# Pick 2



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

This is based on the three instinctual variants: Soc, Sx, SP.

Picture you are in the following scenario: The world has experienced a worst-case zombie apocalypse with the far majority of the population of earth now being zombies. There are still pockets of humanity around the place, and individuals and small groups of survivors can still be found around most places. Generally speaking resources are scarce, especially food and clean water, so many humans have to also avoid starvation. Some groups of humans have formed into factions that war with eachother for resources, and there are even some known to pick off loner humans for whatever they have on them. It's a dangerous world, and you are a survivor.

The difference is, you get to pick two of the three choices to apply to your situation. The first option you pick you will have a bonus towards that choice, the second won't have the bonus, and the option you do not pick you will miss out on (at least for a while). Think carefully about your choices, as there are pros and cons to each, some obvious and some not so obvious.

These are your choices...

*1)* Being part of a decent sized community of fellow survivors, with people ranging in skills and perspectives. Starting out with some degree of a defensive wall around your community. This community will start out already valuing you to some degree, but it will be up to you to keep it that way, and up to you how you contribute to it.

*2)* Having one loyal buddy you have grown up with who will always have your back. This person is 100% loyal and trustworthy and would die for you if it came to it. If this person dies however, they will not be replaced by another.

*3)* Owning a plentiful hold of basic resources (way more than you can carry) that only you know the location of and it is not easy to find. It will be a long time before you run out of anything. If the hold is discovered tho it could mean trouble.

Bonuses of choosing each first are...

*1)* Your community has several expert/professionals among them, including a doctor, a marine of high rank, a botanist, an engineer, a carpenter, a chemist, and a bunch more. A very secure wall is around your community, plus there is a look out tower where one can see a fair distance away from all directions. This community takes extra effort to care for the elderly, sick, injured or otherwise in special need, provided they are also within the community.

*2)* Your buddy is more than the average person, but happens to be a survival expert as well as having a decent weapon and the skill to actually use it. This person has a keen eye to spot dangers as well as resources, and knows the area well and has a good sense of direction.

*3)* Additionally you also have an assortment of all kinds of weapons, countless ammunition, hunting equipment, and First Aid, medicine and survival equipment, plus other random stuff that you can think of uses for, which you will also personally have at least a degree of skill to use all of. The hold is especially well hidden.

If you don't choose it...

*1)* You won't start out with more than one other person. You will never be fully accepted into any community you find, nor trusted by them. You are very unlikely to get aid from communities you may encounter, but they are more likely to be hostile towards you.

*2)* You won't start out with any close friends. You will never develop a close friendship with anyone. It is very unlikely that someone will sacrifice their own life for yours in any situation, and also unlikely for anyone to risk their life for yours unless it's an incredibly low risk.

*3)* You won't start out with any resources aside from your clothing. You will never find large amounts of resources, but will find small amounts. If you find or receive a weapon you will be likely to lose it at some point. You may at times need to rely on others to assist you in getting resources.


What are your two choices?



Closed by op request.


----------



## Dragon Rider (Sep 8, 2014)

#2 As my first choice. 
#3 As my second choice.

1 is bound to go wrong in many ways. And I fear they would throw me out of the group for being useless :ninja: A loyal person would keep me safe and I don't have to worry about betrayal. 3 for my second choice, if I die, at least I'll die knowing I wasn't a burden to anyone and didn't mess up their plans or strategies to survive.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Dragon Rider said:


> #2 As my first choice.
> #3 As my second choice.
> 
> 1 is bound to go wrong in many ways. And I fear they would throw me out of the group for being useless :ninja: A loyal person would keep me safe and I don't have to worry about betrayal. 3 for my second choice, if I die, at least I'll die knowing I wasn't a burden to anyone and didn't mess up their plans or strategies to survive.


Those are good points, but also a very negative way to view things. As for being discarded for being seen as useless, for example...Due to this, since I hadn't really thought of that, I have adjusted the first option to show that the community already values you at least to a degree, so on starting out you don't have to worry about being thrown out, tho you may still want to think about how you would contribute, and just because they view you as valuable now doesn't mean they always will.

Also to consider: What if your one friend dies? What if that hold of resources is discovered by others? There are pros and cons to each choice.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Speaking as someone who has survived a real post-apocalyptic situation (no zombies involved, the world can go wrong enough without them!), I can tell you there are differences between what "strategically" seems good, and what I actually did.

My first thought upon reading the OP--"OK, humans need to band together. They're not gonna solve this problem without pooling all resources." So, you'd think I was the sort to rely upon others under these sorts of circumstances.

