Uruare Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 I am attracted to the idea of psychological heuristics but, like mythic-scale archtypes, they may be too wrapped up with things religious to take us very far. By 'psycological heuristics' I intend traits and behaviors nearly (or possibly actually) hard-coded byevolution. Still it would provide a way to begin behavioral categorization. Or...hmmm... to throw a dart at it, would the archetypes of the Bartles test (achiever, explorer, etc.) be a place to begin? Not a bad suggestion on the Bartles test. Already familiar to many, pretty well processed archetypal test with known pros and cons. Easier than inventing a new wheel to be sure. A question I would put across using the Bartles test in its 4-archetype presentation would be if it is comprehensive enough for accurate representation of the demographic. I would question the relevance of the 8-archetype model, at least as its presented, given the genre specificity incorporated into its design. I like the idea of an archetypal model though, especially if those archetypes are qualified procedurally through a componential system of attribution. I think we could, for optimization's concern, adapt this model. It definitely has promise in terms of adapting its infrastructure, though...a hurdle presents itself. We would have to be quite careful to represent each archetype as an ideal unto itself. If we were to establish archetypes on a positive/negative axis, we'd build the bias right into the formatting, and anyone that becomes familiar with the model would test towards a specifically desired outcome, not an accurate outcome. If we adapt Bartle's model of testing and devise upon values-oriented archetypes that are each uniquely representative of an ideal relevant to the gaming demographic...it could be very easy to avoid a lot of the pitfalls and pratfalls of religious/cultural/racial biasing altogether. Biggest worry might well be whether or not economic biasing remained an unknown factor. Still, as an inclusive model, I'm liking where we could go with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleshMauler Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Alright, all my previous nonsense aside, what happens to the minority if this does catch on? *everything above was tl;dr Edited January 30, 2012 by FleshMauler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uruare Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Alright, all my previous nonsense aside, what happens to the minority if this does catch on? *everything above was tl;dr Can't really blame you for not reading a great deal of the back and forth between Gleneagle and I, but if you were to do so, you'd find that we've tossed around quite a lot of ideas for excluding a minority-creating standard. Frankly, a system that attempts to stratify people along a superior/inferior or positive/negative (read: better/worse) axis, for the purpose of this initiative, would be pretty unethical and fly in the face of, in particular, my own founding statements on several points. Difference identification is what we're after. Once we're able to accurately and comprehensively identify specific values-oriented groupings of gamers, it would then be our goal to offer all the suggestive insight and helpful ideas for better communication as that we can provide. Think of it like this: You've got a Sports Jock, a Tech Geek, a Melodramatic Poet and a Golf Pro in the same room. The Sport Jock thinks the Tech Geek's a stuck-up clown that thinks he knows so much, likes to make fun of the Melodramatic Poet because it's just so dang easy to do and thinks the Golf Pro might be alright sometimes, so long as nobody's trying to call golf a 'real sport'. The Tech Geek thinks the Sports Jock is an intimidating jerk that has no clue about anything, thinks the Melodramatic Poet is a sad sack that wastes their time on useless garbage whining about everything and doesn't have much of an opinion on the Golf Pro one way or any other. The Melodramatic Poet thinks the Sports Jock is an arrogant *** that they'd love to physically hurt, thinks the Tech Geek could be cool if they didn't keep calling their poetry "useless garbage" and only gets along with the Golf Pro when they're more or less ignoring eachother. The Golf Pro thinks the Sports Jock is a silly little egotist that's got a lot to learn, thinks the Tech Geek does useful things but is possibly more arrogant in their own way than the Sports Jock, thinks the Melodramatic Poet's just a little pitiful for being so melodramatic but should probably work on real poetry if that's their thing rather than all the overwrought stuff. How do you get these people to...no, not hold hands and gaze lovingly into eachothers' eyes with bewondered admiration and newfound respect for eachother... Clean a room together without killing eachother? Figure out something they all might be quite alright with for a meal? Engage in dialogue on anything and have it actually -be- dialogue and not just them throwing dead cats over the fence at eachother amidst all the "Nyeah nyeah, I can't hear you"isms? For that matter, which is 'better'? Which is 'worse'? Me, I think that's the wrong question to be asking altogether if one's interest is genuinely aimed at getting them to be able to function, as a group, without raging or hating or toxically loathing eachother as a consequence of just...making them figure it out for themselves, if they ever will at all. Because they very frequently won't even try to. Not unless some prevailing circumstance sufficiently forces them to; dislodges them from their dispositions. That is not the goal of, nor the capability of, this project. Instead, in that scenerio, think of what we're trying to make as being a list on the wall of that room those four people are in that gives, in a neatly organized and plain-language manner, the best adviice and suggestions its creators could devise upon for how to, yes, get along when they need to get along, communicate when they need to communicate and acknowledge, if not necessarily respect at a personal level, the others in the room. They might flat-out ignore it. Some of them might try to use it while some of the others absolutely reject it. They might all use it as a thing to lean on for some kind of common ground. No matter, it will not be a list that designates superiority or inferiority unto any person, party or playstyle. That is, again, not its business nor my intention upon it. And it never will be. Edited January 30, 2012 by Uruare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brosephiine Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Alright, all my previous nonsense aside, what happens to the minority if this does catch on? *everything above was tl;dr Personally, I think everyone's voice should be heard and noted. There are so many different people though, it's hard to do so. Not to mention, I doubt even the majority will agree on all points. A good example of this: I agree with some Conservative viewpoints, yet I can't fully relate to them because of issues like gay marriage, abortion, and the legalization of marijuana. I support all three of these things, but I likewise cannot relate to the Liberals fully either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gleneagle Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) I concur that every voice is needed