Came across this over at Game in the Brain. Seems a game designer thinks games are so wonderful that they will solve the world's problems.
Read that last again.
Someone who does X thinks X is the solution of all our problems and some others that also do X can't help themselves but agree. Doesn't that trip anyone's suspicion meter out of the box? You were issued one of those useful devices weren't you?
It would seem that one thing lots of gaming certainly does is make people naive.
Now they may have a point if all the world's problems can be resolved with easy pat answers and strats off the internet.
Or maybe life is more complex than that.
Or maybe... just maybe, teaching people that anything they think is a problem is problem that they can and should resolve is itself something of a problem. It may lead to such things like.. oh I don't know... perhaps something like faking data because the problem just *has* to be real and it just *must* be solved.
One other interesting thing about the McGonials of the world. They will quickly jump on the idea that games teach wonderful things, but I'm rather certain that they would immediately oppose the idea that they teach anything negative. So in their view Grand Theft Auto won't make little Johnny into a whore using, murdering car thief- it will however make him into a genius.
I think it's far more likely it will do neither, at least to the extent proponents would claim. There may be a case that it will (like any activity) affect certain types of thinking and/or attitude to small degrees. But such effects are likely be a mixed bag of negatives and positives.
Unless of course one does an activity too much. Like say increase a gaming generation's gaming time by a factor of seven. Then you get people dying at their game cafe.
But maybe culling the herd of people stupid enough to think gaming will save the world is the best way... of saving the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
There was an episode of the VH-1 show "Behind the Music" about 1968 and it had P. J. O'Rourke as a commentator. I forget the exact quote but at one point he comments about how people serious expected musicians and music to save the world instead of scientists, statesmen, philosophers, or clergy and he made it sound as ridiculous as expecting circus clowns to save the world, which it was. Then again, much of the developed world seems to be living in a fantasy land where an endless supply of money falls from trees and all problems can be solved with sufficient talking, so this probably fits right in with the rest of the delusions.
I also commented on that video here:
http://synapserpg.com/blog/2010/03/17/why-id-hate-wow/
Check it out ;)
Are you truly so hopeless that you can't imagine such a thing making a difference?
More importantly, I find it mostly instructive that you commented on this without (clearly) doing any research, or, even actually hearing out what she was saying.
Jane Mcgonigal is not just a "video game designer," working for a game company. She is a scientist, a serious researcher, and works for a non-profit think-tank. So, she is not some crackpot telling us to play billions of hours of WoW. She is, actually a member of that group of "scientists, statesmen, philosophers, etc" mentioned by one of your commenters. I found all that out with just a few minutes of searching. Further looking verified the work she talks about in her presentation.
She actually has research, results, verifiable data, and a plan that connects directly to actions taking place in "the real world" instead of imagining some weird fantasy land where people are so hopeless that any suggestion that (strangely enough) validates a lifestyle choice they've already made, or, god-forbid, actually tries to make a simple entertainment medium into a genuine research interest will be met with nothing but disdain.
I'm sorry you are unable to see the merit in her idea... but at least do a little research before shooting off at the keyboard?
John Morrow: You make a good point, we see this every time with something new, especially if it's a fad with the young.
Greg Christopher: Your post was very nicely done.
morrisonmp: I did my research on her actually. The wkki is... unimpressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_McGonigal
It certainly doesn't give me reason to put aside my "so a game designer says games are good" smell test.
Nor does it make me lose all ability for critical thinking.
For those of you who don't know Gleichman in person, I am sorry. I wish you knew him better for many reasons, but in this case two specifically.
With the exception of a couple of typing errors (which by now are as much a part of his charm as anything) I think this is his most eloquent and laser like precise post yet. In addition to agreeing wholeheartedly, I found it humorous to read between the lines at the restraint and self editing that inevitably went on. For those of you whose context is such that you can't read these hidden gems, I am sorry.
