Do games like Factorio or Eve Online sap the intellectual potential of humanity?(reddit.com)
reddit.com
Do games like Factorio or Eve Online sap the intellectual potential of humanity?
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/ml00ac/how_much_are_games_like_factorio_and_eve_online/
174 comments
Does Chess sap the intellectual potential of humanity? Does novel writing sap the intellectual potential of humanity? Does algebraic geometry sap the intellectual potential of humanity?
Just let people do whatever they want with their free time. Nerdy hobbies are treated uniquely unfairly in this respect.
Just let people do whatever they want with their free time. Nerdy hobbies are treated uniquely unfairly in this respect.
A better answer to this question in reddit is "Does reddit sap the intellectual potencial of humanity?". Imagine if all those people was doing something useful, or myself instead of writing this.
Imagine if people didn't need rest, downtime, brain shut down, or activities outside of work :o
I'm a bit snide here; I object to the "hustle" culture where people are guilted or self-flagellating for having downtime. I've seen too many of my excitable colleagues go too far there and end up with burnout, relationship problems, depression, etc.
Me, I've been chooching along nicely for the past decade and will need to do so for another three decades in all likelihood, and I'm enjoying my downtime (including playing Factorio) while doing so, instead of postponing it until the magical After.
I'm a bit snide here; I object to the "hustle" culture where people are guilted or self-flagellating for having downtime. I've seen too many of my excitable colleagues go too far there and end up with burnout, relationship problems, depression, etc.
Me, I've been chooching along nicely for the past decade and will need to do so for another three decades in all likelihood, and I'm enjoying my downtime (including playing Factorio) while doing so, instead of postponing it until the magical After.
In my personal experience, yes. Absolutely yes. In a way that chess, novels and geometry do not. I think there's a strong correlation (I'll even say causation) for me between spending less time on sites like reddit and sharing/cultivating my own intellectual potential in meaningful ways.
I think it all comes down to fulfillment.
Few of us particularly like how much time we spend on HN/Reddit or go “yeah really glad I’m spending my precious time in this way!” yet we do tend to feel fulfillment from activities like reading a novel or trying to write one or many of the activities we pretend are just the same as playing World or Warcraft and watching Netflix.
Few of us particularly like how much time we spend on HN/Reddit or go “yeah really glad I’m spending my precious time in this way!” yet we do tend to feel fulfillment from activities like reading a novel or trying to write one or many of the activities we pretend are just the same as playing World or Warcraft and watching Netflix.
How many Steven Pruitts are out there who, instead of contributing in some way to human knowledge are just wasting away on Reddit?
And regardless of your personal opinion on the reliability of Wikipedia, I think we can all agree that the ability to quickly find a brief overview of any subject is insanely valuable to society.
On the other hand, I know if I weren't wasting time on HN right now, I wouldn't be doing anything productive.
And regardless of your personal opinion on the reliability of Wikipedia, I think we can all agree that the ability to quickly find a brief overview of any subject is insanely valuable to society.
On the other hand, I know if I weren't wasting time on HN right now, I wouldn't be doing anything productive.
> Imagine if all those people was doing something useful, or myself instead of writing this.
In my personal experience, reddit/HN has never been the reason I didn't do something useful. The reason was that I just didn't want to do it, and if HN didn't exist I'd just stare at the ceiling.
Do ceilings sap the intellectual potential of humanity?
In my personal experience, reddit/HN has never been the reason I didn't do something useful. The reason was that I just didn't want to do it, and if HN didn't exist I'd just stare at the ceiling.
Do ceilings sap the intellectual potential of humanity?
Absolutely no.
At least those that already have a drive to know use reddit to sharpen their knowledge. As a research tool itself reddit is pretty invaluable.
At least those that already have a drive to know use reddit to sharpen their knowledge. As a research tool itself reddit is pretty invaluable.
Also, Reddit was absolutely great for me to sharpen my English debate skills. I was able to go from English being a poor third language to people refusing to believe it's not my first :)
Yup! It's fantastic place to write, organize ideas, and get responses from other people. And then respond to those responses. The chain structure of reddit conversations is very interesting, imo, and an invaluable tool.
