[TrashMan]

90% of things in life and assumed and not empirically driven.

90% of statistics are made up.  (In case you're unfamiliar with that phrase, it means your statement has no actual point as it has no actual basis).

Replace 90% with most if you want to be so nitpicky.

There are positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes.  That would be why I differentiated.  Stereotypes are heuristics.  They serve a purpose, but they become problematic when they are used consistently in a definitive way, particularly the negative ones.  Negative stereotypes have a habit of reinforcing particular traits as a negatively defining attribute of a group, to the exclusion of positive stereotypes, and are often exaggerated.

Ah...but what is a "negative" and "positive" portrayl is very subjective, is it not?
And part of the problem is - again - our assumption that a trait that isn't immediately shown isn't there.
 

[swashmebuckle]

This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.

This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.

Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.

I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.

However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.

These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.

We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.

I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?

Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?

That was very cynical but probably very insightful as well. I'll ponder over that one.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as cynical regarding Sarkeesian or Socrates or any of us forum people. I'm quite optimistic on mainstream video games and the tech industry at large becoming less tone deaf in the near future, and I very much enjoy reading all your guys' postings, even the ones that make me feel buttcheek-clenchingly uncomfortable

[MP-Ryan]

I have no idea what you're getting at, but in psychology there is no real distinction between sociopathy, psychopathy, and ASPD (which does indeed stand for social).  There is also no real distinction between social and societal when it comes to sociology/psychology, either.

[Lorric]

This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.

This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.

Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.

I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.

However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.

These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.

We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.

I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?

Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I know what you're saying, but you shouldn't sacrifice your own integrity or the integrity of your cause just because it proves effective for the other side. Set the example by being the example. Take the right path, not the path of least resistance.

[Aardwolf]

@MP-Ryan:

Do you understand the distinction between social and societal in common usage? It's the difference between a misanthropic loner and a perfectly well-adjusted activist. One has a problem, the other does not. And if the DSM V says "they're the same, institutionalize them both", then the DSM V has a problem.

And yes I realize what the D in DSM stands for, and so the DSM won't doesn't generally say "institutionalize them", but the fact that it doesn't distinguish is a problem.

[MP-Ryan]

Replace 90% with most if you want to be so nitpicky.

It still has no real point.  Regardless of whether or not most things are assumed, the issue is that the so-called catering is going to an assumed audience that likely doesn't even exist the way the assumptions believe.  Even if most things are assumed, that still doesn't make it a good or inevitable ay of operating.

Ah...but what is a "negative" and "positive" portrayl is very subjective, is it not?
And part of the problem is - again - our assumption that a trait that isn't immediately shown isn't there.

Subjective?  Loosely, yes.  Very subjective?  Hell no.  Is general portrayal of particular racial minorities as criminals a positive or negative stereotype?  How about women as scantily-clad decoration?

Going back to the original point at hand, publishers and game studios catering to a perceived audience is problematic because there is little data to suggest that the perceived audience actually exists, and games that do this tend to resort to negative stereotypes as a quick method of characterization, ignoring everything else that can possibly be going on.  Thus, you end up with games that are overly simplistic because of the assumptions of  its creators, not the actual characteristics or wants of the audience.

Show of hands:  who wants another Call of Duty singleplayer experience, versus who would prefer another game like Spec Ops: The Line?  Yet publishers are far more inclined to make yet another CoD installment with an insipid singleplayer mode than take a risk on a game that critiques that sort of game.

Bad assumptions about your audience leads to bad games.  Or, if that's mildly unfair, games that don't reach their full potential.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

I see the confusion.  You're conflating "anti-social" in ASPD with the common misusage of anti-social to mean "someone who doesn't like to spend time with other people."

Two different things.  The psychological term is define by diagnostic criteria; the colloquial term has diluted meaning.

[Mr. Vega]

This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.

This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.

Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.

I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.

However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.

These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.

We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.

I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?

Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?

What? You don't want to pretend we're all PhDs having a nice public forum at Cambridge pleasantly conversing on things that no actual bearing on our everyday lives?

Tea parties don't change anything. You can attack and condemn and rail against and demand that we look inside ourselves and summon all of your personal passions and channel them into a torrent of righteous fury to make your case, and be totally correct and just in doing so.

As long as your points are good.

