I'm very very picky when it comes to video games.
I've been playing video games since I was five years old. On Christmas Day I opened up a great big box and pulled out my very first PlayStation System and my very first game: Crash Bandicoot. I remember playing the hell out of that game.In fact I still have that very first disc. It still works!
I played games for hours when I was younger and I was always looking for more games. So of course, it wouldn't be long before I found my very first BAD game.
I remember it... it was called "Rascal." It was about a kid who traveled through time and shot things with a bubble gun. The thing is the difficulty curve was set so frigging high from the very beginning that it wasn't even "Nintendo Hard," it was "I Wanna Be the Guy"hard.
...or maybe that was just the fact that I was only seven when it came out... but honestly given how the game was pitched and the content of it I can't really imagine somebody much older than that enjoying it... :/
But let's get to the point, shall we? After several experiences with really bad games I very quickly learned that you can't buy a game simply because it has a character you enjoy or because it looks pretty or because it's very popular. Take a look at Crash Bandicoot: Twinsanity, Rage, and Halo and I'll rest my case there (no, fans. Halo is not a good game. it is middle of the road. Deal with it.).
Indeed, I very soon learned that I had to read reviews of games from TRUSTED sources and think very hard about whether or not it was worth my money before I would buy a game. While occasionally, if I found a game in a bargain bin, I might buy it on premise or just appearance alone, usually a video game has to put forward a really damn good case these days before I'll even consider putting money down for it. This is me taking a central route to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
However, the Central Route doesn't always hold up with me... I must admit, occasionally I do falter from this method. Such was the case with "Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe." It's worth mentioning that I am a HUGE fam of Mortal Kombat. For a fighting game, it has a really interesting story, a ton of colorful characters with neat personalities and backgrounds, and a very intricate mythology and eyecatching settings. Also, it's always felt like the stakes for what you're playing for are a lot higher than in any other fighting game. It's also worth mentioning that I am a big-time comics reader and I love characters like Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. So now there's a game where the two universes and the characters therein (Including my favorite Mortal Kombat character: Sub-Zero and my favorite DCU character: Captain Marvel) are going to go head to head?
Well that was enough to rope me in.
...And wouldn't you know it, the game was crap.
The fighting mechanics were slower than normal, the story was ludicrous, the characters all acted like idiots and there were no decent unlockables to be found. The game was sub-par at best.
Indeed, this time I had taken a peripheral route to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and it cost me. I had been roped in by a more superficial aspect of the game (the characters involved) and it ended up costing me a good 40 dollars.
What I'm most angry at though is how they could possibly screw a game like this up. >_<
Well, no matter. I'm off to speculate what would happen if Mortal Kombat met Marvel. Ghost Rider vs. Scorpion... now THAT'S a battle for the ages...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References:
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Don't Talk about Religion on the Internet
There are a lot of things that you're "not supposed to talk about in public." Politics and religion are the two biggies, and things like racism, homophobia, and other such topic all tend to be known to stir up trouble. And while in person these topics may cause a rift between two people to form, on the internet it can cause a webpage to turn into a full-on war zone. Insults will be strewn about and swear words will fall from the sky like fire and brimstone and somebody will inevitably be compared to Hitler.
But we're not here to talk about Youtube commenters. We're here to talk about the Implicit Association Test. (Greenwald et al., 1998)
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a device used to measure Implicit Racism, or racism that functions unconsciously and without intent, but remains just as damaging as Explicit Racism, which is the type that is deliberately and intentionally enacted against one's fellow man and has declined greatly compared to the former. (Baron &Banaji, 2006; Dunham et al., 2008; Eberhardt et al., 2006)
The IAT works by having a participant press specific keys as fast as he/she can when posed with certain words affiliated with "good" and "bad."After a short preliminary trial, the participant is then posed with a concept such as religion or race or age and is asked to sort those by pressing the keys. And then comes the interesting part. The Participant is asked to sort BOTH a concept such as religion or race as well as words affiliated with good and bad. Through how fast these words are sorted and how mistakes are spotted between the concepts, one can get an idea of how the participant's unconscious mind works when dealing with various concepts like race, religion, weight, age, gender, and sexuality.
(Honestly, without copying the blurbs from the site, I SWEAR there is no easy way to describe these tests "in my own words" Just go do a few: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ here. They aren't hard and are actually kinda entertaining.)
