of my children?"

"Well you get the extra benefit of more firewood, butt logs, stumps, and iron for your children, since I can get those things more easily than you can." (though the idea would probably get said more concisely in game)

Speaking from the perspective of the woman, that doesn't sound like a compelling argument to marry that particular guy.  He is only offering the same thing that every other guy in the village can offer .... and they are probably doing it for free.   He basically just argued that the father of her children should be a man, rather than a woman.  Sure ... but which one?  That is what she is actually trying to determine.   If every man offers the same exact skillset, she might as well just flip a coin and pick at random.  They are all equally qualified to father her kids.

Obviously men will not be shoveling snow off driveways or opening stuck pickle jars in OHOL.

I'm not so sure that pickle jars is a good example.

I don't follow.   Why not?

  Why does everything have to be so sex-focused, Spoon?

Intrasexual trade has no relevance to sex by definition.  It isn't sex-focused.

Intersexual trade is literally trade between the sexes by definition.   It is very sexual.   Highly sexulized.   Very sexy business.

Look at how many times we have said "sex" in this thread already!  There's sex all over the place.  It's almost indecent.

You need to look beyond the size of someone's boobs and consider them as a whole person.

Sexual characteristics are part of how people are.  In order to consider how people are, we have to consider *all* of their parts.  If we aren't considering someone's sexual characteristics, then we aren't considering them as a whole person.

Well said.   All parts of a person should be valued, including (but not limited to) the sexy bits.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Speaking from the perspective of the woman, that doesn't sound like a compelling argument to marry that particular guy.  He is only offering the same thing that every other guy in the village can offer .... and they are probably doing it for free.

It costs them hungry work.  No one cuts trees or mines iron for free in OHOL.

Not every other guy in the village would likely offer.  Some wouldn't know.  Plenty of new players don't know about iron mines.  Since they don't know, they can't offer.  So, I end up having to reject that every other male character in the village could offer such, since not every other male character would know about such.

Also, quantity of that is related to how much food the man can obtain, and more yum foods often comes as the way to go about it (or bananas as tan, given that they are near enough an iron mine which they are sometimes).

He basically just argued that the father of her children should be a man, rather than a woman.  Sure ... but which one?  That is what she is actually trying to determine.

I think it would be someone that knows and recognizes his unique value.  He would have signaled that with what he said.

If every man offers the same exact skillset, she might as well just flip a coin and pick at random.  They are all equally qualified to father her kids.

Not every male character would respond the same way.

I don't follow.   Why not?

I'm doubtful about women not being able to open the pickle jar as well as men.  Things like grippers exist.  It's more about technique than strength.  I'm inclined to think that's something they more say to flatter their male partners.

Maybe though women, as a rule of thumb, aren't as interested in figuring out the mechanics of how to open a pickle jar than men are.  That sounds more plausible as a sexual difference, since there exist more male students in the physical sciences than female students, even though women make up the very clear majority of college graduates.  So, maybe there's a difference of knowledge in technique with respect to the pickle jar.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-12-21 08:51:24)

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Speaking from the perspective of the woman, that doesn't sound like a compelling argument to marry that particular guy.

Also, the whole "speaking from the perspective of the woman" line here doesn't apply.

Who is the player playing that woman?  It likely wouldn't be you, since most players aren't you.  You can't speak for all woman, since you are only one woman and other women often enough think differently for you.  And there exist plenty of male players who play the game, and thus wouldn't think "from the perspective of the woman", even while making such a choice.

Additionally, there exist PX users who sometimes play with other PX users.  They would probably associate in such partnerships rather quickly in some cases, since they know the other players come as reliable, or reliable enough.

And even before then advanced players often did recognize other advanced players.  They would probably tend to associate and know their roles even without speaking, if such a system existed.  Or they might determine it better to not associate, while still knowing their roles and being able to convey such to others.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-12-21 01:12:12)

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Speaking from the perspective of the woman, that doesn't sound like a compelling argument to marry that particular guy.  He is only offering the same thing that every other guy in the village can offer .... and they are probably doing it for free.

It costs them hungry work.  No one cuts trees or mines iron for free in OHOL.

I'm not talking about the cost to the player cutting the trees, but rather the cost to the hypothetical woman character in your example.   