Reality: In my situation, I totally withdrew from human contact. The broad masses were dangerous, intimates were untrustworthy (no one tried to help me or save my life after all). No one cared about me, I cared about no one. I pooled whatever money I had into safe international institutions and made a firm point not to get involved despite my dire circumstances. I didn't have the energy to do anything but get through the day. I cut off from the present moment and neglected myself. It was like the "don't choose" option for all 3.

If I were a SP subtype, it might vaguely make sense, but I'm certain I'm not SP-first (and I can justify this, but not here not now). I think I'm social.

While it all works in theory, you tend not to see how this stuff really manifests till the shit hits the fan and you're dealing with real-world circumstances. Even then, you've got the "negative manifestation" of each instinct to be reckoned with, which manifests almost like the blindspot. (someone above mentioned the group and betrayal. I agree; I don't get along too well with groups, but I still call myself SOC).


----------



## Dragon Rider (Sep 8, 2014)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Those are good points, but also a very negative way to view things. As for being discarded for being seen as useless, for example...Due to this, since I hadn't really thought of that, I have adjusted the first option to show that the community already values you at least to a degree, so on starting out you don't have to worry about being thrown out, tho you may still want to think about how you would contribute, and just because they view you as valuable now doesn't mean they always will.
> 
> Also to consider: What if your one friend dies? What if that hold of resources is discovered by others? There are pros and cons to each choice.


I kinda went with my gut instinct. True there are pros and cons to each situation, but there are pros and cons to me as a person as well. Recognizing in which situation I would thrive most in, I went with 2 (still wouldn't change it for 1 even if they did value me as a person - I feel like I have nothing of value to offer them and would just hinder their chances of survival as well as they would for mine) A person who is loyal to me, would teach me all the requirements for survival before they died if they're an expert in survival skills as the bounus suggests. A learned experience and a reason to go on, in order not to make my loyal person's sacrifice meaningless. Think, the father and the son fromThe Road by Cormack McCarthy or Lee and Clementine from the Walking Dead game.

Edit: Also, I didnt think to include this originally, but after mulling over it a bit, I realize why my second option would be 3 over 1. A lot of times in difficult situations, the group has to decide on very tough decisions that could involve leaving someone behind or thinking of a suitable punishment for someone who decides to betray the group. I don't want to be a part of that. If the majority decides to do something I dont feel like i'm personally okay with, I dont wanna follow that group because I feel like they're becoming corrupt. I know its kind of a black and white opinion but I feel like the reason why apocolyptic scenerios can never go back to the way they were before the calamities is because most people are willing to sacrifice these human qualities in favor of survival. The only way to ensure survival is by maintaining your humanity.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Dragon Rider said:


> I kinda went with my gut instinct. True there are pros and cons to each situation, but there are pros and cons to me as a person as well. Recognizing in which situation I would thrive most in, I went with 2 (still wouldn't change it for 1 even if they did value me as a person - I feel like I have nothing of value to offer them and would just hinder their chances of survival as well as they would for mine) A person who is loyal to me, would teach me all the requirements for survival before they died if they're an expert in survival skills as the bounus suggests. A learned experience and a reason to go on, in order not to make my loyal person's sacrifice meaningless.


I understand, but wouldn't, by that logic, you also be a hindrance to that one loyal friend? Not that you really would be, but if you were, wouldn't it be easier to be less of a hindrance in a group when there are more people to carry eachother's loads? Just a thought anyway. There are no right or wrong answers to this with all of them having pros and cons.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

The Typeless Wonder said:


> Speaking as someone who has survived a real post-apocalyptic situation (no zombies involved, the world can go wrong enough without them!), I can tell you there are differences between what "strategically" seems good, and what I actually did.
> 
> My first thought upon reading the OP--"OK, humans need to band together. They're not gonna solve this problem without pooling all resources." So, you'd think I was the sort to rely upon others under these sorts of circumstances.
> 
> ...


Would you be comfortable telling about your survival situation in detail? I'm very interested to hear more about it, especially since I have an interest in what to do to survive disasters.

You are very right, we can't know for sure what we would do until we are actually in such a situation, but for the sake of theory, the question is what would you choose if you could choose...and in your real life situation you didn't have the supportive community, the loyal friend, or the hold of resources, so it is a bit different. If you could have chosen any of these for your real life scenario then they would actually be there - the loyal friend would actually be a loyal friend for example.

It is a good idea to consider what you brought up in any case tho.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

^ Well, I would have chosen the social-oriented one (like I mentioned, it was my first thought). I don't want to talk about my life problems right here right now, but I'll send you a PM within the next couple of days since you are interested.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

The Typeless Wonder said:


> ^ Well, I would have chosen the social-oriented one (like I mentioned, it was my first thought). I don't want to talk about my life problems right here right now, but I'll send you a PM within the next couple of days since you are interested.