The first test I took was a test about gender and how people associate it with science. I took this one because I have always considered myself a feminist and I wanted to see if my subconscious held up with my conscious beliefs. To my relief, they did. I got through that test and discovered that there was no association with me between gender and science. Both consciously and unconsciously I do indeed believe in equality between genders. This could easily have to do with the fact that my grandmother was a chemist and I've grown up among a greater number of women than men, or it could jut be because of all the intricate philosophies I've built up over the years. But yes, in this case I think it shows the "true me."
After that first test I decided to take the "Disability" test, where I would find out if I discriminate against people who have disabilities. Now I went into this honestly with no personal knowledge about the subject. Effectively, I really don't know much about disabled people beyond Oracle from DC Comics (who is a badass genius hacker and leader of the Birds of Prey, but I'm sure you don't know what I'm talking about). I have met only a few disabled people in my life and, while I don't believe I've ever shown any ill will towards disabled people, I wouldn't have been surprised if I ultimately had a slight bit of prejudice against them. To my surprise the results actually came out that I held the disabled in strong PREFERENCE over regular people. Honestly, while I'm glad I don't discriminate against the disabled, I find this hard to believe. I honestly think it messed up. It DID say that if you make too many mistakes that it will give an inaccurate score and I think that's what happened. I made a ton and a half of mistakes during that trial. I mean, I'm not upset that I got this score. Honestly, the disabled need somebody to sympathize with them, given how apparently things aren't in their favor usually, but... it just seems a little bit dubious...
...Unless my unconscious mind thinks all disabled people are like Oracle... then I WOULD prefer the Disabled over normal people...
...If that's the case my unconscious is an idiot...
But just in case I did the Disabled test wrong I went ahead and did a third trial. I did the "Religion" trial. And... unfortunately it confirmed what I've known all along. In a nutshell, I hate religion. Actually, Judaism and Christianity I only slightly discriminate against but Islam I apparently strongly discriminate against. I've known this for a while and it hasn't exactly been UNconscious, but I try not to let it affect my interactions with people. I try my best to just keep religion out of it.
The thing is, I'm agnostic. Very VERY firmly agnostic. I'm not going to say there ISN'T a god or anything, because let's face it, there's just as little evidence to prove against a god than for one. Until I get good, hard evidence either way, I'm not going to say anything about a "god."
However, I think ORGANIZED RELIGION is ultimately harmful to society. At it's core it isn't a bad idea. A bunch of people giving out moral lessons to the public. Okay, sounds good in THEORY, but in practice you actually end up with a ton of people spreading more hate and prejudice, even if they don't mean to, and you really end up only making things worse for people. Honestly, how many people have died at the hands of "God?" How many people have killed innocents because "Allah" says it's what they're supposed to do?
I probably shouldn't go much further on this matter... but suffice to say that religion is a very volatile button with me. I have trouble talking about it without pissing EVERYBODY in the room off.
Now of course, I understand that most people involved in organized religion don't act like this. Certainly not. Most are just looking for answers and comfort in the universe and I can certainly respect that but I do tend to have trouble putting aside the fact that they are ultimately attached to an organization that has resulted in millions upon millions of death throughout time.
Damn. I'm getting off topic and people are going to hate me next class period now... >_<
I've gone on long enough but suffice it to say, yes. I do tend to have a fair bit of prejudice against most religious folk. It's a fault of mine that I really should work on trying to get rid of since I consciously know that most of these people are good people that just want to find comfort and purpose.
Anyway... I should probably wrap this up. In summation, the IAT basically confirmed most of what I already knew about these topics, but I've no doubt that it would be useful in revealing Implicit racism in others.
(P.S. - There was a fourth religion in that test: Buddhism. I actually strongly associated that religion with good things. I can tell you that yes, this is probably the only organized religion I like for numerous reasons. Mostly because it focuses more on achieving a personal enlightenment and spreading peace and harmony than it does shoving a strict set of rules down a persons throat and if you don't follow these rules then burn in hell you heretic. Also I don't think I've ever heard of anyone killing in the name of Buddhism. If I ever convert I think I know what it'll be to.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References -
But we're not here to talk about Youtube commenters. We're here to talk about the Implicit Association Test. (Greenwald et al., 1998)
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a device used to measure Implicit Racism, or racism that functions unconsciously and without intent, but remains just as damaging as Explicit Racism, which is the type that is deliberately and intentionally enacted against one's fellow man and has declined greatly compared to the former. (Baron &Banaji, 2006; Dunham et al., 2008; Eberhardt et al., 2006)
The IAT works by having a participant press specific keys as fast as he/she can when posed with certain words affiliated with "good" and "bad."After a short preliminary trial, the participant is then posed with a concept such as religion or race or age and is asked to sort those by pressing the keys. And then comes the interesting part. The Participant is asked to sort BOTH a concept such as religion or race as well as words affiliated with good and bad. Through how fast these words are sorted and how mistakes are spotted between the concepts, one can get an idea of how the participant's unconscious mind works when dealing with various concepts like race, religion, weight, age, gender, and sexuality.
