## [REC] Lancelotian MC * Author: u/None * * URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/5r7le0/rec_lancelotian_mc/ * Score: 0 * Created: 2017-01-31T11:17:53 ### Post: ⚠ ⚠ ⚠ This is going to be pretty long. ⚠ ⚠ ⚠ A bit of my philosophy: (i) Incompetence is a crime. (ii) Mediocrity is a sin. (iii) Competence is a virtue. I'll list the traits of the MC: 1. MC is consequentialist. MC doesn't believe in good and evil, and does not abide to conventional morality. MC's morality is this: "right" actions give a positive payoff. "Wrong" actions give a negative payoff. The rightness or wrongness of any decision he makes, is ***ONLY*** dependent on its payoff. 2. MC is male. For story with multiple MCs, at least one of them should match listed criteria. 3. MC is pragmatic and rational, MC isn't an idealist, he's realistic and pragmatic. 4. MC is ruled by reason not by emotions. His actions work with cost benefit analysis; 'will this have a positive or negative payoff?" and Bayesian decision making; "which decision has the highest expected value?". he also asks questions like; "How does this affect my goal?" 5. MC is utilitarian. He attaches a value to each human life, and other things. The worth of saving or sparing a life is that value. The cost of taking a life is that value. This may be implicit, not necessarily explicit. 6. MC prioritises efficiency in all his actions. The most efficient means to achieve his goal, the most reliable. He'll pursue the action with the highest expected value(Bayesian method of decision making). He wouldn't take a chance on a very low probability(no betting on potential or believing in spirit) unless there's a logical reason to do so. 7. MC is competent. He's capable and adept with respect to what he does, he does not need to be the best, but he should be highly proficient and accurately estimate his ability. Above the 99th percentile(most likely more) in his field(s) in his universe. 8. MC is highly intelligent, no need to be a genius, but at the very least in the 99th percentile of intelligence; somewhere north of 145 with SD of 15. Bonus if he's a genius. Doesn't have to be explicitly stated, we readers should be able to infer it. 9. MC has a goal. He has an overarching goal, that drives his actions and may have other sub goals he pursues. 10. MC is manipulative, a schemer and a planner. He makes carefully thought out plans and commits to them. He prefers brain over brawn and believes his biggest asset is his brain. He understands the value of information, and actively exploits it. He has backup plans for plausible scenarios, but can manage through unexpected scenarios. He's robust, even if something unaccounted for happens, he can deal with it. 11. MC is meticulous, he pays careful attention to detail. He's not careless. 12. MC has pride. I'm not asking for unnecessary arrogance, but he has pride in what he does. He's capable, and knows his capable. He takes pride in his abilities. But he shouldn't be ruled by his pride. 13. MC's goal may be beneficial e.g world peace, neutral e.g world domination(such an MC will actually bring about a more prosperous world after they take over), or hostile e.g World destruction. The MC may even have vengeance as a goal, his goals may be influenced by emotions, but not his actions. I wouldn't want mediocre goals though. Of he's pursuing vengeance then the target of revenge should be larger than life and also very competent. Any genre that encompasses these elements will do; sci-fi, fantasy, horror, etc. Bonus 14. MC is involved in politics wherever he finds himself I'm not asking for a Gary Stu. Not an omniscient or omnipotent MC. He can have flaws and weaknesses, as long as those 14 requirements aren't violated. He may have a God complex like Light Yagami. He may have a Messiah complex(filtered through his own amoral world view) like Emiya Shirou. He may be nihilist, and see this world and humanity as beyond hope. He may think that there world needs to be destroyed to be saved. He may hate the world and want to destroy it. He should have flaws and emotions. I want a real feasible person, not a perfect robot. He may have noble pride as his flaw. He may have deep hubris in his lineage and his house. MC should have emotions and be a real human being. He just shouldn't let his emotions rule him. Or at least that should be his principle. He's human, so making an emotional mistake may happen. I don't want a story where there are no consequences for his less rational choices. If he goofs up, there should be consequences for it. If he decides to prioritise something over his goal maybe the life of someone precious to him, then it should affect his plans, everything shouldn't somehow magically work for his benefit. He should have zero plot armour, and narrativium shouldn't help him. His luck should be average or less than. I don't want a "lucky" MC. No Deus Ex Machinas please. There should be real consequences for his actions. I want a plausible story; a story I don't need to keep suspending disbelief to read. Simply put I don't want plot armour. I know this was a chore to read. I'll take anime, manga, Asian translated novels, Original English Novels, Western Novels, comics, etc. I'll take anything as long as it is FREELY available online in ENGLISH. The story should have at least a few 100 000 words(or equivalent content for videos and comics). I'm expecting at least a 1000 pages of English content(or equivalent). If there's less, but over 100,000 words and releases are steady and at a reasonable pace, the recommendation will be much appreciated. Any genre will do, as long as it involves political machinations. I expect the MC to have or eventually get some kind of leadership role. I'm okay with genocide if it's a rational choice, but I'll be put off by someone killing villager A for no reason or for something mundane like being in a bad mood. I think it's the thought behind the crime that decides it for me. I don't really care whether the MC wins or loses, it's the journey for me. