u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied

I still don't get why this is so difficult to understand. How are people still arguing over this when it's been debunked over and over and over again? If your point is "intelligence scaling is subjective therefore scaling systems are also subjective," sure I agree with you, but if you think that "normal scaling" or "narrative scaling" or "true intelligence scaling without using systems to restrict characters" (call it whatever you want, doesn't even matter anyways) is objective meanwhile something like methodology scaling is subjective, you are simply incorrect.

You either don't know how objectivity works or you don't know how different scalings (like methodology) work, because they can even be more objective (less subject to our first person interpretations, viewpoints, and opinions)!

Firstly, what is the definition of objectivity?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Wikipedia: Something is subjective if it represents first-person subjective experience (such as perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences). If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. Something is objective if it can be confirmed through observation, experimentation and intersubjective dialogue. The two are usually regarded as opposites; beyond that sources differ: both ideas have been given various ambiguous definitions.

Wikipedia is usually the better source for questions like this rather than basic dictionary definitions which are usually made for colloquial rather than philosophical usage, although both work in this context.

After reading both definitions, you should have come to the very obvious conclusion that intelligencescaling is subjective. Light being smarter than L or L being smarter than Light is only true/false through the viewpoint of a sentient being, since the diegetic/narrative intellect of the character is an imaginary object that results from our opinion of how "intelligence" is defined and of how our imagination produces the fictional world (i.e. our first person subjective experience of the story through the words on the page).

This applies even to manga, not just novels. How we interpret something like "sweating," ambiguous in-story occurrences like "L turning $1 million into $20 billion within 2 years at a young age," the cosmological implications of a particular character being the smartest in their imaginary verse, these are subjective! It doesn't matter what definition you try to use, the more philosophically rigorous your definition, the more subjective intelligence scaling becomes!

Obviously there are different levels of objectivity. Some stay true over time (1 + 1 = 2), some may be true only geographically (the value of the gravitational constant), some are fairly objective but produced using subjective sensibilities (the physical laws), some are fairly subjective (would Akane Kurashiki be able to outsmart Friend?), and some are even more subjective (does vanilla ice cream taste better than chocolate ice cream?)

How much does the stock market feat contribute to L's intellect? Subjective! How much luck played a part? Subjective! Does Mello's statement about L's intellectual growth which produces the transitive relationship (L_Adult >>>> L_Child >= Stock Market Feat's Cognitive Requirement) upscale his adult self or downscale the stock market feat by its ambiguity? To what extent exactly does it do so? Subjective! If there is an inconsistency, with what interpretation do you rectify it? Subjective! Intelligence scaling is SUBJECTIVE.

These ambiguities are ever present by the way.

You mentioned the following list of subjective aspects of intelligence scaling:

All scaling systems, All categories, Labels such as "realistic", "semi-realistic" and "unrealistic", The distinction between on-screen and off-screen, The distinction between "feats" and "statements", Tiering (As in Low/Mid/High tier), etc.

For example, you said that while categories are a useful metric, "they can't ever be used to truly determine who outsmarts who."

You see, truly determining who outsmarts who is also subjective. You deciding that intelligence should be defined as outsmarting ability is also subjective. You deciding the term "intelligence scaling" when applied to fictional characters should be focused on the diegetic implications as opposed to all the other definitions that intelligence comes under (like a non-diegetic display of intellectuality) is also subjective. Deciding how you scale will always be subjective. Relying on shared common senses by saying something like "I just scale" does not free you from the underlying subjectivity.

With all that being said, the bigger problem compared to the oversight of not realizing how subjective intelligence scaling is, would be the misunderstanding that scaling systems automatically decrease the subjectivity, even though they do not. This is true regardless of which perspective you use to view them.

I already made a post on it, with three example valid viewpoints towards scaling systems, and one of the examples was that the scaling systems can be treated as a premise for the matchup or evaluation framework.

Let me make it easier by giving an analogy to understand how "premise" and "objectivity" work together, using an actually objective example:

Statement 1 (which may be true OR false) states the following: "X + 5 = 15."

Now suppose X is equal to 3. Would statement 1 be true? Nope. Because statement 1 would become 8 = 15 which is a mathematically incorrect statement. An objectively false equation.

Next, suppose X is equal to 10. Would statement 1 be true? Yes! Because statement 1 would become 15 = 15 which is an identity. Objectively true by necessity if we (subjectively) interpret the mathematical symbols by their default usage (subjectivity always plays a part but the statement is internally objective given the premises and constraints and definitions).

As you can see, statement 1 may be true, or it may be false. But it is either OBJECTIVELY TRUE or OBJECTIVELY FALSE given the value of X. Our subjective feelings do not play a part once the premise (the value of X) has been determined.

Now suppose we have another statement. Notice how it's slightly different from statement 1?

Statement 2 states the following: "If X is equal to 10, then X + 5 = 15."

Let's say X is equal to 3, is statement 2 true?

The correct answer is yes! The value of X doesn't matter because statement 2 has the implicit assumption that the claim it is making "X + 5 = 15" is dependent on the premise that X is equal to 10 as opposed to anything external to the statement. It is objectively true! What matters is its internal consistency because it does not rely on additional values the way statement one did, due to its premise. This is why statement 2 is objectively true.

Whether X is 10, 1000, 5, 99, or undefined, statement 2 is true because it depends on its premise (X is equal to 10) rather than the actual value of X in real life whatever it may be.

This is how premises work. This is how scaling systems work when they are treated as the premise for the scaling matchup. "Just scale the words on the page" is an oversimplification of how a system is treated, it's like choosing to ignore the IF conditional in statement 2 and saying "just determine whether X + 5 = 15 is true!" which would be stupid.

This is one of the viewpoints for scaling systems, and under this viewpoint it can actually make scaling systems more objective then not using scaling systems, just as the premise "if X is 10" collapsed the true/false possibility of statement one into absolute truth by making it internally reliant rather than externally reliant.

A second viewpoint is that the scaling (like methodology scaling) can be considered as a separate independent scaling of its own such as power scaling, writing scaling, looks scaling, morality scaling, in which case it again is not more subjective because it has to be viewed independently from intelligence scaling. Given the rigid constraints that do not rely on imaginary interpretations and personal opinions to the same extent as intelligence scaling (which under this interpretation is different to methodology scaling), it is again more objective!

A third viewpoint is the subjective interpretation of the term "Intelligence Scaling" which you yourself use in line with "Diegetically determining which character outsmarts who." (although you don't put it into words, you call it "just scaling" or whatever). However, given the broad meaning of the word intelligence and the ambiguity of its focal point (which does not even need to be on the smartness of the characters themselves within the story), whether you define it one way or another way is equally subjective. Even with this third viewpoint, the objectivity of scaling a particular way (non-diegetically like Methodology Scaling) is not detracted from and the only thing that matters is their internal objectivity.

Under all three example viewpoints I gave, scaling systems are not automatically rendered unobjective or less objective. If you think that under any of these viewpoints, you are distorting facts by using "personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations," you have still not understood the usage of premises. For a statement to include "If X is equal to 10," such as statement 2 in the previous analogy I gave, the conditional does not detract from the objectivity of the statement regardless of how the conditional itself may have been formulated (subjectively or otherwise).

A framework or system or scaling definition can be treated as a set of premises, the way the conditional "If X is equal to 10" can be treated as a single premise for the statement that ends up making it less subjective.

