False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Jeff Wilder]

Do you have a reference in mind? (ie. journal citation, web links, etc ...).

No. I'm very bright, but I don't go around memorizing sources. (At least not since law school.) My most recent ex-girlfriend is a school psychologist, and I used to read her trade publications all the time (for pleasure!), so I'm aware of the strong correlation.

I'm interested in which particular references you had in mind.

Then why didn't you ask that and save some time? You need to get back to RPGing!

 

[ggroy]

Some people are not intelligent enough to read well. Compared with "people in general," which includes people who do not read, people who read for pleasure are significantly more intelligent.

I use to believe something along these lines, until I've met enough people over the years to convince me otherwise. In other words, I've met enough intelligent people who are incredibly unintelligent in many things, and I've met enough "non-intelligent" people who are actually quite "intelligent" in some things.

 

[ggroy]

No.

...

Then why didn't you ask that and save some time?

You answered the question already.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The attitude of "I know more rules and/or fluff about the game so I am more correct than you and I care more about the game that you" and "once something's been established it should never be changed under any circumstances and any change thereafter is invalid".

Those are positions or attitudes rather than logical fallacies; the second moreso than the first.

I would have to argue that knowing "more rules and/or fluff about the game" implies more effort being applied, and thus caring more about the game. If I was to take the opinion of someone who knew more about X or who knew less, I would also be inclined to think that the person who knew more was likely to have a better grounded opinion.

But neither are absolute.

Whether or not "once something's been established it should never be changed under any circumstances and any change thereafter is invalid" begs quite a few more questions. For example, change is part of the game, just as it is part of the real world. I would argue that change should flow from the "reality" of the established milieu rather than contradict it, but YMMV.

That nothing should change would make for a dull game indeed!

I use to believe something along these lines, until I've met enough people over the years to convince me otherwise. In other words, I've met enough intelligent people who are incredibly unintelligent in many things, and I've met enough "non-intelligent" people who are actually quite "intelligent" in some things.

I'm honestly not sure where I stand on this issue. I go back and forth about how I estimate both average human, and average gamer, intelligence. Sometimes I am very optimistic. Sometimes I am not.


RC

 

[Umbran]

There have been several. Have you tried Google?

Appeal to Google as an authority?

In general, assertion that supportive evidence exists is not itself support. "Go look it up yourself" is not exactly a logical fallacy, but it doesn't make for a well-supported position.

 

[ggroy]

I'm very bright

I don't consider myself bright.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I use to believe something along these lines, until I've met enough people over the years to convince me otherwise. In other words, I've met enough intelligent people who are incredibly unintelligent in many things, and I've met enough "non-intelligent" people who are actually quite "intelligent" in some things.

Well, that's getting into an almost-always fruitless discussion of the "meaning" of intelligence. That's somewhat fair, I suppose, so my working definition of intelligence -- and that which is used by the psych periodicals I mentioned above -- is "that which is measure by the various IQ tests."

E.g., while being able to flawlessly play Mozart on a piano is impressive (and often correlated with intelligence), musical ability is not itself intelligence.

 

[ggroy]

Well, that's getting into an almost-always fruitless discussion of the "meaning" of intelligence. That's somewhat fair, I suppose, so my working definition of intelligence -- and that which is used by the psych periodicals I mentioned above -- is "that which is measure by the various IQ tests."

E.g., while being able to flawlessly play Mozart on a piano is impressive (and often correlated with intelligence), musical ability is not itself intelligence.

One person I had in mind was somebody who scored relatively low on various IQ tests when they were a kid. (This person's parents had various IQ tests done). During school, this person ended up in special ed.

Many years later, this person did a PhD in pure mathematics.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In general, assertion that supportive evidence exists is not itself support. "Go look it up yourself" is not exactly a logical fallacy, but it doesn't make for a well-supported position.

No, but it's not my job -- in real-life or on the Internet -- to provide citations for people who are too lazy to look them up themselves. (In legal terms, I'm asking for "judicial notice" to be taken. Of course, occasionally you get a douchebag lawyer who objects to even the most basic judicial notice, on the basis that asking for it "doesn't make for a well-supported position." Usually they get laughed at, unless they, themselves, are in some position of authority.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Amusingly enough (or not so), I was at the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto last weekend. A gentleman delivering a talk there said that Encyclopedias were no longer useful, as Google filled the same function.

I was, honestly, floored.

A good set of Encyclopedias (I own Britannicas, for instance) are well edited, and are written by people who are acknowledged in the field they are writing about. Google points to, among others, me.

They are clearly not the same thing at all.


RC