Cool, so which would be your second choice?

That's fair enough, I look forward to reading your PM then, and thank you for that.


----------



## Dragon Rider (Sep 8, 2014)

He's a Superhero! said:


> I understand, but wouldn't, by that logic, you also be a hindrance to that one loyal friend? Not that you really would be, but if you were, wouldn't it be easier to be less of a hindrance in a group when there are more people to carry eachother's loads? Just a thought anyway. There are no right or wrong answers to this with all of them having pros and cons.


True, I would be. But I suppose if I ever became a burden too much for them to bear, it would be reasonable for them to walk away from me. And I would understand that decision but feel like they were betraying me all this time by making me think I had their full support. If i'm willing to learn and become more independent, I'd expect you to either help me fulfill that task by keeping me as your burden for a while or pass me on to someone else with the patience to do that. Im not forcing you to take me with you.

Btw this is a really fun discussion ^_^


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Cool, so which would be your second choice?


Likely the sp-oriented one as it's written.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Dragon Rider said:


> True, I would be. But I suppose if I ever became a burden too much for them to bear, it would be reasonable for them to walk away from me. And I would understand that decision but feel like they were betraying me all this time by making me think I had their full support. If i'm willing to learn and become more independent, I'd expect you to either help me fulfill that task by keeping me as your burden for a while or pass me on to someone else with the patience to do that. Im not forcing you to take me with you.
> 
> Btw this is a really fun discussion ^_^


This is fun for me too! ;D

That I understand, and I suppose in a way you'd be less of a burden as you'd only be a burden for one person - who, might I add, actively wants to support you. Also, seeing as you have a nice supply of food and clean water, you would already be contributing without doing anything else. That would buy you time to figure out what else you could do, and at the very least you are an extra set of ears and eyes to keep alert for zombies...that alone is handy during a zombie apocalypse. Since there are two of you, you can take turns keeping watch during the night, which could save eachother's lives - yet another way to contribute. That are plenty of ways to contribute that actually can make a difference.

One thing I like about having just one other person over a group is when it comes to group decisions - now this is again a pro and a con at the same time. With one other person it would be less arguing and faster decision making, while more people means more perspectives. The thing is I hate to have to wait for everyone to make up their minds, and the arguing can be irritating if they are always doing it.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

The Typeless Wonder said:


> Likely the sp-oriented one as it's written.


This would be a good addition as a way to support that community (if you so choose to  *evil laugh*). This does mean that you get the con of not choosing the loyal friend option at all, so no-one in your community will be your close friend - tho they certainly can become friends. Probably a bigger deal is that it will mean it's less likely that someone else will risk their life to save yours, which could mean a lot during a zombie apocalypse...but then again simply by being more cautious you may be able to avoid such dangers in the first place.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

2 is the only option I'd pick as 1 and 3 require some major compromises (from the way I see things) so I'd vary between 1 and 3 as my second choice depending on the circumstances.

Like option 3 has the catastrophic possibility of someone finding your cache. Option 1 sounds safe but your community would more than likely be decimated by raiders if they decided to attack which makes dying off due to attrition and an unsustainable community size a real possibility.

Option 2 is the safety first choice. Although you clearly don't want to lose your survivalist friend, no matter the cost.

Ideally, you would want access to all three and not have to leave one option out.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

@He's a Superhero!


What are the characteristics of the Buddy? Can I pick them?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

MNiS said:


> 2 is the only option I'd pick as 1 and 3 require some major compromises (from the way I see things) so I'd vary between 1 and 3 as my second choice depending on the circumstances.
> 
> Like option 3 has the catastrophic possibility of someone finding your cache. Option 1 sounds safe but your community would more than likely be decimated by raiders if they decided to attack which makes dying off due to attrition and an unsustainable community size a real possibility.
> 
> ...


Interesting...so if it came down to it, which one would you be most ok about being without out of 1 and 3?

With option 3 there is a chance that others may discover it, but you can always take some out and store it elsewhere for a backup.
Option 1 does threaten to be a big target that could fall apart, but it's unlikely that all of the community would be taken out by one raid.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> @_He's a Superhero!_
> 
> 
> What are the characteristics of the Buddy? Can I pick them?


You can't pick their characteristics, but assume they have at least some characteristics that are in people you typically get along with.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> You can't pick their characteristics, but assume they have at least some characteristics that are in people you typically get along with.



Oh, well that's unhelpful. _I'm_ a puny weakling in a community of people who largely lack the RL experience to be anything else. 