I'll also address another argument he brought up: "performing at a lower level does not literally erase the previous statements/narrative off the page entirely and if you think so, you're being subjective."

I can't tell if he's talking about me since I brought up a similar (but different) argument, so I'll clarify that yes, it does not magically erase it off the page, but what it does do is bring the quality into question. For example if the entire feat is a statement by a random character, then it may be the case that the character is simply retarded or a liar. Why assume they are all reliable and never lie? If your entire way of scaling is dependent on the premise "characters never lie when they're glazing my goat as long as there isn't a direct contradiction," you're also being subjective, because even in real life, humans tend to be massive liars.

OR giving another example, if the statement is confirmed to be true, but highly ambiguous, then a consistently lower performance when the character is said to be at an exponentially higher cognitive state would indicate the ambiguity is more logically interpreted lower, especially if the cognitively higher state is unambiguous. To scale the ambiguous feat in isolation rather than as something dependent on the surrounding context, just so you can upscale a character, is subjective.

Let me give you an example:

1: Person A wins 10 consecutive matches against the best AI computer chess bot in the world. The content of the matches are only known to person A in secret.

2: A magical device says that person A will become exponentially smarter over time until he dies. This magical device is right 100% of the time.

3: Person A after 20 years when he is at his cognitive peak plays a match against multiple grandmasters. Unlike the chess bots, these matches are all entirely detailed and unambiguous, with the plays being determined at around 2000 ELO level if we calculate by real life standards.

If you say "maybe they were playing on a nigh-omniscience level so our real life technology cannot account for their subtle farsighted level of play and thus determined them as only 2000 ELO," thus reinterpretating the later specific matches using the growth statement, you are scaling idiotically and making a massive abductive leap.

The more logical reinterpretation to keep the intermediate growth statement consistent is to reinterpret the ambiguous feat, downscaling it based on the specific display of intellect. It would make more sense to assume the global smartest bots he went up against 20 years ago (point 1) were retarded and the verse is simply technologically lacking in this domain for those flawed designs to be at the peak. This is a lesser abductive leap than upscaling the specific detailed feats 20 years later based on the ambiguous feats 20 years earlier.

This is in conventional intelligence scaling by the way (normal scaling / narrative scaling / diegetic outsmarting ability determination / just scale the character bruh scaling / I'm not using a subjective arbitrary system to restrict the characters ahh scaling / etc., they all mean the same thing but people like to call it whatever makes them seem less arbitrary or subjective via reliance on shared common sense). Even if you're using normal scaling, you cannot be making horrible leaps like this.

Intelligence scaling is subjective overall, but there is still some level of objectivity within it, otherwise everyone would have entirely random opinions. Objectivity is not about how close you get to "who outsmarts who" which every scaler who makes this horrible argument assumes, objectivity is about how precise, consistent, and free from subjective interpretations/opinions/feelings you are when determining something.

The main misunderstanding of methodology comes from people who think something like "methodology scaling" scales which character would outsmart who if they were both in the same verse. Nobody is saying Akiyama would be able to outsmart a nigh omniscient character just because he objectively outscales him in extradiegetic (non-diegetic) methodology scaling.

I've made many posts debunking this terrible subjectivity/objectivity argument over and over again ever since I started SCD about a year ago and yet people still don't get it. They never raised any objection against the arguments, they just skipped every post and woke up the next day to repeat the same thing over and over again. Why??

Is it because of the formatting of my arguments? Please comment if you don't understand anything because I don't want to go inactive from posting, only to see another guy pop up who thinks scalings like methodology "arbitrarily restrict characters" or pretend they are sophisticated elitists who scale more objectively when they simply don't understand how objectivity or premises work.

Maybe some people skip these debunks since they think it is a pseudointellectual rant, just because they can't understand it? I really tried to make it as simple and comprehensible as possible, I even gave basic math examples like 10 + 5 = 15 rather than going too abstract into it which would have made it even more philosophically rigorous and obvious how stupid the argument of subjectivity is. I didn't even go into the deeper arguments like causality systems, and those ones make it even more obvious how subjective intelligence scaling truly is.

It's better for me to clarify anything you find questionable rather than letting it build up in your mind over time, so if you think something sounds stupid or you don't understand, just ask and I can try to clarify.

Conclusion:

Intelligence scaling is subjective overall. (there is some level of objectivity within it though)

If we assume objectivity exists on a spectrum, then scalings like methodology are not automatically more subjective and may even be less subjective (more objective) than what is commonly known as "normal scaling" depending on the internal design or definition of the scaling.

Previous Votes

Vile Dominion (9 Upvotes)

SCP (4 Upvotes)

Star Trek / Star Wars (2 Upvotes)

Sinmonger (1 Upvotes)

Current Vote: Which series is EXTREME TIER in Normal Scaling and EXTREME TIER in Pure Methodology?

New Opportunity: You are allowed to vote to replace any of the previously voted series. If it receives more votes than the previous series, the series shall be replaced. For example, Hunter X Hunter received 4.5 votes initially. If you request a different series to replace it and you receive 5 upvotes, it shall be replaced.

Also don't stress about not receiving the most votes. In the end, I might update the chart so that each slot has multiple series within it. Therefore, comment as many series as you think is suitable because the series might make it into the chart after this tournament ends.

Also... I know I encouraged pushing your agenda, but please stop downvoting each other 🥀

As Fang Yuan once said, the most important things in life are friendship, kinship, and love <3

Previous votes (high tier narrative and very high tier methodology):

Akagi: 7 + 2 additional comments

Usogui: 7 + 1 additional comment

Liar Game: 3

Nirvana in Fire: 2

One Outs: 2

Ravages of Time: 2

Kingdom: 1 vote agreement (and 3 votes disagreement)

If you want an explanation of pure methodology, here are some good posts:

Pure Methodology FAQ

FSIQ in Pure Methodology Validity Explanation

In summary, it's simply one of the strictest possible ways to scale feat methodologies.

Current Vote: Which series is HIGH TIER in Normal Scaling and EXTREME TIER in Pure Methodology?

Average post from a Japanese scaler:

Recently I've been hearing a lot of takes about Chen Ran being the top of SCD.

After reading 0 chapters and 2 posts, I have come to the conclusion that he's an overrated fraud and not impressive at all.

Nerololokuwajimaki Sellatina no diffs.

[insert loli image]

She's far more impressive because she erased the concept of "truth" from infinite timelines, and became time itself under multiple space-time fabrics, before remaking her existence from scratch. Not to mention, infinite calculations per second, infinite deceptions per second, infinite manipulations per second, while recreating and destroying the earth (999999^inf)^inf^inf^inf times per millisecond.

Have I mentioned the fact that she escaped while locked in a timechamber for ten billion years to ascend and become a shinigami?

I don't get why people are impressed with Chen Ran at all, it honestly makes no sense, like why do people even care about stuff like methodology or complexity if the character loses in the end against true goats like this?

People should instead be impressed with Nerololokuwajimaki Sellatina, I don't get why she's so unpopular in SCD compared to grounded characters like Light, Akiyama, Baku, Fang Yuan, Chen Ran, those frauds would get no diffed in a real outsmarting matchup, but for some very very strange reason, they are popular... meanwhile nobody knows about Nerololokuwajimaki Sellatina. How?? How is she not popular in SCD when she's clearly smarter!

This is why I think Japanese authors are wayyy ahead of Chinese authors in SCD.

