Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8240667" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Again, monetization is not only not a helpful way to perform a longitudinal study like this, its actively harmful in signal detection (because of the noise it introduces).Not only that, but it doesn't even track the population you're trying to track.&nbsp; Professional athletes are at the far, far, far end of the tail of a population distribution.&nbsp; They aren't anywhere nearing the center.&nbsp; Artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills are, again, right at the tails of the distribution (and, again, their monetization picks up a lot of the aforementioned noise).&nbsp; This isn't the target population.You're arguing for exposure here.&nbsp; Exposure doesn't come into it when you're tracking % within a population.All TTRPG players would (of course) have the necessary exposure that you're talking about (or they wouldn't be playing)!Development of methodological means to create a higher % of functional practitioners (in this case GMs) WITHIN a population won't track to exposure.If your point is that there are lots of other reasons to increase total population size (not % of functional practitioners within a population), then I agree.&nbsp; But that isn't the point of the theoretical longitudinal study here.And (as to your last statement) I think you're short-shrifting the cognitive and social impacts of playing TTRPGs (particularly in the developmental stage).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8240667, member: 6696971"] Again, monetization is not only not a helpful way to perform a longitudinal study like this, its actively harmful in signal detection (because of the noise it introduces). Not only that, but it doesn't even track the population you're trying to track. Professional athletes are at the far, far, far end of the tail of a population distribution. They aren't anywhere nearing the center. Artisans and craftsmen who monetize their skills are, again, right at the tails of the distribution (and, again, their monetization picks up a lot of the aforementioned noise). This isn't the target population. You're arguing for exposure here. Exposure doesn't come into it when you're tracking % within a population. All TTRPG players would (of course) have the necessary exposure that you're talking about (or they wouldn't be playing)! Development of methodological means to create a higher % of functional practitioners (in this case GMs) WITHIN a population won't track to exposure. If your point is that there are lots of other reasons to increase total population size (not % of functional practitioners within a population), then I agree. But that isn't the point of the theoretical longitudinal study here. And (as to your last statement) I think you're short-shrifting the cognitive and social impacts of playing TTRPGs (particularly in the developmental stage). [/QUOTE]

Verification