Mac saves teen from D&D

[Henry]

Now yes, my love of stories...which is expressed in gaming, reading, writing, watching sci fi/fantasy TV/Movies, anime all that stuff is a very big part of who I am, and one of my main identifiers, and I tend to get along best with people of similar interests.

But I dont see how that makes me a "geek" or a "nerd". It makes me a person who loves stories. Especially since a big part of what I love about them is whats behind them....religion, philosophy, pyschology etc.

I, also, love stories - but not all stories. You usually won't find me watching Lifetime Movie Network shows, for instance, because the stories have to have a concept that inerests me. However, what stories I DO like, usually have elements of the fantastic involved, and the best term that encompasses the tales I like to watch and read is "geekish." My wife's interests run to crime drama, murder mysteries, "serial stalker" movies, etc. and loves pathos and human drama, but turns off the minute the fantastic is introduced. Give her a serial killer and she's hooked; make it an immortal serial killer who transfers from body to body, and she's done.

 

[Kanegrundar]

To Oakheart:

Fine. If that's the way you want to see it, then by all means do so. It just gets tiresome to look in the off-topic forum and seeing a lot of topics whining out society not accepting someone for being a geek and then finding out that all her/her life revolves around are games. That's unhealthy. Sure, my opinion, I know. If some of these people would at least try to look or act like normal members of society at least part of the time, they likely wouldn't feel so maligned. Should society work that way, nope. Everyone should be seen as people, tough that it doesn't work out that way. Take that guy that shows up every week at the stadium with full body paint. He lives his favorite sport, but once the workday rolls around, the paint is off and he's talking shop with co-workers around the water cooler. Most gamers are this way, but they aren't the ones wondering why they are looked down upon either.

Kane

 

[Desdichado]

I'm sorry, I'm big on seperating people's opinions from predominantly held "facts" from "truth". You'll find in this case, the only reason it is "unhealthy" is because a vast majority of people define it as unhealthy.

You should also admit to possibility that someone with an unhealthy obsession is unable to distinguish what is healthy or not. This isn't a case of society trying to "keep the geek down," quite the opposite in fact. Reluctance to engage society except strictly on your own terms is unhealthy, and I don't believe that's really an opinion. If everyone acted that way, society would cease to function. Society--by definition--is a conglomeration of individuals, and it is unhealthy to not respect that and demand that everyone cater just to an individual who makes a point of giving the metaphorical finger to everyone else.

It's indicative of an extremely narrow, self-centered and irresponsible existence. In other words, it's unhealthy. Certainly it's unhealthy to society, even if you don't believe it's unhealthy to the individual, but I think evidence would certainly suggest that it's extremely unhealthy to the individual as well.

Regardless of what other excuses you can come up with justify it, that's all they really are. I don't buy them.

 

[Merlion]

However, what stories I DO like, usually have elements of the fantastic involved, and the best term that encompasses the tales I like to watch and read is "geekish."

Why tho? The term "fantastic" seems to encompass it rather nicely.

And why does their have to be an encompassing term?

I know. If some of these people would at least try to look or act like normal members of society at least part of the time

Now first let me say, I know what you are saying and understand what you mean, but in reference to your specific statement:

You then have to define what a "normal" member of society is. Is a person who has a job and pays their bills and breaks no laws, but whose only hobby or interest is D&D "abnormal"? Are they "unhealthy" in any broad sense of the word? And perhaps most importantly, are they "bad"? Is the fact that they only have a single interest hurting or inconviencing anyone, besides perhaps themselves?

Most gamers are this way, but they aren't the ones wondering why they are looked down upon either.

This has not been my experience. I myself have experienced being looked down upon for my interests, and complained about it, and I'm not monomaniacally obssessed; I can carry on conversations about a wide range of (to most eyes) totally non-game non-fantasy related topics.

This is the case for most of the gamer/fantasy fan/"nerd" friends and aquaintances I have had. They were perfectly "normal" and yet had and have still experienced condecision and disdain from people not because they were obssessed with D&D or with fantasy, but because they played at all, and were interested at all in those things.

Reluctance to engage society except strictly on your own terms is unhealthy, and I don't believe that's really an opinion

But what defines that? What are its parameters? As I said above, is a person who supports themselves and breaks no laws and does no harm but has no interests outside of D&D unhealthy? How, and why?

Society--by definition--is a conglomeration of individuals, and it is unhealthy to not respect that and demand that everyone cater just to an individual who makes a point of giving the metaphorical finger to everyone else

I will agree that people who intentionally "go against the grain" purely for its own sake, to draw attention, and then get mad and complain when people react badly are quite silly and selfish.


But if its how you are naturally...if you just only have interest in a single thing, but can support yourself etc, are you really unhealthy in any way that can be proven or quantified?