(I've actually seen like 5 posts following something similar to the template above)

Average post from a Chinese scaler:

Chen Ran is finally back in the top 5 of methodology 🔥

It turns out Yue Goonshan's 743 layered scheme was actually intended to misdirect Jiang Zhe's 44 layered strategy into including Lin Ou's life-saving tactic as part of its 95th contingency 😭

Chen Ran saw through this by adding 12 more layers to his scheme to misdirect his own teammate into thinking he wasn't trying to betray them 😭

Remember how Lin Jiabao died 702 chapters ago? Remember how in the 14th paragraph of the 74th chapter that started this arc, Lin Ou said 17 words in that last sentence rather than 16? Remember the Chinese tonality and grammar of the Tutorial Youth's final sentence? Turns out this was all part of the new layer of the 32 layers of Lin Ou's 4th contingency plan 😭😭😭

This directly traps Chen Ran by deceiving him with the other 45 layers of deception that he kept spamming in the past 300 chapters, by making Chen Ran think that Lin Ou's primary subpersonality is Lin Xuan when it's actually Lin Xian! Lin Xuan is actually the brother of the person whose body Lin Ou took over, who happened to be the prince of some historical Chinese period.

Chen Ran didn't fall for the lie though.

I can't be bothered explaining this feat y'all... Jarionn wrote a document on some of the difficult layers of the scheme, it's pretty short (only 970 pages) so I recommend reading that doc quickly to understand the tactic.

The rest of the novel should be pretty intuitive since the remaining schemes only have around a hundred layers each, but if you get stuck on the superego reasoning chapter, you can read the document I made which is much shorter and more concise than the previous document, only around 50-60 pages of reasoning because I made the font size 15 times smaller.

Normal Scaling: Chen Ran > Baku 175 layers of no diff.

Proven Ability: Chen Ran > Baku 98 layers of no diff.

Methodology Scaling: Chen Ran > Baku 12 layers of no diff.

Authorial Scaling: Chen Ran > Baku 2 layers of no diff.

Pure Methodology: Chen Ran > Baku low diff.

Intelligence scaling does not improve the accuracy of scaling, and in fact negates its entire purpose.

Disregarding feats just because they're not intellectual is a biased restriction of characters and a subjective preference of scaling.

It does not give an accurate understanding of how they'd truly do in a matchup.

Just because one punch man doesn't have intelligence feats, does that mean he can't beat Akiyama to death??? This is a subjective preference of feats that Akiyama glazers use to restrict characters that are stronger than him just because their feats are not "intellectual."

We need to be more objective by realizing that One Punch Man scales higher than characters like Akiyama and Baku, regardless of subjective preferences like "strategy" and "intelligence" which isn't objective because it restricts the true matchup between them.

That's why we should all abandon this scaling system and move to powerscaling!!

Just kidding. This is how it sounds like to me when people try to "debunk" methodology scaling. Yes, it's only a subset of intelligencescaling, and its purpose is entirely different to conventional diegetic scaling of characters, but the criticism is nonsense.

Detective Galileo (TV Series) received the most votes for being extreme tier in methodology and mid tier in normal scaling. (4 Votes)

Second place was the Suzuki Bakudan movie which only received 2 votes.

No other series was mentioned.

Voting Rules:

Total points = Highest upvote count + (( additional comment count ) multiplied by 1.5)

Vote for a SERIES or VERSE rather than a character.

Each spot will have around a day of voting time.

You are allowed to vote for a series that has already been placed (the previous spot will be replaced by the next in line).

Current Vote: Which series is MID TIER in Normal Scaling but TOP TIER in Pure Methodology?

Even if such a series does not truly exist, what do you think is the closest match?

Previous Votes (Mid Tier in BOTH):

Kakegurui: 11 + 3 x 1.5 = 15.5 votes

Classroom of the Elite: 2 + 3 x 1.5 = 6.5 votes

Dexter: 5 votes

Talentless Nana: 5 votes

Tomodachi Game: 5 votes

Vote for a series rather than a character. You are allowed to vote for something that has already received a placement.

Current Vote: Mid Tier in normal scaling. High Tier in pure methodology scaling.

You get up slowly from the bed and walk to the bathroom, but your heart lurches when you see in your peripheral vision that the man in the mirror was staring at you.

You suddenly turn your head, but only see the creepy reflection of yourself with your head turned, staring straight back with something that looks like fear present on the face.

Tired? Tired... What is this feeling?

The mirror is just a lifeless object, and reflects your own self. Yes, this is you in the mirror... the true you? Have you truly seen yourself before? Is it filtering out something I'm not supposed to be looking at..?

What was I doing before I woke up? What was I doing while I was asleep? Was I doing absolutely nothing?

You get on the bus and take out your phone as you walk to your seat, but you feel gazes burning on your back.

What are they looking at me for? Or are they looking at something past me? Something at the back of the bus where I am going?

However, when you flick your head around, everyone is staring at their own phones. It can't be. They must be real. They must have minds of their own. Am I psychologically ill? No, I have checked and rechecked my mind and memories, I am as consistent as can be. It's just... why do the earliest memories of my own self feel so.. distant? Is this me? Am I real? Maybe just nostalgia. That must be it. You notice their gazes again, and use your peripheral vision to check.

They're staring. They're definitely staring... how long... go back to normal... stop staring at me. Go back to normal. Come on...

STOP STARING!!!

You lift your eyes in fear, thump thump thump. Heartbeats ring out, but you hope they can't hear, and you force your expression to look listless. It's normal, I didn't notice anything, I didn't see your stares. Don't be afraid. It's all real. You turn your gaze back onto your phone and block out all sensations. Easier to die ignorant than to watch them crawl closer huh?

Scrolling on social media, mindless, you wonder whether some of these people may just be mindless, physical, and lifeless. Did we create the internet or did it come to be? Did it come to be for all, or maybe only me? Why do I think in terms of "I" or "myself" if anyone else is real too? Why not humanity as a collective? Are any of these people real? What is it that attaches me to my own viewpoint? You think and you think but you fall and you scroll and you mindlessly loll, and you're almost asleep, but you cannot stop because every swipe forces out another, which means the swiping never stops. You cannot help it, even if questions come up that you cannot avoid. Even if it's starting to hurt.

At least you can still think, even if you cannot control your body. Do these people really think this way? Are they stupid? Are they... no, wait.

... do they see themselves the way I do, alive, or do they exist as objects exist? Mechanical? No perception of their own thoughts... Am I the one who is mechanical? Maybe we all are? Are robots meant to think? You feel a breath on your phone and lift your head but only see the same people, the same positions, the same posture, but why are they so much closer than they were before? Do you think I can't notice how much closer you have gotten??! I can see, I could see you staring!! I scream internally, which they aren't supposed to hear, but they all look up, terrified, past my shoulder, were they trying to help? But I turn around and see nothing behind me.

You, dear reader. Are you real, or are you part of the rest, and the only person who is real sees you the same way? Do you even enter their thoughts? Is it possible you may exist only to shape their environment?

Can you find the truth and leave? Or maybe you should go back to sleep because waking up is so tiring... so tiring.

Everyone else seems to be asleep. Why not join them... it's normal!?

Or maybe everyone else is awake and looking at you, the fool who thinks the world remains quiet as you rest your senses.

Don't be afraid. It's all real, you were simply in a very long dream before.