I tend to use HN as a way to hone my writing skill. I'll play with length, wording, style, etc. The karma count gives me a bit of feedback on how well I've done, and comments back to me will further hone my writing.
So, for me at least, HN provides a fertile place to be productive, but mostly as a place to play around and sharpen my skill.
So, for me at least, HN provides a fertile place to be productive, but mostly as a place to play around and sharpen my skill.
To be fair, special interest subreddits have given me a lot and are not a waste of time. Much like Hacker News! :-)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Imagining is more fun than almost anything else.
Touché. Well played, sir. :-)
Honestly, conclusory and flip answers like this strongly make me suspect that there is some truth to it. It's worth discussing beyond "Let people do whatever they want."
There is very little harm in considering this question open-mindedly, and yet the defensiveness is so reflexively strong -- even as a bunch of the people who play them will very frequently themselves step back and joke about how much time some of these suck out of their lives.
So yes, we actually SHOULD encourage people to reexamine their patterns and consider if some (not all, some) of these hours could be put to a different or better use.
There is very little harm in considering this question open-mindedly, and yet the defensiveness is so reflexively strong -- even as a bunch of the people who play them will very frequently themselves step back and joke about how much time some of these suck out of their lives.
So yes, we actually SHOULD encourage people to reexamine their patterns and consider if some (not all, some) of these hours could be put to a different or better use.
You're so right. It's extremely strange how most replies here and on reddit take the "100% it's not a problem" stance. The real answer would require actually doing surveys of
1) the value, learning, and art generated by games 2) the cost, judged according to each individual player's own value system.
And then weighing the strength of each effect. Note that I am judging according to the individual's values, not my own. Example: the rate at which people say "I wish I could stop playing game X" or the rate they suffer regret after a play session, or a year after quitting playing. I personally am really glad I found factorio, but not very happy about my time playing diablo 2.
Surely there are hypothetical examples of games which could be created, or addictions conscious beings could be vulnerable to, which would force defenders of freedom to admit that it's at least conceivable that there are situations where "bad" things exist, which we'd be better off without. Not saying we are in that state now, or what we should do if it happened. Just pointing out that acting as if there are no costs at all isn't addressing the opponent's position, even though we know there are lots of people who claim otherwise.
1) the value, learning, and art generated by games 2) the cost, judged according to each individual player's own value system.
And then weighing the strength of each effect. Note that I am judging according to the individual's values, not my own. Example: the rate at which people say "I wish I could stop playing game X" or the rate they suffer regret after a play session, or a year after quitting playing. I personally am really glad I found factorio, but not very happy about my time playing diablo 2.
Surely there are hypothetical examples of games which could be created, or addictions conscious beings could be vulnerable to, which would force defenders of freedom to admit that it's at least conceivable that there are situations where "bad" things exist, which we'd be better off without. Not saying we are in that state now, or what we should do if it happened. Just pointing out that acting as if there are no costs at all isn't addressing the opponent's position, even though we know there are lots of people who claim otherwise.
It could be a huge problem and the correct response is still and always an immediate "let people do what they want".
If you want to educate people on alternatives, or offer treatment systems, or whatever, that's fine. But ultimately and finally you need to let people do what they want. Anything else is a consent violation.
If you want to educate people on alternatives, or offer treatment systems, or whatever, that's fine. But ultimately and finally you need to let people do what they want. Anything else is a consent violation.
A technically correct one, but perhaps not a useful one.
There is no inherent incompatibility between "very strongly challenging peoples' ideas and practices" and "violating consent."
There is no inherent incompatibility between "very strongly challenging peoples' ideas and practices" and "violating consent."
In general, people get extremely defensive when it comes to entertainment, shown in its mildest forms with arguments about which movie is better, which band has the AOTY, to how well these things intertwine with politics (like adding fire to fire), and its more extreme forms on the debate about whether video games cause violence or porn causes sexist attitudes. Part of this is likely the fact that it feels really good to play video games and watch porn (and I say this as someone who does both) - perhaps more than food. People just don't want to hear criticism, because it sets their mind into cognitive dissonance mode.