(Honestly, without copying the blurbs from the site, I SWEAR there is no easy way to describe these tests "in my own words" Just go do a few: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ here. They aren't hard and are actually kinda entertaining.)
The first test I took was a test about gender and how people associate it with science. I took this one because I have always considered myself a feminist and I wanted to see if my subconscious held up with my conscious beliefs. To my relief, they did. I got through that test and discovered that there was no association with me between gender and science. Both consciously and unconsciously I do indeed believe in equality between genders. This could easily have to do with the fact that my grandmother was a chemist and I've grown up among a greater number of women than men, or it could jut be because of all the intricate philosophies I've built up over the years. But yes, in this case I think it shows the "true me."
After that first test I decided to take the "Disability" test, where I would find out if I discriminate against people who have disabilities. Now I went into this honestly with no personal knowledge about the subject. Effectively, I really don't know much about disabled people beyond Oracle from DC Comics (who is a badass genius hacker and leader of the Birds of Prey, but I'm sure you don't know what I'm talking about). I have met only a few disabled people in my life and, while I don't believe I've ever shown any ill will towards disabled people, I wouldn't have been surprised if I ultimately had a slight bit of prejudice against them. To my surprise the results actually came out that I held the disabled in strong PREFERENCE over regular people. Honestly, while I'm glad I don't discriminate against the disabled, I find this hard to believe. I honestly think it messed up. It DID say that if you make too many mistakes that it will give an inaccurate score and I think that's what happened. I made a ton and a half of mistakes during that trial. I mean, I'm not upset that I got this score. Honestly, the disabled need somebody to sympathize with them, given how apparently things aren't in their favor usually, but... it just seems a little bit dubious...
...Unless my unconscious mind thinks all disabled people are like Oracle... then I WOULD prefer the Disabled over normal people...
...If that's the case my unconscious is an idiot...
But just in case I did the Disabled test wrong I went ahead and did a third trial. I did the "Religion" trial. And... unfortunately it confirmed what I've known all along. In a nutshell, I hate religion. Actually, Judaism and Christianity I only slightly discriminate against but Islam I apparently strongly discriminate against. I've known this for a while and it hasn't exactly been UNconscious, but I try not to let it affect my interactions with people. I try my best to just keep religion out of it.
The thing is, I'm agnostic. Very VERY firmly agnostic. I'm not going to say there ISN'T a god or anything, because let's face it, there's just as little evidence to prove against a god than for one. Until I get good, hard evidence either way, I'm not going to say anything about a "god."
However, I think ORGANIZED RELIGION is ultimately harmful to society. At it's core it isn't a bad idea. A bunch of people giving out moral lessons to the public. Okay, sounds good in THEORY, but in practice you actually end up with a ton of people spreading more hate and prejudice, even if they don't mean to, and you really end up only making things worse for people. Honestly, how many people have died at the hands of "God?" How many people have killed innocents because "Allah" says it's what they're supposed to do?
I probably shouldn't go much further on this matter... but suffice to say that religion is a very volatile button with me. I have trouble talking about it without pissing EVERYBODY in the room off.
Now of course, I understand that most people involved in organized religion don't act like this. Certainly not. Most are just looking for answers and comfort in the universe and I can certainly respect that but I do tend to have trouble putting aside the fact that they are ultimately attached to an organization that has resulted in millions upon millions of death throughout time.
Damn. I'm getting off topic and people are going to hate me next class period now... >_<
I've gone on long enough but suffice it to say, yes. I do tend to have a fair bit of prejudice against most religious folk. It's a fault of mine that I really should work on trying to get rid of since I consciously know that most of these people are good people that just want to find comfort and purpose.
Anyway... I should probably wrap this up. In summation, the IAT basically confirmed most of what I already knew about these topics, but I've no doubt that it would be useful in revealing Implicit racism in others.
