Teflon Billy
Explorer
fusangite said:
I am, though I'm not sure it has anything to do with Eco not having gamed.
Everyone should go read Sean Stewart's Galveston right now.
What It's Like For a Gamer Girl
- Thread starter Afrodyte
- Start date
I am, though I'm not sure it has anything to do with Eco not having gamed.
Everyone should go read Sean Stewart's Galveston right now.
Larry Fitz
First Post
Actually I think Umberto is trying to get an EnWorld Gameday:Bologna going, but don't quote me on that....
Larry Fitz
First Post
Well... no... on average they aren't. The reason for this is simple, gaming is a pursuit that requires creativity and intelligence to participate in. You must be able to think abstractly and have "imaginary forces" that can transport you to another time and place without sensory immersion (as you would get in say a computer game or movie). Which means that gamers will tend to be more creative and more intelligent than the avergae cross section of a given society. The people you chose, "screenwriters, authors, scientists, artists, or historians" are also subsets of any given society and they are members of subsets that are also given to both intelligence and creativity. Why didn't you ask if gamers are more creative and inteligent than Quality Assurance testers, or Railroad conductors? Those are just as valid points, but they do not seem to support your position.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
That's a straw man argument; it doesn't really relate to the point being discussed. Professional basketball players are, on average taller than most people. The people I've played ball with over the years are not. Professional basketball players are not, stricly speaking, self-selecting, to use your own point. Besides designers, there are not really any professional gamers. It is possible that these professional gamers (designers) are more creative than the average Joe Schmoe on the street, but that's really irrelevent if they are or not, since the discussion is whether or not Joe Schmoe gamers are more creative and intelligent than Joe Schmoe non-gamers.fusangite said:
Also, the point I made several times earlier in the thread, there are plenty of other hobbies that attract creative people and intelligent people because they provide outlets for creativity and intelligence. Although creativity and intelligence are traits that would tend to make one a better gamer, I don't think that gaming, relative to other pastimes, offers a better outlet for that to the extent that gamers on average are more intelligent or creative than any other sample of the population.
Joshua,
Let's take a really minimalist approach here, just to illustrate clearly what I'm saying.
D&D entails having literacy skills at a certain level. People who have low or non-existent literacy skills cannot play the game without the assistance of others. I cannot see how anyone could argue that the 5-20% of our population with low or non-existent literacy skills would be represented amongst D&D players in exactly the same numbers as people with high literacy skills.
Even if one credits that a certain portion of D&D players have some form of illiteracy, there is absolutely no way that such people would be attracted to D&D in precisely the same numbers as people without literacy problems. Based on this reality alone, one can state that D&D players are more literate than the population at large.
In self-selecting samples, certain traits are almost always over-represented. I would be stunned if, as you contend, amateur basketball players have the same average height as people in society at large. People are disproportionately attracted to recreational pursuits in which they are relatively advantaged. A certain portion of the population are arhythmic -- I don't expect these people to be proportionately represented amongst amateur ballroom dancers.
One's proficiency at the skills set required for a hobby is, even if not the primary factor, clearly a significant factor in determining whether people take up that hobby. What you are in effect suggesting is that whether people are good at a particular recreational activity has no bearing whatsoever on whether they take up said activity. Now, it is no doubt true that in some cases, proficiency at an an activity has no bearing on whether an individual takes it up. But, from a statistical standpoint, what you are are arguing is not that it sometimes has no bearing (which I can accept) but, rather, that it never has a bearing.
Let's take a really minimalist approach here, just to illustrate clearly what I'm saying.
D&D entails having literacy skills at a certain level. People who have low or non-existent literacy skills cannot play the game without the assistance of others. I cannot see how anyone could argue that the 5-20% of our population with low or non-existent literacy skills would be represented amongst D&D players in exactly the same numbers as people with high literacy skills.
Even if one credits that a certain portion of D&D players have some form of illiteracy, there is absolutely no way that such people would be attracted to D&D in precisely the same numbers as people without literacy problems. Based on this reality alone, one can state that D&D players are more literate than the population at large.
In self-selecting samples, certain traits are almost always over-represented. I would be stunned if, as you contend, amateur basketball players have the same average height as people in society at large. People are disproportionately attracted to recreational pursuits in which they are relatively advantaged. A certain portion of the population are arhythmic -- I don't expect these people to be proportionately represented amongst amateur ballroom dancers.
One's proficiency at the skills set required for a hobby is, even if not the primary factor, clearly a significant factor in determining whether people take up that hobby. What you are in effect suggesting is that whether people are good at a particular recreational activity has no bearing whatsoever on whether they take up said activity. Now, it is no doubt true that in some cases, proficiency at an an activity has no bearing on whether an individual takes it up. But, from a statistical standpoint, what you are are arguing is not that it sometimes has no bearing (which I can accept) but, rather, that it never has a bearing.
Kichwas
Half-breed
Left-brain imaginative maybe, but most of the ones I've met are near dead on the right side of the brain. Hang out with a bunch of people in fashion or graphic design or something and you'll see the difference real fast.
I find gamers to be highly insensitive socially. This is the crowd where many people get into rape fantasies when a female shows up at the table, often completely lack any social graces whatsover, and tend to be very rude and unforgiving.
