Are gamers smarter?

[Xeriar]

Well, I would argue that you are underestimating the levels of literacy and numeracy required to play D&D competently. In my previous posts, you'll note, I was suggesting that the barriers would be problematic for the bottom 10% of society. Even eliminating the bottom 5% would be more than adequate to create a statistically significant difference.

Bottom 5% would have an int of 5 or lower (and are generally the really unfortunate people in our society that I wonder how many on these boards have gotten to know, reading this thread.)

Which would raise the 'average' to about 11 rather than 10.5.

 

[Umbran]

Given the numerical scale of what we're talking about (ie. thousands and thousands of gamers), you have to admit that it is vastly more likely that gamers are more intelligent than the average population.

Not if the barriers in question select as strongly or more strongly for other factors than they do for intelligence. I hope this will become more clear in a moment.

Where did the modal language go?

The modal language is directly related to the lack of variables

If I sayt here's a correlation, that means that two things tend to be linked. A high value of X implies a better than random chance probability of Y being high.

I can do an analysis, and show that as IQ goes up, so does the average income in the person's household. I can do an analysis, and show that as IQ number goes up, so does the average grade level attained. In each case, I'd say there's a correlation.

I have no numeric value that I know directly measures intelligence. The only measure I do have is IQ tests. I cannot do an analysis and show that as IQ scores rise, IQ test scores rise, and thereby claim that intelligence is rising. I need a separate measure for intelligence that is not an IQ test. Otherwise, I'm saying that IQ tests measure intelliegence because intelligence is what IQ tests measure. That's circular.

Here's the problem right here. We are operating from different definitions of intelligence.

Yes. And, as I noted at the very start of the thread, the lack of a generally accepted definition makes things difficult.

What is your definition? To me, literacy and numeracy skills don't merely correlate to intelligence, they are components of it. All intelligence is to me is proficiency with literacy+numeracy+logic. I don't think we can proceed any further in this argument until you come up with what definition you are using for intelligence.

Well, it isn't yours. I would guess that it isn't the definition most folk around here use, either, though I might be wrong.

To me, intelligence is not the proficiency with linguistic, numeric, and logic skill. Intelligence is the ability to be proficient with those skills, and possibly others. For example - there is a famous gorilla, named Koko, who learned a form of sign language. Gaining the linguistic skill did not make Koko intelligent. It revealed her intelligence. It showed she had greater mental capabilities than we thought gorillas posessed. It showed us that gorillas are more intelligent than we thought.

Why are we isolating one thing? In my understanding of statistics, we are selecting for all those things. I don't understand how you are arguing that because we are also selecting for education and income, we cannot therefore be selecting for intelligence.

Ah. Unfortunately, it seems your understanding of statistics is flawed. The truth is that we may be selecting for any one of those things, or some combination. I'm not arguing that we cannot be selecting for intelligence. I'm arguing that we only know that intelligence is one of many things for which we might be selecting. We don't know which one we're actually selecting for without tests separate from the original selection criteria.

 

[buzzard]

You have gamers. You are comparing them to society at large. I assert that they are more literate and numerate than society at large, on average, because there are literacy and numeracy barriers to entry for RPG participation. I am not required to prove conclusively that nothing else correlates to RPG participation. Unless you can show me data that, of those people who are literate and numerate, the more intelligent ones are less likely to participate in RPGs, I'm done.

That's funny. I know gamers who are only fairly literate at best, and use calculators to add up single digits. Now where were those barriers to entry?

buzzard

 

[Mean DM]

In terms of a standard bell curve which is used in most IQ tests then average is 68% of the population, which lies within 1 standard ditrubution of 100 +/- 15. Above average is the next standard deviation above 115 up to 130.

Just for clarity's sake, modern IQ tests do not define Average as +/- 1 SD. It is difined theoretically as 50% of the population (i.e., IQ 90-110; 25th - 75th %ile). That means 25% is above average, and 25% below (not 50% as another poster suggested).

Cheers,

Mark

 

[Umbran]

Just for clarity's sake, modern IQ tests do not define Average as +/- 1 SD. It is difined theoretically as 50% of the population (i.e., IQ 90-110; 25th - 75th %ile). That means 25% is above average, and 25% below (not 50% as another poster suggested).

Yes and no. In terms of straight mathematics - if IQ follows a nice, symmentric, normal frequency distribution, there is a peak. That peak may be called the average value. Half the population will be above that value, half will be below.

That is separate from asking if an individual is of "average IQ" in terms of whether he fits "human norms" The human norm is within a range, but the arithmetic average is still a point.

 

[fusangite]

Bottom 5% would have an int of 5 or lower (and are generally the really unfortunate people in our society that I wonder how many on these boards have gotten to know, reading this thread.)

