Topic: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Started by: cruciel
Started on: 4/13/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 4/13/2004 at 7:20pm, cruciel wrote:
Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Wow, that subject title doesn't make any sense, does it?
(Everything contained herein subject to the disclaimer that I am not a neurologist, psychiatrist or anything else remotely knowledgeable in this matter.)
I have a tendency to have trouble calculating success totals when I'm playing. I stop, I say "Uhhh...", I point at the numbers on my sheet, and eventually I manage to add three single digit numbers together. By no stretch of the imagination am I bad at math. And realistically, with math that simple, who is bad at it?
One theory (I wish I could remember which thread it was discussed in) is that this slowdown is caused by having to switch from predominately right brain function to left brain function.
Given that Gamism is a strategic process, it seems predominately left brain to me.
Therefore, my hypothesis is that a failure to exhibit this slowdown indicates that the right brain is not particularly active. This can mean you're bored, or that you're already operating in left brain mode. Hence, a lack of slow down may indicate a Gamist priority (at that moment anyway). This seems to match with my personal experiences. My ability to total dice values increases significantly when I'm bored, and those I play with who I'd classify as gamist do not exhibit the mental stutter.
On 4/13/2004 at 7:30pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
cruciel wrote:
(Everything contained herein subject to the disclaimer that I am not a neurologist, psychiatrist or anything else remotely knowledgeable in this matter.)
Nor am I, but is this some kind of a lark? AfaIk neurology hasn't for a long time been us simple as this left/right division tries to make it. It's an oversimplification of an outdated theory, if I remember anything.
Anyway, if we assume some credibility to this, I'm not at all sure if non-gamist roleplaying would necessarily be tied to right-brain function. As some might have grogged by now, I'm singularly cold in my roleplaying as far as decisionmaking goes. I analyze the game situation and structure an answer, none of this touchy feely stuff in there. Does this mean that I'm gamist? Not likely, it just means I'm not a big immersionist. Agendas cannot be characterized by the psychological prosesses that produce them because the phenomenon of CAs is itself sociological: for example gamism is a need of challenge, and that isn't specifically emotional or rational. Rather it's the other way around, with certain emotional and rational drives manifesting in the competion.
Incidentally, I have no trouble with simple math whether I'm invested in the game or not. Could very well be because my investment is different than yours, but I'm not buying that it's because I'm gamist ;)
On 4/13/2004 at 8:25pm, montag wrote:
RE: Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Eero Tuovinen wrote: It's an oversimplification of an outdated theory, if I remember anything.I'm just a simple psychologist and a prejudiced one in this matter, but I'd say that's quite right. Still, there's really no need to tease apart the neurological issue, considering handedness, sex differences and the validity of neuro-research methods, as the analytic/holistic distinction and the emotional/rational distinction can easily be discussed without reference to brain structures, since they are (to a certain extent, which in turn is not worth detailing) personality traits. That is, people on average tend to favour one over the other (to varying degrees, and ignoring the effect of situation for the moment), that is, people do have something like a "cognitive style", a favourite way of approaching stuff with their minds. No need to bring in neurology.
FWIW, I think these styles are unrelated to CAs, but that's just a layman's opinion. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
On 4/14/2004 at 1:37am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Please forgive the post slaughter.
Eero Tuovinen wrote: Nor am I, but is this some kind of a lark? AfaIk neurology hasn't for a long time been us simple as this left/right division tries to make it. It's an oversimplification of an outdated theory, if I remember anything.
montag wrote: I'm just a simple psychologist and a prejudiced one in this matter, but I'd say that's quite right. Still, there's really no need to tease apart the neurological issue, considering handedness, sex differences and the validity of neuro-research methods, as the analytic/holistic distinction and the emotional/rational distinction can easily be discussed without reference to brain structures, since they are (to a certain extent, which in turn is not worth detailing) personality traits. That is, people on average tend to favour one over the other (to varying degrees, and ignoring the effect of situation for the moment), that is, people do have something like a "cognitive style", a favourite way of approaching stuff with their minds. No need to bring in neurology.
I'm definitely willing to accept that I don't know what I'm talking about and that the left/right brain division is false. Though, I'll agree with Markus in that it's safe to leave the neurology out of it, while still being able to discuss the emotional/rational cognitive division.
Interesting side note: The divisions analytical/holistic and emotional/rational bear a striking resemblance to Wizards of the Coast's model. (Two axes: Stategic/Tactical and Story/Combat. It was built from their marketing survey, which we unfortunately don't have the data from to double check their work. It can be found here, if you're curious.)
On 4/14/2004 at 1:56am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Eero Tuovinen wrote: Anyway, if we assume some credibility to this, I'm not at all sure if non-gamist roleplaying would necessarily be tied to right-brain function. As some might have grogged by now, I'm singularly cold in my roleplaying as far as decisionmaking goes. I analyze the game situation and structure an answer, none of this touchy feely stuff in there. Does this mean that I'm gamist? Not likely, it just means I'm not a big immersionist. Agendas cannot be characterized by the psychological prosesses that produce them because the phenomenon of CAs is itself sociological: for example gamism is a need of challenge, and that isn't specifically emotional or rational. Rather it's the other way around, with certain emotional and rational drives manifesting in the competion.