If all men can do hungry work with less food cost than the women in the village, it stands to reason that women will generally avoid doing hungry work, leaving those jobs to male characters since they will be able to do it at a lower food cost to the village as a whole.   A woman might still chop wood or go mining herself, if the need is urgent and there are no men around, of course.   But it would be the less efficient option.   If a guy is close enough to help, then it would be in the best interest of the village for the woman to ask him to do the hungry work instead.   Some players might decline, but in my experience, people are usually happy to help out where they can, especially if you ask them politely.  The village runs on mutual generosity and shared work.   

And of course, seasoned players will know that there is a gender bias toward men performing hungry work inherent in the game, so they will probably automatically do those kind of jobs when they are born male.   Just like when they are born female, experienced players know that they should probably make some babies for the next generation and feed those babies to conserve the food supply.

In other words, it is very likely that most men in the village will be offering their services free of charge.   Which means the man in your example is going to have a hard time getting the girl to agree to his marriage proposal as it stands. 

This is an example of that age-old dilemma ... Why buy the cow, if you are getting the milk for free?

He basically just argued that the father of her children should be a man, rather than a woman.  Sure ... but which one?  That is what she is actually trying to determine.

I think it would be someone that knows and recognizes his unique value.  He would have signaled that with what he said.

No, he has only signaled that he knows and recognizes a value that is "unique" to every man in the village.    That is hardly a selling point regarding his individual value as a mate.   

Perhaps he should bring up his amazing genetic score instead?

If every man offers the same exact skillset, she might as well just flip a coin and pick at random.  They are all equally qualified to father her kids.

Not every male character would respond the same way.

Indeed, I think some men could do a lot better.    But I was referring to how all men in the village would be endowed with the same male abilities.    The players controlling the in-game characters might have different attributes that make them more or less appealing, but all men in the village would have the same gender-based abilities granted by the game itself.  Just like all women in the game get the same gender-based abilities for being female characters.

In terms of intersexual trade with the game, if all men have the same gender-based abilities, they are equal to each other.   The same with all women being equal to other women.    As a female character, if you want to trade with a man for something only a man can do, it doesn't really matter which one you pick.    All men are equal.   All women are equal.   

Unless there were individual differences between the characters that give them unique intrasexual abilities, of course.   

I'm doubtful about women not being able to open the pickle jar as well as men.  Things like grippers exist.  It's more about technique than strength.  I'm inclined to think that's something they more say to flatter their male partners.

Maybe though women, as a rule of thumb, aren't as interested in figuring out the mechanics of how to open a pickle jar than men are.  That sounds more plausible as a sexual difference, since there exist more male students in the physical sciences than female sciences, even though women make up the very clear majority of college graduates.  So, maybe there's a difference of knowledge in technique with respect to the pickle jar.

Again, I am trying to decide if it makes more sense that you are intentionally trolling or that you are actually this detached from common sense and gender awareness.  It is baffling.

I would tell you what is wrong with this theory, but I'm amused by the idea of you explaining your thoughts regarding why women can't open pickle jars to a potential girlfriend someday.   I don't want to deny her a funny story to tell her friends later.

Speaking from the perspective of the woman, that doesn't sound like a compelling argument to marry that particular guy.

Also, the whole "speaking from the perspective of the woman" line here doesn't apply.

Who is the player playing that woman?  It likely wouldn't be you, since most players aren't you.  You can't speak for all woman, since you are only one woman and other women often enough think differently for you.  And there exist plenty of male players who play the game, and thus wouldn't think "from the perspective of the woman", even while making such a choice.

I was speaking from the perspective of the hypothetical female character in your example, not speaking for all women or speaking for all players - in other words, if I was playing a female character and a male character approached me and wanted to father my babies, I would not find that answer sufficient to entice me into accepting his offer.   

Trade declined.

Now if he brought me a bear pelt or a wolf hat ... that might do the trick.   Gotta appreciate a guy who is willing to kill wildlife in the name of love, you know?

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-12-21 07:53:43)

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I'm not talking about the cost to the player cutting the trees, but rather the cost to the theoretical woman character in your example.