I find them the least empathic people I deal with in my life.
Oh, here's a seemingly connected thread:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=84437
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
From a minimalist standpoint, I see your point (although I've known plenty of weekend warrior basketball players who are quite short) but all that does is exclude the functionally illiterate. It doesn't demonstrate that D&D players are (on average) exceptionally creative or intelligent.
I think interest in D&D stems from some other factor rather than perceived proficiency at it. Certainly, to play the game you need to be competent enough to do so, but since D&D isn't a competitive sport, you don't need to be better than anyone else you're playing with.
I think interest in D&D stems from some other factor rather than perceived proficiency at it. Certainly, to play the game you need to be competent enough to do so, but since D&D isn't a competitive sport, you don't need to be better than anyone else you're playing with.
Last edited:
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
It's a long way to go from, "D&D players are likely to be functionally literate," to, "D&D players are at or near the top of intelligence and creativity in society."
I mean, come on. There's nothing very special about being literate. Fairly stupid, non-creative types manage to learn how to read. And people who can't read aren't necessarily dumb or dull.
There are creative, intelligent people all over the place. In my experience, most people are pretty creative in some way and pretty intelligent, to boot. It's rare that I meet someone and discover that they're not very bright. Rare enough that it's usually worthy of comment.
Now, sure, I run in crowds one might call likely to include clever clogs -- university graduates, high-tech professionals, publishers, martial artists and drag queens -- but still, I think most people in this old world have a fair amount on the ball, and creativity sure turns up even where you least expect it.
<rant>
And you, Larry Fitz, lay off the QA folk, alright? I've been managing QA departments for years now, and I'll tell you, dumb, dull QA people are bad at their job. It's an avenue that perhaps acquires more than its share of DD folk because in lots of companies, the demands placed on QA to be smart and creative are few. Those are companies where QA is poorly managed.
</rant>
Okay, sorry about that. Better now.
I mean, come on. There's nothing very special about being literate. Fairly stupid, non-creative types manage to learn how to read. And people who can't read aren't necessarily dumb or dull.
There are creative, intelligent people all over the place. In my experience, most people are pretty creative in some way and pretty intelligent, to boot. It's rare that I meet someone and discover that they're not very bright. Rare enough that it's usually worthy of comment.
Now, sure, I run in crowds one might call likely to include clever clogs -- university graduates, high-tech professionals, publishers, martial artists and drag queens -- but still, I think most people in this old world have a fair amount on the ball, and creativity sure turns up even where you least expect it.
<rant>
And you, Larry Fitz, lay off the QA folk, alright? I've been managing QA departments for years now, and I'll tell you, dumb, dull QA people are bad at their job. It's an avenue that perhaps acquires more than its share of DD folk because in lots of companies, the demands placed on QA to be smart and creative are few. Those are companies where QA is poorly managed.
</rant>
Okay, sorry about that. Better now.
Well, I think we've at least resolved the relationship between intelligence and gaming...or have we...?
To sum up the conversation so far...
"Hit me"
"You have 2 10's"
"I know, that's not 21"
"Yes, but you don't.."
"Just Hit me!"
"OK..it's a 6"
"Oh well...I almost made it"
"Do you understand the point at all?"
"Yes, my point was I didn't have 21."
"And you still don't!"
"But I almost did...and all you have is 18."
We now return you to the conversation already in progress.
wolfen
To sum up the conversation so far...
"Hit me"
"You have 2 10's"
"I know, that's not 21"
"Yes, but you don't.."
"Just Hit me!"
"OK..it's a 6"
"Oh well...I almost made it"
"Do you understand the point at all?"
"Yes, my point was I didn't have 21."
"And you still don't!"
"But I almost did...and all you have is 18."
We now return you to the conversation already in progress.
wolfen
Barsoomcore observes that
Why would it be true that there is a precisely equal proportion of them in every possible place? Doesn't it seem weird to you that in every single demographic subgroup on the face of the planet, the proportion of clever people would be absolutely identical no matter what? What makes clever people so special that they somehow avoid ever congregating unlike tall people, fat people, libidinous people, etc.? Do they have some special property that causes them to avoid other clever people at all costs? What else could account for the precisely equal distribution of them across all geographic and demographic categories that you allege?
Of course, this thread is really the ultimate counter-argument to Teflon Billy's suggestion. It does seem outrageous, based on the thread so far, that D&D players are any better at thinking than any other group. Is the mass refusal to comprehend demographics part of some brilliant scheme to win this argument? I sure hope so.
Why would it be true that there is a precisely equal proportion of them in every possible place? Doesn't it seem weird to you that in every single demographic subgroup on the face of the planet, the proportion of clever people would be absolutely identical no matter what? What makes clever people so special that they somehow avoid ever congregating unlike tall people, fat people, libidinous people, etc.? Do they have some special property that causes them to avoid other clever people at all costs? What else could account for the precisely equal distribution of them across all geographic and demographic categories that you allege?
Of course, this thread is really the ultimate counter-argument to Teflon Billy's suggestion. It does seem outrageous, based on the thread so far, that D&D players are any better at thinking than any other group. Is the mass refusal to comprehend demographics part of some brilliant scheme to win this argument? I sure hope so.
Similar Threads