I'm not really seeing the psychological/sociological distinction you're drawing, fortunately I don't think it makes much difference if we agree on that. The key issue seems to be whether or not Gamism and a rational mode of thought occur together consistently. Which might be the point contention, as I believe they do.
Incidentally, I have no trouble with simple math whether I'm invested in the game or not. Could very well be because my investment is different than yours, but I'm not buying that it's because I'm gamist ;)
If you're already in a rational mode of thought (as stated earlier), the lack of slow down doesn't surprise me. With this particular tell I'm not going to try to say it's a guarantee that Gamism is at work. You may be thinking rationally for other reasons, like boredom in my case. My thinking is that Gamism may be linked to a rational mode of thought, and that the lack of slow down when asked to do math is an indicator of a rational mode of thought.
So a question then, does this slowdown ever occur for you? If so, why?
On 4/14/2004 at 2:03am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
montag wrote: FWIW, I think these styles are unrelated to CAs, but that's just a layman's opinion. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
I don't really have any evidence that they do other than it makes sense to me and seems to fit with my personal experiences. However, I would like to add the disclaimer that even though I think Gamism is linked to a rational mode of thought and Nar to an emotional one, that I make no assumptions outside of actual play. I'm not willing, at this point anyway, to try to connect a person's preferred CA to their everyday personality - I'd certainly make an awful mess of such an attempt.
On 4/14/2004 at 7:50am, beingfrank wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
I think that if people do have preferred CAs, then they're probably linked to some personality traits, in the same way that research has shown correlations between some personality traits and preferences for different styles of music and art. Finding out would be nifty (I'd love to do that study myself, but there's no chance of that happening), but probably a pretty low priority.
cruciel wrote: However, I would like to add the disclaimer that even though I think Gamism is linked to a rational mode of thought and Nar to an emotional one, that I make no assumptions outside of actual play.
That's an interesting and tricky question in itself. As you say, we're not at a point where we can make assumptions. However, my own personal view is that Gamism is probably linked to an emotional mode of thought rather than a rational one. Gamism is about putting something on the line (as I understand it, and I'm now entirely au fait yet), and I'd characterise the enjoyment that comes from that as an emotional process. One might solve it rationally, but the motivation seems more emotional than rational.
Similarly, I could argue for Nar as linked to a rational mode of thought. Basically, it could go either way, there are reasonable arguments for both. It would be great to know one way or the other, but I can't think of an easy way of establishing that.
Drifts off into crazed visions of taking a fMRI to my next session.
Don't mind me.
On 4/14/2004 at 8:35am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
cruciel wrote:
I'm not really seeing the psychological/sociological distinction you're drawing, fortunately I don't think it makes much difference if we agree on that. The key issue seems to be whether or not Gamism and a rational mode of thought occur together consistently. Which might be the point contention, as I believe they do.
To the contrary, the sociological nature of the CAs is my counterpoint. Why does someone play in a gamist way? It might be because they want to have the feeling of competence that results from winning, or that they like the clash of intellects present in the best gamist games, for example. The former is an emotional motivation, the latter rational, and these are just a couple of possibilities. CAs aren't tied to specific psychological states.
As to gamism being rational and narrativism emotional, in real life I've found things to be the opposite if anything. People frequently bitch against narrativist technique because it distances them from the action and character immersion. On the other hand I know almost no rational gamists; the great majority is in the gamist business largely to get to feel superior towards others. They whine and whine and break all the rules they can get away with, and break down themselves if they lose, all in a search for the emotional shot of feel-good. Nothing rational there.
The above is just to point out that the case can be argued both ways, mainly because all agendas can result from a number of psychological situations. It'd sure be interesting to list some reasons for why someone might be f.ex. gamist, psychologically speaking, but I'd expect that the reasons would in each case be various.
So a question then, does this slowdown ever occur for you? If so, why?
Actually, I get a slowdown when we have a calculation on the table for all to see. I tend to assume that someone else will do it, and therefore won't focus on solving it. Also I slow down when I'm tired. Neither of these seems to me to be linked to a agenda ;)
On 4/14/2004 at 8:39am, Rob Carriere wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Cruciel,
Yes, I do experience that slowdown and it is usually accompanied with irritation (as you might guess, I'm not a fan of high-contact System). I'm not convinced that it is related to Gamism or the lack of it, though. Both strategy and tactics can be highly analytical or highly pattern-based, or anywhere in-between, depending on the nature of the challenge and especially depending on the nature of the individual.
You're definitely onto something, but I suspect it is an axis orthogonal to the GNS modes.
