#this is one of those really classic like

[sundry-whovengerslocked]

Doctor Who "Rogue" memes

I've made memes. enjoy.

(contains slight spoilers)

firstly, ones that are more encompassing:

regarding the episode itself:

and finally, Captain Jack Harkness stages of grief:

[drpicklesart]

they are going to mehnahnaroo

[mercutiotakethewheel]

Kendra, inwardly: Omg I am so scared right now. I’m going to die here. This freakyass magical creatures about to do me in. And could do so easily, which I am imagining very vividly right now. Those are huge teeth. I am fighting god to hold it together right now. I don’t want to die. Why am I here? Just to suffer, every night I close my eyes and—

Kendra, outwardly: I cast vicious mockery.

[quietwingsinthesky]

“least favorite” isn’t anywhere close to bad. it just shows how damn hard the competition is going, but we’re talking about gold medals all around for each actor i’ve seen portray the doctor so far.

[deoidesign]

Can you make a tutorial on how you world build and make ocs? I can't seem to make any people in my brain, but then when I try to come up with environments jobs, beliefs and little details to slowly come up with someone, I think: well I don't really know how people have influenced the world- it's a weird loop

To be honest, I don't think I can! Writing is an extremely personal process. The way I write is directly related to how I process things, what I find important in stories, years of my own analysis of my and other's writing, etc... The way you write will be unique to you, as well. But I can explain how I personally think of it.

The short answer:

Write. Write anything and everything, it's a tool to explore your ideas. Analyze your own writing, and write more. Then, as you discover which ideas you want to develop, write more to explore them more. You won't know what you want otherwise!

The long answer:

I think this kind of loop is common. It's easy to feel like everything needs to be done "at once," because our job as writers is to make elements logically fit with each other for our readers. But as you've discovered, developing multiple elements simultaneously isn't really possible, or at least is extremely difficult.

Personally, when I think of writing, I break it into three major elements; characters, world, and plot. As much as possible every scene explores one or more of these, and as much as possible these three things tie back into what I personally consider most important: theme.

Everything I do is in service of the themes I want to present. Without them my events feel aimless. It can take a while to discover them, but they're the core of my work. You will have to discover what you feel is the core of yours. Analyzing other media helps with this too.

Concepts in your brain exist in a state of infinite potential. But when you start writing you have to start making choices, which removes potential as you move forward... But you have to move forward anyways. If there's ideas you want to explore later, you can always explore them later.

What this ends up meaning, to answer your question, is that I don't think of my characters as "people in my brain" or my worlds as something people have influenced... Not at their core, at least. They are tools that I use to represent specific ideas. Obviously they're also my blorbos, but mostly they're serving a specific narrative purpose.

So above all else... Write. Write, and discover what you're writing about, and then start over and write with that in mind. Keep doing this. But you have to write!

[sysig]

Coming in to play! (Patreon)

[girlwiththegreenhat]

i genuinely love when you can tell an older show was Not made with high quality video viewing in mind. i am watching knight rider and constantly seeing all the little mistakes they surely brushed under the rug thinking nobody would see them on their crunchy little CRTs back in the 80s, that are huge attention grabbers now in HD fullscreen on my 3 foot computer monitor

the biggest one of course is all the drivers/controllers for the (in-universe) self driving car, kitt. there's guys tucked down in the footwells who can't always stay out of the shot. there's a guy who has a Car Seat Suit to blend in and look like the drivers seat from a distance, but you can always tell when that's the method they're using for a particular shot because its so much thicker than the passenger seat next to it and the headrest is missing it's cutout section. in at least one instance he starts taking the suit off too early, on a focus shot of the damn car, so its REAL visible.

all the extremely obvious stunt drivers or performers who look nothing like the character they're supposed to be

props, such as animals, vanishing from the car interior for stunt/race sequences.

the production crew (or their shadows) being visible in the background. only at a glance, but its especially hilarious in shots where nobody else is supposed to be around

the camera panning out from a sound stage set far enough that you can actually see over the edges of the set and into the stage they were filming in. mostly this happens with their truck trailer mobile unit thing.

this one isn't a mistake but every time the car "turbo jumps" they CLEARLY hide the ramp behind another car, a prop, the environment, and its just. so charming. sometimes its blatantly on screen just for a moment. like... of Course in real life this car isn't magically leaping 20 feet, of course its a ramp, but it's still so silly and fun to be reminded of how they were doing those stunts to begin with.

also not really a mistake but related, the bracket they keep on the front of the car for stunt work.... is just left on half the time. cuz it's a pain to take on and off.

and there are more examples that are more unique that haven't cemented themselves in my head well yet, but these are the more notable or common things i see and it's really charming. if i'm not giggling to myself noticing the "seams" and flaws and so human imperfections of your show or movie what EVEN is the point. hollywood is too flashy these days i think!