 

[Kanegrundar]

I'm going to leave it as we'll have to agree to disagree. I find that focusing on any one thing to the detrement of a person's ability to function as a useful member of society is unhealthy. If a person can spend all his time playing D&D and still talk about other things with people that don't play D&D, then he/she is in good shape. In my experience, that's rarely the case. There is a reason why there is a gamer sterotype. It's not like someone just decided one day that "geeks" or "nerds" (for lack of a better term) are going to be socially inept. There are a sizable number that are socially inept, therefore it's projected upon the rest of us. The crux is getting beyond the stereotype and proving to others (and sometimes ourselves) that we are more than just our hobbies. One way, is to have other interests beyond gaming or any one thing. Maybe not to the degree as our love of gaming, but to be able to carry on an intelligent discussion with someone outside the gamer community is vital, sure...IMO, to be a well-adjusted human being.

That's my stance.

 

[Desdichado]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that I'm operating under a somewhat tautological paradigm in terms of defining what is and isn't healthy.

However, I don't have a problem with that. An individual could be merely "eccentric" and have a life that revolved around a hobby, and was monumentally a failure at interacting with people in any other setting. In theory, such an individual could be contented and happy with this state of affairs indefinately, and if that's true, then it doesn't really matter if society considers them healthy or not. If they're truly contented and happy, then they're probably doing better than most of us anyway.

However, I believe that speculating on hypothetical (or at best, extremely rare) individuals doesn't really disprove any of the points I was trying to make. The rabbit-like proliferation of threads in Off-Topic that are all variations on the "I'm a geeky gamer, and I can't get chicks; my life sucks" theme (not to mention a lifetime of experience with people, and plain ole common sense) indicate to me that very few people are truly happy with that.

People want, and in fact, most people need societal interaction with other people in all kinds of ways. And I make that statement as a generalization; this is not the scientific method, where coming up with a hypothetical situation, and proving that it could exist invalidates the model; the model works for almost everyone. To the exceptions I say, "hey, good for you!"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's indicative of an extremely narrow, self-centered and irresponsible existence. In other words, it's unhealthy. Certainly it's unhealthy to society, even if you don't believe it's unhealthy to the individual, but I think evidence would certainly suggest that it's extremely unhealthy to the individual as well.

It likely would be harmful to society if EVERYONE did it, yes. If almost everyone did ANYTHING it would be harmful to society. Right now the reason our society survives is because we count on the fact that humans will naturally like a wide variety of hobbies, foods, sports, etc.

I subscribe to a school of thought that says nothing has inherent meaning without us giving it some. Nothing is inherently right or wrong unless we choose to believe it is. Even then, it is only right or wrong to you, not universally.

There are likely ways for a society to function even if everyone were to do this, but the society would be SO different from ours that we wouldn't know how to function within it. If we were somehow to end up in a world with that society, WE would be maladjusted and unhealthy.

Really, our society will continue to work as long as enough people go to work and buy things, the rest are just perks.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

People want, and in fact, most people need societal interaction with other people in all kinds of ways. And I make that statement as a generalization; this is not the scientific method, where coming up with a hypothetical situation, and proving that it could exist invalidates the model; the model works for almost everyone. To the exceptions I say, "hey, good for you!"

Everyone needs social interaction on SOME level, yes. But playing D&D still IS social interaction.

All the threads cropping up mean to me is that people like sex. Really, they all say the same thing "I'm happy with my life, but there just aren't enough women out there who will like me the way I am." This statement I believe to be true. The number of males who are more strongly focused on gaming is larger than the number of females who are. This creates an imbalance and men who are perfectly happy with their life except for the lack of sex or romantic companionship get frustrated.

Whereas the number of women who are willing to date guys who have an unhealthy obsession with sports is nearly as high as the number of men who like that sort of thing, so you don't get that type of person complaining about it. (of course, this is entirely based on superficial life experience, mostly having to do with almost every beer bellied sports fanatic I know being married to women who have no problem with their behaviour, whereas most geeks I know who are married have had to tone down their geeky activities dramatically in order to get women, some have to stop all together)

Once again, the activities themselves are not to blame, but the fact that they are activities that society, in general(and especially women), looks down upon does. I do think that sometime in the future, maybe 30 years these type of activities will be accepted enough that women will grow up thinking that it something they'd like in a man. However, by that time I'll be 55 and it won't matter to me..

 

[Rackhir]

Once again, the activities themselves are not to blame, but the fact that they are activities that society, in general(and especially women), looks down upon does. I do think that sometime in the future, maybe 30 years these type of activities will be accepted enough that women will grow up thinking that it something they'd like in a man. However, by that time I'll be 55 and it won't matter to me..

Based on my past 25 odd years of experience, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

[reveal]

Once again, the activities themselves are not to blame, but the fact that they are activities that society, in general(and especially women), looks down upon does. I do think that sometime in the future, maybe 30 years these type of activities will be accepted enough that women will grow up thinking that it something they'd like in a man. However, by that time I'll be 55 and it won't matter to me..

Anytime you use the term "obsession" in regards to any hobby, it's unhealthy. Whether it's sports, alcohol, RPGs, gambling, it all takes away from some aspects of your life to devote solely to the focus of your obsession.

If a person doesn't start to remove themselves from the obsession to pay attention to the wants and needs of the opposite sex, they're in for a world of loneliness. I have a feeling that the women who date "unhealthfully obsessed with sports" males are at least getting some attention when sports are not on.