So, given that, 1 and 3. It's all part of my master plan to eventually form my own community. I'll need the experience trained combatants/hunters/foragers/survivalists can bring to help me learn how to survive on my own, although unfortunately they'll likely overshadow me, I can't really deny their necessity. The resources, meanwhile, well...hm...the community would probably ask for them and I'd feel horrible if I concealed its existence _from_ them, but at the same time concealing its existence would allow me to keep the stuff for later...

Hmmmm. Maybe 2's a better start option then, not really from a security perspective but certainly from a "forming my own community" one. I could always make a trade with fighters from another community in that case...resources for training. Hrm. 

...and then I re-read the stipulations. *2 and 3*. _Easily_ *2 and 3*.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Love reading your comments...it's like a mental battle with yourself! 



Chained Divinity said:


> Oh, well that's unhelpful. _I'm_ a puny weakling in a community of people who largely lack the RL experience to be anything else.


Well if you choose a community they won't be your real life community. Think of it as a more ideal community.



Chained Divinity said:


> So, given that, 1 and 3. It's all part of my master plan to eventually form my own community. I'll need the experience trained combatants/hunters/foragers/survivalists can bring to help me learn how to survive on my own, although unfortunately they'll likely overshadow me, I can't really deny their necessity. The resources, meanwhile, well...hm...the community would probably ask for them and I'd feel horrible if I concealed its existence _from_ them, but at the same time concealing its existence would allow me to keep the stuff for later...
> 
> Hmmmm. Maybe 2's a better start option then, not really from a security perspective but certainly from a "forming my own community" one. I could always make a trade with fighters from another community in that case...resources for training. Hrm.
> 
> ...and then I re-read the stipulations. *2 and 3*. _Easily_ *2 and 3*.


Very well then, 2 and 3 it is...which means 1 would be the one you would have to go without, meaning you will never be fully accepted into any future community you find - tho bending the rules a bit, if you start your own community I think that would still work.  Anyway, it's all well and good if you're more of a loner anyway, but paranoia is a dangerous thing, and when people don't trust you they may start to see you as an enemy - but hey, who needs them? You have the most awesome buddy at your side! (unless your buddy dies of course.. :S) And don't forget that people you encounter will be more likely to see you as a threat.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

First choice: #1.

Second choice: #3.

Mostly 'cause that seems kind of realistic... I don't generally _form _'close friendships'. So, that's fine by me. 

I'd have the support of a community of skilled people who know what they're doing, _and _have plenty of resources to survive. Maybe I can keep practicing drawing and painting while the apocolypse rages outside our well-built bunker. :kitteh:

Does that mean I'd be So/Sp, if this little fun writing thing holds weight? Interesting. Makes sense!


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Paradigm said:


> It's human instinct to procreate. Even if one person doesn't want to, you're going to have ten more who do. Bit of a pointless argument, imo.


True, and sometimes it happens anyway. In a community of people there would be a good chance of this happening.



Paradigm said:


> I think zombies would kind of be like hyenas: deadly scavengers, those who eat the easily-killed and already-dead. There has to be a modicum of intelligence for any mammal to survive, virus-controlled or not (though you could argue a more "evolutionary" side such as yours, that the stupid zombies would just die out and it'd be the end of it, but, while totally valid, it's not particularly a debatable point). So assuming a minimum level of intelligence common for mammals -- dogs and cats, for example -- I would think zombies could potentially survive for quite a while, especially considering the amount of "new blood" that could be available.
> 
> ...*plugs in another book* Sorta like in Feed by Mira Grant.


Actually there is a zombie like thing to happens to some insects, and intelligence goes out the window. If something like this developed for mammals it would likely mean similar, unless it was something entirely different causing it, but then would they really be zombies?
Even if it was a lot longer than a month to wait them out, sooner or later they'd disappear.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Quernus said:


> I've been thinking on this.
> 
> My gut reaction was definitely first choice #3, second choice #2... But were anything to happen to my secret stash, I'd be pretty screwed. Without the bonus of #2, there's nothing saying my companion wouldn't be any old shmuck, so if I end up with only them and nothing else? Not good. And, if I lose my companion, well, I'd be all alone and that would suck a lot, even if I had my stash.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you'd find some way to contribute despite how you feel. It may surprise you how useful you could be...maybe you can cook, or stay up for night watch, or build moral by entertaining people, or just being there to emotionally support others. All of these things would be essential for a community.