Which would raise the 'average' to about 11 rather than 10.5.

That's all I'm arguing!

Umbran, thanks for your definition of intelligence. I'm not prepared to entertain debate about something as inaccessible as what you are refering to. While I have some sympathy for your definition, it is one I have discarded for myself.

Another problem I have with your debate here is that you argue that I have to conclusively demonstrate that there are no confounding factors. I would suggest that the burden for identifying such factors rests equally, if not more greatly, with the person disputing the correlation relationship put forward.

Unfortunately, I think we have reached a point in our discussion where there are discursive barriers that will prevent any further progress or clarification.

buzzard, if you want to argue that there are no barriers to entry for our hobby, why don't you head down to your local high school's remedial class and teach them 3.5E D&D.

 

[Umbran]

Umbran, thanks for your definition of intelligence. I'm not prepared to entertain debate about something as inaccessible as what you are refering to. While I have some sympathy for your definition, it is one I have discarded for myself.

Fair enough. We were originally asked not to make the thread a debate on such anyway.

Another problem I have with your debate here is that you argue that I have to conclusively demonstrate that there are no confounding factors. I would suggest that the burden for identifying such factors rests equally, if not more greatly, with the person disputing the correlation relationship put forward.

Yes. It has been done by better experts on the subject than you and I. The fact that the correlation between IQ and economic status, and IQ and educational status exist is the major argument in support of the idea that IQ tests are "biased" against minorities and low-income people. I don't have handy links, unfortunately, as the last time I looked at the subject was a couple of years ago. But when I was engaged in debate on the value of IQ elsewhere I looked some of the studies up. It's pretty solidly shown to be true, statistically.

I should perhaps clarify. What I dug up was that IQ correlated with economic status at the time the child was educated. IQ also showed fairly strong positive correlation to academic performance. IQ showed positive, but much weaker, correlation to later economic status. In other words, high IQ tended to indicate that your parents were wealthy, and that you'd do well in school. It didn't track later economic success nearly as well. Lots of folks score well on IQ tests, but don't do well in the working world, it seems.

I can't support that with literature at the moment, though. You can take it with a grain of salt, if you wish.

Unfortunately, I think we have reached a point in our discussion where there are discursive barriers that will prevent any further progress or clarification.

As you will.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

The original question posed was:

One of the threads on female gamers got me thinking about whether RPGers are smarter than non-gamers on average. I suspect from 20 years of gaming that most gamers think so. What do you reckon?
...
So are gamers smarter?

As far as my limited skills of comprehension allow, fusangite's proposition is that "yes, gamers are smarter than non-gamers" on the simple fact that "gamers" cannot include persons who have below a certain level of linguistic and other skills (there is a barrier to entry to the class "gamers").

If:

Proposition 1: "gamers" and "non-gamers" are exclusive classes of human beings;
Proposition 2: the class "gamers" has no members who are less than 6 months old (that is, every human being less than 6 months old is a "non-gamer");

then:

Conclusion 1: the average intelligence of "gamers" is defined by reference only to human beings 6 months old or older;
Conclusion 2: the average intelligence of "non-gamers" is defined by reference to human beings of any age.

If:

Proposition 3: human beings of less than 6 months old are less intelligent than human beings 6 months old or older;

then:

Conclusion 3: average intelligence of the class of human beings called "gamers" must be higher than the average intelligence of human beings called "non-gamers".

Which proposition does Umbran not agree with, again? Does it come down to a definition of "intelligence", which we've been expressly forbidden from discussing?

Note: I am not a logician; I am a lawyer...

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Mean DM]

Yes and no. In terms of straight mathematics - if IQ follows a nice, symmentric, normal frequency distribution, there is a peak. That peak may be called the average value. Half the population will be above that value, half will be below.

That is separate from asking if an individual is of "average IQ" in terms of whether he fits "human norms" The human norm is within a range, but the arithmetic average is still a point.

Yes, there is an important distinction between the "average" statistically (i.e., mean) and what is labeled as "Average" theoretically (a range) with psychometric tests. I was talking about the latter, but should have been clearer.

But as far as the original question goes (which I never answered), I'd say we are not smarter. There is probably a unique common trait that we excel at better than our non-gamer friends, but IMO it is not Intelligence.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[Mean DM]

Yes. It has been done by better experts on the subject than you and I. The fact that the correlation between IQ and economic status, and IQ and educational status exist is the major argument in support of the idea that IQ tests are "biased" against minorities and low-income people.

Having just looked at the normative data from the newest IQ test, the WISC-IV, I have to disagree with you on this one. The newer tests show *no* statistical difference between minorities (in this case, African American, Hispanic) and white children.

Cheers,

Mark