Then again, do I look like a psychologist? :-)
SR
--
On 4/14/2004 at 8:57am, montag wrote:
RE: Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Eero Tuovinen wrote: Actually, I get a slowdown when we have a calculation on the table for all to see. I tend to assume that someone else will do it, and therefore won't focus on solving it.This seems on-topic, so I'll jump in:
that's called (not 100 percent sure on English terminology) "responsibility diffusion" (and is usually discussed as a major barrier to altruistic behaviour). It explains why occasionally lots of bystanders will not help a person in need, though they are able to help and aware that help is needed (failure to notice the latter is called "pluralistic/collective ignorance", the major factor in that is the idea "No one else is helping, hence no help is needed, otherwise someone certainly would help.").
As far as altruistic behaviour is concerned, the usual recommendation for those in need is to address one person in particular and to specify the kind of help one expects. Applied to gaming that IMO simply means making sure to establish who is ultimately responsible for such "open calculations" is actually more likely to get the group involved than leaving that responsibility open.
@Claire: given the bunch of social scientists around here and the number of extremely clever "laymen" it should be possible to work out a way to gather "harder" empirical data to complement the anecdotal observations in Actual Play. IIRC John Kim once created a questionnaire to that end, which might be worth revisiting.
On 4/14/2004 at 6:55pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Re: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
montag wrote:Eero Tuovinen wrote: Actually, I get a slowdown when we have a calculation on the table for all to see. I tend to assume that someone else will do it, and therefore won't focus on solving it.@Claire: given the bunch of social scientists around here and the number of extremely clever "laymen" it should be possible to work out a way to gather "harder" empirical data to complement the anecdotal observations in Actual Play. IIRC John Kim once created a questionnaire to that end, which might be worth revisiting.
Hmmm. This could be the old "Plot Issue Questions" page that I had, which came from old rgfa posts -- particularly by David A. Bonar and Mary Kuhner. I haven't touched it or dealt with it in years, though. It's at
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/questions.html
There is also M.J. Young's "Gamer Preference Quiz" which was developed for GNS preferences several years ago (2000?).
http://www.mjyoung.net/rpg/gametype.html
For what it's worth, my experience goes against the idea. I'm one of those who isn't bothered much by calculations during play once I've learned them -- I'm more concerned with the speed of physical actions like collecting all the dice. However, I see myself as pretty anti-Gamist in most cases. Based on my experience, I see Gamists as being a roughly equal split between the rational, tactical types (often labelled "rules-lawyers") and the more social, emotional types ("wheedlers").
On 4/16/2004 at 6:12am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Unfortunately, this response is going to be shorter than I'd like. I hope to elaborate later.
The use of the word 'emotional' may have been a mistake on my part, because of the multitude of definitions that it has.
I'm all for the idea that Gamism is motivated by feeling, that gamist players may be seeking social rewards, and that social dysfunctions may arise from any GNS mode. I'll agree with Claire and Eero who both said something like that (correct me if that wasn't what you meant). However, I don't think that's related to what I'm trying to get at.
Let's see if I can explain. The following will have a series of poorly explained logic jumps.
• It's likely that the slow down I'm seeing may be caused by disengagement of whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
• Whatever cognitive method allows one to do math seems distinct from whatever cognitive method allows one to empathize.
• Identification with character (empathy) is necessary to engage (engage - not just witness) in Premise.
• Therefore, Nar (enaging in Premise) is using a distinct mode of thought from whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
• Therefore, the slow down I'm seeing seems to occur with something other than functional Nar. That's Gamism and disconnect from play in my point of view, those who believe in Sim may have another view.
As Rob pointed out, this might not be directly related to GNS. It might very well be related to something like Pawn stance, and I've just drawn a correlation between it and Gamism. It could also be something completely different. I'm interested in nailing down what specifically causes otherwise math competent people to flounder with simple addition in play.
*****
John,
I'll have to think some about wheedlers, as I'm not certain where they fit in.
*****
And Eero, would you classify yourself as primarily Nar? Like John, you may simply not experience the slow down (except for being tired or not paying attention), so your agenda may not be relevant (that sounds bad, doesn't it?). I'm just curious.
On 4/16/2004 at 7:36am, beingfrank wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
cruciel wrote: Unfortunately, this response is going to be shorter than I'd like. I hope to elaborate later.
I know the feeling. There's so much I want to say on this topic, and I just simply don't have the time right now to put my ideas in order, or check the stuff I need to in order to say anything vaguely helpful.
cruciel wrote: The use of the word 'emotional' may have been a mistake on my part, because of the multitude of definitions that it has.
I'm all for the idea that Gamism is motivated by feeling, that gamist players may be seeking social rewards, and that social dysfunctions may arise from any GNS mode. I'll agree with Claire and Eero who both said something like that (correct me if that wasn't what you meant). However, I don't think that's related to what I'm trying to get at.