for the community to be whole, A community is by nature inclusive. I am still leery that there will be outlaws and saints who fall outside the norm, but if the key to survival in all possible situations is diversity, then it could be that it is exactly those who vary that will get the community through, even if in the short term the way is made more difficult. If we used the Bartles archetypes, or some variant selection of playstyles as models for 'use cases' and cross reference those with player behaviors interacting with the various game systems (including, but not limited to, looting, exploring, raiding, elements of PvP, LFG, chat (to include vent/mumble), role play, and the rest then we might have a system capable of comprehensive application. There is a third dimension I have thought of, which has to do with players who are aggressive, players who are shy, players who are insecure, players who overcompensate for insecurity, players who are mature, players who are immature, players who are erudite, players who are simple... every player, even those who consider themselves exceptions, can be argued to be members of the player community where they are playing an MMO. We can to some degree force our common consideration to try and view matters from each of those perspectives because, while some will surely be vocal and assertive, others will lurk on the periphery and never speak up, at least not until it is evident to them that their voices are not just encouraged, but needed. Edited January 31, 2012 by Gleneagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gleneagle Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Alright, all my previous nonsense aside, what happens to the minority if this does catch on? *everything above was tl;dr What if each of us is a minority of one? Edited January 30, 2012 by Gleneagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brosephiine Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 What if each of us is a minority of one? That's a lot of minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gleneagle Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 That's a lot of minorities. But few majorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImperialRebel Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Holy ... reading the dialogue between Gleneagle and Uruare just hurts my brain. Not that you two aren't making some intelligent and thought provoking comments here, because you are, I'm just wondering if they might be a little too far removed from what everyday people and conversations discuss. It's very fascinating to see what the science is behind a project like this. It still makes my brain hurt. ... every player, even those who consider themselves exceptions, can be argued to be members of the player community where they are playing an MMO. This is confusing to me. I don't see how people, even if they consider themselves exceptions, can be argued to members of a player community. Even if they take exception to the fact that that are playing a game in a social setting, they are indeed a member of said community because they are playing in that setting, regardless of how often or little, or if they have a vested interested in what the community as a whole, or part discuss. Just like everyone in the US is a member of society, even if they don't agree with what the majority or consensus of people say, think or do. They might not care and even after the above explanation; still refute but that's just ignorance on their part, willfully so after a certain point. Emily post comes to mind, why not start importing parts of her book to this conversation as examples and guidelines concerning this topic? Sure these points would be dated, but we could in turn update and present that information to others to get the reaction on if the community agrees on it. Edited January 30, 2012 by ImperialRebel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gleneagle Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) ... This is confusing to me. I don't see how people, even if they consider themselves exceptions, can be argued to members of a player community... ah... to say something is 'arguably' one way or another is hardly more than a stylistic way to say you aren't completely sure but there is some reason to believe something is so. Maybe a little bit stronger than that, but that's pretty much the gist of it. Don't let the style get in the way of the substance if you can... 'course if I did my job better as a writer it wouldn't have bothered you. Even if they take exception to the fact that that are playing a game in a social setting, they are indeed a member of said community because they are playing in that setting, regardless of how often or little, or if they have a vested interested in what the community as a whole, or part discuss. Just like everyone in the US is a member of society, even if they don't agree with what the majority or consensus of people say, think or do. They might not care and even after the above explanation; still refute but that's just ignorance on their part, willfully so after a certain point. Emily post comes to mind, why not start importing parts of her book to this conversation as examples and guidelines concerning this topic? Sure these points would be dated, but we could in turn update and present that information to others to get the reaction on if the community agrees on it. Heh. Yeah, sorta, but to my mind its a bit bigger than that. It might not be long, maybe in your lifetime, that virtual reality will be very much more significant than it is now. Thinking about how humans get along under such conditions might be useful. ~~later~~ Yes, re: Emily Post. That really is a decent suggestion i think, though we might not want it to be obvious to the community if we went that route. But think of why the Victorians became so very polite, and why folks out West became so polite, and gentlemen in the South developed such polished courtesy. Think of feudal Japan. Those ultrapolite cultures emerged from times when dueling, whether by blade or sidearm, meant that an insult might turn into a quite deadly contest. Now people have grown extremely casual about trading insults, imagining themselves safe behind the internet. It isn't quite that simple though, really. It may have been ten, fifteen years ago, but now search engines well used, facebook profiles, public information about individuals is pretty much wide open. Companies buy and sell personal information like any other commodity. The only people I know who are actually quite secretive and go to great lengths to preserve your private information from prying eyes is the government. Its almost funny how evyone thought government would be 'Big Brother' when the government is about the only entity that takes your personal information as a sacred trust. So it isn't all that hard to find out who someone is if you know the ins and outs of systems. The internet does not give you the anonymity it once seemed to. And there are alot of hungry desperate people in the world. We may be approaching hard times. It might be a good idea to learn to be polite again toward one another. There is another side of the coin as well: why not really make a community where we arrive at mutual respect and common-sense behavior? Edited January 31, 2012 by Gleneagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts