I say why don't we denigrate skill and achievement as much as we can? Why don't we make people who become better qualified and wealthier feel ashamed!
Hey you wealthy guy! You must be an ethical slimebag because you are wealthy! Look at me I am not so wealthy, I must be a paragon of good!
When it comes to relating this to MMO's you seem to be saying that whales need to be spreading their wealth among the F2P players. Of course a F2P MMO could not exist without the whales, I wonder what you make of that?
Thanks DA for using your column to promote your political agenda, maybe we can get back to MMO's next time?
Um... just a question.
Which country or party's political agenda am I supposed to be promoting?
I'm not American or European, mind you. I'm a relatively well-off Filipino in the Philippines who saw something worth sharing in a video as it relates to how people perceive their surroundings and successes relative to what they have. I had a moment of introspection, and noticed the gaming connection and ran with it as a possible point of discussion and thought.
I'm also not denigrating skill or achievement. I'm only pointing to the possibility that there are other things to be concerned with when something happens and people may not be entirely cognizant of the other things that can contribute to a particular success in their life or in a game.
Should I have made a PVP match comparison to better explain the point, because I totally can, ya know.
A writer and gamer from the Philippines. Loves his mom dearly.
We all have are own agendas, you don't have to be from a particular country or follow a particular party to have one. Posters on here supporting or hitting out at PvP have an agenda, it is quite natural that we do. We all push our own view on life to other people, that's all I meant.
Of course I accept that we may not always be aware of the things that contribute to our success or anything else we do in life, but this study went rather beyond that. Saying that wealthy people are more unethical and less generous seems fairly political to me.
I can nod my head at what the other poster said about why indie studios that do well should be applauded. If you do well without the huge machinery of a big gaming company behind you, that shows talent, drive and skill.
We all have are own agendas, you don't have to be from a particular country or follow a particular party to have one. Posters on here supporting or hitting out at PvP have an agenda, it is quite natural that we do. We all push our own view on life to other people, that's all I meant.
Of course I accept that we may not always be aware of the things that contribute to our success or anything else we do in life, but this study went rather beyond that. Saying that wealthy people are more unethical and less generous seems fairly political to me.
I can nod my head at what the other poster said about why indie studios that do well should be applauded. If you do well without the huge machinery of a big gaming company behind you, that shows talent, drive and skill.
Heyo!
Thanks for the response to my comment.
I can agree with the view-pushing idea to some extent. As a columnist who delves into a lot of different things for topics here, I see a lot of viewpoints, and I can understand the idea that I may be pushing an agenda without intending to.
I think what I'd like, with regard to the berkeley research, is to see is the actual paper on this to know what specific experimental contexts were used to formulate the final results.
A writer and gamer from the Philippines. Loves his mom dearly.
We all have are own agendas, you don't have to be from a particular country or follow a particular party to have one. Posters on here supporting or hitting out at PvP have an agenda, it is quite natural that we do. We all push our own view on life to other people, that's all I meant.
Of course I accept that we may not always be aware of the things that contribute to our success or anything else we do in life, but this study went rather beyond that. Saying that wealthy people are more unethical and less generous seems fairly political to me.
I can nod my head at what the other poster said about why indie studios that do well should be applauded. If you do well without the huge machinery of a big gaming company behind you, that shows talent, drive and skill.
Heyo!
Thanks for the response to my comment.
I can agree with the view-pushing idea to some extent. As a columnist who delves into a lot of different things for topics here, I see a lot of viewpoints, and I can understand the idea that I may be pushing an agenda without intending to.
I think what I'd like, with regard to the berkeley research, is to see is the actual paper on this to know what specific experimental contexts were used to formulate the final results.
yea a recent problem I've encountered is most studies that are commonly quoted have a flawed methodology. As an example someone quoted a study in which they said that blind people still show a preference for beautiful people. So I looked at the actual study involved and it lists under possible issues that it is possible that some of his staff had mentioned or hinted at who was physically attractive so I found that a deal breaker in any results he gained from the process. It is an easily foreseeable problem and easy to avoid.
I think the real issue here is that people especially in America celebrate wealth. So anything that denotes the wealthy in an unkind light will be met with harsh resistance. This is due to many reasons but the outcome is the same. Either way personally I found this article great digression into the human condition. I've personally noticed alot of people separating themselves unnesscarily based on differences of income even when the difference isn't that great.
We all have are own agendas, you don't have to be from a particular country or follow a particular party to have one. Posters on here supporting or hitting out at PvP have an agenda, it is quite natural that we do. We all push our own view on life to other people, that's all I meant.
Of course I accept that we may not always be aware of the things that contribute to our success or anything else we do in life, but this study went rather beyond that. Saying that wealthy people are more unethical and less generous seems fairly political to me.
I can nod my head at what the other poster said about why indie studios that do well should be applauded. If you do well without the huge machinery of a big gaming company behind you, that shows talent, drive and skill.
Heyo!
Thanks for the response to my comment.
