Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[S'mon]

This is doubtless at least somewhat true, but it my experience the extent of the ossification is highly negatively correlated with the extent and quality of the individual's education. That is, highly educated people are more open to examining all viewpoints (including their own) critically and logically. (Not to mention more capable of doing so.)

Having worked in Universities all my adult life, I can tell you that this is not true.

Besides, I'm highly educated (PhD), but I know that when I had a sudden shift of political opinion at the start of September 2004 it was a highly emotional, not logical, experience.

 

[S'mon]

I think that with respect to open mindedness, education often works like the Laffer curve. While an increase in education does better equip people understand and evaluate their own ideas and the ideas of others, it also often has detrimental effects that eventually outweight those positive effects such that at a certain point, more education actually seems to produce a less open mind.

I don't agree with this either. If you work in the "education industry" you may be likely to be inculcated in the views prevalent in that industry, and clearly there is a correlation in the US between education level and voting pattern, but I don't think (over) education per se causes close-mindedness. I suppose it can cause arrogance and a lack of appreciation of why the less educated think as they do. It can also cause open-mindedness and awareness of a variety of possibilities. I don't think PhDs are more close-minded than BAs, or BAs are more open-minded than high school graduates, etc.

Edit: OTOH... maybe you're right.

 

[Umbran]

I largely have to disagree with this. Celebrities have no more responsibility to check on their facts than anybody else do before they spout off.

Careful there - I said absolutely nothing about the specific responsibility to check facts. I was speaking more generally about responsibility.

Though, I do tend to think that the responsibility to check facts increases with the size of the audience. I can spout nonsense and unsupported in my own blog to my heart's content, if nobody reads the thing. If have reason to expect that my blog won't ever have any effect on anyone's decisions, factual correctness isn't a priority.

A professional or celebrity (or an author, or a news organization) who can reasonably expect to be read, and who might impact people's choices, has a much higher responsibility to get their facts straight. Again, it's really a matter of public/private. If so few people read your blog that it is effectively private, you've got all the responsibility you'd have in your living room to say only factually correct things.

 

[Belen]

I don't agree with this either. If you work in the "education industry" you may be likely to be inculcated in the views prevalent in that industry, and clearly there is a correlation in the US between education level and voting pattern, but I don't think (over) education per se causes close-mindedness. I suppose it can cause arrogance and a lack of appreciation of why the less educated think as they do. It can also cause open-mindedness and awareness of a variety of possibilities. I don't think PhDs are more close-minded than BAs, or BAs are more open-minded than high school graduates, etc.

Edit: OTOH... maybe you're right.

Well, now you start getting into mob mentality and group think/speech. IMO, I think that many highly educated people look to opinions held by other highly educated people. This tends to reinforce their own belief system.

Now, if we look at a university, then you can see what could become a major problem. If the majority of professors and administrators at an institution hold a certain set of common beliefs, then those beliefs become a common discourse. The administration then seeks to give structure to the common discourse, which becomes institutionalized. From that point, it becomes easy to hire people that will fit within the common structure. And the very low turnover rate in government employ mean that few new ideas enter into the mix.

IMO, political parties do very little to introduce people to new ideas. People are challenged by new ideas on a personal level, such as with friends, family and co-workers. I do not know anyone who chooses friends based on politcal bent. Most people choose friend's based on common interest: RPGs, Books, Television, Movies, Barhoping, Sports, Work, or Family. Ulitmately, people spend a good portion of their time at work, so water-cooler talk tends introduce you to most different/new ideas.

So, if a university settles on a certain structure and common discourse, and a majority of people share those thoughts and ideas, then they are not getting introduced to new/ dissenting ideas at the water-cooler. Suddenly, the only path to new ideas if following a path that leads further from the mainstream. And, since you're a prof with a good education, you're ideas have to be more right than the mechanic who serves you.

It is a collective mentality that never serves to challenge you.

 

[nothing to see here]

Folks it seems to me, whether consciously or not, this debate has evolved into discussing the objective nature of truth.

I can now categorically lump the participants in this thread into a largely objectivist camp (not necessarily the Ayn Rand version, eitehr), a post-modernist camp...as well as those admirably looking for a middle.

The problem is there is no middle.

I learned a long time ago that it's damn near impossible to argue with a postmodernist because they will call into question the relative 'objectivity' of every single basis of fact.

The gulf between postmodernists and people who believe in objective reality (and, as an extension, objective truths) is, in my experience, far wider than that which exists between the political poles in most societies.

If you believe that all truth is relative, and therefore ephermeral, than it will be damn hard to convince you otherwise...because you will call into question all the evidence, and even the logic used to regfute your case.

It makes you hard to beat in a debate true...but the victores are shallow ones...what exactly do you win if you don't really believe in anything?