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. This is the most important recommendation thread I'm requesting for. I'll be eternally grateful to someone who can fix me up. If you can get me a dose of my crack, i'll be indebted. ### Comments: > **u/xamueljones** [+15] *My arch-enemy is entropy* (5 hours later) > > The [Prince of Nothing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Nothing) series sound right up your alley. It's a very complex series for me to try to describe, but the main character Kellhus fits your requirements almost perfectly. The only catch is that we learn very little about his inner thoughts despite following him for so much of the book and readers are left to decide on their own whether or not he's evil or amoral. Some people find the book boring due to the extensive world-building. I highly recommend reading the reviews on [Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B010MEPN14/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) or some other site before deciding to read the book. It's fairly easy to find free copies of the first book online, but the rest of the series you might have to buy. Try bookzz.org if you have very little money to spend. > > The [Crystal Society](http://crystal.raelifin.com/about/) is about an artificial intelligence named Face who sounds more feminine than masculine, but there is so much social manipulation in her every thoughts and action that I think you'll like reading about her any way due to how her single desire is to be **known** by every human and she only (barely) follows conventional human morality publicly to look 'benevolent' to humans because fame is better than infamy. The first book is free online, but you will have to buy the second one and the third one is coming out roughly in December. > > [Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality](http://www.hpmor.com/) features a version of Harry who is considered to be *intensely* moral by many people on this subreddit due to his idealistic desire to want everyone to never ever die, including people considered to be evil. This moral conflict between him and the rest of wizarding society who thinks Death is "The next great adventure" is a major part of the story albeit not all of it. There's a *lot* going on throughout. Since you sound like you like moral conflicts, I suspect you'll enjoy Harry. It's free online. > > [Ender's Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender's_Game) is a classic which you probably heard of before so I won't get into it too much. I'll just point out that Ender is considered by the subreddit one of the few examples of an genuinely intelligent characters in popular literature where we actually can learn good habits of thinking rather than a "genius" character who we are told rather than shown to be smart. I'll be stunned if free copies of this book can't be found somewhere online with some googling. > > [Worm](https://parahumans.wordpress.com/table-of-contents/) a whopping monster at *2 million* words long and all entirely free online. Features a female superhero who constantly finds herself making horrible decisions in her pursuit to be a hero. Fans often comment on her doing "the wrong things for the right reasons". Taylor is exceptionally cunning, pragmatic, and clever as a [Third Level Character](http://yudkowsky.tumblr.com/writing/level3intelligent). She's female, but her gender is such a minor aspect of the story that I rarely noticed or thought about it. > > [Blindsight](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Blindsight) is an amazing book about people with very unusual ways of thinking and bizarre moralities along with aliens who genially feel like they are aliens rather than Star Trek aliens who are humans painted a different color. I can't write a summary good enough to do this book justice, but the TV Tropes link is very informative and will bring you to a free online copy of the book. > > There are a lot of good rational fiction on [TV Tropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RationalFic) I would recommend for hours of pleasurable reading, but there aren't any other fiction I can think of on that page which fulfills your main amoral requirement. > > PS What does 'lancelotian' mean? I tried looking it up, but google doesn't tell me the meaning. I'm guessing something to do with amoral and probably a historical connection to Lancelot somehow. Or is it just a word you made up to identify characters similar to Lancelot? > > EDIT: Looking at your post again, I think you are very heavily influenced by characterizations of the heroes in xianxia novels. The genre as a whole is considered by this subreddit to be very stagnant as mentioned by the top comment on this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/4ab3xk/recommendations_xianxia_is_a_good_genre_and_you/). [Forty Millenniums of Cultivation](https://friendshipispower.wordpress.com/about/) is the rare exception which is liked by this subreddit. I think you have been reading so much of xianxia that you are desperate for something different, but are so used to reading stories from that genre that you haven't considered trying other types of stories. The only reason for my thoughts about you is because we had some people come to this subreddit from /r/noveltranslations asking for recommendations before and they made very similar requests to you. > > EDIT 2: I just realized that while I was recommending books, there were two comics I would recommend as well. > > [Leftover Soup](http://www.leftoversoup.com/) is a comic at only 970 pages with the author saying that he will be finishing it at exactly 1,000 pages. So it's not as long as you wanted, but the characters constantly discuss deep, thought provoking topics many of which are very easy to to get into arguments over (for pete's sake, the first page involves a rape joke!). They also often end up discussing whether or not a given horrible action is required due to one's moral philosophy/religion, so I think you'll like it despite the near total lack of any of your requirements. > > [Freefall](http://freefall.purrsia.com/) is another comic which doesn't fulfill any of your requirements, but it's a very lengthy comic (several