I'd like to clarify that I wasn't directly adressing your original point, but adding on something related. What I was trying to say is partly covered by your above summary, but I was trying to say a bit more. I wasn't just saying that gamist players are motivated by emotion to seek social rewards, but that they're motivated by emotion to seek all sorts of rewards. That they step up to challenge at least in part because they're emotionally invested in the outcome/winning/doing something cool. I'd argue that the pay off in gamist play is more emotional than rational. It's the fist pumping, yay! moment. The throwing yourself on the couch, sobbing and thumping pillows in despair as a beautiful plan fails on a bad roll (or maybe that's just me?). All of that seems an emotional pay off rather than a rational one. But I may be wrong in my understanding of gamist play. I very rarely do it myself, spend the first part of the session bitching about how much I hate it, then finally get into it and have a great time, so I suspect my perspective is rather warped.
cruciel wrote: Let's see if I can explain. The following will have a series of poorly explained logic jumps.
• It's likely that the slow down I'm seeing may be caused by disengagement of whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
It could well be. It would be interesting to compare the time taken to do other tasks in the middle of roleplaying. Like timing how long it takes people to do a couple of verbal intelligence questions, or a couple of social problem solving questions and so on, at regular intervals during roleplaying and comparing the different results.
cruciel wrote: • Whatever cognitive method allows one to do math seems distinct from whatever cognitive method allows one to empathize.
Ok, I can go with that as a hypothesis.
cruciel wrote: • Identification with character (empathy) is necessary to engage (engage - not just witness) in Premise.
That's a bit more uncertain. But I can't think of a clever way of establishing it. Perhaps you could prime people to have low or high empathy before a roleplaying incident and then see if they engage in Premise more?
cruciel wrote: • Therefore, Nar (enaging in Premise) is using a distinct mode of thought from whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
• Therefore, the slow down I'm seeing seems to occur with something other than functional Nar. That's Gamism and disconnect from play in my point of view, those who believe in Sim may have another view.
I think you're on much shakier ground here. You risk circularity.
- I suck at maths during Nar play.
- Maths is a different cognitive process from empathy.
- Nar play involes empathy.
- I suck at maths during Nar play.
- I don't suck at maths during Gam play.
I'm not suggesting that's what you're saying. I think you need to clarify your argument further so that it doesnt' run the risk of appearing like this.
cruciel wrote: As Rob pointed out, this might not be directly related to GNS. It might very well be related to something like Pawn stance, and I've just drawn a correlation between it and Gamism. It could also be something completely different. I'm interested in nailing down what specifically causes otherwise math competent people to flounder with simple addition in play.
I think that this is a brilliant question. And potentially one where we could get some actual answers.
I mean, it would be feasible to get people to set an alarm to go off during their next session, when it goes off, they all do 10 maths problems and time themselves. It could happen a number of times in long sessions. Then they mark their times with what CA they think they're using (ok, so it's a crude measure, but it would be ok for a first run, and until some other measure of CA becomes available). We collate data and compare.
That might let us know if your observation is a general phenomena, and then we can move on to work out why on earth it happens.
Now I'm excited about this idea. :-)
On 4/16/2004 at 8:00am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
cruciel wrote:
Let's see if I can explain. The following will have a series of poorly explained logic jumps.
• It's likely that the slow down I'm seeing may be caused by disengagement of whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
• Whatever cognitive method allows one to do math seems distinct from whatever cognitive method allows one to empathize.
Acceptable for the sake of argument, for now.
• Identification with character (empathy) is necessary to engage (engage - not just witness) in Premise.
This I don't buy. I'm primarily narrativist, but don't deem empathy a very important quality for my kind of nar - in fact I tend to think of empathy as a sim quality.
Consider: I routinely play narrativism biased games - the latest being MLwM, which I've played quite a bit in the last month. For me nar is about manipulation of story objects. Good nar is where the players recognize the issues at hand, distill them in artistic form and deliver them with power. If there's empathy there, it's not a necessary quality for the act itself. It's certainly possible that my empathy is triggered without me knowing about it, but that'd depend on your exact definition of empathy - I don't see it.
A sim player has, or might have, empathy for the characters in the game. He might even immerse there. The narrativist is more interested in the choices those characters represent - no need for empathy there. I myself need marrativism an analytic and creative act, not an emotional one.
• Therefore, Nar (enaging in Premise) is using a distinct mode of thought from whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
Follows from the last one.
• Therefore, the slow down I'm seeing seems to occur with something other than functional Nar. That's Gamism and disconnect from play in my point of view, those who believe in Sim may have another view.
Assumes that the psychological features you've recognized - calculation and empathy, to be precise, are primarily connected to certain CAs. As I noted before, I would deem such connections specific cases, each to be considered without bias from others. Some psych feature might have something to do with a CA, while some might not. Here you assume that it has to be this way.