(P.S. - There was a fourth religion in that test: Buddhism. I actually strongly associated that religion with good things. I can tell you that yes, this is probably the only organized religion I like for numerous reasons. Mostly because it focuses more on achieving a personal enlightenment and spreading peace and harmony than it does shoving a strict set of rules down a persons throat and if you don't follow these rules then burn in hell you heretic. Also I don't think I've ever heard of anyone killing in the name of Buddhism. If I ever convert I think I know what it'll be to.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References -
Baron, A., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The Development of Implicit Attitudes: Evidence of Race Evaluations from Ages 6 and 10 and Adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(1), 53-58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01664.x
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(7), 248-253. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.006
Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. (2006). Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383-386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,1464 - 1480.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
What are You Laughing At?
A few days ago I found myself back home in Illinois among a fairly sizey group of friends and family and I decided that among these people that had known me for such a long time and were familiar with my behavior patterns and the way I usually ticked, this would be a fairly decent time to try and take care of a little participant observer experiment that I needed to handle.
I like to laugh. A lot of people know that. I will drop a joke whenever I see an opening and I tend to crack up at the smallest joke, even when it's not well told. Heck, even when the joke has to be explained to me, I still laugh once I finally get it, which is something most people won't or even can't do. There are some forms of really really dark humor that I actually find a little depressing, but that's because I'm also really compassionate... but that's another story entirely.
(Of course, it's also worth mentioning that when I do laugh, I tend to cover my mouth as a do so. Stupid crooked stained teeth *grumblegrumble*)
But that's beside the point!
Laughter. I think it's a fair amount of what keeps me going day to day. Jokes, funny pictures, cartoons, comic strips... they're strewn all about my room. So for this experiment, for one day, I attempted to not be the funny guy. I did my best to be as stoic, stolid, and solemn as possible.
Let me tell you, that's not easy. Like in any way at all. It's so natural for me to laugh that it's really something of a natural schematic trait, and it's really REALLY important to my self concept. I think a fair bit of how I see myself depends upon whether or not I'm capable of seeing something as funny and laughing it off rather than upsetting and getting moody. (Markus, 1977)
So pretty much the whole day was really hard. First of all, it was hard trying to keep myself from laughing in the first place since it's generally a rather automatic response, at least for me. I'm pretty sure that people don't have to force themselves to laugh... at least when the joke is actually funny. When "Full House" is on I guess people might be forcing themselves to laugh but that's not exactly the point, now is it? I very quickly learned that I needed to try and replace the automatic response with something else. The easiest thing to replace the laughter with, I found, was anger. So whenever something humorous came around I ended up forcing myself to get snippy, perhaps even blowing into a full blown rage, wherein I would accuse people of being "silly and foolish" or some such.
And you better believe people noticed. These were people that have known me for a while and I've never been known to act like this before. My mother took particular concern at my behavior, continually asking me what was wrong that day. Other friends of mine acted similarly but didn't show quite the same amount of concern as family members who I ended up spending a lot of time around. Furthermore, when I ended up forced to act in anger to avoid laughing, my mother and sister would act distressed, while my friends generally opted to just leave me alone, as if letting me blow off some steam or something.
I have to admit though, though I engaged in a small amount of affective forecasting in an attempt to figure out how much these actions would affect me, I never could have been able to predict just how drastic the effects would be. (Gilbert, et al., 2004) The fact of the matter is that while I did focus a great deal upon the impact I had upon the people around me, it was only towards the end of the day when I realized how damn crappy I felt.
I remember being told that people who smile are happier, and that people who laugh are healthier. Well I have to admit, at the end of the day I felt miserable and sick. The fact is that by cutting off laughter I had to cut off joking around and taking enjoyment at a large amount of things that tend to give me joy. So as a result I spent the whole day doing things that I honestly didn't enjoy or just sitting around being bored. I was also forced to end up thinking in ways that were not befitting of me: specifically when people tried to cheer me up or ask what was wrong I basically had to tell myself that I was perfectly in the norm and these people were wrong or inferior or silly or stupid in some manner. It was really the only way to avoid being cheered up by my friends and family. The result was I ended up thinking like an elitist or something for a day and honestly, I felt sickened by myself once it was over. I also felt sad that I had made so many people upset or worried or pissed people off by having to blow up at the smallest things.
I've always felt very secure with myself and my self-concept and boy oh boy, did this do nothing but reinforce that once it was all over. During the experiment I simply felt awful.I got absolutely no rewards all day or any real happiness from anything and I caused a lot of people I care about to get upset.