thousand strips) which examines the implications of alien and artificial minds which are similar to human minds, but are nonetheless different enough to make coexistence difficult. >> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+3] (18 hours later) >> >> I'm loving Crystal Society. That was a quality recommendation. It's always a treat to come across a protagonist with an inhuman utility function, because it turns a lot of the usual storytelling conventions on their side and lets you vicariously experience an unfamiliar mode of thinking. >> **u/eaglejarl** [+3] (2 days later) >> >> LeftoverSoup ends at 1000 strips? Drat! I love that strip. >>> **u/xamueljones** [+2] *My arch-enemy is entropy* (2 days later) >>> >>> Agreed! But Tailsteak says somewhere in one of his early strips that he planned right from the start to make Leftover Soup exactly 1,000 pages long. To reinforce this, he mentioned that he would be finishing Leftover Soup in 2017 back in December when he was around strip #950. His reason for doing so is because he wanted to tell a story with a beginning, middle, and end unlike most webcomics which only have a beginning, middle, and just continues on forever without any ending. >>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+1] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> Yes, but they continue because people *like* them! I'm sure that your average comic author would stop working on something if readership went to zero. *grumble* >> **u/scruiser** [+1] *CYOA* (5 hours later) >> >> Maybe he was thinking Byronic Hero? > **u/traverseda** [+13] *With dread but cautious optimism* (2 hours later) > > >MC is male. For story with multiple MCs, at least one of them should match listed criteria. > > Why? The rest seems to follow similar themes. > > >MC is amoral. MC doesn't believe in good and evil, and does not abide to conventional morality. > > A lot of the MC's around here have decided that at least seeming to abide by conventional morality is useful. You don't often see protagonists completely ignoring conventional morality, if only for the reason that having a track record of adhering to conventional morality is a *very* good thing. > > Outside of that, you often see them adhering to unconventional moral frameworks. It's important to note that that does *not* make them amoral in any way. We probably want to avoid words like "amoral". We want to avoid that as a group in general, and any appearance of evil should be the cartoon villain level. > > >Bayesian decision making; > > Are you a lesswrong-er? > > --- > > Anyway, to start with I'd advise taking a look through https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/top/?sort=top&t=all > > More specific recommendations > > https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10360716/3/The-Metropolitan-Man > > http://alexanderwales.com/darkWizardNaNo2016.html > > https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/38b66e/rthsf_and_i_show_you_how_deep_the_rabbit_hole_goes/ >> **u/None** [+1] (3 hours later) >> >> I don't know what less wronger means. >> >> Amoral: doesn't make you evil. >> >> I want an MC who is amoral. They will not hesitate to take "evil" actions for a rational goal. >> >> I mentioned, that I'm okay with genocide if it's a rational decision. >> >> AN MC who pretends to be moral is all-right; I do that too. It doesn't change the fact that I'm amoral, I obey laws and haven't committed any violent crime, or ever been prosecuted for criminal charges. >> >> But at heart, the MC should be amoral. >> >> In our world to day, obeying laws has been highly beneficial so I do it. >> >> Amorality isn't evil, it's neutral. >> >> If I can save someone, I might if and only if the cost(resources expended, hostility gained, etc) is far less than the potential benefit(person saved will repay me, I'll gain favour of them or others). >> >> If there is absolutely no benefit, or it's negligible, I'll abandon them even if it'll cost nothing.(UNlikely, because even popularity from saving is a benefit.) >> >> tl;DR Amorality, is the most important character requirement. >> >> I don't want an MC who's shackjled by morality. Hecommits crimes, if it's a rational choice. >> >> I've never killed before, but if I were in a situation in which it was the logical, rational thing to do, will I? Yes, and I won't be bothered by it. >> >> That's what I want from an MC. >> >> MCs who kill for non logical reasons, are not my cup of tea. In fact, I'm slightly repulsed by them. >>> **u/scruiser** [+10] *CYOA* (6 hours later) >>> >>> Your original post sounds like you are asking for an "edgy" protagonist... I think on /r/rational we look down on edginess for its own sake^note , although many of works we like can get pretty dark and many have... goal-driven protagonists. Worm is a great choice, although the protagonist is female (not sure why you had a constraint in gender) and has serious self esteem issues, she also kicks ass, is very ruthless, and has extremely strong convictions that drive her to take down foes way stronger than her. The Metropolitan Man sounds like exactly what you are liking for, Lex Luthor operating in a paranoid and efficient manner to fulfill an arguably good goal through amoral means. >>> >>> ^Note: that said, Quirrel in HPMOR was super edgy and it took forever for some people to figure out he wasn't meant as a role model, and a lot of people still think he is cool. I think the pushback after realizing about Quirrel may have made /r/rational more sensitive to the kind of edginess you are asking for. >>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> I self insert myself sometimes as characters. I can't do that to female protagonists. Not sure what you mean by edgy, I'm not yet done with HPMOR, but Quirrel is kind of my favourite character. Followed by Draco Malfoy. I couldn't connect with Harry, because of his morality. His conceptions and belief in good and evil seem naive to me. >>>> >>>> I myself am not moral, I'm not quite amoral, but how I described my MC is a projection of how I am or want myself to be. >>>> >>>> What I want to read about is someone who represents my ideal. >>>> >>>> I don't see why you should censor fiction. >>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+4] (2 days later) >>>>> >>>>> Can you self-insert as characters who are different from you in other ways besides gender? For example, Draco Malfoy is a wizard and you're not, but you could identify with him. If you can identify with a wizard, why can't you identify with a female character? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think anyone is talking about "censoring" fiction. I'm really confused about where that came from. >>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (2 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> You were talking about characters that are not quite right for this subreddit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't identify with female characters. No that's wrong, my capacity for identifying with female characters is severely limited. There are reasons for this, I've not bothered finding out all of them. I don't see it as a problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can read and enjoy stories with female characters, but identifying with them is difficult. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll probably, no definitely enjoy a female MC who meets all my requirements, but I won't be able to self insert. The recommendation wouldn't let me enjoy my fantasy of being who I want to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not a misogynist, but suffice it to say, that I'd never choose to be born a female(no matter how advantageous the female(unless my exploits as one would benefit my next male reincarnation), if I reincarnated as one, I'd kill myself so I can reincarnate again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Call me a male supremacist if you like. >>>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+5] (2 days later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Um...okay, I don't know why you felt the need to volunteer the information that you'd kill yourself if you had a female body, but whatever. Personally I think gender is a totally arbitrary barrier to identification with a character, but I can't really argue *your* preferences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >You were talking about charcters that are not quite right for this subreddit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That wasn't me, and in any case saying an archetype doesn't appeal *to this subreddit* has nothing to do with censoring fiction. The people in this sub who do not like edgy characters are not proposing to go out and erase them from other people's stories. >>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (2 days later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I didn't arbitrarily decide against it, I just find it difficult even among the female characters I've fallen in love with. I watch their stories from a 3rd person point of view, never first person. Identification is difficult, and insertion impossible. >>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+8] (12 hours later) >>> >>> That's not what amorality is. If your dream MC is utilitarian, he's not amoral. He has an unconventional moral framework, but he *does* have one. >>> >>> It's impossible to take "logical, rational" actions unless you have such a framework--you need to have specific values you're trying to achieve. For example, it's only "rational" to kill one person to save fifty if saving those fifty people advances your values in some way. Without that context, it's a totally arbitrary decision. >>>> **u/None** [+1] (a day later) >>>> >>>> Seems like I misunderstand or misrepresent my understanding of amorality. >>>> >>>> I view amoral as not having a concept of 'good' or 'evil', the way conventional morality has. >>>> >>>> For example strong A.I will be amoral, yet capable of rational decision making. >>>> >>>> Something similar to that, only with emotions. >>>> >>>> My morality is this: >>>> "right" actions give a positive payoff. >>>> >>>> "wrong" actions give a negative payoff. >>>> >>>> The rightness or wrongness of an action isn't how rational it is, but how consequential it is. >>>> >>>> Was the payoff negative? or positive? >>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+3] (2 days later) >>>>> >>>>> Gotcha. The word for that is not amoral, but *consequentialist.* >>>>> >>>>> >Was the payoff negative? or positive? >>>>> >>>>> This is the question whose answer depends on your value system. Different people will assign different values to the same outcome. The same "payoff" is positive for some people, but not others. As a consequentialist, you need (and presumably have) a moral framework for evaluating consequences. >>>>> >>>>> For example, suppose your enemy is in danger and you are deciding whether to save their life. If you save them, the consequence is "your enemy is still alive." Depending on how much you value human life, that could be a positive or a negative outcome in your eyes. >>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> I sure hope I decide not to save my enemy. I wouldn't want to be that "weak". I try to desensitise myself, so that I can make the right decisions, but I've never undertaken or being part of any violent crime before, so I don't know. I do know that the consequence of my enemy being alive, may bring me negative utility unless they have a change of heart. >>>>>> >>>>>> But if the enemy will die anyway, I suppose it will be much easier to get accustomed to it. Making those decisions, thank having to pull the trigger myself. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hardly see the rational decision as sparing them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that sensible individuals should be selfish. Your interests should hold a great deal of importance. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are times when I would have died for others(people I didn't know personally, but thought will bring more utility to the world than me. I've started to increase my own self worth since then though, due in part to rating my potential utility much higher). >>>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+2] (2 days later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you believe that in most cases, a "positive" outcome is one that's in one's own self-interest? That's part of your moral framework. >>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. A positive outcome is one that bring a positive payoff to one's self. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe altruism is irrational, I believe selfishness is right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My "moral" framework, is: >>>>>>>> "good"; anything that benefits me. >>>>>>>> "bad" anything that confers a negative payoff. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Empathy is absent from my framework, and the framework of the character I seek. >>>>>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+2] (3 days later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Strong arguments have been made that altruism has utility and is therefore rational. I can see that you desire opportunities to express your views. I encourage you to also seek out information that conflicts with them, and be open to being convinced to alter them. >>> **u/major_fox_pass** [+8] (15 hours later) >>> >>> Sociopathy != rationality. >>>> **u/None** [+2] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> I never stated that. >>>> >>>> I merely stated the kind of MC I want. If he is a high functioning sociopath, so be it. >>>> >>>> You fundamentally misunderstand me. You think I posted about what I thought a rational MC was. You're wrong. I merely posted about what I wanted from an MC. >>>> >>>> This was originally a recommendation post for /r/noveltranslations ; a subreddit for Asian translated novels. Someone there, directed me here. I merely edited the post for this subreddit. >>>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+2] (2 days later) >>>>> >>>>> You might try the BBC show *Sherlock* for a high-functioning sociopath who doesn't give a damn about rules, although even he has a couple of people he cares about. >>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (2 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems I was misunderstanding amorality. I want characters with emotions. >>>>>>> **u/major_fox_pass** [+2] (2 days later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A good, remember-able (if maybe incomplete) definition of someone who is moral is someone who tries to find what he *should do*, and then *does it*. >>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, the morality I was looking for is very different from conventional morality. >>> **u/None** [+1] (3 hours later) >>> >>> What does less wronger mean. >>> >>> I believe that a false negative does not hurt, but a false positive does, or hurts much less.(i.e a decision rejected as bad but which was in fact good, is better than a decision accepted as good but was bad. Even if payoff of was better). >>> >>> Minimise risks, after maximise profits? >>> >>> I don't believe in terms like good and evil. >>> >>> "Wrong" is something that has a negative payoff. >>> >>> "Right" is something that has a positive payoff >>>> **u/None** [+6] (4 hours later) >>>> >>>> [deleted] >>>>> **u/None** [+2] (4 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> I think I'll follow it. >>>> **u/traverseda** [+2] *With dread but cautious optimism* (4 hours later) >>>> >>>> >What does less wronger mean. >>>> >>>> Where in the world did you first hear about "Bayesian decision making" if not lesswrong? >>>>> **u/scruiser** [+4] *CYOA* (5 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> Just to chime in, i went to a Mathematical Psychology conference and it felt like 1 out of 3 presentations/talks/posters had the word Bayesian in the title and everyone used the word at some point or another. Bayesian approaches were used both for statistically analyzing raw data, and as an underlying model of various cognitive data. So the word actually is really common in certain fields. >>>>>> **u/traverseda** [+6] *With dread but cautious optimism* (6 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, I'm not claiming any kind of monopoly on the term, but google "bayesian decision making". Then combine it with the word "rationalist"... >>>>> **u/None** [+4] (4 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> I'm a computer science student, 3rd year. >>>>> >>>>> I did operations research last semester. >>>>> >>>>> Became atheist second year, and became a rationalist, after accidentally stumbling upon rational wiki. >>>>> >>>>> I've been trying to cultivate my own rationality since then. >>>>> >>>>> Bayesian Decision making is something we do in Operations research, I decided to apply it to life. >>>>>> **u/traverseda** [+6] *With dread but cautious optimism* (4 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Huh, generally when you hear "rationalist" and "bayesian" in the same breath, that person comes from lesswrong/CFAR, or is at least aware of it. Like legitimately >%99 of the time. >>>>>>> **u/Chronophilia** [+9] *sci-fi ≠ futurology* (12 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They do mention RationalWiki. Our sworn Internet enemies :P >>>>>>>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [+5] (a day later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Typical [genetic fallacy](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy), you Basilisk shill. >>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (4 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm the 1% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know bayesian, because I'm a CS student. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My rationality was cultivated offline without using the internet. If you don't believe me, then I give up. Not worth it at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's CFAR? >>>>>>>> **u/traverseda** [+2] *With dread but cautious optimism* (4 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not that I don't believe you, I just find it interesting (and confusing) that someone would arrive at that particular set of beliefs without knowing about lesswrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CFAR is the Center For Applied Rationality. >>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+5] (4 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, nothing is new under thse sun they say. Newton and Leibniz both independently discovered calculus. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, it seems like I've been missing out. I'm going to join them. > **u/CeruleanTresses** [+11] (12 hours later) > > Honestly, the way you phrased this request is off-putting. It reads like a list of demands--"I *expect* this, I *expect* that." Also, why do people keep insisting on male MCs? >> **u/eaglejarl** [+3] (2 days later) >> >> The charitable explanation is that they themselves are male and cannot identify with non-male characters. >>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+8] (2 days later) >>> >>> He did confirm that to be the case, but that's something that never made sense to me. There are so many points of divergence between a reader and a fictional person, of which gender is only one. Why should specifically gender be a deal-breaker with respect to the reader's ability to identify with the character? I'm a woman and there are certainly male characters I identify with. >>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+5] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> > Why should gender be the deal breaker? >>>> >>>> The charitable explanation is that gender is a real-world characteristic and major part of most people's identity, unlike "is a wizard" or "is a troll". There are a lot of non-charitable ones. >>>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>> >>>>> I would like to hear some of those non-charitable explanations please. >>>>>> **u/eaglejarl** [+4] (3 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> * Psycopath; by definition lacks the capacity for empathy >>>>>> * Misogynist; believes women are inherently inferior >>>>>> * Gender Insecurity; self-doubt about own manliness, thereby requiring staying away from anything associated with femininity (most especially "attempting to identify with a female character") >>>>>> >>>>>> Those are the ones that spring immediately to mind. >>>> **u/None** [+2] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> As for Identifying with women, I guess the literature we grew up reading matters, ggrowing up in an environment, that made me proud to be born male, and in a fundamentalist christian home( where wives are supposed to be subject to their husbands), I grew up with the belief that men are superior. A belief that's hard to discard, regardless of the truth of that belief, I was made proud to be male. I also grew up reading male MCs. It's quite late and hard to start identifying with female MCs. >>>> >>>> I believe in equality more or less though(equal legal consideration for one). >>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+3] (3 days later) >>>>> >>>>> I hope you're still actively working to overcome the belief that men are superior. You're aware that it's an irrational and false belief that was pushed on you as a child, so there's no excuse for giving up on overcoming it. >>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>> >>> This is exactly it. I self insert as my favourite MCs. There are characters I simply can't self insert into. The demands I listed, describes me or how I want to be; a character I would be able to easily self insert into. >>> >>> I can read about female MCs, but not when it's for wish fulfillment. I can't self insert into a female MC. I can admire her, and enjoy her story. But my capacity to identify with her is much diminished. >> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >> >> What's the non charitable explanation I wonder? >>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+3] (2 days later) >>> >>> Well, there are a few possible non-charitable explanations. There are some (terrible) men who believe that only men can be rational, and that women are irrational, childlike creatures ruled only by our emotions. Apparently some of those men have come into the sub in the past, asking for works with male MCs because they think a rational female MC would be unrealistic. >>>> **u/None** [+3] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> Oooh. I did not believe that was possible. I know there are people who are male supremacist(speaking as one who may be considered one), but... I certainly did not expect that from them. >>>> >>>> While women may tend to be more emotional(or is the whole left brained thing a myth they told us in school?) that does not mean there cannot be more rational. He would have been more nah forget it. I can't find something redeeming about it. >>>> >>>> Suffice it to say, that stereotyping an enter demographic is about the most irrational, unscientifc, asinine, inane fatuous thing I've ever seen somebody do. I really hate stereotypes(in real life, they are somewhat tolerable in fiction). >>>> >>>> The irony, is that that statement is irrational, and should be contradicted by empirical evidence(i don't know any real person but several fictional characters. However, I'm pretty sure there are women who are quite rational). > **u/Gurkenglas** [+10] (20 hours later) > > The bullshitlessness of this request is refreshing. > **u/hoja_nasredin** [+4] *Dai-Gurren Brigade* (2 hours later) > > hpmor.com > **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+11] (5 hours later) > > Man, you do *not* belong here, and I say this as an apocalyptic Christian who's somehow wound up becoming a regular reader on this sub. >> **u/callmebrotherg** [+14] *now posting as /u/callmesalticidae* (7 hours later) >> >> Seconding. >> >> What is up with all these people asking for male MCs? This is the third one in the past couple of months, I'm pretty sure. >> >> You ever notice that we don't have anybody coming in and requesting that we give only stories that have female MCs? >>> **u/Iconochasm** [+7] (9 hours later) >>> >>> There's a common criticism of SJWs