Are gamers smarter?

[fusangite]

Take a person (person A), of average intelligence. Pick person B at random from the population. There's a probability P (since A is average, P=50%), that person B will be more intelligent than A.

Now, pick person B' from the population, based upon the fact that B' has a higher IQ than A. There's some probability P' that he will be more intelligent than A. The correlation between IQ and intelligence means that P'>P. It does not ensure B' is smarter, it only indicates it is more likely.

Right. Spot on! I'm with you.

But I'm not saying every gamer is smarter than every non-gamer. I'm stating that in aggregate the thousands of people who play RPGs are smarter than the millions who don't.

So, if IQ correlates to intelligence, and gamers have higher than average IQ, then the probability that they are more intelligent than average is greater than the probability that a similarly sized group picked at random will be more intelligent than average.

I'm still with you.

Extending that to saying gamers *will* be more intelligent is a weak form of causation argument.

Obviously, this is some term from analytical philosophy that I am not privy to. My terminology comes from analyzing public opinion polling for politics. 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. We're doing social science here so nobody is going to argue for the 100% certainty of their position. But even by your own logic, surely you must admit that even if what I am saying is not certain to be true, it is more likely to be true than your position.

The way you are structuring your argument makes it impossible to compare groups of people. The way I understand your thinking, you must dispute every poll, every piece of market research you ever read.

OK, now, problems with your language:

IQ correlates to many things. Intelligence may be one.

Nice modal language here.

Economic and educational status are others.

Where did the modal language go?

If we understand that intelligence, given the arbitrariness of the term, is what the D&D manual says it is, rather than some vast culturally trascendent super-category of human worth and survival potential, clearly literacy and numeracy vary directly with intelligence because that's practically all that intelligence is.

Saying that higher IQ indicates higher intelligence instead of the others chooses intelligence as the particular cause of the sample's higher IQ. When, statistically speaking, it may be that gamers are of lower intelligence, but generally higher educational and/or economic status, and we'd see the same elevated IQ.

If we accept that intelligence is culturally-based and perceptible only through learned skills, of course access to training in those skills will positively correlate to intelligence. I'm not looking for some kind of transcendental value for the human mind -- such a thing is impossible to create. What I am looking at is people's ability at certain skills: logic, mathematics, language. To me, intelligence is what you can do not what you could do.

Simply put - there are many possible sources of elevated IQ. You singled out one. That's an implicit causation argument.

I'm guessing that this is another term from a discipline I'm not in; so I will resist the temptation to deal with it literally.

Same problem as with IQ. Literacy and numeracy competence may correleate with intelligence.

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

But they also correlate with economic and educational status, among other things. So, those barriers may be selecting for intelligence. But they may be selecting us to be middle class or highly educated, something else, or a mixture of things. We cannot say which one.

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.

It's as though you are arguing that because we are selecting for membership in the Republican Party, we cannot be selecting for whiteness; obviously, if we develop selection criteria that choose Republicans, we can expect that our selection criteria will also be more likely to choose white people.

 

[Desdichado]

Obviously, this is some term from analytical philosophy that I am not privy to. My terminology comes from analyzing public opinion polling for politics. 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. We're doing social science here so nobody is going to argue for the 100% certainty of their position. But even by your own logic, surely you must admit that even if what I am saying is not certain to be true, it is more likely to be true than your position.

No, causation is merely:

Main Entry: cau·sa·tion
Pronunciation: ko-'zA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1615
1 a : the act or process of causing b : the act or agency which produces an effect
2 : CAUSALITY

Your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that gamers are more intelligent than average rather than make any attempt to empirically prove that to be the case.

The way you are structuring your argument makes it impossible to compare groups of people. The way I understand your thinking, you must dispute every poll, every piece of market research you ever read.