A question worth asking is what a 'better use' is to that person and to what extent (and why) that differs from your idea of a 'better use'. For example, I personally don't think chess is much better than a game like Starcraft or Factorio. I don't think billiards is any better than chess. I don't think English literature is better than philosophy. I don't think science is as good as maths.
Not everyone wants to be an intellectual; many people (due to other factors in life) can barely find the time to care enough (with either depression or work sapping thir creative energies). "Reexamining patterns" is good. Saying that someone is a bad person (in a moral sense, as some have done) is not. It doesn't take into account individual situations. Philosophers have argued we 'should' reexamine all kinds of things, from our political conceptions to who we decide to date.
A question worth asking is what a 'better use' is to that person and to what extent (and why) that differs from your idea of a 'better use'. For example, I personally don't think chess is much better than a game like Starcraft or Factorio. I don't think billiards is any better than chess. I don't think English literature is better than philosophy. I don't think science is as good as maths.
Not everyone wants to be an intellectual; many people (due to other factors in life) can barely find the time to care enough (with either depression or work sapping thir creative energies). "Reexamining patterns" is good. Saying that someone is a bad person (in a moral sense, as some have done) is not. It doesn't take into account individual situations. Philosophers have argued we 'should' reexamine all kinds of things, from our political conceptions to who we decide to date.
>and yet the defensiveness is so reflexively strong
It's hard not to get defensive because this reddit post is basically flamebait:
>use of words like sapping and deadend
>"there's little to no payoff for the rest of humanity"
Like you said we can probably discuss this question without getting defensive but it's impossible thanks to the way it's worded.
It's hard not to get defensive because this reddit post is basically flamebait:
>use of words like sapping and deadend
>"there's little to no payoff for the rest of humanity"
Like you said we can probably discuss this question without getting defensive but it's impossible thanks to the way it's worded.
Not at all. I'm aware that it has the potential to put people off, but sometimes you have to shake people up to get the discussion going. There is actually a huge difference between "forcing people to do something" and merely "asking a question, albeit in a tough way," and people don't really seem to get this difference around here.
A more interesting and controversial question might be: "Does American football in college, an extremely expensive sport which causes incremental permanent brain damage, sap the intellectual potential of humanity?"
Probably not. Most football players aren't that smart to begin with[0] and most important intellectual advances are made by a small minority of people.
What's the most significant intellectual contribution of any athlete? I can't think of one without really stretching. It's not like tennis players are making great intellectual contributions and football players are the only athletes who are absent.
If you're talking about the opportunity cost of watching college football instead of doing something more productive, then maybe, but most (virtually all) of the extremely smart people I know do not spend much time watching sports.
[0]: I'm not saying they're dumb, they're just not geniuses
What's the most significant intellectual contribution of any athlete? I can't think of one without really stretching. It's not like tennis players are making great intellectual contributions and football players are the only athletes who are absent.
If you're talking about the opportunity cost of watching college football instead of doing something more productive, then maybe, but most (virtually all) of the extremely smart people I know do not spend much time watching sports.
[0]: I'm not saying they're dumb, they're just not geniuses
The “intellectual potential of humanity” is such a misnomer. Does it mean not allowing people to do what they would want to do in order to achieve some societal goal? I could say a lot about people who work in advertising for example.
Some people are obsessed with computer games and will spend enormous amount of time which could be better spent otherwhere if not for that addiction. I'm talking from my own experience. I can't experiment by living in another world without computer games, may be I would destroy that time in the other fashion or may be I would write some useful code, who knows.
But just blindly dismissing that kind of reasoning is not wise in my opinion. Casinos eat money from victims and they are regulated. Computer games eat time from some victims and time is quite important asset as well.
Of course just like some people can reasonably spend some little money to get some enjoyment in casino, other people can reasonably spend some free time in computer games without compromising on more important activities. But not everyone have iron will and iron grip over himself.
But just blindly dismissing that kind of reasoning is not wise in my opinion. Casinos eat money from victims and they are regulated. Computer games eat time from some victims and time is quite important asset as well.
Of course just like some people can reasonably spend some little money to get some enjoyment in casino, other people can reasonably spend some free time in computer games without compromising on more important activities. But not everyone have iron will and iron grip over himself.
> which could be better spent otherwhere
But realistically would it be better spent?
