Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1889349" data-attributes="member: 7240">It is a matter of degree clearly. I think you are right that the property I have identified in RPGs is not unique to RPGs; by the same token, though, not all hobbies exhibit this property equally. While RPGs are not the most extreme example, I think that they do exhibit the traits I identified more than most hobbies do.I also don't really know how to categorize solitary or anti-social hobbies in this scheme because I'm not sure that they are in the same category as gaming. Some people who practice these hobbies do so out of a genuine sense of self-sufficiency whereas others practice them because any social interaction is threatening.  Dancing is a highly predictable, formalized, ritualized activity too, isn't it?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Agreed but I find gaming and conversation have about the same maximum number of functional participants.  Thanks. You've given me hope. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Agreed. It's just more prevalent here.I'm not sure how this fits with the point you are making. Geeks tend to be less discriminatory towards people who differ from social norms because failure to live up to these norms is actually part of the geek identity. People who manage to live up to most or all mainstream social standards tend to be objects of curiosity amongst geeks. We're glad to see them around but a little mystified about what they are doing with us.Again, I'm not sure how this bears on the case you are making. But you have identified an important feature of geek culture: a general avoidance of physical modes of interaction in favour of intellectual modes. When one comes across violent gamers (hey there TB), they are, again, quite the curiosity. V:TM is a classic example of this; when characters are functioning in a social or intellectual mode, everything is acted out. But when characters are functioning in a physical mode, everything is abstracted. I think one of the values of geek culture is a privileging of intellectual modes of interaction over physical modes. I wish I could say the same as you regarding shouting matches. While I assiduously avoid gaming groups where these happen, I find, when I interact with geeks at larger social functions that I have not convened, shouting matches are very common. In my experience of geek culture, people have less ability to read social cues in verbal interaction so they are more likely to unconsciously raise their voice, laugh in appropriately or interrupt people. Indeed, every gaming session of the group I joined since moving to Toronto contained a shouting match until the offending player quit. I'm not sure that geek functions as a social category outside North America in the way that it does here. Even between the US and Canada, there is a pretty substantial difference. I think this arises out of the fact that American high schools tend to be more profoundly socially stratified that schools elsewhere in the developed world. I am. Or at least I am convinced that they are less capable of coping with this fear, confusion and powerlessness than their peers and are therefore more conscious of it.I've never really linked intellect to these things. I'm a big fan of Fight Club just for this scene:This could just be my own experience but amongst my friends and me, the capacity for abstract reasoning doesn't seem to help people cope with social situations or keep them in perspective at all. I would more readily posit an inverse relationship between IQ and social well-being than a direct one.But look at the substantive differences here: if you are reciting a Monty Python sketch or a Star Trek episode, you can know exactly what the other person is going to say next and they can know what you will say. Furthermore, for people with low-grade autism, repetition, in and of itself, has a soothing effect. If you are talking about baseball, you still have to get the rhythm of the conversation and know when it is your turn to speak and you still have to interpret and contextualize the stats.A few observations about alcohol and socializing: 1. Trust: People who use alcohol in social situations trust themselves, rightly or wrongly, to behave in a way others approve of even with diminished cognition. 2. Control: People who use alcohol in social situations tend to be less concerned about having to control themselves or the situation they are in.3. Intuition: People who use alcohol in social situations tend to rely on their social intuition in these situations because their cognition is diminished. 4. Sexuality: Especially in high school, alcohol is associated with permission to behave in a physically sexual way. 5. Social vs. Intellectual: People who value conversation under the influence of alcohol equally or more than they value conversation without this influence, are more likely to perceive conversation as a social activity rather than an intellectual one. They are more likely to comprehend conversation as a game of catch rather than as a data exchange protocol.   Based on the above list, I would make the argument that geeks avoid alcohol because it disadvantages them socially.</blockquote>

Verification