I doubt it. Most professionally constructed polls and market research are designed to not introduce the risk of misplaced causation. They isolate factors against a control group, so to speak, as much as possible. Your argument is assuming intelligence is the self-selecting factor, but that's just an assumption. Your model then attempts to demonstrate this, but it's a circular argument since the assumption must be true for your model to work. As Umbran says, other self-selecting factors, including education, social class, etc. would give you the same results. Your model, in other words, is flawed, because it doesn't isolate causality, it merely assumes causality.

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

I think Umbran was very clear that he was using IQ as a substitute for intelligence. Forgetting for the moment that it may or may not really be a good indicator of such.

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.

Because if you don't, you haven't proven anything. You've proven results but said nothing about what causes those results to appear. And that's his point as well; you haven't modelled gamers having higher intelligence, at least not necessarily, you could easily have simply modelled gamers being predominantly middle class.

It's as though you are arguing that because we are selecting for membership in the Republican Party, we cannot be selecting for whiteness; obviously, if we develop selection criteria that choose Republicans, we can expect that our selection criteria will also be more likely to choose white people.

That's faulty for the same reason. While I'd not deny that you're likely to select for whiteness when you select for Republican, that's incidental, not causal. Black, hispanic or people or Asian descent of similar education and social class as white Republicans are also likely to be Republican (this is anecdotal and a bit speculative, but I believe it to be true) so you haven't essentially said anything at all by noting the correlation.

 

[Cessna]

Smarter?

Sure. Been to a WalMart lately...?

 

[Mystic_23]

I think gamers, on average, aren't any smarter than the average of the general populous.

I just think that we are more well read. As the "avid gamer" tends to read much more than the average person. I don't know many people who are into gaming (I'm using "gaming" or "gamer" to refer to Roleplaying games...as opposed to a "computer gamer") who aren't at least moderately interested in reading.

I agree that many gamers THINK that the gaming community (and more specifically themselves) are smarter than the average. You can probably find that in many different groups.

 

[fusangite]

Joshua says,

Your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that gamers are more intelligent than average rather than make any attempt to empirically prove that to be the case.

I don't know what you mean by "prove" here. There is no way to achieve irrefutable proof. All I am doing is showing that it is significantly more probable. You and Umbran seem to be taking the position that if my assertion is not indisputably certain, it must be false.

1. There are intelligence-based barriers to entry for people to play RPGs.
2. People as a whole are more likely to spend their time practicing a hobby they are good at than one they are bad at.

Which of these statements do you dispute?

I doubt it. Most professionally constructed polls and market research are designed to not introduce the risk of misplaced causation.

Pollsters are not interested in causation.

They isolate factors against a control group, so to speak, as much as possible.

I don't know what you mean here.

Your argument is assuming intelligence is the self-selecting factor, but that's just an assumption.

Remember: it's not just self-selection I'm talking about. I'm also talking about barriers to entry. Are you asserting that literacy and numeracy barriers don't exist for our hobby?

Your model then attempts to demonstrate this, but it's a circular argument since the assumption must be true for your model to work.

Spell that out for me.

As Umbran says, other self-selecting factors, including education, social class, etc. would give you the same results. Your model, in other words, is flawed, because it doesn't isolate causality, it merely assumes causality.

You must mean something different by "causality" than I do.

I think Umbran was very clear that he was using IQ as a substitute for intelligence. Forgetting for the moment that it may or may not really be a good indicator of such.

Well, here is what Umbran says:

IQ correlates to many things. Intelligence may be one. Economic and educational status are others.

So, no, I don't take it that he accepts IQ and intelligence as identical. In fact, he seems to be questioning whether there is any relation between them at all.

So that I don't have to start disputing you with polling data about how middle class blacks and hispanics are much more likely to be Democrats than whites of an identical income level, let's move back to a model I have used before:

You have football players. You are comparing them to society at large. I assert that they are stronger than society at large, on average, because there are barriers to entry for people who are physically handicapped. Unless you can show that being a football player also positively correlates to some type of physical incapacity, my work is done.

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.