The cost of feeding a child in OHOL I think at minimum is 3 pips worth of food.  Yea, the minimum number of feedings rarely happens.  Let's say it's 6.  If there's a 2 pip discount for adult male characters, 3 cypress trees or 3 iron from a mine is equal to the cost of raising a child.  If you're tempted to say that raising the child will take 3 minutes, no, the mother doesn't have to stand around and do nothing while raising children.  In fact, I would argue that any player who is a decent Eve knows that standing around and raising your child and doing nothing else 3 minutes is exactly not the thing to do.  And advanced players tend to fall into the "pick your baby up and immediately put them down" style of parenting, at least when trying to play efficiently (which of course, they aren't always, but when they do, I think that's their feeding style).  Also, the adult male character will still have to travel to an iron mine or to swamp trees to do the hungry work, which takes time.

Also, if the woman is picky and would reject potential mates a lot, she wouldn't become fertile (or lose some sort of fertility bonus, I suppose).  Even if the servers were full of players, we're talking about a situation with very few other players around.  We probably could talk about the opportunity cost for her pickiness, and it seems very easy to conceive that picky women in OHOL would fail to have children often enough, because of their pickiness.

The village runs on mutual generosity and shared work.

Players having more unique assets would give them a reason to act carefully with their actions instead of freely giving away their labor.  Also, I think the idea with trade in part lies that the village would run less on communal sharing and more on an exchange process like trade.

And of course, seasoned players will know that there is a gender bias toward men performing hungry work inherent in the game

Is it a gender bias that only female characters have children?  Is it a gender bias that only female characters can breastfeed children in OHOL?  And if so, do people know and understand that as a gender bias?

  Just like if they are born female, experienced players will know that they should make some babies for the next generation and feed those babies to conserve the food supply.

Well if male experienced players would tend to automatically perform their sex role function without bargaining, then experienced players playing as female probably wouldn't be likely to ask someone "why?" if some male suitor asked to reproduce with them now, would they since such is also bargaining, right?

In other words, it is very likely that most men in the village will be offering their services free of charge.

So the male characters would offer their services free of charge, while the female characters wouldn't?  Mind you, I haven't asserted this would be the state of affairs.  But, you definitely seemed to have implied that the female characters would easily be stingy with their unique talents, while the male characters would be more giving, Destiny.

It is an example of that age-old dilemma ... Why buy the cow, if you are getting the milk for free?

???  That phrase refers to sexual activity happening in the absence of marriage.  The usual use of it has been that the woman has sex with a man.  The question then is, why would the man marry the girl if she is having sex with him without the obligations of marriage?

In contrast, in the scenario I was talking about, the woman isn't getting a child for free.  She won't reproduce with that man if she rejects the man as the father after asking the "why?" question.  And in terms of resources which involve hungry work, it isn't like there's also wood by the fire or every village has enough iron by the smithy.  Additionally, players choose to get such.

No, he has only signaled that he knows and recognizes a value that is "unique" to every man in the village.

No.  Again, new players don't know about iron mining.  They don't have the ability to get the discount on iron mining, without understanding how to get iron from a mine and where that mine lies.

That is hardly a selling point regarding his individual value as a mate.

Yea, it sounds like you would be picky, and fail to have children, because of your pickiness.  Again, such a player saying such almost surely wouldn't be new.  And if you have only 4 potential suitors and you reject 3 of them because they are too "average", it's easy to conceive that one doesn't end up with the 4th.  Clearly, this would be a much different scenario than the real world, because of a MUCH smaller number of potential mates.  Using one's real-world "intuition" wouldn't transfer in plenty of cases, if one has a "there's always more fish in the sea to suit my taste" type of attitude in the real world.

Perhaps he should bring up his amazing genetic score instead?

I agree that such could be better.  There are experienced players who don't like genetic score though, and would probably just laugh at "meme score", almost as a reflex.  In contrast, I've never heard anyone say that they don't value someone else doing hungry work, unless they are mass juniper chopping or something.

In terms of intersexual trade with the game, if all men have the same gender-based abilities, they are equal to each other.   The same with all women being equal to other women.    As a female character, if you want to trade with a man for something only a man can do, it doesn't really matter which one you pick.    All men are equal.   All women are equal.

O. K.  But then any response to the "why?" question which shows some level of intelligence I would think would suffice.

Again, I am trying to decide if it makes more sense that you are intentionally trolling or that you are actually this detached from common sense and gender awareness.  It is baffling.