I personally scale Liar Game very very high in strict methodology, but this time I'll evaluate it from a more critical viewpoint, by pointing out some of its main methodological flaws, or aspects where other series trump it in.

Biased scaling might be fun to do, but if your biases reach a point where you become completely blind to every single criticism and start subconsciously forcing yourself to see perfection where it doesn't exist, you deceive the person you should be least deceptive against (yourself).

Jokes are one thing. Fun agenda you internally acknowledge as biased is one thing. But mindless subconscious self deception on such a deep level that you cannot even think from fear of chancing upon the harsh truth is a completely different thing altogether.

If you glaze every aspect of a work in every comparison, then your comparison of no aspect at all can be considered valid.

A friend to all is a friend to none.

Anyways, here are some of the main methodological flaws in Liar Game.

1: Other than Akiyama's early psychological feat, where he ontologically disintegrated Fujisawa, for the remaining games, the opponents and allies could be very simply modelled, with basic rational actions that are not necessarily forcefully stupid, but is definitely lacking in psychological depth or even realistic unpredictability. For example, in musical chairs, physically dominant players did not stalk weaker players and steal the chairs from them. Reasoning? The terrain was too complicated so people could escape getting tracked. That's all. Does this hold up under actual physics? Obviously not. It isn't that difficult to stalk someone who has hidden a chair, then steal the chair the moment they both chance upon it, or more likely, to take it from them when they untangle it from its hidden spot, or even wait until the player has to inevitably leave behind the chair in order to participate in the voting session or even upcoming rounds. Why would the eliminated player instead participate in the voting, just to get 1 or 2 medals each time, or become so fully dependent on the informal leader of the Gaia (Young Jump)? This is an unrealistic level of lacking independent thought. They had to be game-theoretically modelled as simple agents by the author, in order for the overarching strategy to succeed.

2: Liar Game's non-strategic methodology feats are lacking. For example, philosophical or psychological or political depth. The manga was indeed made to focus on strategic methodology, so it's inevitable that the non-strategic feats are usually very surface-level, but this is a flaw nonetheless. Being grounded can increase the rigour of the feats, but at the same time, it means the series holds back from exploring creative peaks of human rationality. This is probably the most major flaw.

3: Almost all the scenarios are isolated. Every new feat is given new rules by the author that is mostly methodologically independent from the previous game. There sometimes is a connection to be found such as Yokoya's bribed members continuing on to the next game with him, or the overarching non-performing loan plan dictating the way Akiyama deals with the games, but the general detachment of every new scenario from previous or even later ones gives a lot of leverage to the author to be able to shape the rules in a way where the intended result is achieved. The internal rigidity is still high due to the fixed nature of the games, which prevents the author doing asspulls by introducing random non-fixed variables that the reader could never have predicted simply because the author can conjure anything from his imagination for the plot, but the early freedom of not being bound by the constant introductions of narrative elements still makes it easier for the author to formulate the methodologies.

Some of these flaws might seem pedantic, and they do not truly detract from the methodological superiority that the creative Liar Game scenarios possess over many many many other series, by maintaining such an extreme level of rigour alongside the complexity of the feats' methods.

However, my point is that if a truly top-tier work in methodology scaling were to ever be produced, it would be far greater than this. It would require a truly insane mind to produce. It would need to blend in extremities from both fixed and non-fixed scenarios.

Keep in mind I use the strictest version of methodology, where the method of the character's feats is scaled non-diegetically. Most people use a less strict version than what I use, so my answers may not apply to their usage of it.

Question 1: What is Methodology Scaling?

It is a system for scaling characters based on their intelligence/outsmarting feats, with a focus on scaling the methodology of their feats rather than their narrative magnitude or outcome.

Neither the intelligence of the character within the story NOR the in-universe reception of a feat is relevant to the scale. Instead, the feats are extracted and evaluated as a logical construct independent from the diegetic implications upon the intelligence of the character.

Question 2: What does it mean for Pure Methodology to be a "Non-Diegetic" scaling system?

"Diegetic" refers to elements that exist entirely within the fictional world, bounded by the narrative framing. "Non-diegetic" refers to evaluation outside of the story's bounds.

Examples:

Powerscaling: Diegetic. This scales how powerful the character is when evaluating through the lens of the story.

Conventional Intelligence Scaling (aka Narrative Scaling or "Normal" Scaling): Diegetic. This scales how smart the character is when evaluating through the lens of the story. True Omniscience > Fang Yuan no diff.

Morality Scaling: Non-Diegetic. This evaluates the virtuousness and evilness of characters based on ethical frameworks external to the story itself. Even if the author of a story calls a character "the most moral person in the world," people who do morality scaling do not immediately subscribe to the same opinion, since the evaluation criteria are external to the story.

Lookscaling: Non-Diegetic. Same as above. If the author of a manga says the manga character is the most handsome guy in all possible multiverses, but the manga art is trash, lookscalers will ignore the author statement since they mainly scale independent from the actual narrative. They scale non-diegetically.

Pure Methodology: Non-Diegetic. Same as above. Even if the author says the character is the smartest in the world, or the feat of the character implies a level of intellectual adversity in-universe that is near the peak, these implications are treated as irrelevant and discarded. Only the non-diegetic element (the methodology of the feat) is taken into consideration and evaluated.

Question 3: Does pure methodology require a plan to work under real world physical laws?

NO! This is a common misunderstanding. A verse that is entirely supernatural and contradicts our own universe's natural laws (like Reverend Insanity or 18LoH) can surpass a verse that is mostly built on our own universe's physics (like Dr Stone) if the feats are superior in explicit methodology. Realistic does not always mean good. Logical consistency is more important than realism. If the rules, variables, systems, mechanisms of a fictional world are defined and used in complex rigorous ways during outsmarting scenarios, that is far more impressive methodologically than simple science feats or a real-world strategy that relies on coincidences and opponents acting out of character or stupidly in order for the strategy to succeed.

Question 4: What are some examples of useful categories?

It can be helpful to divide methodology scaling into two primary domains. Strategic methodology and non-strategic methodology.

Strategic methodology is more heavily weighted since the methodology is more difficult to procure (non-strategic methodology relies more on knowledge which is easier to obtain than intelligence).

Examples of subcategories of strategic methodology: Methodological Complexity (explicit interconnected variables interacting in evaluable complex manners), Rigour Maintenance Relative to Complexity (how methodologically rigorous the strategy or feat remains as the complexity increases), Strategic Creativity (the ability to discover non-obvious paths while still remaining in established systems or rulesets), Contingency depth (the degree to which alternative branches are mapped in outsmarting scenarios as opposed to taking only a single pathway with no option available in the event a loophole is exploited by the opponent or a failure results).

Examples of subcategories of non-strategic methodology: Theory of mind (psychological modelling, cognitive understanding, etc.), insightfulness (depth of understanding regarding systems of varying natures such as philosophical, social, political, etc.), mentality (optimization of mindset in a way that counters getting outsmarted or facilitates higher level outsmarting capability), etc.

Question 5: Why is Strategic Methodology weighted higher than Non-Strategic Methodology?

Non-strategic methodological feats (like deep monologues on human nature) do not require as much intelligence to concoct. This makes it less impressive methodologically.

Question 6: Is counterintuitiveness valued?