Anyone wants to talk about how they don't like Anita's style, fine. I certainly can't stop any of you from doing that. But her points are good.

[TrashMan]

Replace 90% with most if you want to be so nitpicky.

It still has no real point.  Regardless of whether or not most things are assumed, the issue is that the so-called catering is going to an assumed audience that likely doesn't even exist the way the assumptions believe.  Even if most things are assumed, that still doesn't make it a good or inevitable ay of operating.

I would agree with you if most things you do in life, most things you believe, are all backed up by empirically tested evidence.
They are not.
Life is too short for that, and thus, assuming many things is simply the way humans work.
It is not the "best" way in terms of accuracy, but it is in terms of ease and expedience.

Subjective?  Loosely, yes.  Very subjective?  Hell no.  Is general portrayal of particular racial minorities as criminals a positive or negative stereotype?  How about women as scantily-clad decoration?

As long as you're not portraying every member of the minority as a criminal, and as long as there are other woman in the story too, I'd say it's relatively neutral.
Because the world isn't neatly divided and ordered to always present you "nice" ratios or numbers.

Hypothetically speaking - what if I told you that in my country, members of a specific minority produce a large number of the criminal element?* The reasons why are irrelevant for now, but would it be racist then if I were to portray my country as it is? It doesn't have to be a country.. It could be a town, or a neighbourhood. Pick a place on earth. Do a check to see if races, genders and religions are all equally spread out among different facets of society. You'll find they are usually not.
The part/snapshot of the world a creator makes does NOT have to correspond to the real world or to the world average. Especially when it comes to fantasy worlds. You may not like it - heck, I don't like it most of the time - but the creator has that right to make any kind of world he wants. If poeple don't like it, then thy should ignore it.

* - not actually true, but as I said, hypothetical

Thus, you end up with games that are overly simplistic because of the assumptions of  its creators, not the actual characteristics or wants of the audience.

Assumptions of the creators are always present, aren't they?

Bad assumptions about your audience leads to bad games.  Or, if that's mildly unfair, games that don't reach their full potential.

Full potential?
By who's standards?

[Luis Dias]

Quick note to point out that there's no such thing as publishers "catering to a perceived audience" like smelling the wind and what not, and that the whole "we would all rather prefer something like Spec Ops The Line rather than CoD" is a typical case of We think we know what we want, but in reality what we really want is different than what we say we want ****.

In reality, all these publishers have very tight and "scientific" study groups that are able to determine with incredible precision exactly what consumers want from games. They then add all these things up and the end result is what we get from the shelves, typically a soulless addition of thousands of little findings by these groups tied in by the flimsiest, simplest "narrative" or concept that was also subject to study. And if you think these things don't work, please tell me how many "The Line" games were sold VS "Call of Duty". I know you say you want "The Line" far more than CoD, but the market is saying exactly the opposite. Sorry.

e: the best personification of this process is the latest Destiny game. Filled with incredible detailed "little things" that work amazingly well, all glued in a completely mindless and irrelevant backdrop, an intellectual complete failure (both from storytelling perspective and innovative gameplay).

[Dragon]

The problem is that we're not representative of the market at all. For every one SpecOps: The Line fan, there's ten morons casual COD players who couldn't care less for story or indeed, anything intellectual about a game. They'd only care about shooting people, preferably in multiplayer, not even needing a good reason for it. I've seen a review of SpecOps: The Line that lowered the rating (slightly) because the multiplayer was bad. Who plays it for multiplayer anyway? The only reason it was included was that the publisher wanted it. Generally, stuff is most often marketed to the lowest common denominator, because it's just that: common. It simply sells better. It's somewhat similar with movies, there's a market for intelligent, deep movies with philosophical overtones. There's also a much larger market for mindless action flicks, stupid comedies and softcore porn. It's the former that make the classics lists, but the latter are much easier to produce and sell better.

[Luis Dias]

Exactly, I mean you cannot berate certain media products for catering to the majority of people. If you are proud of your own intelligence and delicate stellar taste, you cannot then complain that the world doesn't fall in line to your taste, for it was you yourself who decided long ago to go beyond the median. And it's not even about people "being stoopid". It's way more mundane and simple than that, most people just don't ****ing care about 90% of the things they consume. I know I don't. Some people worry a lot about food, I just care that it is edible and tasty. Some others worry a lot about movies. Some others worry about cars. Some do worry about games, but perhaps they focus on mechanics. Others might focus on social characteristics of them, games that allow them to have a good time while you and your friends are partying at home. Others just like to shoot **** in a well oiled and crafted shooter game.