I would tell you what is wrong with this theory, but I'm amused by the idea of you explaining your thoughts regarding why women can't open pickle jars to a potential girlfriend someday.   I don't want to deny her a funny story to tell her friends later.

Did you even read what I wrote?

The very first thing you quoted says:

I'm doubtful about women not being able to open the pickle jar as well as men.

In other words, I don't have thoughts as to why women can't open pickle jars as well as men.  I said "maybe though", but that's just me working with the hypothetical that *you* presented that women can't open the pickle jar as well as men.  Again, I said:

  I'm inclined to think that's something they more say to flatter their male partners.

Sure there are instances where women can't open the pickle jar.  But, there are instances where men have an issue also.  I do think women are more inclined to ask for help with such than men.

And that's when the men should respond "I hear what you're saying, honey.  The pickle jar lid just won't seem to move!"

Because when women talk about their problems, they want men to listen, not problem-solve. 

Of course, the previous two sentences are a joke.
Oh, also "female sciences" was a typo.  I meant "female students".

Gotta appreciate a guy who is willing to kill wildlife in the name of love, you know?

Love?  This sort of scenario has so few people to begin with.  Given that mating mechanics existed, I would suspect that many of the partnerships would far more be practical than love oriented.

Maybe saying "well I could mine iron and chop trees" would be a bad response, because it could all too easily get co-opted by destructive players.  Or maybe some people might lie about their intent, so there's a risk of getting nothing in return.  But again, these are practical matters.  If one became focused on love, because of the small number of players even if all of the servers were full, one could easily not reproduce, because one didn't love how other players were approaching them.

Wolf pelt?  Practical for the hat, alright.  Bear pelt?  Yea, I don't know.  Bear pelts are practical in that the bear from the cave is dead and thus *that* bear won't get brought to the village or appear elsewhere.  But, with the number of bear caves around towns, I'm not so sure that such is all that practical when talking about one bear pelt.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-12-21 10:01:27)

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Starknight_One

Member

Registered: 2018-10-15

Posts: 347

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Non-functional boobs would be something more like breasts with cancer.  And though I wanted to agree initially, I'm not so sure that it's ok to have non-functional boobs.  I guess if there were breasts that had neither benefit nor any serious drawbacks, that would be o.k. but I'm not so sure that such hypothetically exactly neutral breasts exist.

If anyone ever wonders why I bother to engage in conversation with Spoonwood, even though I know he is just going to argue in endless circles, this is the answer.  This beautiful gem of flawless reasoning makes it worth all the annoyance and frustration it took to reach this point.

Heehee ... hypothetically exactly neutral breasts.   Yes indeed.

Why am I now imagining a physics problem that begins with "Assume two perfectly spherical breasts of 1 kg mass each, at standard temperature and pressure..."?

---

Steam name: starkn1ght
The Berry Bush Song
The Compost Cycle
Gobble-uns!

LonelyNeptune

Member

Registered: 2021-06-01

Posts: 98

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Why am I now imagining a physics problem that begins with "Assume two perfectly spherical breasts of 1 kg mass each, at standard temperature and pressure..."?

Assume completely spherical breasts in a vacuum...

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Why am I now imagining a physics problem that begins with "Assume two perfectly spherical breasts of 1 kg mass each, at standard temperature and pressure..."?

Assume completely spherical breasts in a vacuum...

Something like this perhaps?

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Why am I now imagining a physics problem that begins with "Assume two perfectly spherical breasts of 1 kg mass each, at standard temperature and pressure..."?

Assume completely spherical breasts in a vacuum...

Something like this perhaps?

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qOcAAOSw … s-l400.jpg

That's a vacuum???

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

LonelyNeptune

Member

Registered: 2021-06-01

Posts: 98

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Why am I now imagining a physics problem that begins with "Assume two perfectly spherical breasts of 1 kg mass each, at standard temperature and pressure..."?

Assume completely spherical breasts in a vacuum...

Something like this perhaps?

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qOcAAOSw … s-l400.jpg

Perfect.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

That's a vacuum???

No, Spoonwood.    That's a flotation device.

LonelyNeptune

Member

Registered: 2021-06-01

Posts: 98

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

That's a vacuum???

No, Spoonwood.    That's a flotation device.