[skitskatdacat63]

Guys what do you think he's listening to?

[trekkiehood]

.

[didnt-hear-idsb-live-again]

I cannot deal with shopping for bras anymore like is anyone gonna tell Aerie every single one of these these are just. TANK TOPS.

[mariocki]

Shadows of Fear: At Occupier's Risk (1.3, Thames, 1971)

"I happened to look into one of the other rooms and there were dust sheets."

"If there were other guests, you would have seen them."

"I once lived in a flat for six months and never saw anyone in the house. Heard them, yes, but never saw them."

"No. There's no one else here."

"Good."

[mars-ipan]

hey folks did you know i love super dangan ronpa 2

[t4tails]

What's your favorite Sonic game, if you have one?

[inamindfarfaraway]

I love that we're getting focus on Chris Rodriguez early in the TV show, so that we have time to get invested in him before he a) betrays the camp and b) is driven so insane that only Dionysus can cure him. Knowing him beforehand will also make his relationship with Clarrisse, friendship and romance, feel more interesting.

What other cool, fun, not-heartbreaking characters will the show give more attention and depth? Silena Beauregarde? Charlie Beckendorf? Micheal Yew? Castor and Pollux? I can't wait!

[pasiphile]

Psst... based on the research you did, is there anything reliable you can tell us about personality and how it works?

Gladly!

The current commonly accepted personality model is generally referred to as the Big Five, and it's relatively rare in that it's as close as a consensus as you can reach in psychology. There have been tonnes of research that keep turning up the same general results. Research across cultures, with babies, with animals, self reported questionnaires versus descriptions, open ended versus multiple choice questions, relationships with biomarkers... Obviously they're not all exactly identical, because psychology is not an Exact science, but the results are always similar enough that as far as models go, it's about as solid as you can get.

So, what is this model? It very simply says that there are five big, independent character traits that people can vary in, easily remembered by the handy acronym OCEAN :

- openness to experience : how curious you are, how interested you are in culture and how much imagination you have versus how much you prefer to concentrate on practical things and how conservative you are (in the non-political meaning of the word)

- conscientiousness: how much do you care about efficiency, accuracy and being on time, versus how sloppy or disorganised you are.

- extraversion: you know this one. How much do you like/need interaction with other people.

- agreability: how nice you are. Are you generally well-disposed towards people or are you more distrustful?

- neuroticism: are you a big worrier or are you more laidback?

Now, all of these are phrased like it's a choice between two options, but what the Big Five model also keeps turning up is that these five are a spectrum, with a large majority of people being sort of in the middle. Most people dislike being alone all day but also get tired from being in big groups for a long time. Most people worry about bigger, important things but less about smaller things. Most people want to be accurate and careful in general but don't mind being a bit more sloppy when it matters less to them. In statistical terms, they all follow a gauss curve, which looks like this (with the vertical axis being the amount of people and the horizontal one the score out of ten you would get on a questionnaire) :

Which means that if you take a group of random 100 people, only a handful will be on the extremes of the spectrum (the party animal versus the recluse) while 60 to 70 people will have no real, strong preferences either way.

And that's why personality models that want to divide people up into distinct groups are, objectively, wrong. The differences between someone who scores 49 and someone who scores 51 on an extraversion scale are minimal, but those personality type theories will have you believe those two are radically different people. One of the major issues with the MBTI is, in fact, that a lot of people keep getting different results if they retake the test a few weeks or months later, exactly because of this reason : if you're an average scorer (and again, most people are), choosing between two extremes makes no sense and you're basically assigned a type at random.

The Big Five is by no means a perfect model. There's doubt whether it can really be applied that easily to non-western cultures. The interaction with mental health and neurodivergence is still unclear (are people with anxiety just extremely high on the neuroticism scale, or is anxiety a separate thing that influences the results?). But it's been replicated enough that the core of it is, at this point beyond doubt. Meanwhile the MBTI, Insights Discovery, Kolb's learning styles and all those other "you're either type A or type B" models that are rife in the business world are scientifically bullshit.

Personality doesn't come in types. Personality is a spectrum, with a few people in the extremes but the majority somewhere in the middle.  And ignoring that in favour of putting people in neat but inaccurate boxes is very dangerous.

[sysig]

I have an idea for the requesttober, could you make Scriabin like an endermen? I feel that Scriabin would be an endermen if he were in Minecraft's world

Day 11 - No eye contact >:(