[swashmebuckle]

I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?

Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I know what you're saying, but you shouldn't sacrifice your own integrity or the integrity of your cause just because it proves effective for the other side. Set the example by being the example. Take the right path, not the path of least resistance.

I think that for Sarkeesian, the pervasive shaming and degradation of women is a more onerous burden to bear than whether or not her public persona measures up to the extraordinarily varied and inconsistent standards of integrity imposed by men on the internet. The fact that many people don't approve of her is not her problem.

[Aardwolf]

[...]
I see the confusion.  You're conflating "anti-social" in ASPD with the common misusage of anti-social to mean "someone who doesn't like to spend time with other people."

Two different things.  The psychological term is define by diagnostic criteria; the colloquial term has diluted meaning.

Not what I needed to hear

Let's pretend there's some sort of "psychiatry-con", and as a party event the psychiatrists are drawing the names of different conditions from a hat and then acting them out for the others to guess (like charades but with talking; alternatively, like that Seinfeld episode where Kramer role-plays a guy with gonorrhea). Suppose on your turn, you draw the card for "ASPD", and have to act it out. You decide to recite a shortened version of a quote from Agent K in Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals."

Would people guess it correctly? Would they think you had a proper understanding of how ASPD is defined and what people with ASPD are like, or would they think you're some random who happened to walk in on their game?



Unless the answer is "they would think it was a horrible, inaccurate caricature of what ASPD is like", then I still have a problem with the fact that ASPD is a disorder in the DSM.

[Luis Dias]

The fact that many people don't approve of her is not her problem.

You miss the point. Everybody has "problems". What has become part of the public discussion is how much we should care about "her problems", and the media conclusion is "very much", and if anyone disagrees they become "part of the problem". Sarkeesian even wants to push forward the notion that the "best thing we can do" to help regarding solving mysoginy is to believe and accept uncritically when women talk about their problems*.

This is not just a problem of "methodology". It's a complete attack on the public use of Reason, trying to regulate and censor the ways and discussions we have with one another, and sleazily inserting in society the dangerous notion that we should uncritically accept what she has to say. The tight regulation is enforced by an organic and spread "army" of internet feminists, harrassing everyone who crosses the line (see the latest imbecilic salvo against Sam Harris over one totally innocent passing comment regarding the gender gap of the number of atheist men and women as an example, but there are dozens... each month!). Words become forbidden, thoughts become mysoginistic just by suspicion, a thought police is sweeping the twitterosphere and tumblerosphere to submission to these rules.

It's a kind of revolution, with lots of anger and frustration at the patriarchal system, with hierarchies of privilege checking (from the white male on top, who obviously has a lot to check over his supremacist enslaving sins, followed by white women, who in return must check their privilege against women of color, who in turn must to the same against lesbian women of color, then Transwomen, then etc., etc., with a lot of infighting whether if muslim brown males living in america should check more privileges than black women or not, where are the jews in all this line of hierarchy, etc), and lots and lots of hashtags #notyourasiansidekick, etc.

I have no idea where this sweeping wave will lead the internet into. I hope it's a fad that will die soon, and hopefully we are able to retrieve the better parts of it (like a good portion of the critique on sexism on games, for example!) and leave the worst shenanigans away (the dreadful internet tactics, the shamings, the bullyings, the censorships, the ridiculous rituals that accompany them, etc.).



*Except when it comes to someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali of course, then it behooves the liberalmedia to harrass and censor her, even though her "problems" are three magnitudes or five worse than anything Sarkeesian has ever experienced. But the problem is that her speech runs counter to more liberal narratives, so it's not mysoginy to silence her.