Be nice. He's never seen one before.

WumboJumbo

Member

From: Massachusetts

Registered: 2018-08-09

Posts: 166

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

And from what i've seen so far "in next life" doesn't seem to be much more interesting in that aspect, but it's still very early and not even officially released so maybe could change.

I think this forum has finally made me go insane. Congratulations folks! You made me burst out laughing!

Again, you guys are just monkeys throwing shit at each other. By this point, we should've started a petition for Spoonwood to be permanently banned. Actually, it should've happened an extremely long time ago!

In regards to In Next Life though, the game has officially been released in Early Access with a price tag of $10.99: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1702 … Next_Life/

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Again, you guys are just monkeys throwing shit at each other. By this point, we should've started a petition for Spoonwood to be permanently banned. Actually, it should've happened an extremely long time ago!

I wasn't disagreeing with Dodge, I don't think, at any point in this thread.  In all honesty, it was nice to have the interaction with him here.

Petitons also don't go well with bans.  That's tyranny of petitioners, instead of having a rule-based forum that is fair to people.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

WumboJumbo

Member

From: Massachusetts

Registered: 2018-08-09

Posts: 166

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Again, you guys are just monkeys throwing shit at each other. By this point, we should've started a petition for Spoonwood to be permanently banned. Actually, it should've happened an extremely long time ago!

I wasn't disagreeing with Dodge, I don't think, at any point in this thread.  In all honesty, it was nice to have the interaction with him here.

Petitons also don't go well with bans.  That's tyranny of petitioners, instead of having a rule-based forum that is fair to people.

You have broken the rules god knows how many times now and have been banned before, just not permanently. Now is the time for that to happen, but Jason is too inactive.

Also, I never implied that you were disagreeing with Dodge.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

You have broken the rules god knows how many times now and have been banned before, just not permanently.

You didn't cite a single rule that I broke in the course of this thread.  I haven't broken any here.  Now is no time, where there is no rule in this thread, or the other recent threads, that I have broken.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

WumboJumbo

Member

From: Massachusetts

Registered: 2018-08-09

Posts: 166

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

You have broken the rules god knows how many times now and have been banned before, just not permanently.

You didn't cite a single rule that I broke in the course of this thread.  I haven't broken any here.  Now is no time, where there is no rule in this thread, or the other recent threads, that I have broken.

I don't need to tell you which rules you've broken when DestinyCall, LonelyNeptune, Laggy, etc... have all cited which rules you've broken.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

You have broken the rules god knows how many times now and have been banned before, just not permanently.

You didn't cite a single rule that I broke in the course of this thread.  I haven't broken any here.  Now is no time, where there is no rule in this thread, or the other recent threads, that I have broken.

I don't need to tell you which rules you've broken when DestinyCall, LonelyNeptune, Laggy, etc... have all cited which rules you've broken.

Nope, they haven't.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

WumboJumbo

Member

From: Massachusetts

Registered: 2018-08-09

Posts: 166

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

You didn't cite a single rule that I broke in the course of this thread.  I haven't broken any here.  Now is no time, where there is no rule in this thread, or the other recent threads, that I have broken.

I don't need to tell you which rules you've broken when DestinyCall, LonelyNeptune, Laggy, etc... have all cited which rules you've broken.

Nope, they haven't.

They've already done so. The issue is that you're not very good at picking up on subtlety.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I don't need to tell you which rules you've broken when DestinyCall, LonelyNeptune, Laggy, etc... have all cited which rules you've broken.

Nope, they haven't.

They've already done so. The issue is that you're not very good at picking up on subtlety.

Again, no, they have not cited any rules broken.

I stand by what I said.  The lack of inequality inhibits the prospect of trade in this game.  If you want trade, you need to have inequality between traders.  Equality is bad for trading.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Laggy

Member

Registered: 2021-01-26

Posts: 251

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

This whole discussion makes it clear Spoonwood doesn't understand real life.

Next time I shovel the driveway I'm gonna tell my wife make me a damn cake!

Spoonwood this isn't how relationships in real life work.

So in Spoonwoods world he thinks he gets a gold star for doing the dishes, and makes his wife breastfeed because he did a chore.

Just the other day, I saw my neighbor shoveling snow, and her fat husband kept saying, dinners done honey. lol

So spoonwood have you ever shoveled snow? Because I'm thinking you live in Florida because it's not like a male or female activity.

