Hmmm… I'm not totally happy with this one, truth be told. I think I could have found a better picture, and I'm a little uncertain about how I formatted the interview… I'm also not sure about the title. But wuddayagonna do?
Date: 02 Jul 2010 21:28
Number of posts: 32
RSS: New posts
It turns you into a bird. Hmm… Would it work on any other species? Like, if we got a monkey with antisocial tendencies or somesuch, would it turn into a bird? Also, I'd like more information on how the wing growths are traumatic. Are they just really really painful and generally bad for the body as a whole? Or do they go to a different level? I'd think they'd have a bit of a psychological effect on a person, but from the interview they seem to be happy with the idea.
Overall, it's nice, but I'd like a little more information.
I downvoted both for the picture and for the mention of a "psychic resistance score". Other than that the article isn't terrible, I probably would neither down nor upvote it otherwise.
Hasn't a Psychic Resistance Score been mentioned once or twice in other articles? Given the number of mind-affecting SCPs the Foundation deals with, it makes sense that they'd look into a way to measure which personnel were more or less resistant to such effects.
I'm sure that a psych score of some time has been mentioned before. In fact I recall at least two varieties, one for resistance and one for psychic aptitude. I have a few problems with that idea.
1) It invites a whole bunch of pseudoscientific baggage onto the site. A lot of good SCPs thrive on pseudoscience and that's fine. But each article individually decides what pseudoscience to take on.
2) Different people use different scales, leading to a wide variety of different psych scores being cited in different articles. We could get around that by standardizing a particular score to use in such articles, but it would still make no sense to me because
3) Who's to say that resistance to one SCP correlates to resistance to another? One of the fundamental (to me) features of the Foundation is that it deals with an impossibly broad range of phenomena. Links between different items in the catalog are tenuous at best, and they violate the known laws of nature all the time. The existence of a quantifiable psych score implies the existence of another set of laws that SCP items do obey, and that is a problem.
To state it another way, why should someone who is resistant to, say, SCP-114 be more resistant to SCP-194, or any other mind affecting type SCP? Each SCP has its own effect and criteria, after all, and someone who is antisocial and extremely pacifistic might succumb immediately to 194 while displaying abnormal resistance to 114. And so on.
The final question I would ask is this. Does adopting a site wide psych score help the Foundation site as a whole? My answer is no, it doesn't necessarily make sense, bends my suspension of disbelief, and would be annoying for some authors who want to write a mind affecting SCP without having to reference psychic anything. But that's just my personal take on the subject.
Sorry for the wordy post, and for cluttering up your comments section, malcolm.
There's always the trick of "Personnel scoring at least a [REDACTED] on the *Name*-*Name* *Measurement* Test", implying some sort of standardized testing protocol exists, but giving no real information about it (and probably using a different test in every article).
@Yoric: I know the picture sucks, and I'm still looking for a better one. I'm open to suggestions.
@Cadence: No "psychic resistance score," hmmm? Do we have an official term for resistance to the mental effects of SCPs? If we don't, it might help to define one, because that issue comes up in many articles.
Why not say 'resistance to the mental effects of SCP-194'? There's no need to create a standardized scale for psychic effects. It'd undermine the whole 'creepy because we don't know about it' effect. If you can quantify darkness, it ain't so scary.
Ravens and crows are not interchangeable. Besides the fact they are separate species, their basic behaviors are totally different: ravens usually travel in pairs, while crows form families of mated pairs. Downvoted for not doing the research— and that's even before the iffy concept of turning into a crow raven corvid.
Apparently we're not looking at the same taxonomic classifications. Ravens are within the Crow family. Still, you are right that I probably shouldn't refer to them as "crows," for the sake of avoiding confusion, and I will correct that.
Ah, I see where you were coming from. Genus Corvus is made up of "the true crows", but the problem is that "In the United States and Canada, the word "crow" is used to refer to the American Crow" (from your article). And either way, the corvids in your picture aren't ravens.
I'm still looking for a better picture. I would have preferred a shot of someone in the middle stages of transformation, but Google Images failed me. That said, what kind of corvids are they? Maybe it's just me, but they don't look like American crows…
I'd call them American Crows, but they may also be Carrion Crows. Can't really be certain from the picture, though I can rule out all of the corvids that are not all-black, the ones that aren't gregarious, the ones whose ranges don't overlap with civilization, and the ones that aren't threatened. [/taxonomy nerd]
A bit of a problem I have, perhaps a simple overlooked error:
SCP-194 gathers in large numbers around introverted persons with antisocial tendencies and little or no history of violence… Persons who are in prolonged contact with SCP-194 become SCP-194-1… SCP-194-1 quickly develop antisocial personality disorders and an isolationist mindset if they did not already have those attributes.
Are you saying that SCP-194 only gathers around antisocial people? Because this seems a bit contradictory.