You are right that being part of a community would automatically mean a degree of access to resources anyway - and especially with that as your first choice, as then you'd have different experts too. In no time at all someone would set up some farm land, and of course others would be all the time scavenging and hunting. There would likely be times when you'd need to go without, or have a small ration, but there would at least be some resources coming in regularly even without your contribution.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

He's a Superhero! said:


> I'm sure you'd find some way to contribute despite how you feel. It may surprise you how useful you could be...maybe you can cook, or stay up for night watch, or build moral by entertaining people, or just being there to emotionally support others. All of these things would be essential for a community.
> 
> You are right that being part of a community would automatically mean a degree of access to resources anyway - and especially with that as your first choice, as then you'd have different experts too.


Yeah, I'm sure I'd figure something out, in terms of making contribution. I'm just observing how my first reflex is to cringe at the group thing, because there are many things about it that are unappealing or scary to think about. I choose it primarily from a survival standpoint, but honestly, I also see no point in living without being part of _some _community - where I can have an identity, experience meaningful change, find emotional and mental stimulation. This is all coming from a very privileged standpoint though.

I think I might end up going with #1 and #3 after all, because I *cannot stand* to think of relying on others to the degree mentioned by giving up #3. I could still have friends by choosing #1, just not close friends, which would not be very satisfying but there are other ways to find meaning, I believe.

But again this is all speculation from the comfort of my bedroom. If this happened in real life, I find it hard to believe I wouldn't naturally be inclined to go for #3 and #2... lol. THIS IS A GOOD POST.



> There would likely be times when you'd need to go without, or have a small ration, but there would at least be some resources coming in regularly even without your contribution.




That doesn't scare me at all. I am very good at making the most of what I have, being resourceful. But I have to feel some sort of independence or ability to do this without relying solely on others.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Quernus said:


> Yeah, I'm sure I'd figure something out, in terms of making contribution. I'm just observing how my first reflex is to cringe at the group thing, because there are many things about it that are unappealing or scary to think about. I choose it primarily from a survival standpoint, but honestly, I also see no point in living without being part of _some _community - where I can have an identity, experience meaningful change, find emotional and mental stimulation. This is all coming from a very privileged standpoint though.
> 
> I think I might end up going with #1 and #3 after all, because I *cannot stand* to think of relying on others to the degree mentioned by giving up #3. I could still have friends by choosing #1, just not close friends, which would not be very satisfying but there are other ways to find meaning, I believe.
> 
> ...


Would you say you are more extroverted or introverted? Since it seems this choice of yours is deeper than just going with your instincts.

EDIT: Just noticed you have INFP listed as your personality type (don't know why I didn't spot that before). Maybe it's the enneatype 9 part of you that influenced your decision to go for the community, as the nine's core fear is loss or separation, this would be the safest way to prevent that fear from coming true.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

He's a Superhero! said:


> It certainly could, but that would be entirely up to you. When you start you would be the only person who knows where it is, so it would be completely up to you whether or not you share it with a community or friend, or if you keep it a secret for your extended survival.


Good point, but weren't the scenarios intended to test our instinctive reactions?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Blazkovitz said:


> Good point, but weren't the scenarios intended to test our instinctive reactions?


Yes, and it started out like that, and it's helped one member work out their stacking already, but then through some of the answers I realized that the choices can still vary. One member who is SP dom chose option 1 first because of their instinct - they see the value of knowledge as a resource. This thread is a learning experience, but not entirely how I expected it to be.


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

I'd go with 
first choice #3
second choice #1

I dont care much about extremely close friendship. Seems more of an emotional loss than a survival mistake.
With 3 at my side, I can easily lead/control the community of 1. I can train people and find the scientists/soldiers from around instead of as a direct bonus.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@He's a Superhero!
I don't think this correlates as nicely with instinctual variants as you were intending (#1 is also very Sp, #2 is anyone who is more 1-1 oriented as opposed to just Sx doms). 

...however, I choose 2 and 3


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Tzara said:


> I'd go with
> first choice #3
> second choice #1
> 
> ...


Leader type, ey? Nice!

I have to say tho that there is a good point to choosing 2, either second or third choice. Unlike the community, you know for a fact that you can fully trust the one friend. The community you may find trustworthy, but there is no guarantee...I think that alone is a point in favour of the one friend option, but aside from that option 2 avoids things like the chaos that can exist in a community when things go wrong. Choosing option 1 as the first option makes it less likely to fall apart tho. Also, with one friend instead of a community it is far easier to live a nomadic life, if that's what you want to do (and from the look of it you might prefer to stay in one place, which is fine too).


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_He's a Superhero!_
> I don't think this correlates as nicely with instinctual variants as you were intending (#1 is also very Sp, #2 is anyone who is more 1-1 oriented as opposed to just Sx doms).
> 
> ...however, I choose 2 and 3


Indeed you are right, which I think made the question more interesting...It's a bit of an eye opener for me as to what the stackings can choose for entirely different reasons.