When it snows, you shovel that crap if you want to leave your driveway.

BTW real men buy snowplows and just buy cakes instead of marrying.

Last edited by Laggy (2021-12-30 16:30:52)

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Yeah, talking to Spoon always reminds me of the quote "I reject your reality and substitute my own".   He operates on a different plane of existence and then tries to apply Spoonlogic to explain how things should work in his mind.   But that's not actually how they really would work in the real world.  Or even in the game world that we all share. 

His whole post is based on an idea about trade that has been twisted and stretched to fit with an unrelated conclusion which just happens to support his own personal biases about gender roles.   Remove all the sexy parts and Spoon's argument still has major flaws, because he is ignoring big chunks of economic theory and doesn't account for normal human behavior when applying his theory to the game universe.

"The lack of inequality inhibits the prospect of trade in this game.  If you want trade, you need to have inequality between traders.  Equality is bad for trading."

To some extent, I am able to agree with these statements.    Basic trade often takes the form of barter.   Exchanging something you want for something you do not have.   You could describe this as an inequality between the two traders - they each have something that the other one needs, so they exchange goods or services to fix this problem.     Interestingly, this suggests that after the trade, they are more equal than they were before.   The inequality between them is resolved by trading, so they need to be unequal to some extend in order to initiate the trade. 

I can see how someone could look at this situation and see inequality as a necessary component for generating trade.   If both parties have equal access to all resources or they are both equally capable of generating all important goods themselves, there is very little reason to initiate trade because you can simply produce whatever you need yourself on-demand.   What you are actually talking about is the basic concept of supply and demand, not  inequality or "superiority".   Those words come loaded with a lot of extra baggage, especially when applied to gender. 

In order to stimulate trade between individuals or separate villages, it must be more efficient (or less costly) to trade with someone else, rather than produce everything that you need by yourself.  One way to accomplish that is for  one party to be better at producing something or worse at producing it.   Race restrictions work by forcing exchange of goods, because only certain skin colors can gather biome-locked ingredients.   Since those ingredients are necessary for the continued development of all villages, this forces different villages to exchange latex, sulfur and oil to survive.   It works, but it really isn't that great of a system in my opinion.  I would much rather have a better system that actually rewards specialization, rather than simply forcing it into existence.    Trade should feel natural and mutually beneficial, not artificially imposed by the rules of the universe. 

Unfortunately, there are limits to how much true barter can occur in OHOL.    Due to the limited time and language barriers, long negotiations just don't make a lot of sense.   And because the entire crafting tree is equally available to all players and crafting time is instantaneous, there are no "skilled" craftsmen who can offer specialized goods or services.    There are a lot of reasons why the economy in OHOL doesn't involve a currency system or direct exchanges.    Trade does happen, but it is largely based on each individual contributing their labor to the village as a whole, rather than private individuals exchanging goods with each other for something of similar value.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

His whole post is based on an idea about trade that has been twisted and stretched to fit with an unrelated conclusion which just happens to support his own personal biases about gender roles.

What bias?  Women are better at feeding children.  Men are better at most forms of physical labor that involves muscles.

To some extent, I am able to agree with these statements.    Basic trade often takes the form of barter.   Exchanging something you want for something you do not have.   You could describe this as an inequality between the two traders - they each have something that the other one needs, so they exchange goods or services to fix this problem.     Interestingly, this suggests that after the trade, they are more equal than they were before.   The inequality between them is resolved by trading, so they need to be unequal to some extend in order to initiate the trade.

I can see how someone could look at this situation and see inequality as a necessary component for generating trade.   If both parties have equal access to all resources or they are both equally capable of generating all important goods themselves, there is very little reason to initiate trade because you can simply produce whatever you need yourself on-demand.   What you are actually talking about is the basic concept of supply and demand, not  inequality or "superiority".   Those words come loaded with a lot of extra baggage, especially when applied to gender.

So basically you agree with what I've said, but you *feel* as if there must be an error, because of ingrained prejudice likely inculcated via culture.  You can't say exactly what is wrong with what I said, but again *merely feel* as if something must be wrong.  That shows your bias.  Also again, I *am* talking about inequality.  If you have something and someone else does not have that something, that is an inequality.  And the whole modern emphasis on "equality" of people is flawed when people want trading.  That includes the concept of gender equality.