I am equally sorry that you didn't get to laugh out loud at his tag line response to morrisonmp which was just as concise and 100 times more restrained.
You make me laugh B.
@billy4911
I'm pleased that you are sharing a chuckle over ignorance and head hiding. Pat yourself on the back about that some more. I apologize for intruding into your world with a different viewpoint.
Mr. Gleichman,
I wonder. You claim that you did research but point to wikipedia as your source. First of all, wikipedia is hardly the be-all, end-all of sources. Secondly, assuming for a moment that wikipedia was the perfect source, all I saw there as a further endorsement of quality work on the part of a serious researcher.
You were very firm in the amount of hatred you flung at Jane Mcgonigal but you didn't really say why you were so opposed to her research. I mean, you made the point of trotting out that you think (quite cynically) that it is some sort of scam, but you did not address yourself to any reason why?
This is a woman, who has a passionate love of games, and she is also a scientist who is working on projects that she believes in and which might help people. Why does this make you angry? Why does this make you point and growl?
I realize from your response to me that I may be wasting my time. Clearly you support the opinions of those who don't really take the time to think through what they say (John Morrow), but I truly want to understand why her work upsets you. To me, that makes no sense.
@John Morrow
Did you watch her presentation? Did you read anything she said? She specifically addresses the underdeveloped countries of the world, and her current project is set there. She also references the economics of gaming in these countries, and clearly does not believe that "money falls from trees." And as I pointed out before, she is part of that "establishment" your quote brings up. And she's not just "talking" sir. She's acting. Can you say the same?
Overall, if you wish to deride other views, fine, if you wish to stick your head in the sand, okay, but don't spit your venom at the undeserving. At the very least she harmless, but at the best, her ideas could inspire others and improve someone's life.
OK. I watched the presentation. Since I tend to be more diplomatic than Brian, let me simply say that it was far worse than what I imagined. She says so many absurd things I'm not sure where I'd start pointing out the problem with her assumptions (probably with, "We have to start making the real world more like a game").
What she completely glosses over is that not only do games like World of Warcraft reduce or eliminate the consequences of failure while always making it possible to eventually succeed and the real world doesn't work like that, nor will it ever work like that. She also seems to miss that there are millions of more people who don't spend 20 hours a week playing World of Warcraft but who, instead, are really trying to change the world in real and practical ways, yet somehow gamers who thrive on softball successes that are designed for them to win are better prepared to save the world than the people actually tackling the problem now?
What's also missing is that the reason simulations are generally poor substitutes for the real world is that they not only simplify but are based upon assumptions that will push toward certain preordained solutions. The three simulations that she mentioned were so loaded with assumptions that I suspect it wouldn't be difficult to guess the optimal solutions without even playing. Have you ever heard of Julian Simon?
Finally, a degree in "Performance Studies" from UC Berkeley hardly makes one a "scientist" and giving a presentation and getting some investors to fund a few online games is not really doing anything about the problems facing the world. It's just talking about saving the world, which is certainly easier than, say, volunteering to go to Africa to dig wells and teach farming.
John Morrow: always the diplomat.
I on the other hand welcome morrisonmp as wonderfully modern example of the type of person who tossed their money at snake oil salesman.
For that is what she is. Her entire video reeks of such tried and true methods. Quite repulsive to anyone with half a brain.
Mr. Gleichman, once again, you don't actually respond with anything to say, you just lash out. So, I am going to attempt to speak to Mr. Morrow once more and then I am going to accept the fact that you gentlemen are certainly part of that doom and gloom crowd and get back to my life.
Mr.Morrow
Your argument is so confused (I know you'd prefer I say confusing, but honestly, you're reactions are the only confusing part) that I cannot actually tell if you are holding Julian Simon up as someone you respect, or someone you despise...
I am going to proceed from the assumption, first, that you agree with Mr. Simon. In that light, let's analyze your argument.