Awesome pic btw! Where's it from?


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

Interesting thing to think about!

I would pick #1 and #2. There's strength in numbers. While the vast amount of supplies offered by #3 is appealing, at some point you'll need someone to look out for you- in an apocalyptic scenario there is a high likelihood that you're not gonna be in the best shape to fend off zombies at some point.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Indeed you are right, which I think made the question more interesting...It's a bit of an eye opener for me as to what the stackings can choose for entirely different reasons.


point taken



> Awesome pic btw! Where's it from?


Michonne from The Walking Dead


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

First choice 1, second choice 2. But I think the benefits and detriments are skewed (the negatives of choice 3 are negligible if you choose choice 1 first). 

Obviously if the group is dysfunctional than choice 1 is terrible, but if it's at all a cohesive group it's the best survival option.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> First choice 1, second choice 2. But I think the benefits and detriments are skewed (the negatives of choice 3 are negligible if you choose choice 1 first).
> 
> Obviously if the group is dysfunctional than choice 1 is terrible, but if it's at all a cohesive group it's the best survival option.


I see you are a type 6. What is your instinctual stacking, and do you feel that had an influence on your choice?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> I see you are a type 6. What is your instinctual stacking, and do you feel that had an influence on your choice?


Probably sp/sx, and I doubt it.

The weakness for sp doesn't match what the actual weakness for sp is. It's not resources. It's the instinct for self-preservation. An sp last's penalty should be that they have difficulty remembering to take care of themselves, will be much more likely to sacrifice their health and well being for the sake of others, when left on their own will be more helpless, will ignore physical problems so long they exacerbate themselves (infection leading to death instead of being dealt with) etc. None of this has to do with resources, self pres isn't about hoarding. 

Similarly, the self pres strength should be a strong independent streak, the ability to create and maintain a comfortable, refreshing, heavily fortified safe spot including an instinct for escape and attack routes, a streak of neuroticism sufficient that medical problems are quickly and correct treated, yadda yadda.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

#1 I'd do anything to get myself a doctor in case of a disease, I have no problem contributing to the society in exchange of health care if my life is on the edge. The more the merrier, also, it's better than being alone or being with another person.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

I'd say... first choice 1, second choice, maybe... 3?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

mikan said:


> #1 I'd do anything to get myself a doctor in case of a disease, I have no problem contributing to the society in exchange of health care if my life is on the edge. The more the merrier, also, it's better than being alone or being with another person.


So would your second choice be option 3?

A doctor would be very valuable. Would you say your choices reflect your instinctual stacking or your personality type at all?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Eckis said:


> I'd say... first choice 1, second choice, maybe... 3?


Same question for you: Would you say your instinctual stack or your personality type (or maybe even past experience) lead you to your choices?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I would choose #1 as my first choice and #2 as my second. Which is opposite my instinctual variant. 

#1 appeals to me because by saying that I'll start out valued by the community it implies that I'll be in a good position to influence the group and its decisions, and to have my own niche. Groups can be nice if I can be important and have valuable skills to offer the group. I may leave the group if I feel like I'm fading into the background too much, which is likely to happen if the group is large. The other way it appeals to me is that more people means more potential in general. More things can happen, so it won't be boring. 

#2 needs tweaking for it to really appeal to me. I don't want a "buddy". I want something more like an intimate relationship where there's amazing chemistry. Giving the person guns and survival skills doesn't add anything because that has nothing to do with chemistry. 

#3 doesn't appeal to me because I would prefer to travel light and not necessarily stay in one location. Resources would feel like a burden to me if I have to store them or carry them around with me.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Cool idea!
#1 and #2 for sure. As badly as I want #2 to be my first, I can't put all of my safety onto one human being. It's not like I would be able to help them in the same way they can help me.
#3 sucks to lose, but community is so important. Holds everyone together. I like the idea of constantly proving my worth too. Without #1, I'd eventually grow listless and get myself killed quicker. Without #2, I'll never have someone to vent to, my one source of stability in all of this. What if I'm suspicious of some citizens in #1? #2 is the person you can trust to talk to about those things.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> I would choose #1 as my first choice and #2 as my second. Which is opposite my instinctual variant.
> 
> #1 appeals to me because by saying that I'll start out valued by the community it implies that I'll be in a good position to influence the group and its decisions, and to have my own niche. Groups can be nice if I can be important and have valuable skills to offer the group. I may leave the group if I feel like I'm fading into the background too much, which is likely to happen if the group is large. The other way it appeals to me is that more people means more potential in general. More things can happen, so it won't be boring.
> 
> ...