It absolutely baffles me now, how many humorless, stolid and downright grouchy people are out there after this experiment. I do not understand how the "other half" can possibly live like that. It really feels painful. It's boring at best and horribly HORRIBLY upsetting at worst. I think my self concept is pretty damn stable after doing this because if I can help it there is no way that I'm going back to an attitude like this.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go watch a Marx Brothers' movie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gilbert, D.T., Morewedge, C. K., Risen, J. L., & Wilson, T. D. (2004). Looking forward to looking backward: The misprediction of regret. Psychological Science, 15, 346-350.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
I like to laugh. A lot of people know that. I will drop a joke whenever I see an opening and I tend to crack up at the smallest joke, even when it's not well told. Heck, even when the joke has to be explained to me, I still laugh once I finally get it, which is something most people won't or even can't do. There are some forms of really really dark humor that I actually find a little depressing, but that's because I'm also really compassionate... but that's another story entirely.
(Of course, it's also worth mentioning that when I do laugh, I tend to cover my mouth as a do so. Stupid crooked stained teeth *grumblegrumble*)
But that's beside the point!
Laughter. I think it's a fair amount of what keeps me going day to day. Jokes, funny pictures, cartoons, comic strips... they're strewn all about my room. So for this experiment, for one day, I attempted to not be the funny guy. I did my best to be as stoic, stolid, and solemn as possible.
Let me tell you, that's not easy. Like in any way at all. It's so natural for me to laugh that it's really something of a natural schematic trait, and it's really REALLY important to my self concept. I think a fair bit of how I see myself depends upon whether or not I'm capable of seeing something as funny and laughing it off rather than upsetting and getting moody. (Markus, 1977)
So pretty much the whole day was really hard. First of all, it was hard trying to keep myself from laughing in the first place since it's generally a rather automatic response, at least for me. I'm pretty sure that people don't have to force themselves to laugh... at least when the joke is actually funny. When "Full House" is on I guess people might be forcing themselves to laugh but that's not exactly the point, now is it? I very quickly learned that I needed to try and replace the automatic response with something else. The easiest thing to replace the laughter with, I found, was anger. So whenever something humorous came around I ended up forcing myself to get snippy, perhaps even blowing into a full blown rage, wherein I would accuse people of being "silly and foolish" or some such.
And you better believe people noticed. These were people that have known me for a while and I've never been known to act like this before. My mother took particular concern at my behavior, continually asking me what was wrong that day. Other friends of mine acted similarly but didn't show quite the same amount of concern as family members who I ended up spending a lot of time around. Furthermore, when I ended up forced to act in anger to avoid laughing, my mother and sister would act distressed, while my friends generally opted to just leave me alone, as if letting me blow off some steam or something.
I have to admit though, though I engaged in a small amount of affective forecasting in an attempt to figure out how much these actions would affect me, I never could have been able to predict just how drastic the effects would be. (Gilbert, et al., 2004) The fact of the matter is that while I did focus a great deal upon the impact I had upon the people around me, it was only towards the end of the day when I realized how damn crappy I felt.
I remember being told that people who smile are happier, and that people who laugh are healthier. Well I have to admit, at the end of the day I felt miserable and sick. The fact is that by cutting off laughter I had to cut off joking around and taking enjoyment at a large amount of things that tend to give me joy. So as a result I spent the whole day doing things that I honestly didn't enjoy or just sitting around being bored. I was also forced to end up thinking in ways that were not befitting of me: specifically when people tried to cheer me up or ask what was wrong I basically had to tell myself that I was perfectly in the norm and these people were wrong or inferior or silly or stupid in some manner. It was really the only way to avoid being cheered up by my friends and family. The result was I ended up thinking like an elitist or something for a day and honestly, I felt sickened by myself once it was over. I also felt sad that I had made so many people upset or worried or pissed people off by having to blow up at the smallest things.
I've always felt very secure with myself and my self-concept and boy oh boy, did this do nothing but reinforce that once it was all over. During the experiment I simply felt awful.I got absolutely no rewards all day or any real happiness from anything and I caused a lot of people I care about to get upset.
It absolutely baffles me now, how many humorless, stolid and downright grouchy people are out there after this experiment. I do not understand how the "other half" can possibly live like that. It really feels painful. It's boring at best and horribly HORRIBLY upsetting at worst. I think my self concept is pretty damn stable after doing this because if I can help it there is no way that I'm going back to an attitude like this.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go watch a Marx Brothers' movie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gilbert, D.T., Morewedge, C. K., Risen, J. L., & Wilson, T. D. (2004). Looking forward to looking backward: The misprediction of regret. Psychological Science, 15, 346-350.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)