YES. I already mentioned one category for it (strategic creativity). A good example of something that is counterintuitive while still being methodologically rigorous is the theory of relativity. It is highly logical when you think about it, but can be very counterintuitive and difficult to digest because humans generally think in fixed terms, since space-time relativity only becomes obvious perceptually at macro scales that we do not have the need to deal with explicitly within our daily lives. Same with quantum mechanics.

However, keep in mind that higher counterintuitiveness does not always equate to a higher scale. For example, if the counterintuitiveness results from the author pulling out nonsense to make the character look smart regardless of its logic or rigour, then the creativity does not scale high at all, since it is mere BS and author imagination rather than methodological creativity. For example, if a character somehow correctly decides that the password of an iPhone is 977838 based on someone's favourite food correlating to a quantum spin number of the element that has the same letters as what their first name starts with, and this character also uses the password to deduce that the owner of the phone will get divorced in 6 months (because (97-78)/38 = 0.5 which is equal to 6 months when multiplied by a year), such BS illogical nonsense which cannot hold up to scrutiny outside of what the author decided will succeed within that specific scenario narratively, CANNOT be validated as methodologically creative. At best, at's a 2 digit arithmetic feat.

Feats don't have to be deductive to be valid, since induction and abduction are still possible, but the logic is viewed very strictly and critically in methodology scaling, so logical leaps should not have more robust inferences that can be made if the result is ignored, otherwise it is methodologically flawed. The entire feat in the password example I gave is invalid (or possibly even an antifeat depending on how you scale).

Thus, counterintuitiveness does indeed upscale a methodology, since counterintuitive methodologies are harder to formulate, but it isn't as core to the scaling as other factors like complexity and rigour. If a character creatively does a bunch of logical leaps to reach a result that the author forcefully wants him to reach when there is no logical incentive that can be argued for why that pathway had to be taken and not others, the methodology becomes subject to heavy criticism. This is why planning merchants who "planned the entire novel" are considered frauds in methodology, even if they give a complex explanation at the end of the novel about how they controlled everything from the background. Post hoc justifications usually severely lack rigour.

Useful analogy for methodology scaling: if you were given the ruleset of the system the character operated within when formulating their strategy, would it be possible to eventually reach the same conclusion as the character on the method they used? If not, the methodology is most likely an asspull from the author.

Ask if you have any questions about methodology. I won't be able to answer for all methodology scalers, but I'll be able to answer how I use the strict version of methodology that I use.

Tomodachi Game got the most votes for being low tier in normal scaling and mid tier in pure methodology.

Tomodachi Game: 13 + 4 x 1.5 = 19 votes

Weak Hero: 5 + 2 x 1.5 = 8 votes

Doctor Stone: 6 + 1 x 1.5 = 7.5 votes

Death Note: 6 + 1 x 1.5 = 7.5 votes

Ghost Story Club and Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint: 5 + 1 x 1.5 = 6.5 votes

Liar Game: 1 + 2 x 1.5 = 4 votes

Monster: 2 + 1 x 1.5 = 3.5 votes

Some of these votes were genuine trolls which someone admitted to... 💀

Please be serious.

Pure Methodology Categories (examples):

Methodological Complexity (highest importance), Rigour Maintenance Relative to Complexity (very high importance), Strategic Creativity (high importance), Insightfulness (important), Theory of Mind (important).

Normal Scaling is "how smart the character is story-wise."

Normal Scaling and Pure Methodology are basically OPPOSITES. One scales the intelligence of the characters story-wise, and the other evaluates the explicit methods of the characters' feats from a perspective detached from the story (non-diegetically).

Thinking of it another way, Normal Scaling is a narrative evaluation and Pure Methodology is a game-theoretical evaluation.

Tiers from lowest to highest: Low, Mid, High, Very High, Extreme, Top.

Voting Rules:

Total votes = Highest upvote count + (( total comment count ) multiplied by 1.5)

Vote for a SERIES rather than a character.

If there is a draw, I might just put 2 series in 1 box or use a tie breaker.

Each spot will have around 1 day of voting time.

It is possible to vote for a series that has already been placed if you replace the previous placement with another more suitable series.

Current Vote: Which series is low tier in Normal Scaling but high tier in Pure Methodology?

This is one of my favorite feats from Fang Yuan.

1: Fang Yuan chose to sell blackmail material against his own clan to a merchant named Jia Jin Sheng (due to Jia Jin Sheng's weakness and manipulability). This was also a planned setup for his future scheme of infiltrating the Jia family's arranged competition.

2: However, he got unlucky that at the exact moment he took Jia Jin Sheng to the cave where the blackmail material was present, it was revealed to be a high quality inheritance.

3: The inheritance was of high enough quality that Jia Jin Sheng would murder Fang Yuan for it, so Fang Yuan chose to decisively kill him first. This renders the pawn Jia Jin Sheng useless as a means of gaining access to the family's competition, which is why Fang Yuan thought it pitiful that Jia Jin Sheng had to die, but the inheritance was more valuable, so killing him was worth it.

4: After cleaning up the murder scene, Fang Yuan returned to the village and refrained from revisiting the cave, ignoring the inheritance temporarily to prevent suspicion (this would end up being around 1 month of cautiously refraining).

5: There were valuable gu worms present in Jia Jin Sheng's aperture, but he destroyed them to prevent any tracking links to the body.

6: Fortunately a heavy downpour swept away the smell of blood and helped clean up traces. This also delayed the return of the merchant caravan that Jia Jin Sheng was a part of. However, this lucky event was not actually completely necessary for the misdirection to succeed.

7: It was inevitable that they would return to investigate, since the leader of the caravan (Jia Fu) was entrusted with the safety of his brother Jia Jin Sheng as a test of his character, which would determine the share of inheritance that he receives.

8: To prepare for this investigation, Fang Yuan needed to set up a witness for himself. The witness he chose as most suitable was the academy elder, since he had the resources to investigate Fang Yuan, the factional neutrality to not refrain from speaking up as a witness for Fang Yuan (for some of the elders, speaking up may risk compromising political benefits relative to the other factions), and also the ideal conditions needed for Fang Yuan to practically put his setup into effect.

9: During the interim period of preparing for the upcoming investigation, Fang Yuan undergoes 33 consecutive battles against his classmates and forcefully control his breathing, expression, and posture, to intimidate his classmates into submitting to his weekly extortions. He even acts rebellious and angry against the martial arts instructor, which has the purpose of reinforcing his image to the students, while also attracting the attention of the academy elder he wants to set up as a witness.

10: In order for the elder to actively defend Fang Yuan, he needed to show his value to the clan and not just come off a harmful weed that needs to be cut off at the roots, so he showed his emotional state by acting rebellious against the martial instructor, and also by blowing up an upcoming issue which I'll explain later. This showcasing of vulnerability implies that he isn't detached or emotionless, which allows the academy elder to manipulate him into the clan structure through benefits, and also incentivises the clan leader and faction elders to prevent the academy elder's suppression of him, while supporting his defense in the upcoming investigation. However, Fang Yuan would need a far bigger setup to bring the attention of the elder onto himself, so he chose to advance to middle stage rank which would become a setup for his misdirection while also giving the elder incentive to investigate him (because it makes no sense for Fang Yuan to have reached middle rank the fastest among his classmates with his low talent unless he had external help).