 

[tonym]

...Most of them also don't violate my 'don't push your crap in my face' rule, so no problem. If you want to market your products part and parcel with your very opinionated views, and use your website to protest our fascist theocracy, then don't be offended or surprised if I choose to spend my money over at the more reserved (though in all likelihood equally left-leaning) games designer's site....

That's the tricky part about voicing one's opinion. There are a bunch of people out there with a "don't push your crap in my face rule," and you might make them angry and they might make a mental note to not buy anything associated with you. I call this the Freedom Fries effect.

If you anger the Freedom Fry Fellowship (I made that name up), they'll seek to effect your income, or get you fired, or scare you into shutting your mouth.

Me, I admire people who voice political opinions in public forums (even opinions I don't agree with). My hat is off to GMSkarka and every other designer who dares speak his mind!

Tony M

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Well, now you start getting into mob mentality and group think/speech. IMO, I think that many highly educated people look to opinions held by other highly educated people. This tends to reinforce their own belief system.

[...]

People are challenged by new ideas on a personal level, such as with friends, family and co-workers. [...] Ulitmately, people spend a good portion of their time at work, so water-cooler talk tends introduce you to most different/new ideas.

So ...

Institutions of higher learning are worse than useless for the process of learning about new ideas; true wisdom comes from the novelty of family-held beliefs and chats around water coolers.

Gotcha.

(Backing away slowly, now ... )

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

...Clearly there is a correlation in the US between education level and voting pattern.

Really? Clearly there is a correlation? Clearly?


How do underpriveleged minorities vote?

How do those with a high school diploma from an inner-city public school system vote?

How about those with nothing more than a high school diploma from a suburban public school system?

How do working class people vote?

How does the middle class vote?

How do the highly educated elite vote?

How about those educated in expensive "Ivy League" schools?

How about people who attended higher university in the midwest, as opposed to universities on the coasts?

Cause, I'm just talking me personally, I don't remember having to list my educational level when I registered to vote.

 

[nothing to see here]

That's the tricky part about voicing one's opinion. There are a bunch of people out there with a "don't push your crap in my face rule," and you might make them angry and they might make a mental note to not buy anything associated with you. I call this the Freedom Fries effect.

If you anger the Freedom Fry Fellowship (I made that name up), they'll seek to effect your income, or get you fired, or scare you into shutting your mouth.

Me, I admire people who voice political opinions in public forums (even opinions I don't agree with). My hat is off to GMSkarka and every other designer who dares speak his mind!

Tony M

Good metaphor. There are five lessons for people to from this whole debate:

1) If you work in the public or commercial sphere and you use your prominence in that sphere to express strong political view points...you are certainly within your rights. However you are also responsible for whatever fallout (in esteem or financially) that comes from such activism.

2) If you are a consumer who votes with your wallet, you are also exercising your fundamental rights. However you are also limiting your exposure to quality products that just happen to originate from your political adversaries. And you shouldn't expect your political statement to move the debate much in any extent.

3) Should, as sometimes happens, enough people in group two band together to cause grave discomfort in group one, there is a real debate whether this constitutes some sort of normative, informal censorship...or is simply somebody getting his/her just desserts. Ususually your opinion on whether this is censorship or not depends on whether you agree with the politics of the offended party.

4) Item 3, therefore calls into question the whole idea of when you criticise a public figure for political statements, whether you are criticising the idea of political activism crossover in general, or are simply upset by this particular public figure's political opinions. As a secondary concern this debate calls into questio whether it is possible to stand apart and criticise the whole idea of public figure advocacy without betraying your own political biases.

5) Which segues into the current debate, whether or not our notions of truth are based on preconceived perceptions of reality. How likely we are to change our opinions based on new evidence, and the personal characteristics which lead to the most flexibility and/or resillency in your own political perspective. At its crux is the debate on whether there are objective standards on which you can judge people's political discourse...or are you, in each case merely betarying your own political perrogatives...

...I'm off to the House Rules forums to look for new feats..

 

[nothing to see here]

Really? Clearly there is a correlation? Clearly?


How do underpriveleged minorities vote?

How do those with a high school diploma from an inner-city public school system vote?

How about those with nothing more than a high school diploma from a suburban public school system?

How do working class people vote?

How does the middle class vote?

How do the highly educated elite vote?

How about those educated in expensive "Ivy League" schools?

How about people who attended higher university in the midwest, as opposed to universities on the coasts?

Cause, I'm just talking me personally, I don't remember having to list my educational level when I registered to vote.

Well, educated people do vote MORE. However they are also more likely to be decided partisans in the first place, which makes them essentially useless to political campaigns when targeting their messages and organization.