It's really the same case as with the techniques of the game, just from the other side of the equation. The CAs are empirical social designations, and therefore it's pure chance if a given technique or psychological trait will match tidily with a CA. Your example just proves this. Some of us play nar with empathy and (I presume) a bit of immersion, while for some it's pure pawn stance and enjoyment from the story qualities, not the characters.
As Rob pointed out, this might not be directly related to GNS. It might very well be related to something like Pawn stance, and I've just drawn a correlation between it and Gamism. It could also be something completely different. I'm interested in nailing down what specifically causes otherwise math competent people to flounder with simple addition in play.
The general answer is not connected to the CAs at least, IMO. It'd probably be more fruitful to consider whether some techniques of play are connected. It'd seem to me that certain ways of playing, like character immersion, are much more fixed psych-wise than the agendas are. You have to feel the character to play immersion, and you cannot feel it if you play rules-lawyer, as examples.
And Eero, would you classify yourself as primarily Nar? Like John, you may simply not experience the slow down (except for being tired or not paying attention), so your agenda may not be relevant (that sounds bad, doesn't it?). I'm just curious.
As mentioned, I'm primarily nar if anything. I've played as a player comparatively little, but my years as the GM have developed quite the sense for premise, not to speak of my other literary pursuits. If I get to choose between faciliating gam, sim or nar I choose nar if the social contract doesn't stop me.
You are correct that a single case won't prove much. However, the burden of proof seems to lie on the new theory :)
On 4/16/2004 at 9:32am, montag wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
cruciel wrote: Let's see if I can explain. The following will have a series of poorly explained logic jumps.Ok, going from a doctoral thesis (in German) published in August 2003, written by a good friend, on developmental psychology aspects of dyscalculia.
• It's likely that the slow down I'm seeing may be caused by disengagement of whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
• Whatever cognitive method allows one to do math seems distinct from whatever cognitive method allows one to empathize.
It seems fairly safe to say, that the range of processes we're talking about here is pretty basic and as such unlikely to warrant a devoted kognitive subsystem/module (we might argue about a module for the representation of numbers and sets, but we're primarily concerned with the processes of addition, substraction, comparison etc. here, right?).
Now, IMO the biggest factors in that performance (at this low level, just above subitizing) will be attention and working memory (The Baddeley & Hitch approach with it's quite capable "Central Executive" can handle almost all small scale stuff), precisely because the process is so simple (so that actual algebraic processing power doesn't enter into the equation).
Working from that, I'd offer the following possible explanations for inability to add three single digit numbers:
- loss of attention: especially in long term task of attention people have lapses, more of them if the task is particularly boring
- interference/dual task: you're occupied with something else and don't divert sufficient resorces to the dice
- sequencing problems: sequencing presumable plays a major role in arithmetics. Mixing Baddeley & Hitch's phonological loop with the within-between stream stuff from Jones & Macken it has been found that irrelevant and variable noise (people talking) impairs memory processes based on rehearsal. It unlikely though possible, that listening to the others talk make yous you mix up or forget the numbers.
- the central executive (according to Baddeley & Logie) among other things relevant to mental arithmetic is also supposed to retrive results for well known problems from long term memory (everything below 20 is usually assumed to be "well known"), so the problem might again be, that you're focussed elsewhere and can't access the result directly, as you'd usually do, and then stumble when having to rely on a mechanical, conscious application of the addition procedure.
Finally, yes, emotions can get in the way of almost anything (would be interesting to hook you up to an EKG ;) but IMHO you are just devoting ressources to unevenly, (if you have problems with switsching tasks in general, field dependece (Witkin) might be relevant as well) and have trouble re-focussing on the new task. I find it hard to believe that your emotional engagement is so incredibly intense that you can no longer do basic calculus.
[Afterthought: creativity is divergent production accoriding to Guilford's structure of intellect model (an intelligence theory), no idea what calculus is, but pretty sure it isn't divergent)
On 4/16/2004 at 10:24pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
I don't know that I can add much after Markus' excellent post, but I think I do understand something of where Jason is pointed.
In a great deal of gamist play, the players are already in an analytical mode. We are working probabilities, not necessarily from specific numbers but on an abstracted level, deciding how likely it is for us to succeed at any given choice. Thus when we shift to doing math, we're already in an analytical mode.
My difficulty is that I don't see the problem in myself or in my players. Those who are good at math usually continue to be so regardless of play style. I can add a column of two-digit numbers in my head as long as I'm not trying to hold a conversation at the same time (in which case paper works just fine). So I'm with Eero on this, I think--are there really people for whom this is a problem?
--M. J. Young
On 4/18/2004 at 4:21am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Claire,
beingfrank wrote: I'd like to clarify that I wasn't directly adressing your original point, but adding on something related. What I was trying to say is partly covered by your above summary, but I was trying to say a bit more. I wasn't just saying that gamist players are motivated by emotion to seek social rewards, but that they're motivated by emotion to seek all sorts of rewards. That they step up to challenge at least in part because they're emotionally invested in the outcome/winning/doing something cool. I'd argue that the pay off in gamist play is more emotional than rational. It's the fist pumping, yay! moment. The throwing yourself on the couch, sobbing and thumping pillows in despair as a beautiful plan fails on a bad roll (or maybe that's just me?). All of that seems an emotional pay off rather than a rational one. But I may be wrong in my understanding of gamist play. I very rarely do it myself, spend the first part of the session bitching about how much I hate it, then finally get into it and have a great time, so I suspect my perspective is rather warped.