11: However, when he reached middle stage, he chose to patiently wait in his room so that the elder sends guards to his house to question why he was absent from school. This is needed for 3 purposes. Fear inducing the students, forcing the elder to send spies after himself to save his own reputation, blowing the issue out of the water to have the factions suppress the academy elder's interference in the issues of the students, and setting up the misdirection in the upcoming investigation, by using this basis to bring up the liquor worm as an excuse for hiding information, the purpose of which was to make the elders believe he isn't competent at acting. This will be explained.

12: Fang Yuan does the above by cutting off a leg from one guard and the arm of the remaining guard. However, he chose to leave one guard behind and dragged the other one to the classroom, which made the students believe he had killed the guards. (inducing PTSD)

13: The act was justified for multiple reasons: Reason 1: The clan (and the entire gu world for that matter) values strength above all else, especially given the 3-way war between Fang Yuan's village and the other 2 villiages on the mountain. The elder punishing the student who rises in rank the fastest would be seen as suppression and discourage students from seeing hard work as supreme which contradicts the entire paradigm of the gu world. This would be neglecting his role as the academy elder who should be raising the students to become powerhouses for the clan. Reason 2: Mortals (who are weakest) have lives that are of no value relative to gu practitioners like Fang Yuan. Reason 3: Fang Yuan did not actually kill either of the guards. Thus it was not a crime for Fang Yuan. The legal structure of the mortal-level clan in a world focused on strength and cutting off weaklings is obviously not as sophisticated as law in real life.

14: Fang Yuan had also made up lies about the guards slandering the clan and barging in right when he was advancing to middle stage, which forced the elder to either accept his explanation in that moment or investigate into the event. He could not look into the event because the truth of whether they had truly slandered the clan would be revealed (they didn't) which would destroy his reputation if he continued punishing them. If he did not want to become known as an elder that suppresses students with potential in the clan, he had no choice but to refrain from investigating the matter, instead pretending that Fang Yuan's obviously slanderous words were true.

15: The frustration he made the elder feel sets him up as a witness during the interim period after he murdered Jia Jin Sheng, as the elder sends investigators after him to determine how he advanced to middle stage. Fang Yuan did not receive any punishment. On the contrary, he was showered with compliments, which made the other students very afraid. With the issue blown up like this, it will also force either the clan leader himself, or the 2 main elders to interfere and prevent the academy elder from suppressing Fang Yuan (they want to protect the clan rules because the clan rules prevent the interference of the other factions with their own descendants). This frustration in the elder was further strengthened when Fang Yuan continued to extort them after they became student leaders, but could not interfere since the student leaders were from the main factions, and the faction heads wanted to see them grow in the face of setbacks (a student who needs interference from the adults because he's too weak to be able to go up against another fellow student does not deserve to be the leader of the faction). Fang Yuan's extortion (“rashness”, “arrogance”, and “displeasure” was done for the higher-ups to interpret as “showing weakness”.

16: This is what the spies investigated: Fang Yuan's daily life was very simple, and he had a rigid schedule. During the day he would always be attending lessons in the academy, and at night he would always sleep in the dormitories. He worked extremely hard on his cultivation, nurturing his aperture every single night. On some days, he would go out to the village’s only inn to have better meals and to buy wine. He had a special affection towards wine, especially green bamboo wine. He kept a dozen jars of it under his bed. The last point sets up his misdirection to the liquor worm, while the first part makes it clear he has no time for killing Jia Jin Sheng. Also the elder investigated his background and Fang Yuan's experience of being at such a high point and then suddenly falling when his low talent is revealed deceives the elder into thinking Fang Yuan's rebelliousness and arrogance against the clan was understandable.

17: The merchant caravan finally arrives and Fang Yuan who was last seen with him is brought to interrogation. Fang Yuan is brought into the room with all the elders including the Merchant Caravan Leader Jia Fu who needs to find an explanation for his brother's death if he doesn't want to make it seem like he killed his own brother for a higher share of the inheritance. Even the clan leader thought that if Fang Zheng was actually the murder, he would scapegoat Fang Yuan instead since Fang Zheng had higher innate talent.

19: When Fang Yuan was first asked if he knows who Jia Jin Sheng is, he asks "who is Jia Jin Sheng?" which forces the female witness who saw him at the caravan to scream "he's lying!" and explain how Fang Yuan gambled in Jia Jin Sheng's caravan. Fang Yuan puts on an expression of nervousness before pretending that he suddenly realized who it is, lying that he never saw him again.

20: When another witness (a male employee at the tavern he met with Jia Jin Sheng again in) calls him out for lying again, Fang Yuan looks at him as if he only just recognized him, reveals a shocked face, then tries to suppress the shock once more. The elders saw these changes in expression, but this was intentionally done to make them believe he isn't great at acting, while also setting up a further misdirection. This is also seen through by the tavern witness which gave him the confidence to reveal the truth about how Fang Yuan had met with Jia Jin Sheng at the tavern.

21: Fang Yuan puts on a frantic expression and shouts “How can that be!” He hurriedly said, “The wine shop had so many people, how can you be sure it was me? You might be mistaken!” This supposedly clear attempt at an excuse makes it obvious Fang Yuan is lying and truly did meet him at the tavern, and that he is also not that competent at acting. However, Fang Yuan needs an object of misdirection, and he chose to use the tavern worker because of a prior setup that accidentally became useful (the tavern worker also saw him feeding a rare liquor worm). This becomes the excuse for what he was trying to hide with his lie.

22: When the witness smugly mentions how Fang Yuan had the rare liquor worm, Fang Yuan laughed coldly in his heart, but showed an expression of shock on his face and pretended to subconsciously take a step backwards.

23: The elders asked him where he got the liquor worm from, but he clenched his fists, gritted his teeth, and refused to answer, acting stubborn! This forces them all into a frenzy as they ask him where he obtained the liquor worm, and when finally an elder asks him if he killed Jia Jin Sheng to obtain the liquor worm, Fang Yuan uses the opportunity for his acting by raising his head and indignantly shouting loudly as if he had been slandered, "How can it be his? I obtained it myself! I opened it!"

24: When he is question, he lies, “That’s right. At this point, I shall not hide it any further!” Fang Yuan acted as if he was risking everything, speaking urgently. (he chose to tell a half-truth that conveniently leaves out him going to the cave with Jia Jin Sheng)

25: However, there needs to be a source for the liquor worm. Fang Yuan actually set up the source in a previous tactic that did not succeed, so he reused the same tactic here to convincingly excuse the existence of the liquor worm as a product of luck, with a proper witness (the female worker) and justification. The trick was that when he bought 6 rocks at the gambling tavern, he did not actually open the sixth one. He only opened it at home, and it turned out to be empty, but he lied that the liquor worm was obtained from it! At this point he simply stayed silent and let the elders justify it themselves! Probability being low? Anything can be justified with luck, and it was already proven Fang Yuan supposedly got lucky when he opened the other gu worm with multiple witnesses in public. Refinement difficulty? Easy, since gu worms are weak after hibernation, etc.

26: Finally, Fang Yuan continues once more, making up the story about Jia Jin Sheng, without contradicting the logical facts revealed by the witnesses. However, Fang Yuan also intentionally revealed how Jia Jing Sheng had tried to scam someone only for Jia Fu to appear and save the day, revealing their internal conflict. This "accidental" mention sets up his upcoming accusation which indirectly misdirects the murder to Jia Fu's other brother, while also compelling Jia Fu to change the topic out of embarrassment. Jia Fu asks if JJS chased after Fang Yuan when he left the tavern, and Fang Yuan speaks the half truth that he did, but that the purpose was to buy the liquor worm and they never saw each other again.