For no. 2, I leave the option open for people to decide if they want more than just a "buddy". It's one other person whom you completely trust. Could easily be a significant other.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

He's a Superhero! said:


> *2)* Having one loyal buddy you have grown up with who will always have your back. This person is 100% loyal and trustworthy and would die for you if it came to it. If this person dies however, they will not be replaced by another.





> *2)* Your buddy is more than the average person, but happens to be a survival expert as well as having a decent weapon and the skill to actually use it. This person has a keen eye to spot dangers as well as resources, and knows the area well and has a good sense of direction.


My closest childhood friend is an 8w9 who knows martial arts and fits all the criteria you have described and has applied it in real life, so this is a no-brainer.

That being said I would ask him to teach me anything he could, so that I could be helpful and resourceful myself. I don't really function by relying on some strong person to take care of me. I would have picked option 3, except that I am fully aware of what I offer him in this friendship, so I have no problems viewing this as an equal survivalist partnership. I also know it would energize him to have someone around to hang out with and protect.



> *1)* You won't start out with more than one other person. *You will never be fully accepted into any community you find*, nor trusted by them. *You are very unlikely to get aid from communities you may encounter, but they are more likely to be hostile towards you.*


How is this any different than the majority of my life? 


2 and then 3.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Animal said:


> My closest childhood friend is an 8w9 who knows martial arts and fits all the criteria you have described and has applied it in real life, so this is a no-brainer.
> 
> That being said I would ask him to teach me anything he could, so that I could be helpful and resourceful myself. I don't really function by relying on some strong person to take care of me. I would have picked option 3, except that I am fully aware of what I offer him in this friendship, so I have no problems viewing this as an equal survivalist partnership. I also know it would energize him to have someone around to hang out with and protect.
> 
> ...


Same as me!

I missed you. <3


----------



## username123 (May 21, 2013)

I would pick #1 first and #3 second. The consequences of not choosing #1 or #3 sound worse than those of not choosing #2. If everyone I encounter is distrusting of and hostile towards me or if I have few resources which I have to scavenge for without weapons to protect myself, it seems like my chances of survival would be low. I wouldn't mind not having close relationships as long as I had the safety of a group and defended living area, as well as access to all the resources listed. People may not risk their lives for me, but it says I'd still be of value to them and that they take care of each other, so it's not like I would be denied the common benefits of living in that community. In real life, close relationships are really important to me, but here survival is the priority and I do get along on my own more easily than most people. Whenever I watch zombie movies, though, I always feel like the best option would be to turn into a zombie!


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

username123 said:


> I would pick #1 first and #3 second. The consequences of not choosing #1 or #3 sound worse than those of not choosing #2. If everyone I encounter is distrusting of and hostile towards me or if I have few resources which I have to scavenge for without weapons to protect myself, it seems like my chances of survival would be low. I wouldn't mind not having close relationships as long as I had the safety of a group and defended living area, as well as access to all the resources listed. People may not risk their lives for me, but it says I'd still be of value to them and that they take care of each other, so it's not like I would be denied the common benefits of living in that community. In real life, close relationships are really important to me, but here survival is the priority and I do get along on my own more easily than most people. *Whenever I watch zombie movies, though, I always feel like the best option would be to turn into a zombie!*


I know right! It's so weird how everyone resists it so much, but once you become a zombie you totally get why everyone else also needs to become a zombie, and all you want to do is help people to find their way...Zombies are so misunderstood..


----------



## Grau the Great (Mar 2, 2012)

I like this thread. One of the most interesting ideas I've seen here lately.

I'll tell you straight out which ones I'd go with. #1 (the community) as my first, #3 (the stockpile) as my second. A stockpile in itself is all well and good, but a bunch of weapons are useless for just one person to use at one given time. I'd take the community as my first choice in a second, especially since I'd have no problems pitching in and gaining respect/influence. Plus, my stockpile would give me leverage.

Now, for me, the real interesting part of this thread is what everyone leaves out, and why. #2 is an easy choice for me. I see no use for having a single close friend. And the "downside", of having no actual friends, isn't really a negative for me. That's how the world actually works. At their core, people care about what you can provide for them. 

I view the fact that no one would be willing to sacrifice themselves for me in the same way. I'd do the same thing. At the end of the day, I'm looking out for myself first, so I'm neither surprised nor upset that others would think similarly. In fact, if everyone operated with this basic assumption, the community would likely function *better*. Don't be an idiot and expect to be bailed out.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Grau the Great said:


> I like this thread. One of the most interesting ideas I've seen here lately.
> 
> I'll tell you straight out which ones I'd go with. #1 (the community) as my first, #3 (the stockpile) as my second. A stockpile in itself is all well and good, but a bunch of weapons are useless for just one person to use at one given time. I'd take the community as my first choice in a second, especially since I'd have no problems pitching in and gaining respect/influence. Plus, my stockpile would give me leverage.
> 
> ...