Cool, and I agree.
beingfrank wrote:cruciel wrote: • Identification with character (empathy) is necessary to engage (engage - not just witness) in Premise.
That's a bit more uncertain. But I can't think of a clever way of establishing it. Perhaps you could prime people to have low or high empathy before a role-playing incident and then see if they engage in Premise more?
It is definitely more uncertain. The question is, can a player be interested in a theme without identifying with the characters that create it? If you cannot empathize with the emotions of those involved in a story, can you actually appreciate the story? If you can't identify with the characters, then the story won't mean anything to you. Maybe you could appreciate it on a purely aesthetic level, but I wouldn't call that engaged. In this context I'm using empathize as synonymous with understand - implying that you must be able to feel an emotion to understand it. With empathize I also mean thinking about how someone else would feel (technically, probably how you would feel in a specific situation if your background was like the character's, but I think that's a side issue). This is one of those 'this is how Jason thinks stories as supposed to work' things. It makes sense to me, but I'm not against challenging it.
beingfrank wrote:cruciel wrote: • Therefore, Nar (engaging in Premise) is using a distinct mode of thought from whatever cognitive method allows one to do math.
• Therefore, the slow down I'm seeing seems to occur with something other than functional Nar. That's Gamism and disconnect from play in my point of view, those who believe in Sim may have another view.
I think you're on much shakier ground here. You risk circularity.
- I suck at maths during Nar play.
- Maths is a different cognitive process from empathy.
- Nar play involes empathy.
- I suck at maths during Nar play.
- I don't suck at maths during Gam play.
I'm not suggesting that's what you're saying. I think you need to clarify your argument further so that it doesnt' run the risk of appearing like this.
Actually, I don't think I'm saying anything too different. Though, if you take into account that I might not have the slow down for reasons other than Gamism and I don't even suck at math all the time in Nar play, the circle kinda crumbles.
beingfrank wrote: I think that this is a brilliant question. And potentially one where we could get some actual answers.
I mean, it would be feasible to get people to set an alarm to go off during their next session, when it goes off, they all do 10 maths problems and time themselves. It could happen a number of times in long sessions. Then they mark their times with what CA they think they're using (ok, so it's a crude measure, but it would be ok for a first run, and until some other measure of CA becomes available). We collate data and compare.
That might let us know if your observation is a general phenomena, and then we can move on to work out why on earth it happens.
Now I'm excited about this idea. :-)
Once the initial gear grinding passes (a second or two), all math thrusters are on full until numbers stop being important. So in my case, the first problem would be the only one that mattered. For the last four weeks of playing I think the group has made three rolls, so my data points are drifting off into memory. I suspect this Monday will be different. I'm going to keep a sharp eye open next time we play, and see if I can make more sense of this.
On 4/18/2004 at 5:01am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Eero,
Eero Tuovinen wrote:cruciel wrote: • Identification with character (empathy) is necessary to engage (engage - not just witness) in Premise.
This I don't buy. I'm primarily narrativist, but don't deem empathy a very important quality for my kind of nar - in fact I tend to think of empathy as a sim quality.
Consider: I routinely play narrativism biased games - the latest being MLwM, which I've played quite a bit in the last month. For me nar is about manipulation of story objects. Good nar is where the players recognize the issues at hand, distill them in artistic form and deliver them with power. If there's empathy there, it's not a necessary quality for the act itself. It's certainly possible that my empathy is triggered without me knowing about it, but that'd depend on your exact definition of empathy - I don't see it.
A sim player has, or might have, empathy for the characters in the game. He might even immerse there. The narrativist is more interested in the choices those characters represent - no need for empathy there. I myself need marrativism an analytic and creative act, not an emotional one.
I covered this in my response to Claire, where I tried to define what I meant by 'empathize'. My opinion is that sterile Nar play is either Nar play that's missing something or something other than Nar play. I'm going to have to seriously think about whether Nar and Pawn stance are compatible. My gut reaction is no, though I have seen it before (in which case I tend to call it poor craftsmanship). That definitely seems like a value judgement, maybe it is. But now I'm wandering, and I'm not even sure if that's what you meant.
Eero wrote:• Therefore, the slow down I'm seeing seems to occur with something other than functional Nar. That's Gamism and disconnect from play in my point of view, those who believe in Sim may have another view.
Assumes that the psychological features you've recognized - calculation and empathy, to be precise, are primarily connected to certain CAs. As I noted before, I would deem such connections specific cases, each to be considered without bias from others. Some psych feature might have something to do with a CA, while some might not. Here you assume that it has to be this way.
