What is the difference between Lifeblood Fable and Gloryseeker modules

[Psiklou]

It is all in the title,

So I read the modules descriptions:

Lifeblood Fable
Your reputation is the lifeblood of your success in many aspects of life such as business, romance and politics. Without nurturing it, you leave an incredibly important factor to potentially random elements and accidents. Lifeblood Fable will help you shape your reputation in any way you desire – a reputation of a profound spiritual teacher, of a powerful business magnate, of a seducer who makes all weak in the knees – with Lifeblood Fable, you have the choice. Not only that, but you will also effortlessly improve your reputation generally in the most beneficial way to you and find ways to evolve it even further.

Gloryseeker
Fame and glory are the dreams of many, but the reality of a few. Gloryseeker will help you achieve true fame in a way that fits you perfectly. It will guide you on how to do so, assist you with creating an air of fame around you, and instill in others a sense that you are on the path to great glory… Millions emptily fantasize, but now you will be one of the few to have the annals of history within your grasp.

But I feel these descriptions are too poetic. Both are important for the way people perceive you : reputation vs fame.

Is Gloryseeker broader than Lifeblood fable?
Did someone use both modules and explain the difference?

[RVconsultant]

@Psiklou

Did someone use both modules and explain the difference?

You could submit a support ticket or put this in this thread:

List: Updated Descriptions of Similar Sounding Q Modules

Here are all the updated descriptions of Q modules that were deemed to be too similar sounding, in a list for y’all to check out. Each module’s extended description can be found on their respective pages. Natural winner and Overdrive Similarities, differences, combinations: Natural Winner is for those who desire to add a powerful pillar of success into their custom. It is a module that gradually shifts your mindset of someone who is always a winner, no matter what happens, creating a profo…

[Psiklou]

@RVconsultant

You could submit a support ticket or put this in this thread:

ok I will do

[Yazooneh]

Mate it’s literally in the description

One is for general reputation amongst your circle and one is for absolute fame and being known far and wide

Don’t mean to sound condescending but like it’s right there in the description

[Malkuth]

They are related but not identical.

Reputation and Fame (Glory) are not always the exact same thing.

Fame / Glory is to be known and admired by a wide range of people, many of whom may have had no direct dealings with you. It maximizes and extends the breadth of your renown, popularity, and public recognition. Beyond just the dictionary definition, there’s a certain excitement and glamour to fame. People want to know you just for the sake of knowing you. It’s a type of appeal and magnetism.

Reputation on the other hand is not necessarily about the breadth of your public recognition. It’s about the perception anyone has of you and the impression that you make and leave with others. If and when your name is discussed, what beliefs, perceptions, and evaluations are associated with that name?

Reputation is about the specific content and qualities of the impressions have of you. (e.g., “Psiklou is Trustworthy, professional, Discerning, Formidable, Kind”, and so on).

Fame is about how widespread, exciting, and attractive your name is. “Have you heard the latest stories of Psiklou??!!! Well grab a seat, you really need to hear this!”

Some people have incredibly strong reputations, but are not famous. These are the “if you know, you know” people.

Some people have enormous fame, but not a very clear reputation. Like how the mysterious Banksy used to be. Everyone knew of this artist, and no one knew who he was.

And some people have great fame and a sterling reputation in some area. Steve Jobs, Malala, Gandhi, Greta Thunberg.

[friday]

@Malkuth

Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg certainly does not have a sterling reputation in the world lol.
She could use that module a lot haha.

Great post though

[Sage_Ninjistic]

@Malkuth

They are related but not identical.

Reputation and Fame (Glory) are not always the exact same thing.

Fame / Glory is to be known and admired by a wide range of people, many of whom may have had no direct dealings with you. It maximizes and extends the breadth of your renown, popularity, and public recognition. Beyond just the dictionary definition, there’s a certain excitement and glamour to fame. People want to know you just for the sake of knowing you. It’s a type of appeal and magnetism.

Reputation on the other hand is not necessarily about the breadth of your public recognition. It’s about the perception anyone has of you and the impression that you make and leave with others. If and when your name is discussed, what beliefs, perceptions, and evaluations are associated with that name?

Reputation is about the specific content and qualities of the impressions have of you. (e.g., “Psiklou is Trustworthy, professional, Discerning, Formidable, Kind”, and so on).

Fame is about how widespread, exciting, and attractive your name is. “Have you heard the latest stories of Psiklou??!!! Well grab a seat, you really need to hear this!”

Some people have incredibly strong reputations, but are not famous. These are the “if you know, you know” people.

Some people have enormous fame, but not a very clear reputation. Like how the mysterious Banksy used to be. Everyone knew of this artist, and no one knew who he was.

And some people have great fame and a sterling reputation in some area. Steve Jobs, Malala, Gandhi, Greta Thunberg.

It’s your descriptions like this that cause me to drop some of my recreational habits and expand my mind 🥲 always a pleasure to read a Malkuth breakdown.

[Yazooneh]

thank you for saving my face

[Psiklou]

@Malkuth

And some people have great fame and a sterling reputation in some area. Steve Jobs, Malala, Gandhi, Greta Thunberg.