First of all, you say that "much of the developed world seems to be living in a fantasy land where an endless supply of money falls from trees," and I would ask, with that in mind, are you implying that the developing countries of the world do have significant problems? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I won't stray too far here. Suffice it to say, if you believe in the problems in underdeveloped countries, and the scarcity of economic resources, then you are closer to a doomsayer than a doomslayer.
Let's move on... You say that Mrs. Mcgonigal made absurd assumptions. It is important to point out here that you she is not making assumptions. She is stating hypotheses that she is attempting to prove through research. You state that she said, "We have to start making the real world more like a game," but you take this statement, remove all its context and use it as justification to slander an argument you don't fully acknowledge. That is faulty argumentation, at best, manipulation at worst. Mr. Simon would not approve.
You state that she ignores that video games have no consequences for failure. This is not strictly true. She never mentions this because it is not part of what she is building. The "games" she is building are actually closer to elaborate learning modules with educational and social goals. The game is a vehicle for learning and operating under new circumstances, a tried and true educational tool.
Also, based purely on Julian Simon's own work, Jane Mcgonigal is clearly a further proof of his claim that the most valuable resource the world has to offer is human imagination and creativity, which will come up with new ways to address problems. This is a clear assertion of Simon's work. This is also a clear assertion of Mcgonigal's work. Human minds are the most valuable resource on the planet. This is a point I think you should consider most seriously.
At the next paragraph you start making spurious statements that make it more difficult to respond to, but I will try. First of all, you dispute my terminology of calling her a scientist. I am willing to concede this point if it will make you happy to call her a researcher. However, I would ask you consider that she is a software engineer, she conducts both qualitative and quantitative research, and she doesn't have a "degree," she holds a doctorate. While a Phd does not make you a scientist, I believe her work does. I myself am a technical communicator who conducts research. I have been a middle school teacher, a corporate manager, and currently am working on furthering my education doing postgraduate work in education, research and communication studies. I may not consider myself a "scientist" but I am certainly a specialist and researcher. She can claim, at least, the same. And I feel this is an appropriate time to point out, I am not so young as to be "fad-driven" as Mr. Gleichman implied in his earlier response. And the value of games to education and problem solving is also not new, or a fad.
To back up further, she is not doing simple simulations of real world activities. She is engaging people in educational activities. Her games are not foregone conclusions based on assumed models, her games are tools.
Finally, your point that she would be better served by going out into the world and digging wells in Africa is problematic on two levels. One, it acknowledges problems with the water supply in Africa (not your specific intent, I realize). Two, you assume that she would, in some way, be serving the world better by ignoring creative skills and solution suggestions to do something short term and far less effective than teaching whole populations about the problems they face and offering them solutions.
To conclude, I would very much like to discuss Simon's work at some point, but that is an entirely different topic, so I'll end here. It has been instructive trying to communicate with you, but it is clear to me that you have an insular community conversation going on here and I've challenged your worldview. I hope that I've challenged it enough.
Oh my. Where to start...
At least you've moved on a little from singing praises to actually trying to make a case, if a very weak one and unsupport one.
Basically your 'case' is leaping to a set of foolish assumptions and or terrible logic errors. You share much in common with your messiah.
1. To state that there is work to be done and problems to be resolved, is not the same as to state that gaming will save the world. It is saying that there is real work to be done, and gaming is not it.
2. You respond to an example of previous foolish claims of great insight gaining unfounded traction with people (i.e. population growth will destroy the world)with... oh wait. You didn't respond to that point at all.
3. You've changed your statement, moving from scientist to 'researcher'. As a researcher untrained in the scientific method, she should be blogging about the subject and employing real scientists.
The truth is that she's a pretty face able to make the sale to people such as yourself and thus get funding for things of little to no value.
I'm sure she's making a nice living at this. Various snake oil salesmen tend to.
4. You've now moved from 'games' to 'educational' aids. I think we're all for good educational aids.
But the assertion was that gaming would save the world, not education. The assertion was that we needed to make the real world more like games, not that we needed to make games more like the real world.