It's really the same case as with the techniques of the game, just from the other side of the equation. The CAs are empirical social designations, and therefore it's pure chance if a given technique or psychological trait will match tidily with a CA. Your example just proves this. Some of us play nar with empathy and (I presume) a bit of immersion, while for some it's pure pawn stance and enjoyment from the story qualities, not the characters.
[snip]
The general answer is not connected to the CAs at least, IMO. It'd probably be more fruitful to consider whether some techniques of play are connected. It'd seem to me that certain ways of playing, like character immersion, are much more fixed psych-wise than the agendas are. You have to feel the character to play immersion, and you cannot feel it if you play rules-lawyer, as examples.
I'm generally in agreement, but I'd like to differ in that I think there are definite trends with CA's. In my experience, Immersion (the identifying with character definition) occurs significantly more often in Nar, and Pawn stance occurs significantly more often in Gam. If we, for example, blame Immersion for the slow down, we can say that's it's possible that when the slow down does not occur Immersion is not happening.
I don't expect, or want, absolutes here - I'm just looking for likely patterns.
On 4/18/2004 at 6:15am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Markus,
montag wrote: Ok, going from a doctoral thesis (in German) published in August 2003, written by a good friend, on developmental psychology aspects of dyscalculia.
It seems fairly safe to say, that the range of processes we're talking about here is pretty basic and as such unlikely to warrant a devoted kognitive subsystem/module (we might argue about a module for the representation of numbers and sets, but we're primarily concerned with the processes of addition, substraction, comparison etc. here, right?).
Now, IMO the biggest factors in that performance (at this low level, just above subitizing) will be attention and working memory (The Baddeley & Hitch approach with it's quite capable "Central Executive" can handle almost all small scale stuff), precisely because the process is so simple (so that actual algebraic processing power doesn't enter into the equation).
Working from that, I'd offer the following possible explanations for inability to add three single digit numbers:
- loss of attention: especially in long term task of attention people have lapses, more of them if the task is particularly boring
- interference/dual task: you're occupied with something else and don't divert sufficient resorces to the dice
- sequencing problems: sequencing presumable plays a major role in arithmetics. Mixing Baddeley & Hitch's phonological loop with the within-between stream stuff from Jones & Macken it has been found that irrelevant and variable noise (people talking) impairs memory processes based on rehearsal. It unlikely though possible, that listening to the others talk make yous you mix up or forget the numbers.
I don't think any of these are the case. The sequencing problem is interesting, though I don't think I quite understand what you mean.
montag wrote: - the central executive (according to Baddeley & Logie) among other things relevant to mental arithmetic is also supposed to retrive results for well known problems from long term memory (everything below 20 is usually assumed to be "well known"), so the problem might again be, that you're focussed elsewhere and can't access the result directly, as you'd usually do, and then stumble when having to rely on a mechanical, conscious application of the addition procedure.
I can say, with as much certainty as I ever can about anything my brain is actually doing, that I'm trying to remember what the math is. ("4 + 3 is... ummm... 7") There is also the possibility that collecting the numbers is playing a role in the issue, as for us that involves converting them from dots.
montag wrote: Finally, yes, emotions can get in the way of almost anything (would be interesting to hook you up to an EKG ;) but IMHO you are just devoting ressources to unevenly, (if you have problems with switsching tasks in general, field dependece (Witkin) might be relevant as well) and have trouble re-focussing on the new task. I find it hard to believe that your emotional engagement is so incredibly intense that you can no longer do basic calculus.
That connects to what Rob was saying about frustration causing him to fail at math, and other people I've spoken to mention pressure and stress. I also think you're right that my emotional engagement can't be so intense that it keeps me from doing basic math. If we accept that it's an uneven division of resources, which definitely seems to make sense, isn't that pretty much where we started? Just without knowing where the resources are going.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the issue I'm seeing is getting larger as this thread progresses. What I'm seeing/experiencing is only a second or two of lost thought. Long enough to say, "Ummm... hold on, Ummm.... Uhhhh..." A moment of trying to get your brain to add when it just doesn't want to. It isn't a huge thing, but it is apparent enough that I, and others, notice it.
I briefly read up on field dependence/field independence. I've been accused of being easily bothered by sensory stimuli before (I have fairly acute senses). The girl says I'm oversensitive. I say it helps me spot lions so she doesn't get eaten. I don't think she's impressed. This is illustrated by the fact that it took me quite a bit longer than it should have to take an exam yesterday because the guy sitting next to me smelled bad. I don't think it messed up my answers, but it definitely slowed me down. I also tend to do a fair amount of holistic reasoning. However, I don't suffer from faulty analytical reasoning, I learn easier with self motivation, and I don't have trouble re-tasking or multi-tasking. So, given my limited understanding of the concept, it doesn't seem to fit.