27: “Speak, did you kill Jia Jin Sheng?!” Jia Fu demanded, attempting to pressure Fang Yuan with his aura. Fang Yuan denied it once again, claiming that he did not see Jia Jin Sheng after that. Jia Fu had no other evidence. At this point, it had become a stalemate. As Gu Yue Bo listened, he grew displeased. Jia Jin Sheng actually dared to threaten the Gu Yue Clan? This was not giving them any respect! Now Jia Fu dared to interrogate a Gu Yue clansman so intensely in front of all the clan elders. It was one thing if he had evidence, but he clearly did not.

28: Their family also had a method to trace the gu worms of the dead member, but Fang Yuan choosing to destroy the gu worms cut off this method, so what exactly is the motive? The murderer stole nothing, and it can't even be a crime of passion (such as both being in love with the same person) because that would be longer-term which would make it even less likely for this exact village to be the culprit since it would open up possibilities of prior planning before the caravan had even entered the village.

29: When the hall falls into silence and a stalemate is reached, Fang Yuan finally opens up the core method of his entire scheme! He says to Jia Fu “Maybe you killed him. I heard that your father is splitting his inheritance. Now that one brother is dead, wouldn’t you get more?” Everyone is already fairly certain it isn't Jia Fu so the elders tell Fang Yuan to shut up. There is no way Jia Fu is so dumb that he's going to kill his own brother who was entrusted to him, since it'll only guilt him in the eyes of the father sharing the inheritance. This makes Fang Yuan look politically "average" in intelligence in the eyes of the elders since he was only able to think a few layers deep and not see the big picture. But he did this intentionally!! The second setup is that, while Jia Fu himself would not want to kill Jia Jin Sheng, the OTHER BROTHER who wants to frame Jia Fu as the murderer for a higher share of the inheritance has the motive!!

30: “The Jia family’s internal dispute!” One of the elders had a flash of inspiration and lightly muttered. He did not speak loudly, but in the silent hall, it could be heard clearly. All at once, the elders’ eyes lit up. Finally, they’ve realized it. Fang Yuan’s mouth twitched, his eyelids drooping to hide the cold light in his eyes.

31: To make someone believe in something wholeheartedly, you cannot convince them, you must direct them. Fang Yuan’s keen eyes allowed him to see these glances, and he laughed coldly in his heart, but his face still showed indignation and stubbornness. At this point, even Jia Fu was deceived into believing his own brother had killed Jia Jin Sheng. However, he had no choice but to "frame" Fang Yuan as a scapegoat.

32: Jia Fu kept questioning Fang Yuan, and asks if he has a witness. Eventually, Fang Yuan shows an indignant expression after being berated, but finally grits his teeth and "helplessly" says “No.” Right when he is about to be accused as the murderer, the academy elder who Fang Yuan set up as the witness speaks up to defend him, and mentions how he sent spies to investigate Fang Yuan with no time available for Fang Yuan to harm Jia Jin Sheng.

33: The main reason the clan Leader approves of the academy elder speaking up is political and geographical (the mountainous region makes travel and trade difficult so the merchant caravans need to be relied on but if the clan gains the reputation of murdering an important caravan member, caravans will avoid them due to lack of trust). Fang Yuan was a mere C grade, so if he really had harmed Jia Jin Sheng, handing him over was nothing. But now that he had been cleared of all suspicion, if he was handed over, the Gu Yue Clan would suffer a great injustice and suffer a terrible loss. Yes, this is it… Fang Yuan was hidden behind the academy elder’s back, and no one could see his lips curl into a slight smile.

35: Jia Fu also uses a footprint gu to see Fang Yuan's 30000 footprints, but since he chose to stay away from the cave in the past few days, all his footprints show him circling the village, corroborating the academy elder's investigation.

36: The final method was a truth detector gu, but rather than panicking, Fang Yuan confidently and unhesitatingly does as instructed since he realizes that he has a rare gu worm that can suppress its effect.

37: There is one final investigator remaining (Tie Xue Leng), but he is terribly busy and likely to come only in 2-3 years, by which Fang Yuan plans to have already escaped the mountain after reaching Rank 3.

I didn't explain a lot of the background of the story, but it helps to make it less confusing when you know how the gu world is structured.

Pure Methodology Categories (examples):

Methodological Complexity (highest importance), Rigour Maintenance Relative to Complexity (very high importance), Strategic Creativity (high importance), Insightfulness (important), Theory of Mind (important).

Normal Scaling is "how smart the character is story-wise."

Normal Scaling and Pure Methodology are basically OPPOSITES. One scales the intelligence of the characters story-wise, and the other evaluates the explicit methods of the characters' feats from a perspective detached from the story (non-diegetically).

Thinking of it another way, Normal Scaling is a narrative evaluation and Pure Methodology is a game-theoretical evaluation.

Voting Rules:

Highest upvote count + (( total comment count ) multiplied by 2)

Vote for a SERIES rather than a character.

If there is a draw, I might just put 2 series in 1 box or use a tie breaker.

Each spot will have around 1 day of voting time.

Current Vote: Which series is low tier in both Normal Scaling and Pure Methodology?

Methodological Complexity: Akiyama (not close)

Justification: The most complex feat of Akiyama vs the most complex feat of Fang Yuan is closer in number of variables explicated, but the general complexity (average feat from both) is not even remotely close. Also, the complexity of Fang Yuan's fate war feats is overrated since the interconnectedness is not high. It isn't purely "hundreds of chapters of scheming" like some people assume, since there was a high level of improvisation involved for the majority of the elements. Interconnectedness is important for methodological complexity.

General rigour: Akiyama (close)

Justification: Akiyama's feats are mainly mathematically rigorous which makes it very difficult for people to flaw, and there are almost no loopholes available for an opponent to exploit once he implements his strategies. The reason Fang Yuan is close is due to the "rationality rigour" in his feats. His feats often have similar (and sometimes higher) levels of unexploitability due to its strong adherence to the world's rules, political systems, human psychology, realism, etc. Also, a criticism for Liar Game is that the opponents can often be very stupid. Just to give an example: They fell for Yokoya's "clairvoyance" for multiple rounds straight rather than considering the possibility of a traitor and lying to their team about how much money they would take out, THEN they fell for Akiyama's pseudoscience lie which I suppose wasn't that bad since normal humans could find it convincing too if someone spoke confidently and persuasively, but THEN they fell for Harimoto saying his spirit controlled the tablet. These are just a few examples of the same type, but there are way too many. This often translates to existent exploitable loopholes, such as in games like Musical Chairs where the overall strategy relied on a simple modelling of characters and their motivations (stalking doesn't work, Gaia are generally inactive or uncreative during intermediate rest periods, etc.), or as another example, the abrupt introduction of contracts in RO4K which previously went unutilized for situations in which it demanded the utility of trust, which detracts from the writing too. This is why even though Liar Game is more rigorous (even mathematically for many of the feats), Reverend Insanity is close due to its contextual rigour which Liar Game lacks.