 

[Farland]

Mouseferatu said:

Only if you make the mistake of assuming that "multiple intelligences" means the same thing as "each form of intelligence is equally applicable to learning every imaginable concept." It's not, and any attempt to do so--even in the case of a rhetorical attack on the concept--is foolish at best. The idea of kinaesthetic knowledge means that some people learn better by physically doing/performing. It does not mean that such a method of learning is perfectly suited for all areas of study.

(Nor does Gardner argue that everyone is equal, if only you can figure out their specific type of intelligence. Some people are still smarter than others.)

The simple truth is, different people do learn better via different techniques, and no single techinque is going to work for everyone. If you don't want to call them "intelligences," that's fine, but the differences in technique and ability do exist.

Possibly, but the problem is that the proponents of Gardener's educational theory insist on telling teachers that they must teach every subject using most if not all of the different "intelligences." Some things simply cannot be taught using some forms of these "intelligences."

Other of these "intelligences" are a stretch at best as actually qualifying as intelligences, but we won't get into that here.

 

[Desdichado]

If that's all you're saying, I'd argue that you're not saying very much. Not only that, the barriers to entry are, what? Being able to count to about 30 or so at the most? Being able to read at a junior high level (and that's assuming that gamers aren't simply taught by other gamers, which I know happens a fair amount. Many gamers I know haven't even read a gaming book in their life.)

These barriers to entry don't serve to exclude a significant portion of the population, so the average effect of it should be negligible.

 

[fusangite]

If that's all you're saying, I'd argue that you're not saying very much. Not only that, the barriers to entry are, what? Being able to count to about 30 or so at the most? Being able to read at a junior high level (and that's assuming that gamers aren't simply taught by other gamers, which I know happens a fair amount. Many gamers I know haven't even read a gaming book in their life.)

These barriers to entry don't serve to exclude a significant portion of the population, so the average effect of it should be negligible.

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.

Remember, also, I'm arguing a statistically significant difference in intelligence, not a large difference.

Now, what about my attraction argument? Would you also agree that, more often than not, people are more likely to be attracted to recreational passtimes that they are good at?

 

[Xeriar]

I think gamers, on average, aren't any smarter than the average of the general populous.

I just think that we are more well read. As the "avid gamer" tends to read much more than the average person. I don't know many people who are into gaming (I'm using "gaming" or "gamer" to refer to Roleplaying games...as opposed to a "computer gamer") who aren't at least moderately interested in reading.

I agree that many gamers THINK that the gaming community (and more specifically themselves) are smarter than the average. You can probably find that in many different groups.

80% of the population thinks they are in the 60-80th percentile in many things (driving, intelligence...)

What was funny, is that the people who were in the bottom third were the ones driving it up, despite people in the top sixth thinking they were merely average.

As I've mentioned before, most IQ tests will weight reading ability pretty heavily, but the gamer's slant is typically not measured on an IQ test.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Quite possibly. I do, however, as I said, know a fair amount of gamers that haven't read anything gaming related ever. They've been shown and told how to play, and with experience they know it.

Remember, also, I'm arguing a statistically significant difference in intelligence, not a large difference.

True enough. We're arguing(?) degrees about something we can't (or at least haven't) measured, so it's naturally a question of opinion.

Now, what about my attraction argument? Would you also agree that, more often than not, people are more likely to be attracted to recreational passtimes that they are good at?

More often than not I'd agree with that. But, as I said, you don't need to be particularly intelligent to be good at roleplaying games; certainly an average person can do so. I don't know what the cut-off point is in terms of intelligence at which you aren't capable of playing very well, but again, I'd argue that the people who are cut off at that point are unlikely to be statistically very significant. If they're so unintelligent that they aren't able to grasp the point of roleplaying, then they are unlikely to be able to do much of anything else as a hobby either. After all, depending on the game system used, roleplaying isn't necessarily much more complicated than playing "Cops and Robbers" and I don't think anyone is arguing that something preschool kids can do requires a high intelligence.