Hmmm... too much talking about myself. The other people in my group who experience the problem don't share my thinking patterns.
Here's a breakdown of my group, which is where my data comes from:
Me
Agenda: Nar
Most common stance: Author, some Director
Slowdown: Occasional to often. Doesn't seem to happen when bored.
Player 2
Agenda: Nar
Most common stance: Author
Slowdown: More often than me. Doesn't seem to happen when bored. She thinks it has to do with immersion.
Player 3
Agenda: Difficult to classify - mostly Nar, some Gam undercurrents. Seems to vary with character being played and mood.
Most common stance: Author (?) and Pawn (?), again sort of hard to classify. Seems to enjoy Director.
Slowdown: Less often than me. Seems to occur more often with certain characters. He has no idea why it happens.
Player 4
Agenda: Nar
Most common stance: Actor
Slowdown: Doesn't experience. However, it's worth mentioning that resolution for this player is a painfully slow process to begin with - not because of the math, but because of lack of attentiveness and need for hand-holding. ("What's going on? Can I do this? What do I roll? I don't remember what my skill is. I need to look it up. Where's my notebook? Where did my dice go? *shakes dice for a really long time* I forgot what my skill was." ... and so on.)
Player 5
Agenda: Also difficulty to classify. Strong Gamist underpinning, Nar trappings.
Most common stance: Pawn and Actor, seems to be a fairly even split.
Slowdown: Doesn't experience.
Player 6
Agenda: Gam, slight peekings of Nar.
Most common stance: Mostly Pawn, some Actor
Slowdown: Doesn't experience.
Hopefully, I haven't misrepresented anyone. You can kind of see where I got this idea from, as the three people in my group who don't have the issue are rather Gam, except the guy who isn't paying attention. My memory of play sessions with other people backs this up, but I'm really disinclined to trust my memory past a few months - it could be lying to me.
As I mentioned to Claire, I predict a decent amount of rolling this Monday, so I'll keep my eyes open for the things you've mentioned.
On 4/18/2004 at 6:41am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
M.J.,
M. J. Young wrote: I don't know that I can add much after Markus' excellent post, but I think I do understand something of where Jason is pointed.
In a great deal of gamist play, the players are already in an analytical mode. We are working probabilities, not necessarily from specific numbers but on an abstracted level, deciding how likely it is for us to succeed at any given choice. Thus when we shift to doing math, we're already in an analytical mode.
That's pretty much it.
My difficulty is that I don't see the problem in myself or in my players. Those who are good at math usually continue to be so regardless of play style. I can add a column of two-digit numbers in my head as long as I'm not trying to hold a conversation at the same time (in which case paper works just fine). So I'm with Eero on this, I think--are there really people for whom this is a problem?
Yeah, half my group experiences it from time to time. It isn't a huge problem though, just a noticable one. My most recent response to Markus goes over this. (Maybe I should have just written one really big response, instead of trying to split it into four pieces. Oh well.)
On 4/19/2004 at 8:27am, Rob Carriere wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
For whatever introspection is worth, what I mentioned about my experience feels like insufficient diversion of resources with? because of? a desire to stick with the original task. And, as with cruciel, it's only a second or two, but it can go pretty fundamental. I've looked at Mage die rolls and gone, `err, some of these are higher than 6...I know the numbers higher than 6, they are...errr', and then you can feel some change of mental state occuring and the answer pops up.
SR
--
On 4/20/2004 at 8:27pm, cruciel wrote:
RE: Missing Lobe Shift as Gamist Tell
Ok, you guys have made my initial hypothesis pretty weak, but I think I just completely destroyed it last night in gaming.
Before game I had a chance to ask Player 6 (Gam) if he experiences the 'math stutter' (as he calls it). His immediate reaction was 'Yeah, I hate that!' He's just asymptomatic, so I never noticed. We talked about it for a little bit, and he thinks it tends to happen more when he's tired, but that isn't the only time. He isolated it as a failure of memory, just as I did, and I explained the concept of the Central Executive that Markus spoke of - he though that was dead on. Oh, and Player 4 fessed up to having it, though he blamed me for jinxing him by bringing it up :). So that's all of us except Player 5, who I haven't really spoke to about it.
Player 6 has been having this desire to take statistics on dice rolls in our game, so we joined forces and collected data for the evening.
We had four slowdowns - two of player 2's seven rolls, and two of player 4's eight rolls. They all occurred in the same conflict, at the beginning of the session. Player 2 mentioned a decent amount of engagement at that point, and less later in the evening.
No one else had a slowdown that I noticed or they mentioned. I made six rolls, Player 3 made two, Player 5 (GM) made two, and Player 6 made one.
So, I didn't end up see a connection to agenda or stance, and it definitely seems to be a failure of memory, as Markus mentioned (thanks!).
My new hypothesis is just that it's visualizing the events that keep your mental resources away from the central executive. Though, I might even be stretching there, as it may simply be the process of switching tasks that consumes resources.