The heck you mean you're not wanted in this world, Mach? You're more than wanted, you're needed!
How the heck does bad journalism mean that we don't need good journalism? If anything, bad journalism shows us just how much we need someone who takes the time to check sources and get things right.
Can't we have a civil disagreement here? I'm heading to bed now so I can't be here to moderate this potentially very immoderate discussion, so I'm just gonna say this now: Tone down the rhetoric and be civil, please. No tacit name-calling or catty bullshit. Please? Thank you.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
There's nothing to discuss about. Actual, legit journalists shamed themselves and the name of their trade.
They've been doing it for a long time and this is what makes me sit up and pay attention. This thing that intersects the venn diagram that I call my "attention span."
why is Extra Credits doing a thing about a Chinese credit-checking system anyway??
Because they think that, because they think a lot, and because they think hard, that they are smart.
They're essentially what Petr Beckmann portrays Plato and Aristotle as in his book The History of Pi.
People trying to figure out everything in the world by logic-ing really, REALLY hard; coming up with the thoughts that feel right to the mind. Thoughts that, to one refusing to observe or experiment, are (or are intended to be) persuasive in sheer resonance. Resonance with the harmonies of the mind.
Or, in other words, Extra Credits are people who think really hard until they get the sequence of words that most sounds like it makes sense and is true. And then they have the guy with the most calm, persuasive, mind-controlling, voice in the world to read it out and you don't realize what you just listened to until it's over.
Or, in other words, I have no dang idea why Extra Credits is doing this thing.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
If it makes Kex happy, I'll talk more about the Independent and not at all about Extra Credits. I mean, I am being unfair, because as I said, they're not journalists. They wouldn't know better.
I haven't seen the video (yet?), I just know I wouldn't go to EC for this particular instance, let alone use them (never mind only them), as a source. That's several levels of wrong. I also find the anger justified, and not an issue to me personally (presentation I suppose is different), even if yes I'd also be for civil disagreements.
There's nothing to discuss about. Actual, legit journalists shamed themselves and the name of their trade.
They've been doing it for a long time and this is what makes me sit up and pay attention. This thing that intersects the venn diagram that I call my "attention span."
I'm angry. I'm furious.
For the record, I agree with this. The lack of fact-checking here is pretty egregious. Extra Credits sensationalised some things and messed up on their facts on a couple of levels, but they aren't a newspaper of record, they're a video opinion column that happens to generally be fairly interesting but has no obligation to be correct 100% of the time.
Because they think that because they are interested in and covered "gamification" they should also talk about this.
They thought wrong.
Extra Credits get things wrong from time to time, but I think calling attention to this particular kind of mechanism and its various potentials was ultimately the right thing to do. Every so often people lose their heads over EC getting some kind of detail wrong, but that often misses the point of the discussion they're having in the first place.
EC misrepresented what was going on, and they should cop to that. But I don't feel that weakens their overarching point -- that game-like mechanisms can be wielded in order to manipulate people outside of a direct gaming experience, and potentially on a large scale. Game design is an art of deception and manipulation, and when wielded in a benign fashion, it produces positive outcomes for the end user in the same way the manipulation of a stage play or film does.
Keep in mind that whenever you are playing a game of any kind, you are being drawn towards making decisions relating to the rules and content of that game. Sports, board games, video games, whatever. Many of your decisions won't be consciously made, but will become at least partially automated. EC might have been overly alarmist in this case, but governments have trended away from being trustworthy as of late, and the Chinese government has a particularly sour reputation when it comes to human rights and free expression. EC are politically aware, and while they try their best to keep partisan politics out of their videos (at least in a direct sense), this is a case where their area of expertise and political awareness overlap.
They dun goofed. But I understand that goof given China's track record and the potential for misuse of a tool that could be psychologically and socially volatile. Game designers are in a particularly good position to judge various types of policy, at least relative to other politically lay people, because a good game designer is supposed to be always aware of mechanisms informing balance and choice.
This is ultimately while I'm still uncomfortable with this triad of "gamified" social media systems. We haven't seen the outcomes yet, but these are initiatives of large corporations and the Chinese government, respectively. These aren't organisations I would consider to have the interests of the end user ultimately in mind. In fact, the notion of this system arising in almost any nation should provide pause for thought, especially given the political prevalence of the far right in geopolitics.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I'm angry about a lot of things, but what I'm most angry at is the state of my would-be profession. At the news media.
