#p1 and p2 for instance to explain how they got to where they are in p3

[ichorblossoms]

lots of respect for ppl who don't post/talk abt certain oc things due to not wanting to spoil their own stuff, however i will not be doing that. by the time any of this stuff is finished it'll probably be different anyways

[neni-has-ascended]

Going with the matpat video I have this idea. What if Teddie is Yu's Shadow? However there is a perspective that I have not seen as a defence. That defence being Maya and Metis. Both Aigis and Maya were able to meet their Shadows (Metis is implied to be) while wielding Personas. People like you have stated that Personas and Shadows are two sides of a coin. But keep in mind, they posess the Wild Card. If that is the case, wouldnt they (Yu included) have both Personas and Shadows at the same time?

Shadow Maya’s and Metis’ cases are both very specific instances that can’t really be applied at all to Yu’s situation:

Maya Amano: Her Shadow duplicate was created by a contradictory rumor, that would have required for her to do and do not turn evil at the same time in order to be fulfilled. In order to fulfill the rumor regardless, Nyarlathotep created a duplicate of her internal Shadow, a Shadow that is exactly the same as her Shadow. That’s the Shadow Maya we meet in P2IS. Without Nyarlathotep’s intervention, this Shadow would have never shown up the way it did. (And well. The game wouldn’t have happened.) Izanami would have no reason to manifest Yu’s Shadow, so her involvement being similar can be discounted as well. 

Aigis&Metis: The entirety of P3′s The Answer took place within the Abyss of Time, a subconscious realm that was eating up the Iwatodai Dorm thanks to SEES’ regrets that they hadn’t dealt with yet, combined with the power of their Personas, attracting it to them. At this time, the dorm was no longer located within physical reality, but within a rift between the conscious and unconscious worlds where time-space didn’t work right. So Shadows could easily manifest there the same way they manifest in the TV World. Metis’ presence is thus easily explained; that Shadow of Aigis’ just manifested how Shadows tend to do in the unconscious worlds. Metis’ appearance being different from Aigis’ is also explained in other material: Aigis had entirely dissociated herself from the part of her personality represented by Metis, and the appearance Metis did take instead as a result is that of a person very important to Aigis’: The appearance of a certain girl with locked-in-syndrome, whose brain-patterns were used to grow Aigis’ AI when she was first created (That girl appears in one of the CD Dramas). Aigis considers that girl her “mother”. Metis’ name is a reference to that - “Metis” is the name of the Titan who was Athena’s mother. 

It should also be noted that Metis was just a *part* of Aigis’ Shadow, rather the entirety of it; She was the aspect of Aigis’ Shadow that contained the most emotional parts of her personality (probably expressed in Athena). That’s why Aigis retained her Persona abilities, only losing her ability to manifest her persona into Athena consistently, while Metis was moving on her own.

Finally, 

The Wild Card: This Aspect of the games is often misunderstood; The Wild Card is a story element that has effectively not existed before Persona 3. It’s made excessively clear by a lot of dialogue taking place in the Velvet Room itself that none of the P1 and P2 characters had Wild Card abilities; Let me explain. Technically, anyone with Persona potential is able to wield multiple different forms of Personas with some help. That’s not what makes the Wild Card special. What makes it special is the ease with which they can swap between Personas!  While all the regular Persona Users who were in the Velvet Room in P1 and P2 had to jump through millions of hoops to get their hands on additional personas (gathering cards, forging contracts, then going to Igor to manifest it all), P3Protag, Aigis, Yu and Ren can easily pick up new Personas as they go, no additional steps acquired. All that’s left to the Velvet Room is cataloging them and conducting fusions. Any player of P1 and P2 will tell you how much harder it is to get new Personas in those games than it is in later games; and that’s thanks to the Wild Card. 

The reason why Wild Card Persona Users can do this is the following: Technically, all Personas a person has are manifestations of their (same) Shadow’s energies. All that’s different is the way these energies manifest, the archetype used to give them shape. That’s why using more than one Persona at once is such a complex, difficult feat (look at the headache it gives P3 Protag). It means summoning two contradictory archetypes from the same source at the same time. The reason Wild Cards have such an easy time changing the form their Persona manifests in is due to their Social Link ability! They are extremely flexible and open in how they express themselves (thanks to their “blank starting point” type situation in life) draw the archetypes of the Personas they use directly from the people they meet around themselves. They don’t need to engage in any mental acrobatics/great revelation to change how their Persona manifests; changing their momentary expression comes natural to them. 