Rigour maintenance relative to complexity: Akiyama (not close)

Justification: While the general rigour may be close, the maintained level of rigour given increasing complexity is nowhere near close. The majority of the logical loopholes and flaws that can be exploited in Akiyama's feats are often a result of the increasing level of complexity formulated by the author. Conversely, as Fang Yuan's feats increase in complexity, it is often improvisation or external additions or even ambiguity (such as coming up with killer moves on the spot) that is thrown in to maintain the motivations of the characters and make the strategies succeed. Note: As the complexity increases, the logical rigour tends to decrease, so maintaining a rigour to complexity ratio of 1:1 is easy with low complexity, but very difficult with high complexity. Some of Fang Yuan's lower level feats (like volume 1) may be highly rigorous but they lack the level of complexity Akiyama's strategies had, meanwhile his complex feats often lack rigour. Akiyama contrastingly maintains rigour despite the shifts in complexity.

Strategic Creativity: Akiyama (close)

Justification: Fang Yuan's feats often involve the author creatively shaping the gu world itself to make his feats succeed, while Akiyama's feats are often done in fixed frameworks where author intervention is not present to the same extent, so the creativity needs to be assessed from the perspective of the character instead. Fang Yuan's feats can overrely on utilizing the given system in an unexplained manner (coming up with killer moves to resolve unresolvable situations) while Akiyama usually goes beyond fixed systems in creative but logically determinate ways that don't adhere to the general methodology expected of a character within the system while still adhering to the overall logic of the given world and rules in a way that can be tracked by the reader.

Overall (Strategic Methodology): Akiyama (not even close)

---

Insightfulness: Fang Yuan (not close)

Justification: Akiyama's depth is mainly strategic, not philosophical. While some of his quotes may give insight into human nature or social systems, such as his quote about doubt, it doesn't even come close to the depth of insight expounded upon by Fang Yuan (social systems, philosophical extremes, human nature, etc.) Fang Yuan easily takes this.

Mentality: Fang Yuan (close)

Justification: Surprisingly close. Fang Yuan's mentality makes him very difficult to outsmart. It is also a mentality that most people are automatically averse to, which prevents them from coming to similar conclusions despite having similar belief values as premises, the logical consequences of which should be inevitable given their paradigm. This mentality is a core theme of the novel and is expounded upon in detail through his monologues and thoughts. However, Akiyama's mentality of often thinking outside of entire systems (Musical Chairs, NPL Plan) and even removing his own self-preservation bias to come up with plans that transcend given systems (Self-Sacrifice Plan, Musical Chairs Laevinic Defeat, etc.) brings him closer. However, Fang Yuan's mentality is clearly a level above Akiyama's and is of a form that makes him harder to outsmart than if he were to have Akiyama's attachment mentality. Additionally, Akiyama has antifeats such as falling for Yokoya's taunting rather than improvising a method to keep him in the game (Nao had to do it instead), so Fang Yuan takes.

Theory of Mind: Fang Yuan (not close)

Justification: Akiyama does have some good showings of theory of mind, by utilizing tactics that depend on the intelligence of the person being manipulated (pseudoscientific tactic for the NPCs, complex strategies to cognitive overload the intelligent opponents like Yokoya, and empathetic speech for Nao that overturns her worldview without sounding overbearing or resulting in her becoming defensive). However, the theoretical depth is nowhere near close to Fang Yuan's feats. Even using only his volume 1 feats (understanding of how the psychological state of the elders shapes and maintains the political systems in place, using Mo Yan's state of mind against her, monologues on the mentality of virtually every opponent and character throughout the volume, etc.) is enough to surpass Akiyama's theory of mind which was often simple unpredictable motivation-based game theoretical modelling.

Overall (Non-Strategic Methodology): Fang Yuan (not close)

---

Conclusion

These are basically the main categories of methodology scaling important for this specific comparison.

Overall (Strategic Methodology): Akiyama (not even close)

Overall (Non-Strategic Methodology): Fang Yuan (not close)

Overall Methodology: Akiyama low-mid diffs. The categories he doesn't take from Fang Yuan (non-strategic methodology) are actually not that difficult to make a character scale high in compared to the ones he does take (strategic methodology), so the importance is lower. Rigour maintenance combined with complexity especially requires a really high level of intelligence to maintain, so those are given the most importance.

I don't like using too many categories in methodology scaling, especially for a comparison that does not require it, but if I missed any important categories, let me know so I can either include it, or explain why I didn't include it.

If you don't know what methodology is, please don't get ragebaited by this post. It's a completely serious post, but most people don't know how to (or find it very difficult to) use a scaling system like this because of how unintuitive it is. If you don't like scaling systems, you can simply move on and ignore the post... or rant about how I'm ruining your life or not adhering to objectivity or something like that, I don't really care (you're wrong).

I also think Fang Yuan outsmarts Akiyama by the way, but this post is an evaluation of their respective methodologies, not their innate "smartness" derivable from the narrative, so Akiyama takes the win.

Preferably something you can read or watch from start to end (like a novel or book, not a textbook).

Focusing on creativity and divergent thinking at the moment, not rigorousness.

It can be non-fictional like The Art of Strategy: A Game Theorist's Guide which was fun to read and is a perfect example of the kind of thing I'm looking for.

It can also be fictional. Something like 18LoH / Liar Game was also highly enjoyable to read for example. 18LoH was much more enjoyable than Liar Game since the braindead side characters of Liar Game were a turnoff.

Anything more? I wanna explore interesting ideas but I don't wanna take out a pen and paper to start solving things, so it should be similar to a book that can be read from beginning to end rather than a rigorous textbook, but if you know a really good textbook that was enjoyable for you, that'll be okay too since I can add it to my reading list for later. However, at the moment my reading priority is diverse sources of inspiration rather than something to drill in concepts rigorously.

ALSO it can be a website or youtube channel that I can explore. Again, the focus is on creativity, divergent thinking, enjoyability, smooth reading/viewing experience, etc.

Please give recommendations if you've found anything interesting. Age level doesn't matter, difficulty doesn't matter, I don't have a strict criteria for this, just give what you know if you think I might find it interesting.

Obviously [ Ravages of Time / Liar Game ] is extremely high...

and [ Usogui / One Outs / Akagi / Kingdom ] are up there.

And [ Death Note / Master of Gu / Dr Frost ] is also pretty good.

And [ Ember Knight ] is not that bad I suppose.

And [ COTE ] manga is a low tier bum fraud trash fodder verse with subhuman IQ methodology etc. etc. etc.

Let's ignore these popular ones for a moment.

What are some manga/manhwa/manhua that scale high in methodology? It's obviously gotta be somewhat scheming focused otherwise it can't really scale high. It doesn't need to be a top tier, but it should at least be on the level of Master of Gu or even Ember Knight, but preferably higher.

Do you know of any?

He is allergic to braindead characters. If a character acts stupid, he will act up and his allergies will make him suffer.

He is also allergic to getting hard. Make sure there is absolutely 0 sexual/romantic content otherwise he WILL get hard and thus suffer from extreme allergic reactions.

He is NOT allergic to dark content so if there is murder, politics, warfare, etc., that's completely okay.

He IS allergic to narrative-merchants that lack onscreen feats so make sure the novel has good methodology too.

Let's just say he is 20 years old, so intelligent enough to handle complexity.

Examples of good recs: 18LoH, Reverend Insanity Volume 1, Lupin, Sherlock, Death Note without Misa.

Examples of bad recs: COTE (allergy gonna kill 🙏😂), Liar Game (braindead opponents = allergy), Monster (narrative merchant = allergy).

Any recommendations? I don't want him to suffer, but he enjoys reading so he's using me as the poisontester for his allergies.