EC might be good at judging policy, but there's no policy yet. What there is, is a collective of half-remembered, half-understood, half-baked reports that EC analyzed. What they did with it, should not be surprising.
I'll be clear: I don't like the PRC government either. That's also a reason why I always refer to it as "The PRC" instead of "China" or "The Chinese"; because the former specifically refers only the government, and the latter are markers of identity that I share, that I claim. It makes me flinch to hear someone say "The Chinese did this" when it's really the PRC government that did that.
Whatever the PRC are planning is something we should all be wary of. Which is why concise, clear, and truthful reporting is important, so we know what is going on.
That's what I'm most furious at. The reporting. Not EC. But the Independent.
MachSpeed is making a point about journalism, sourcing, and reporting. I understand that and understand why some wouldn't consider it EC's place to throw in their commentary, particularly given that three separate systems were misrepresented as one system wholly operated by the Chinese government.
My own point stands -- that is, that the psychological techniques employed in video games (and games of other kinds) are related to more general human psychology, and bringing the misuse of these techniques falls just as much under the jurisdiction of shows like EC as the appropriate use does.
It's also worth noting that EC are one of the few video game-oriented content creators that actually relate their content to the outside world and broader living. Their competitors are the likes of Yahtzee and Angry Joe. That doesn't make them any less guilty of their errors, but I would rather they say something rather than nothing. At the very least, this brings the potential for a broader segment of the gaming culture to pull its head out of its arse and pay attention to the outside world.
My view as someone passionate about the design and development of video games is necessarily going to clash with MachSpeed here, who is more invested in the integrity of journalism. I assure you I'm not missing the point, but there's more than one point to be made here. I have full respect for other points being made here, but I would also appreciate it if others understood the intent behind EC's video and their broader mission. They are trying, with varying degrees of imperfection, to err towards the educational and inclusive rather than pure opinion and entertainment. Given how blind other game-oriented media is to the context it exists within, I'm simply glad someone is engaging in some kind of broader discussion.
Hopefully they and others will be more rigorous concerning research in the future. My opinion stands -- EC's concern over the misapplication of this kind of social media is highly warranted, especially insofar as it concerns powerful nations with poor human rights histories.
I apologise if my posts cause you any additional distress. Rest assured that I see your position and agree that truthful information is of the utmost importance. I can agree with you wholeheartedly on the blunder, especially in the case of The Independent. As I've said, however, my enthusiasm for the mechanisms underlying gameplay - and their relevance to broader living - gives me cause to partially forgive EC for their worst-case-scenario analysis.
I would much rather they say nothing on this particular subject.
If someone is going to talk about a credit system in the PRC I'd rather it be like, someone with a degree in Economics. Not a channel that talks about video game design.
That's the thing, though. EC isn't Yahtzee at all. EC is an imperfect attempt to broaden the spectrum of what constitutes discussion of games, whereas Yahtzee is nearly purely entertainment. So entertainment-oriented, in fact, that the humour usually gets in the way of analysis of a game or the understanding thereof. When Yahtzee isn't cracking a joke, what we end up with is usually a description of his preferences.
EC try to discuss things. Even about the real world. I can't impress heavily enough that EC is far broader spectrum than basically any other popular gaming show, which is great, because they don't treat the gaming world as though it exists in a bubble, exempt from the realities of the external world. There is literally no other show of comparable popularity in the gaming media circuit that does this, which is exactly why I think it's so important that they do what they do -- at least until someone else can come along and do a better job, if that ever happens.
If someone is going to talk about a credit system in the PRC I'd rather it be like, someone with a degree in Economics. Not a channel that talks about video game design.
I think you might misunderstand what economics entails, and misunderstand how close game design comes to economic theory. A good example might be the damage calculations in Monster Hunter, which are closely tied to investment and return. Like the way that diversifying your damage buffs is preferable, because they stack via multiplication rather than addition that way, so a higher base attack value is better served by a handful of smaller positive multipliers rather than one larger lump multiplier -- we can think of attack and damage output as our primary currency, in this case. Other simplifications of economic mechanisms appear throughout video games in different form. Most commonly, we see the labour income model (do a thing, get a reward), but games with a more strategic bent (with the obvious examples being grand strategy) diversify the means of income (and also diversify the costs).
I feel that comment was based more on the general notion that economics is a magical, far-off Grown Up Thing that many don't grasp because they're often led to believe that they can't, or that it's too complex. Little could be further from the truth. While EC still aren't as qualified to comment upon this as a journalistic outlet with good research and sourcing, I can't see how economists are any better suited to the commentary on this. Especially given that the actual application of economics is still marred by political interests (which is why most of the world has regressed to early 20th century economics rather than using proven Keynes-related methods or more modern theories).
Of course, this is subject to what you're referring to when you say "someone with an economics degree", which is pretty broad. Someone educated today in economics is going to have a vastly different take on it than an "expert" educated twenty or thirty years ago, who again is going to be vastly different to the common figure of a know-nothing politician pretending to be knowledgable concerning economics.
I guess me and Alex are at odds at what's more important.
That's fair.
Let me put it this way:
I feel that The Independent did not do their job correctly. That's drastic unprofessionalism and you're entirely in the right to be upset about it. That The Independent used EC as a sole source (rather than as a possible filter for analysis) is disappointing, because informed, free journalism is a crucial pillar of a fair society.
I feel that EC erred substantially, but calling attention to this was ultimately the right thing to do. Because EC aren't journalists, but discuss various facets of games -- including, crucially, the psychological factors that drive gaming behaviour. As I said, they should cop their factual mistake, but however you cut it, a PRC run and surveyed social media programme is substantial cause for concern.
If you think that economists have some special authority to comment upon social behaviour, then that would place your thinking on economics along the lines of economic rationalism -- that is, the notion that people will always do what is economically optimal. This notion is often used to justify the application of neoclassical economics, which uses callous mechanisms and then justifies them while waving around the flag of "economic rationalism". You see why I responded the way I did? I have no idea what your understanding of economics is, but if you vaguely bring up economists as guardians of rational analysis, then naturally I'm going to think that you're not up to speed on the world of economics. Not that I'm an expert myself, but one has to understand that economic analysis is not some monolithic generator of correct information.
The fact of the matter is that the world of economics is much broader than most consider, and human behaviour's ties to economic rationalism is interrupted by competing sources of happiness, comfort, security, validation, and other matters. Economics has moved far, far along from the point of economic rationalism; forward-thinking economists think they can do little more than err human behaviour in vague directions. This matter isn't exactly unrelated to economics, but to say that someone educated in economics is likely to have better insight than someone conscious of game design (which is merely system design that prefers entertainment) holds no water. If you want to discount the view of game designers, then you'd want sociologists and psychologists (and anthropologists, from the perspective of Western commentary) -- economic analysis is likely to provide insight, but it's hardly the discipline that has the authority to determine the outcome of this kind of programme.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I didn't really interpret Jane's post as anything deeper than "I'd rather see this examined by academics than by a YouTube channel"
Interesting as this is to read, MA, I think you're trying to have a conversation with precisely the sort of person that does not want this. I mean, I expect to be told to hush if I'm off-base, naturally. As is, I understand that she has her stance insofar as preferring a different group of people to approach the subject (which Centie ninja'd me in saying), this thread of chatter rubs her the wrong way, and trying to continue it when someone is clearly, at the very least, not pleased with the direction of the conversation is a tad... off?
Comments
The site Myr linked bothered to properly look into it.
Not all hope is lost.
How the heck does bad journalism mean that we don't need good journalism? If anything, bad journalism shows us just how much we need someone who takes the time to check sources and get things right.
They're essentially what Petr Beckmann portrays Plato and Aristotle as in his book The History of Pi.
People trying to figure out everything in the world by logic-ing really, REALLY hard; coming up with the thoughts that feel right to the mind. Thoughts that, to one refusing to observe or experiment, are (or are intended to be) persuasive in sheer resonance. Resonance with the harmonies of the mind.
Or, in other words, Extra Credits are people who think really hard until they get the sequence of words that most sounds like it makes sense and is true. And then they have the guy with the most calm, persuasive, mind-controlling, voice in the world to read it out and you don't realize what you just listened to until it's over.
Or, in other words, I have no dang idea why Extra Credits is doing this thing.
WHEN YOU UPSET EACH OTHER so ALL OF YOU HUG RIGHT NOW AND BE HAPPY.