So no, the Wild Card has nothing to do with your Shadow being able to “separate” from you more easily at all. If a Person with the Wild Card were to be physically separated from their Shadow, they’d still go into Apathy Syndrome/Mental Shutdown all the same. The only thing that might be different is that said Shadow would probably incredibly overpowered if it were to run wild, since all the abilities and training it got to enjoy as a Wild Card’s Persona(s) would definitely add a lot of combat power to it. 

[digital-strategy]

https://ift.tt/2JwGtCq

From skimming and scanning to (the ultimate) reading, a new paper by Nir Grinberg looks at the ways we read online and introduces a novel measure for predicting how long readers will stick with an article.

Grinberg, a research fellow at the Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Science jointly with the Northeastern’s Lazer Lab, looked at Chartbeat data for seven different publishers’ sites — a dataset of more than 7.7 million pageviews, on both mobile and desktop, of 66,821 news articles from the sites. (To protect the publishers’ privacy, they aren’t named in the paper, but Grinberg looked at a financial news site, a how-to site, a tech news site, a science news site, a site aimed at women, a sports site, and a magazine site.)

Chartbeat, Grinberg said, already offers publishers pretty good tracking. “It’s one of the few companies that track what happens with a user after they click on a news article,” he told me. “Still, the actual measures it provides are kind of raw. It’ll tell you how much time a person has spent on a page, how far down the page they got, even something called ‘engaged time,�� which is the number of page interactions — mouse clicks, cursor movement, etc. But all of these are not particularly tailored to news; they could work on any web page.” Grinberg tailored these raw measures to create new metrics specifically for news articles.

“Instead of just how far down the page a person got, I’m looking at what percentage of the article they actually covered,” he said. “How far did they go down the page, relative to the length of the article? If someone spent a lot of time on an article and the article is short, that’s a good signal. If they spent the same amount of time on a long article, that’s less good.”

Grinberg was able to identify five types of reading behaviors: “Scan,” “Read,” “Read (long),” “Idle,” and “Shallow” (plus bounce backs, in the case that someone gets to a page and almost immediately leaves). Not surprisingly, different kinds of news sites see different kinds of reading behavior. On the sports site, for instance, “we see there is a lot of scanning. I think what’s going on there is a lot of people go to sports sites in order to find a result, like the outcome of a game, and don’t read the full thing. Another example that stood out is the how-to site, where we see that there’s more idling — people read an article, idle for a little bit, then continue. From looking at the articles themselves, it looks as if people are following instructions on how to do something in the real world.” On the magazine site, meanwhile, people really seemed to be reading for extended periods of time.

In the second part of the paper, Grinberg identifies a measure that he calls “Semantic Information Gain” (SIG) — a way to “[capture] the flow of information within the text of articles, and explains some of the variability in the way people engage with articles.” Grinberg tried to explain this to me:

Imagine that the point an article is trying to make is an actual point in space, let’s say a point on a piece of paper. Similarly, each paragraph could be a point on the same paper. As we consider more and more paragraphs (i.e., p1, p1+p2, p1+p2+p3+…) we get closer to the final point of the entire article with all of its paragraphs.

SIG captures how quickly an article moves toward its final point, passing through all the points along the way made by the individual paragraphs. For example, an article that opens with an abstract paragraph may contain a lot of the information at the beginning and add only a little later in the text. In contrast, a listicle may have a more even distribution of information throughout the text.

SIG can be useful for publishers, Grinberg says, because it ends up being highly predictive of how engaged someone will be with an article, and they should consider it along the other metrics tracked by companies like Chartbeat. “There’s no one-size-fits-all solution,” he said. “The magazine site provided a lot of information up front, and people still engaged in long reading. In contrast, for sports and financial sites, it seems like withholding information at the beginning is associated with longer reads. But publishers could start looking at SIG as they make decisions about strategy and experiment with different story structures to see what works for their audience.”

Grinberg presented the paper, ““Identifying Modes of User Engagement with Online News and Their Relationship to Information Gain in Text,” this week at The Web Conference in Lyon, France.

via Nieman Lab