[MP-Ryan]

Exactly, I mean you cannot berate certain media products for catering to the majority of people. If you are proud of your own intelligence and delicate stellar taste, you cannot then complain that the world doesn't fall in line to your taste, for it was you yourself who decided long ago to go beyond the median. And it's not even about people "being stoopid". It's way more mundane and simple than that, most people just don't ****ing care about 90% of the things they consume. I know I don't. Some people worry a lot about food, I just care that it is edible and tasty. Some others worry a lot about movies. Some others worry about cars. Some do worry about games, but perhaps they focus on mechanics. Others might focus on social characteristics of them, games that allow them to have a good time while you and your friends are partying at home. Others just like to shoot **** in a well oiled and crafted shooter game.

I feel like you missed the fact that I specifically mentioned the COD singleplayer experience and excluded the multiplayer.

I am not convinced that game marketing is as sophisticated as it likes to claim.  I suspect, like with many modern marketers and statistical aggregate systems, it relies on self-report data collected primarily over the Internet and not a random sampling of all types of people who play games.  I suspect modern game marketing is composed largely by preaching to the choir, which is why AAA publishers have been totally floored by the success of some indie titles.

Regardless, this diverges immensely from gender objectification in games, so I'm inclined to drop further argument as we simply don't and cannot know without conducting research of our own.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

OK, not going to clutter the thread further beyond this brief explanation, anyone wanting to discuss further can create a new thread or PM me after this.

You can read the diagnostic criteria for ASPD on pages 2-4 here:  http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf  I strongly suggest you do so.

You appear to be hung up on the words "anti-social" and feel like ASPD is a targeting of people who are anti-social in the colloquial sense.  If you read the diagnostic criteria, you will find that isn't even remotely the case.  Psychology as a discipline doesn't particularly care that people use the term anti-social differently than its correct usage, nor are they about to run around diagnosing people with ASPD because they don't like social situations (the clinically-significant form of that behaviour is an anxiety disorder).

[swashmebuckle]

This is not just a problem of "methodology". It's a complete attack on the public use of Reason, trying to regulate and censor the ways and discussions we have with one another, and sleazily inserting in society the dangerous notion that we should uncritically accept what she has to say. The tight regulation is enforced by an organic and spread "army" of internet feminists, harrassing everyone who crosses the line (see the latest imbecilic salvo against Sam Harris over one totally innocent passing comment regarding the gender gap of the number of atheist men and women as an example, but there are dozens... each month!). Words become forbidden, thoughts become mysoginistic just by suspicion, a thought police is sweeping the twitterosphere and tumblerosphere to submission to these rules.

It's a kind of revolution, with lots of anger and frustration at the patriarchal system, with hierarchies of privilege checking (from the white male on top, who obviously has a lot to check over his supremacist enslaving sins, followed by white women, who in return must check their privilege against women of color, who in turn must to the same against lesbian women of color, then Transwomen, then etc., etc., with a lot of infighting whether if muslim brown males living in america should check more privileges than black women or not, where are the jews in all this line of hierarchy, etc), and lots and lots of hashtags #notyourasiansidekick, etc.

Bwahaha cishetwhiteman, your puny "Reason" can not protect you from our Mindless Meme Mantras! The New World Order has come, all will grovel at the feet of the Transqueerblackquadriplegicdownwoman! Check your privilege

Seriously though, that's kind of a weird narrative you outlined in that post there. People being combative and going off on twitter doesn't represent an attack on reason or a revolution or anything, it's just twitter. The problems are real so the complaints resonate with people and they join in because that's how the internet works. Calling out perceived bigotry doesn't make you the thought police. It sucks if some people do it overzealously and hurl around false accusations, but there are always gonna be jerks in any kind of social environment.

[Scotty]

-snip-

OK, not going to clutter the thread further beyond this brief explanation, anyone wanting to discuss further can create a new thread or PM me after this.

You can read the diagnostic criteria for ASPD on pages 2-4 here:  http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf  I strongly suggest you do so.

You appear to be hung up on the words "anti-social" and feel like ASPD is a targeting of people who are anti-social in the colloquial sense.  If you read the diagnostic criteria, you will find that isn't even remotely the case.  Psychology as a discipline doesn't particularly care that people use the term anti-social differently than its correct usage, nor are they about to run around diagnosing people with ASPD because they don't like social situations (the clinically-significant form of that behaviour is an anxiety disorder).

Very much this.  Misandry is not an anti-social disorder.

[zookeeper]

The word is misogyny, not mysoginy. Just like the country is Libya, not Lybia.