regarding fiction. It generally goes something like "The inability to identify with characters who don't match the reader's exact demographics betrays a failure of empathy and conceptual ability". I suspect we're seeing the wild version of that trait, without the ideological framework. Or a more charitable possibility, as /u/hoja_nasredin suggested, a misfiring heuristic to avoid anvil-dropping. >>> >>> I also suspect that people asking for female MCs would be more likely to ask in a more women-oriented/dominated venue. I see them occasionally in /r/fantasy, for example, and I'd be shocked if there weren't /TwoXFiction type subs. >>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+2] (3 days later) >>>> >>>> Just for clarification: Asking that uncommon demographics be respectfully represented in fiction (instead of ignored entirely, or represented only as objects of ridicule) isn't about being unable to identify with other types of characters. >>>> >>>> The issue is that our mental model of human society is heavily influenced by fiction. For, say, a gay person to see gay characters represented in fiction as people worthy of basic respect is validating to their identity. Conversely, to see an absence of gay characters gives the impression that they're weird, uniquely broken people unworthy of a place in society (this is particularly damaging to young people still coming to grips with their identity). >>>> >>>> I have a personal experience with this. As an aromantic asexual person, I *never* came across characters who were like me while I was growing up, except in the form of heartless, sociopathic villains. I wasn't even aware that that was a way "real" people could be. It took me a long time to accept that I genuinely lacked romantic and sexual attraction, and even longer to stop thinking of it as something wrong with me. I believe that seeing respectful depictions of aromantic and/or asexual characters in fiction would have helped me accept myself much earlier, and saved me a lot of heartache. >>>> >>>> Just as importantly, respectful representation also affects how the rest of society thinks of your demographic. If you're a gay person surrounded by people who never see gay characters in fiction, or see them depicted only as perverts, that will affect the way they treat you. I believe that the increasing amount of positive representation of LGBT+ characters has done enormous good in shifting perceptions of LGBT+ people, in a feedback loop that then further encourages representation. I've watched my own mother's opinion of trans people change dramatically just over the course of a single TV show centered on trans characters. >>>>> **u/Iconochasm** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>> >>>>> That criticism is essentially about taking that reasonable point, and turning it into a pathology. Seeing some aromantic, asexual characters would have been beneficial. But I'm going to guess that you don't think *every* character, or even every work *must* have or contain that sort of character. Would you think it was reasonable to demand that some author change an existing character to fit your specifications, or would that strike you as deranged arrogance? >>>>>> **u/CeruleanTresses** [+1] (3 days later) >>>>>> >>>>>> No, of course I don't think that every work needs to contain an aro/ace character. And I also don't think that that kind of attitude is anywhere near as common as people seem to think it is. It mainly comes from a few young teenagers, still in the process of establishing their identities and still in the beginning stages of navigating social justice concepts, who try to shoehorn LGBT+ identities into every character they like. For the record, I don't consider that a "pathology" or "deranged." It's just a manifestation of standard kid stuff--essentially trying too hard to earn a place in a community they identify with, combined with the black-and-white thinking of someone who isn't yet equipped to handle a lot of nuance. >>>>>> >>>>>> The majority of people who advocate for representation are reasonable, and it's frustrating when people dismiss our concerns because they equate us with a few confused teenagers. The "make every character gay" stuff gets a lot of play because people find it funny and spread it around to mock it, but it's really not that popular or influential of a stance, and it shouldn't be the focus of the debate surrounding representation. >>> **u/hoja_nasredin** [+5] *Dai-Gurren Brigade* (8 hours later) >>> >>> not !Male MCs sometimes (in my experience around 20% of fics) means author tries to make a gender equality point in his work. And having someone preaching at you through the whole story gets on your nerves. >>>> **u/callmebrotherg** [+7] *now posting as /u/callmesalticidae* (8 hours later) >>>> >>>> Then why not say, "Fics without preaching?" >>>>> **u/nolobargescope** [+5] (a day later) >>>>> >>>>> Not specific enough. HPMOR has a lot of preaching, it just happens to be about politics and utilitarianism and AI safety. >>>>> >>>>> And between "no female MC please" and "no feminist preaching please", I do wonder which would cause the greatest furore in comments... >>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>> >>> I self insert as my favourite MCs. There are characters I simply can't self insert into. The demands I listed, describes me or how I want to be; a character I would be able to easily self insert into. >>> >>> I can read about female MCs, but not when it's for wish fulfillment. I can't self insert into a female MC. I can admire her, and enjoy her story. But my capacity to identify with her is much diminished. >>>> **u/scruiser** [+2] *CYOA* (2 days later) >>>> >>>> Have you ever felt pushed around by society, like the system is trying to screw you? Have you ever wished the protagonist of stories, the ones that are too good to kill their enemies, would at least maim them badly enough to stop them from coming back? Do you like stories where the main character fights and scrapes and struggles for every advantage and eventually takes down her enemies hard? >>>> >>>> If you answered yes to at least two of those questions, I would strongly recommend [Worm](https://parahumans.wordpress.com/table-of-contents/). Sure you think you can't derive wish fulfillment from a female MC, but I think this story might be enough to change your mind. The first couple of chapters with all the bullying shit can be painful to read, but it makes the MCs development into a ruthless badass that much more satisfying.