I would much rather have a better system that actually rewards specialization, rather than simply forcing it into existence.

It's more than that, of course.  The language barrier makes barter extremely awkward, especially since you can never learn another tribe's language in your life.  Additionally, it takes up too much time to travel to other villages sometimes.  There exists every reason that this game should have teleporters for such a purpose, and I mean pre-diesel teleporters, not airplanes.  It's also absurd to have an advanced camp trading with an Eve camp.  Families also routinely die out.  The last point indicates why trading between villages never made any sense, since you can't trade when there is no one to trade with. 

Trade should feel natural and mutually beneficial, not artificially imposed by the rules of the universe.

Not trading should also feel natural and mutually beneficial.  Female characters feel unnatural since they are simply too powerful in terms of their muscular ability.  Male characters in this game don't feel natural, since they don't have superiority of muscular strength and since they don't play any part in the production of children.  Trading between men and women in this game would not be beneficial to the women.  And so the women in this game will never trade, and men offering to trade with women are jokers at best.

And because the entire crafting tree is equally available to all players and crafting time is instantaneous, there are no "skilled" craftsmen who can offer specialized goods or services.

There is no inequality of crafters.  So, there's no reason for them to trade.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

What bias?  Women are better at feeding children.  Men are better at most forms of physical labor that involves muscles.

You don't need a uterus to hold a baby bottle, Spoon. Men can feed babies just fine. And not all men are great at tasks that require big muscles.  Women can be strong too.

Just ask my younger brother.   He is tall, handsome, and designs space ships for a living, but I can chop wood a lot faster than him.  He works a desk job and lacks upper body strength.  I lift bales of hay on the regular to feed my goats.   Not everyone fits gender stereotypes.  People are complicated and diverse.   Gender doesn't determine your individual ability or potential for personal growth.  Many other factors can be just as important or more important.  Rather than focusing on one aspect, try to see the whole person.

Not all men.  Not all women.   You are making gross generalizations.   Please try to be less gross, okay?

So basically you agree with what I've said, but you *feel* as if there must be an error, because of ingrained prejudice likely inculcated via culture.  You can't say exactly what is wrong with what I said, but again *merely feel* as if something must be wrong.  That shows your bias.  Also again, I *am* talking about inequality.  If you have something and someone else does not have that something, that is an inequality.  And the whole modern emphasis on "equality" of people is flawed when people want trading.  That includes the concept of gender equality.

Nope, I am not agreeing with your conclusions because your reasoning is faulty and biased.   

I agree that inequality between trading partners can help to incentivize trade.  If everyone has equal access to all potential trade goods, then there is little need to exchange goods with someone else.   Lots of supply, but no demand. 

But I don't agree that "equality is bad for trading", because too much inequality between trading partners will also hinder trade.   If one side has all the power and the other side has no power, why would they trade with each other at all?  The losing side has everything to gain yet nothing to offer, so they are a poor trading partner.  The more powerful partner would not trade at all or seek a different partner.    Plenty of inequality, but zero trade potential.   

For best results, trading partners need to be have similar trading power.    Their needs and abilities can be different, but their trading potential should be pretty close to even so they benefit equally from establishing the partnership.   Most importantly, both sides need to have complimentary needs and abilities.  They should both have something that the other person wants, so that an equivalent exchange is possible.    A fair trade is an equal trade.   Both parties should feel like they got a good value by trading, otherwise, why bother doing it again?  Nobody likes to get cheated.   And it isn't really trade if you just give it away for free, right?

Ironically, I think you actually agree with this, since you keep complaining about how women have all the power in OHOL, but you are so deeply invested in arguing for more inequality, you probably can't admit it. 

There is no inequality of crafters.  So, there's no reason for them to trade.

Yup, I'd call it "lack of diversity" or "lack of specialization", rather than no inequality, but tomay-to, tomah-to.  Same thing, really, if you ignore the negative connotations of your word choice.

That's one of the reasons why I'd be excited to see Jason add skills or job titles with perks to encourage job specialization.   Tool slots were a real bust.   Plenty of inequality, but in all the wrong ways.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2021-12-31 00:14:38)