Thanks for the thorough explanation that makes it clear. I was in fact wondering at one point which one was preferable to the other. Now I understand why each can be nice that have.

@Yazooneh

Don’t mean to sound condescending

Yeah I don’t mind as my question has been answered

[Simon]

@Malkuth

Some people have enormous fame, but not a very clear reputation.
…
Steve Jobs, Malala, Gandhi, Greta Thunberg.

Yup. Super famous, and with questionable reputations. All 4 of them.

---

Fully agree on the concept distinctions.

[Malkuth]

Yes, I don’t think it’s possible to have a truly morally unassailable reputation.

But the question to ask is: ‘if and when each of these sounds (sounded) a call, will or will not (did or did not) throngs off followers and supporters rise and flock to the banner?’

I don’t think reputation is about being without human flaws and limitations. It’s about being regarded as deeply representative of something. Sufficiently aligned with something recognizable.

Reputation is well expressed in the phrase:

“S/he’s good for it”

When it comes to some particular area of life, you can safely depend on the cost being paid. This person’s good for it.

[Malkuth]

@Simon

Yup. Super famous, and with questionable reputations. All 4 of them.

Also, brightness and intensity in any area seems to intrinsically give rise to shadows in corresponding areas.

The admirable and disciplined moral paragon is cold and aloof in intimate relationships.

The high-achiever promotes a narrative of self-sufficiency while neglecting and under appreciating the various people who sacrifice to make those achievements possible.

Maybe it’s from these very flaws that the strength of reputation sometimes arises.

[Simon]

@Malkuth

brightness and intensity in any area seems to intrinsically give rise to shadows in corresponding areas.

Oh I understand that. I prefer my heroes to be human.

But I truly meant the “questionable reputations” part – the Fame/Brand Engines (media & books) keep telling us that they each have a certain “S/he’s good for it” Reputation – which happens to be mostly untrue and won’t stand to scrutiny.

Let me use 2 different examples (because 3 of those 4 are political hot potatoes)…

Tom Cruise – actor, stuntman, good at making quality entertainment, has his quirks & beliefs.
… There is little gap between what we’re told he is, and who he actually is.

Elon Musk – we’re told he is a visionary genius out to solve the biggest problems of mankind.
… In truth, most of his ideas are neither original, nor successful, and the few that work aren’t meaningfully solving any real problems.

---

---

Now, I have no intention of turning this topic into a debate. I just want to shed light on the possibilities of how to use the Modules.

Personal Branding can be built on a foundation of your own Ikigai (SQ), however it can also be faked with propaganda & ceremonies (PCC).

[Malkuth]

Good points.

Fact is, I’m not very familiar with or interested in most of these people. Just picked some based on general impressions.

[Psiklou]

A corollary for me using these modules would be to be able to reframe (Best case) or mitigate (worst case).

Let’s say I use both Modules in a custom before taking a new position aT work. Lifeblood and Glory makes me a star before even moving a finger. Then let’s suppose I fuck up a big project. Normally everybody would be quick to burn the rising star, but with these modules I would be able to reframe the whole situation as a success.

[remarkable]

@Malkuth

Fact is, I’m not very familiar with or interested in most of these people. Just picked some based on general impressions.

Perhaps you should have picked people that you knew a lot more about.

How about JRR Tolkien, Calvin Coolidge, Eric Blair and Samuel Pepys for example.

[Malkuth]

@remarkable

Perhaps you should have picked people that you knew a lot more about.

That’s fair.

Truth is though, I think it’s unlikely to find someone whose reputation wouldn’t be tarnished if you learned more about them.

Part of the point of reputation is that it’s a public face. We’re all still free to hold our private contradictions, limitations, and foibles. Even just getting the public face up to par (with more than 20 percent of the people) is already an admirable accomplishment.

[remarkable]

@Malkuth

Truth is though, I think it’s unlikely to find someone whose reputation wouldn’t be tarnished if you learned more about them.

Well yes…

…and no.

How about picking people that don’t have the reputation for being “nice” or “good” but some other attribute and when the truth comes out you won’t be disappointed with their lack of “niceness” or “goodness”.

[Malkuth]

@remarkable

How about picking people that don’t have the reputation for being “nice” or “good” but some other attribute and when the truth comes out you won’t be disappointed with their lack of “niceness” or “goodness”.

True.

…If we’re talking about disappointment.

But if we’re talking about the basic accuracy of the reputation, the same point will hold. People are rarely as 2-dimensional as our public personae and reputations. Scratch the surface, and there’ll usually appear a number of contradictions. We’re human.

Why are we talking about this again?

oh yeah, because it’s interesting.

(And we also do both have reputations for talking about these kinds of things. Wouldn’t want to spoil that.)

[remarkable]

@Malkuth

But if we’re talking about the basic accuracy of the reputation, the same point will hold.

What is the reputation of the four people you mentioned, is it true?

What is the reputation of the four people I mentioned, is it more true than your examples?

@Malkuth

oh yeah, because it’s interesting.

It certainly is.