If you wish to continue this line of thought- you're basically pulling a bait and switch, again from behind the pretty face of your 'researcher'.
I seriously hope you're not passing your lack of critical thinking skills on to your students. That would just be sad.
But I fear you are.
You claim her games are not "foregone conclusions based on assumed models". Really? The term "peak oil" isn't loaded with assumptions? Could you solve the problem in her game with nuclear power plants, synthetic oil, or better extraction of marginal resources like oil shale or did the game push you toward changes in personal behavior, as her discussion of it seems to imply? Was the goal really to find solutions to an oil shortage or to push people to believe they needed to change their behavior in certain ways based on assumptions built in to the game? In short, was the game really an problem solving tool designed to harness the ingenuity of the players to find practical solutions or was it a propaganda piece designed to convince the players to think about the problem a certain way and change their behavior. They are not the same thing.
As for digging wells vs. programming computers, your dismissal of my suggestion reflects the detachment from reality present in Ms. McGonigal's ideas and your defense of them. Giving an online gaming console to a person who doesn't have clean water to drink is like giving a designer swimming suit to a drowning person. In a certain context, an online gaming console or a designer swimming suit might be a wonderful gift but many of the people in the world today have much more basic concerns and needs that aren't being met. For a person who can't grow food or is dying of thirst, the absence of what you dismiss as a "short term" a "far less effective" solution will make anything else irrelevant because without the well, they'll be dead. The real kind of dead. Not the fake kind where you appear back at the inn with most of your equipment and can start adventuring again right away.
Mr. Gleichman, you are an angry, angry man, and I don't believe you are nearly as "in-tune" with reality as you'd have the rest of us believe. But since, again, the extent of what you call discourse or argument truly is just ranting, I'm going to say my farewells to Mr. Morrow and move on.
Mr. Morrow,
After reading your last comments, I think you and I may agree more about portions of this debate than the limitations of blog comments allow us to discuss.
I apologize about before, you clearly are a deep-thinking individual who does consider what they have to say. I appreciate your last comments and, again, I think, we may be closer in views than either of us realizes.
It's clear to me that you are, at least, friendly with the owner of this blog. Will you try and make him understand that not everything new is wrong? If only that comes out of this conversation I'd be happy.
If you'd ever like to continue this conversation, drop me a line at contact.madicon (at) gmail or take a look at my blog and comment over there...
But I'm leaving the conversation here on Mr. Gleichman's blog. His angry retorts without any thought are not productive.
Well, now that that's over what have we learned?
1. There are people who are willing on faith alone to leap to the the defense of the latest fad, especially a fad that justifies their hobby.
2. These people require nothing in the way of serious data or impartial research, Nor are they open to obvious logical errors in either their faith or in the fad.
3. That such people begin their debate with insults ("Are you truly so hopeless that you can't imagine such a thing making a difference?") and then claim some sort of high ground when they get the same in return, as if they had earned anything else.
4. They will misrepresent someone who doesn't agree with them at all- as someone who agrees with them in part and maybe in total.
Sort of a "the people who voted against health care actually wanted health care" mindset.
Don't worry John, I actually read your posts unlike morrisonmp.
5. And this is the face of too many of our middle school teachers today. Fear the future.
Mr. Gleichman,
To be fair, I will apologize if you felt insulted by my initial statement on your blog. I was asking a question, but I can see how it may have been interpreted as an insult.
That said, as you can see from my conversation with Mr. Morrow, when asked to respond with intelligent questions, even if we were somewhat aggressive with one another, I felt we were able to have a real conversation.
The only reason I chose not to continue the conversation was the venue. A venue where I was dealing with someone who was incredibly rude. But it's your blog, so I suppose I deserved your scorn for daring to present an opinion.
Anyway. I wanted to apologize for my initial comment, I was worried that I'd leave you thinking that was intentional.
Now, I will never darken your door again.
Be well.
Post a Comment