Indeed, it would be a big ask to expect people to risk their necks for you if you do something especially dangerous, so I do see your point. Still, I do have a couple of people in my life that are like that close friend option, and I see the real value in that by itself.

Would you say your instinctual stacking or personality types had an influence on your choice, or more so personal experience?


----------



## piscesfish (Nov 30, 2013)

I'd choose #1 first and #3 second.


----------



## LostDude (Jan 8, 2014)

I thought about number 1 because I would feel loved and like to serve others but having too many damn people would be annoying. I read further and the bonus for one would kind of suck. I would also feel oppressed having to consider the group. Maybe if the group was smaller. 

I would prefer number 2 because in my last moments of death, it would be cool to have one friend or two to be around. And it would be nice to feel that connection to an other. 

I just think unless you don't know what to do, just choose 1 or 2 but not 3. In the number 2 option you and your freind could actually help each other out by learning skills together. ( Think of Hunger Games and how Gale taught Katniss how to be a better hunter) Not a Hunger games fan just pointing out


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

LostDude said:


> I thought about number 1 because I would feel loved and like to serve others but having too many damn people would be annoying. I read further and the bonus for one would kind of suck. I would also feel oppressed having to consider the group. Maybe if the group was smaller.
> 
> I would prefer number 2 because in my last moments of death, it would be cool to have one friend or two to be around. And it would be nice to feel that connection to an other.
> 
> I just think unless you don't know what to do, just choose 1 or 2 but not 3. In the number 2 option you and your freind could actually help each other out by learning skills together. ( Think of Hunger Games and how Gale taught Katniss how to be a better hunter) Not a Hunger games fan just pointing out


That's an interesting point about being able to connect with someone just before dying. Would be nice of course, and I think most of us would want that when it comes to it, but doesn't that also feel pointless?

Also, you didn't say much about choice 3. What do you think about that option? And which was your second choice after choice 2?


----------



## haephestia (May 13, 2013)

I picked number 1 and 2 (so/sx). That is my actual variant stacking. For type 1, there's strength in numbers and the more people that are around, the more likelihood I'm not going to have to do all or most (or ideally any) of the 'dirty work' or anything I don't want to do. Also, I have training as a nurse and it would not be difficult for me to gain a reasonably good reputation if for no other reason than my competence, and there's a reasonable chance that no matter what amount of shit I got myself in for refusing to do what I don't want to that they couldn't afford to kick me out anyway.

I picked 2 second because even though I may appreciate the social dimension, the way I act around very close friends or my husband is utterly different. I need that kind of closeness not only to keep me grounded to others' feelings and human needs in general... pretty sure if I didn't have the 4 or 5 very close relationships I do, I'd be terrifyingly out of touch. The closeness would give me something to give a fuck about, basically, and while I know that's a weakness I'd rather take that on than not have it. 

3 last because while going without sucks, the other two options just make more sense to me. Rationing doesn't bother me, I tend to either be extremely thrifty and self-denying in a way, or binge to utter excess and spend allll the money. Escaping that kind of feast-famine cycle would take more effort than it'd be worth to me.

Very cool exercise! Definitely helped cement that these are still my most likely instinct stackings.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

haephestia said:


> I picked number 1 and 2 (so/sx). That is my actual variant stacking. For type 1, there's strength in numbers and the more people that are around, the more likelihood I'm not going to have to do all or most (or ideally any) of the 'dirty work' or anything I don't want to do. Also, I have training as a nurse and it would not be difficult for me to gain a reasonably good reputation if for no other reason than my competence, and there's a reasonable chance that no matter what amount of shit I got myself in for refusing to do what I don't want to that they couldn't afford to kick me out anyway.
> 
> I picked 2 second because even though I may appreciate the social dimension, the way I act around very close friends or my husband is utterly different. I need that kind of closeness not only to keep me grounded to others' feelings and human needs in general... pretty sure if I didn't have the 4 or 5 very close relationships I do, I'd be terrifyingly out of touch. The closeness would give me something to give a fuck about, basically, and while I know that's a weakness I'd rather take that on than not have it.
> 
> ...


I like this. Having a profession that can help others is certainly something to take into consideration...Being a nurse you would automatically be highly valued in the community, and you would be ever earning more value just by doing your job that involves helping people.


----------