I can agree with the view-pushing idea to some extent. As a columnist who delves into a lot of different things for topics here, I see a lot of viewpoints, and I can understand the idea that I may be pushing an agenda without intending to.
I think what I'd like, with regard to the berkeley research, is to see is the actual paper on this to know what specific experimental contexts were used to formulate the final results.
yea a recent problem I've encountered is most studies that are commonly quoted have a flawed methodology. As an example someone quoted a study in which they said that blind people still show a preference for beautiful people. So I looked at the actual study involved and it lists under possible issues that it is possible that some of his staff had mentioned or hinted at who was physically attractive so I found that a deal breaker in any results he gained from the process. It is an easily foreseeable problem and easy to avoid.
I think the real issue here is that people especially in America celebrate wealth. So anything that denotes the wealthy in an unkind light will be met with harsh resistance. This is due to many reasons but the outcome is the same. Either way personally I found this article great digression into the human condition. I've personally noticed alot of people separating themselves unnesscarily based on differences of income even when the difference isn't that great.
I am not an American, so my "resistance" to the study had nothing to do with that. Rather, it is based on my observation that most studies in the area of social science are based on the predisposition of the researchers involved. Society is a much more emotive and controversial issue than that covered by any hard science. The bias of the researchers plays a large part in such studies. When you add on to that the fact we only hear about the studies journalists in the media think are "news worthy" you have to question why journalists pick the studies to highlight that they do.
Why do researchers pick a certain area of society to study? If you are doing a study that looks to see if certain areas of society have differences, I would suggest you probably already think there are differences. The Greater Good Science Center who are behind this study is predisposed to finding such differences. After all if there were no such differences to be found in our society there would be no reason for them to exist.
In summary I am not suggesting we dismiss social science, but you do need to apply your critical facilities to any scientific study, especially those that are cherry picked by the media.
Comments
Um... just a question.
Which country or party's political agenda am I supposed to be promoting?
I'm not American or European, mind you. I'm a relatively well-off Filipino in the Philippines who saw something worth sharing in a video as it relates to how people perceive their surroundings and successes relative to what they have. I had a moment of introspection, and noticed the gaming connection and ran with it as a possible point of discussion and thought.
I'm also not denigrating skill or achievement. I'm only pointing to the possibility that there are other things to be concerned with when something happens and people may not be entirely cognizant of the other things that can contribute to a particular success in their life or in a game.
Should I have made a PVP match comparison to better explain the point, because I totally can, ya know.
A writer and gamer from the Philippines. Loves his mom dearly.
Can also be found on http://www.gamesandgeekery.com
We all have are own agendas, you don't have to be from a particular country or follow a particular party to have one. Posters on here supporting or hitting out at PvP have an agenda, it is quite natural that we do. We all push our own view on life to other people, that's all I meant.
Of course I accept that we may not always be aware of the things that contribute to our success or anything else we do in life, but this study went rather beyond that. Saying that wealthy people are more unethical and less generous seems fairly political to me.
I can nod my head at what the other poster said about why indie studios that do well should be applauded. If you do well without the huge machinery of a big gaming company behind you, that shows talent, drive and skill.
Heyo!
Thanks for the response to my comment.
I can agree with the view-pushing idea to some extent. As a columnist who delves into a lot of different things for topics here, I see a lot of viewpoints, and I can understand the idea that I may be pushing an agenda without intending to.
I think what I'd like, with regard to the berkeley research, is to see is the actual paper on this to know what specific experimental contexts were used to formulate the final results.
A writer and gamer from the Philippines. Loves his mom dearly.
Can also be found on http://www.gamesandgeekery.com
yea a recent problem I've encountered is most studies that are commonly quoted have a flawed methodology. As an example someone quoted a study in which they said that blind people still show a preference for beautiful people. So I looked at the actual study involved and it lists under possible issues that it is possible that some of his staff had mentioned or hinted at who was physically attractive so I found that a deal breaker in any results he gained from the process. It is an easily foreseeable problem and easy to avoid.
I think the real issue here is that people especially in America celebrate wealth. So anything that denotes the wealthy in an unkind light will be met with harsh resistance. This is due to many reasons but the outcome is the same. Either way personally I found this article great digression into the human condition. I've personally noticed alot of people separating themselves unnesscarily based on differences of income even when the difference isn't that great.
I am not an American, so my "resistance" to the study had nothing to do with that. Rather, it is based on my observation that most studies in the area of social science are based on the predisposition of the researchers involved. Society is a much more emotive and controversial issue than that covered by any hard science. The bias of the researchers plays a large part in such studies. When you add on to that the fact we only hear about the studies journalists in the media think are "news worthy" you have to question why journalists pick the studies to highlight that they do.
Why do researchers pick a certain area of society to study? If you are doing a study that looks to see if certain areas of society have differences, I would suggest you probably already think there are differences. The Greater Good Science Center who are behind this study is predisposed to finding such differences. After all if there were no such differences to be found in our society there would be no reason for them to exist.
In summary I am not suggesting we dismiss social science, but you do need to apply your critical facilities to any scientific study, especially those that are cherry picked by the media.