Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/21/17 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Here is my Furry OC I hope you like it.
  2. 1 point
    The comics are great. I like the art style, I like the darker stories, I like the funny little references they throw in. (Well, some of the artist OC cameos get a bit annoying, but eh) Some are better than others, of course, but overall, they're a hoot. And Applejack agrees. The question is, are they canon? Or should they be considered an alternative continuity? Can we use the comics as evidence for headcanon theories in the same way as the show itself? Join me as I examine this question. The first 4 issues deal with Queen Chrysalis, which puts it chronologically after the Season 2 Finale. The second arc is the... sigh... "Nightmare Rarity Arc" (reasons for the sigh to be addressed when I've saved up enough anti-nausea medication to consider reviewing it... it might be a while...) And here is where things get interesting. You see, Luna is shown in this arc, but as she was at the end of the pilot, her "depowered" form. Yeah, you go to your room and think about what you've done! During the events of the comic, she gets powered up by the POWER OF LOVE! This restores her to her default Season 2 appearance... wait a minute... Season 2? Woah... that is badflank... but don't try to distract me! This is where we apply our brains (or whatever reasonable facsimile thereof I can muster...) You see, Season 2 has Luna in her new form by the 2nd (I have a different counting scheme... just go with it) episode, while the comic has her in her old form as late as following the Season 2 premiere. So we have a contradiction... oh, wait... no. You see, I was assuming that the comic arcs are presented in chronological order, but actually, there's no reason to make that assumption. The "Nightmare Rarity" arc could in fact be placed chronologically before the Queen Chrysalis arc, which wouldn't contradict the show. Thus proving conclusively that the comics do in fact follow the same continuity as the show... Well, unfortunately, there's more to the story. You see, during the "NightRarity" arc, we get this panel. There is not much else that this could be referring to, except the CMC being kidnapped in the events of the "Queen Chrysalis" arc. We still have the comic contradicting the show's timeline, so I have to conclude that the comics cannot be canonically linked with the show itself. I would consider it an alternative timeline of sorts, personally. Since generalizing from only one example could be misleading, I do have another example of a mismatch between the show and the comics. For this example, we turn to the comic featuring Princess Cadance and Shining Armor in High School, “Neigh Anything”. At the party during the climax, we have a scene where the past!Mayor Mare (one hopes that’s her title and not her real name, because otherwise her parents are clairvoyant) is talking with the past!Cheerilee about what their aptitude test results were. Cheerilee states that hers says she should be a teacher, and she disparages the notion (for those not fluent in Eighties Dudespeak, “grody” means gross, so she definitely is poo-pooing the idea of being a teacher here.) According to the show, Cheerilee’s cutie mark only appeared after she had decided to become a teacher and bring joy and learning to fillies and colts. Hence we have another contradiction of the show. Huzzah! Well, Sunny Fox, one might say, you can’t see her cutie mark with Mayor Mare in the way, so you can’t be sure she has one yet. Fair enough point, but luckily, I have an answer for it. From a previous scene with Cheerilee, we can clearly see that she already has her cutie mark. Thank you, comic writers! At any rate, I'll be reviewing the comic themselves in this section too, to give my own impression about each of the major arcs, along with ranking, a list of pros and cons, and of course a list of the references I got in each one. I hope you'll join me in my endeavour. Until then, stay sunny side up!