* >>>> >>>> *To other people that read worm... yeah I am playing up the aspects I think Dragon-God would like, I know the story is more nuanced and has a subtler message, but on my first read through I was mostly just enjoying Taylor's raw tenacity. >>>>> **u/None** [+2] (2 days later) >>>>> >>>>> Ok. >>>>> I'll give it a try. I answered yes to most of them. >> **u/None** [+4] (2 days later) >> >> Why do I not belong here? ;( >>> **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+5] (2 days later) >>> >>> You just seem like a caricature of the kind of person our community's detractors would want to associate us with. I think you're learning quickly, though - I tentatively take back my earlier statement. > **u/Ilverin** [+3] (8 hours later) > > Following stories satisfy some criteria those being rationalism and Bayesianism: > > [Just another day in utopia](http://lesswrong.com/lw/8zs/just_another_day_in_utopia/) > > [The Adventure: a new Utopia story](http://lesswrong.com/lw/od6/the_adventure_a_new_utopia_story/) > **u/None** [+3] (a minute later) > > Transported from /r/noveltranslations ; I was recommended this subreddit from there. >> **u/NoYouTryAnother** [+5] (a day later) >> >> First. Not about fiction at all, but read some www.slatestarcodex.com, particularly [his article on Moloch](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/). Wrong though that blog sometimes is, it is a thing to cherish. If you like it, read on. >> >> So, there's a comment above which says "you don't belong here." I'm going to put my foot in it. They are both completely wrong and also accurate. Culturally, you're a poor fit, your expressed desires and viewpoints too vulgar and unrefined. But you're probably a dozen times more like the average lesswrong member than that average member was before reading Yudkowsky, and for good or ill lesswrong and Yudkowsky are/were the backbone of this community. This place absolutely has what you want and that is in no way limited to being a source of fiction. >> >> You say you came here from /r/noveltranslations. The typical light novel is, well, pretty fucking low IQ, and that's coming from somebody that has a great deal of contempt for the fetish people around here have for the term IQ. The /r/rational sub is ostensibly focussed on "rational" fiction, but in fact it is a hub for the LessWrong exodus's Rationality community. People here care first and formost about ideals, ideas, how to live in the real world, and discussion around that. /r/rational is the sub that aggregates Rational fiction for these people due to the historical accident of Yudkowsky's magnum opus proselytizing peice being a "rational" fiction work, making such fiction an interest in its own right for these people. But if you come in only caring about fiction and talking as though that matters and you're ignorant of local rules and customs and cultural viewpoints and values, you might get told you're in the wrong place. >> >> You're not in the wrong place, but you have an amazing experience of growing and learning ahead of you (I imagine anyway, from what you've said, that you'll like what you found around these parts, and many, myself excluded, have found the LessWrong and related material profound and life-changing.) >> >> So, you should read www.lesswrong.com 's Sequences. You should read www.slatestarcodex.com . You should take a peak at /r/slatestarcodex . See if these seem to be things you'll value. If they do, welcome to the community. >>> **u/scruiser** [+3] *CYOA* (a day later) >>> >>> > But you're probably a dozen times more like the average lesswrong member than that average member was before reading Yudkowsky, and for good or ill lesswrong and Yudkowsky are/were the backbone of this community. >>> >>> I was a fundamentalist Christian.. so I guess I can't hold it against someone if they want edgy character. >>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> What do you guys mean by "edgy":. Not definition, but kind of character. >>>>> **u/scruiser** [+5] *CYOA* (2 days later) >>>>> >>>>> Edgy is slang for a particular type of over-the-top, trying-too-hard style grimness. Generally the connotation is that whoever designed the character is trying too hard, overused cliche tropes, doesn't really grasp/empathize with how their character would play out in reality, etc. Like if a character cries tears of blood while meditating on slaughtering their enemies who tortured their parents in front of them when they were a kid. If this same character has a katana that they bisect their enemies with and an ability that grants them immense power over darkness and shadow but drives them into a blood rage. Any one of these elements might be okay on their own. Altogether at once, they might be okay if they were played for black-comedy or parody. They might even work if they were gradually introduced and made sense in the plot in an overall well written story. But thrown in all at once, played seriously, they are too much. It gets completely ridiculous if the character is an OC (original character) and/or SI (self insert). So yeah, what you were asking for with "pride" and "amorality" and character I can empathize with via inserting myself into their (awesome) role trigger a lot of the warning signs of an over the top "edgy" character. >>>>> >>>>> For more examples: /r/justneckbeardthings and /r/mallninjashit >>> **u/None** [+2] (2 days later) >>> >>> I've already gotten my own copies of HPMOR and RAZ. >>> I think I'll be visiting lesswrong often in the future. >>>> **u/bassicallyboss** [+1] (2 days later) >>>> >>>> RAZ? Is that *Rationality: From AI to Zombies*? >>>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 days later) >>>>> >>>>> Yes it is. ---