Are gamers smarter?

[Mouseferatu]

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."

Not really, at least IME. Proponents of Gardner's educational theory insist that teachers must recognize that different students learn via different techniques, and that they should use as many of those techniques as is feasible for the given topic. That's a far cry from saying "You must teach math kinaesthetically." (Though it might be fun to try, honestly. )

I agree completely that some things cannot be taught via certain tehcniques. So do the followers of Gardner's work (or again, at least all those I know and have dealt with). The trick is to be as varied as reasonably possible, not to put variety of teaching methods ahead of what's reasonable.

 

[Drezden327]

My gut reaction is that yes, gamers are smarter than the average population, but not drastically so. That being said, I have played with some dumb gamers - the guy who couldn't figure out 3 multiplied by 1.5 comes to mind, he sais he was "not good at math."

I think the deviation for charisma is greater than intelligence, but in the wrong direction. That is, I think gamers, on average, have lower charisma than the general population. I realize that charisma is probably even harder to define than intelligence and someone might have a high charisma to one group and a low one to another group. I am using the term to mean "social intelligence" or the ability to give a good impression when meeting someone. Gamers have a disproportionate amount of white, male, loner, intellectuals. What does everyone think?

Drezden

 

[Trickstergod]

Gamers have a disproportionate amount of white, male, loner, intellectuals. What does everyone think?

Drezden

More or less in agreement, though I'd replace "intellectuals" with "introverts."

 

[buzzard]

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.

You argument appears to distill down to "gamers are smarter than average since the mentally handicapped can't hack it". This is, of course, utterly useless information. I could use the same argument about drivers, comic book readers, and heck even football players (they do have to memorize a playbook). Do you think drivers are more intelligent than average? By your definition they certainly are since they have to be able to read to pass a driving test.

You bring to mind a very appropriate quote- "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Mark Twain had you in mind when he said it.

buzzard

 

[Arnwyn]

Not if my players are any indication...

 

[maddman75]

Personally, Intelligence is more than just being good at math or reading fast. Creativity is a part of it, as is imagination and social skills. I really don't think of someone who can do integrations in their head but can't carry on a polite conversation as "intelligent". Good at math maybe, but not possessing overall brainpower.

So I think that while we certainly have some bright individuals, our average is seriously dragged down by the "CatPissMan" types that seem to haunt cons and game stores.

 

[Altalazar]

I wonder how gamers rate on the scale of 'emotional intelligence' - or more generally, how socially adept they are.

Gaming is a social interaction, yes, but it is one where you get to interact through a character who, at least nominally, isn't yourself.

 

[Hida Bukkorosu]

social skills isn't intelligence. that's charisma. common sense isn't intelligence, that's wisdom.

i'm your typical HIGH INT low WIS and CHA and STR and CON and DEX gamer.

 

[Mark Chance]

For the record, I dig your new avatar. Please don't go back to your old one

Why thank you! I glommed it from some fellow's sig over on Monte Cook's message boards.

But did you not like the gibbering happy face?

 

[Umbran]

Having just looked at the normative data from the newest IQ test, the WISC-IV, I have to disagree with you on this one.

A quick cruise through the WISC-IV site seems to indicate that this information is not available to those who don't buy the full technical manual. Their FAQ says they attempted to minimize such problems. It does not say they'd managed to eliminate it. I'd think that if they'd really managed to eliminate it, they'd use that as a selling point in the FAQ.

Also, as far as I can see, while they do claim to make an effort to deal with possible racial bias, I see no claims about economic-status bias.

I will also note that the WISC-IV is intended only for children ages 6 to 16, and we are talking about adults. Find me an IQ test that makes the same claims about adults, and you'll get more interest from me.

The newer tests show *no* statistical difference between minorities (in this case, African American, Hispanic) and white children.

The tech reports availabe on their site say their standardization sample was 2200 children, broken by age into 11 groups of 200 each. Those groups were designed to match the overall US population in racial composition. So, it looks like about 15% of each group was hispanic, for example.

About 30 hispanic kids are expected to represent all hispanic kids of their age group? Sounds like a tiny sample to me, and thus prone to errors.