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    This is based on what I know so take it with a grain of salt, and what I notice in other's behaviors, but it is by no means a complete overview. 1. Memorization. 2. Association 3. Comprehension Memorization, uninspiring, sorta lame unless you are personally vested into the topic, which you can trick yourself into doing by asking yourself 'What do I want to know?' Then being motivated is easy peasy. Associative learning is the most magical, and its the easiest to be incorrect about and the most superstitious, what you know is more up for grabs. Its like, a dog hearing a whistle, then knowing food should be in their food dish now, because its how they were trained. This is a step past memorization though because it is more intrinsically rewarding and its different from memorization tho is rather similar. Its like how students can recall information in classrooms easier than outdoors, that is association. Or its how people see a bad omen and get paranoid and throw blessed salt on their home's entrances. Which actually can be triggered from electromagnetic fields and stuff, so people might just feel a biological need to get away, then they are confused why and the first half reasonable thing they think of- its demons!- is what they focus on and try to solve the problem for. It is related to phobias of all sorts, and usually is dictated by the reptilian brain in 3 brain theory (logic>emotion>instinct or vice versa, instinct is the closest to the brain stem the hind-brain, which is usually in the visceral [primitive or instinctual or such] enjoyment category or fight or flight response sorta part of the brain. Some biological situations can induce similar feelings.) and its also basically like muscle memory. Muscle memory is like, you have washed dishes so many times you can do it while distracted by a tv in front of you while chewing gum etc, its just so easy from repetition thats muscle memory. Why I say muscle memory is similar is because strong associative things, like PTSD which can trigger people, is based on associated stimuli and is usually related to fight or flight, it is not always though but its usually easier for the Id of psychology (Id Ego and Superego) to do such a thing. But I very well could just be assuming based on tangential or second-hand information. Comprehension is the best of course, because it is like a step beyond associative or memorization. Its theoretical and practical, not presumptuous like associative can be. Theoretical speculation can lead to incorrect associative learning tho, so there is a proper method to deducing which usually involves skepticism of the stances with a process of elimination as one way of fact checking. This can be wrong though if one ignores the consequences to their actions. Consequence is what tells us about if we are doing something wrong or not, also it requires caution to properly find out instead of prematurely concluding. All three types are flawed. Memorization you don't usually have the time to question if the context is true, then you can make some false conclusions. Associative is good for some experiments or incidental experiments, like you ate some food that made you sick, what was the recent new food you tried that might be doing it? Granted that is comprehensive and associative in that example not just associative. The other flaw with associative being culture shock for one realistic example. It turns out how people behave may be culturally different, and this can cause the brain to have a minor meltdown sort of deal, hence culture shock, your brain recognizes alot of its information is not valid, and might even be preparing to rewire your brain to learn more at the expense of temporary ease of functioning while it tries to recognize subconsciously exactly how much you might need to relearn. Then the flaw with comprehensive is its nearly impossible to recognize all factors in a problem at once. Individuals have limits, teamwork is rather good. Our working memory can only store so much data, so if you do not combine some memorization and associative, you won't be as prepared. You need to be thoroughly learned. This also benefits from having an interest in the material being learned, and helps with hands on practice. Benefits: Memorization: You don't need to actually understand the material to get a passing grade or look smart. And it helps to be thorough. Associative: Helps if you already are doing something right and you need repetition, you can just do the same thing again and again and not mess it up, muscle memory basically. It is also used for memory tricks like memory palaces. What you do is imagine stuff that really weird, but disctinctly unique to the thing you want to remember, and primarily related to what you are trying to recall. So say you want to remember to do dishes in the morning, you can imagine a standard rooster cockadoodledoo, and the rooster is in the kitchen sink, trapped in a maze of dishes and you need to help get it out or something bad will happen (sorta sounds like a weird dream scenario right lol) or if you prefer the optimistic outlook you can recall it like, its a super buff rooster, and the rooster wants you to wash the dishes, and flex with it. And thats fun(if you played Undertale or like weird stuff at least lol), so you will try to remember to do that for tomorrow morning lol. And because its so weird, and specific you will probably remember it anyways. Or if you wanna do it more normally just remember the morning atmosphere and how washing dishes is, and then associate that with yourself waking up from your waking up perspective, and associate it with the dishes you will use for breakfast the next day or such, or your shoes are similarly shaped to bowls, so you try and make it associated with a bowl so when you see it you remember, ah, dishes. Comprehensive: Well, if you understand something you understand something, just know what you don't know to prevent assumptions, or at least come up with a decently deductive method, or you might end up doing confirmation bias and always assuming you know better because of your experience and knowledge. Then next thing you know scientists say pluto isn't a planet, and you don't agree with them, but everyone else does. Then its like a everyone is wrong but me sorta deal, when really you are wrong, and at least admit you might be wrong and go see why they stopped calling it a planet. Also its just more practical. Like, how do I make a wheelchair out of just wood? You don't just associate, tho that can help fill in the blanks, it won't help you plan it out entirely in detail, thats what the comprehensive knowledge is there for. You know things need plans, and you can watch tutorials or such to understand it before working on it. But even then, if you do the right things in the right order you can still make a wooden wheelchair without comprehending how to use wood to make something in a future project, in which case its memorization not comprehensive. Let me know how easy this topic was, and if you knew it already or not, so I can get some measure of how reasonable/realistic I am being, with respect to the audience.