I banned myself from games to write my master thesis.
There was some mild improvement in pace of work, but I'm not sure if I should attribute it to not gaming or simply to approaching deadline.
On the other hand I watched all 10 seasons of "Friends" during that time. And I didn't even like "Friends" to begin with.
But realistically would it be better spent?
I banned myself from games to write my master thesis.
There was some mild improvement in pace of work, but I'm not sure if I should attribute it to not gaming or simply to approaching deadline.
On the other hand I watched all 10 seasons of "Friends" during that time. And I didn't even like "Friends" to begin with.
Better spent according to whom?
There is no authority higher for the appropriate use of one's time than oneself.
There is no authority higher for the appropriate use of one's time than oneself.
I think it's more likely that all the above (and Factorio, Eve, etc.) in fact generate intellectual potential.
+1. It is absurd to simplify intellectual energy to a measurable quantity as if our brains are batteries hooked up to one giant electric motor. Brilliance is a mysterious thing, but we know it comes from unexpected places. An intellectual jungle of games, arts, and culture seems more fertile than the homogenous, sterile ivory tower.
"Factorio Is The Best Technical Interview We Have"
https://erikmcclure.com/blog/factorio-is-best-interview-we-h...
https://erikmcclure.com/blog/factorio-is-best-interview-we-h...
Definitely. A sillier example, I find Minecraft can be useful to get me back in the zone if I'm feeling unfocused. Building systems and overcoming design limitations does require thought. Having to concentrate on something that's easy to concentrate on helps get you in the right "mode" so to speak.
Reddit, however, I find draining. There's always a risk of getting sea lioned by a particularly toxic user. Conversation tends to be very one-sided also.
Reddit, however, I find draining. There's always a risk of getting sea lioned by a particularly toxic user. Conversation tends to be very one-sided also.
I'm sure there's some people whose analytical brain is being awakened by Factorio and who are looking into turning that into a career.
I mean I played around in ZZT and ended up a software engineer.
I mean I played around in ZZT and ended up a software engineer.
How many people do you know that play 40+ hours of chess a week?
How many people do you know that don't work a job, are 25 and able bodied, and live at home with their parents to play chess?
How many people do you know that work a dead-end factory job, and come home and put all of their effort into chess over advancing their career?
I know of 0 for any of those for chess, but I can think of at least 100 people that this applies for video games.
Video games are great! I get it. But when it starts to be the purpose of life, it seems a very sad life.
How many people do you know that don't work a job, are 25 and able bodied, and live at home with their parents to play chess?
How many people do you know that work a dead-end factory job, and come home and put all of their effort into chess over advancing their career?
I know of 0 for any of those for chess, but I can think of at least 100 people that this applies for video games.
Video games are great! I get it. But when it starts to be the purpose of life, it seems a very sad life.
How many of those people do have intellectual potential that they waste in Factorio or Eve Online? How many of those people ended there because they played games? And how many started gaming because they were fed up with their lack of potential?
Maybe majority of gamers would been the type who would waste themself in a pub or on some other meaningless thing otherwise? I don't think it's so easy to answer those aspects without hard numbers.
Maybe majority of gamers would been the type who would waste themself in a pub or on some other meaningless thing otherwise? I don't think it's so easy to answer those aspects without hard numbers.
Hard to know!
Are gamers just a holding pattern for society, because we have passed peak employment - and just need to keep a chunk of society busy doing "nothing" ?
Are gamers just a holding pattern for society, because we have passed peak employment - and just need to keep a chunk of society busy doing "nothing" ?
Yeah, I'm blown away when I watch videos of people smashing Dark Souls 3 while almost never dying. Then I think of the 2000+ hours it must have taken to achieve that level of muscle memory and expertise.
Then again, they are making money with their Twitch streams and walkthroughs simply by being Souls experts. So who am I to say they are wasting anything?
Then again, they are making money with their Twitch streams and walkthroughs simply by being Souls experts. So who am I to say they are wasting anything?
I'm glad to see you're doing something more productive with your time.
Hey hobbies are great. Everyone needs hobbies.
I don't live with my parents so I can post on hacker news.
I don't live with my parents so I can post on hacker news.
Of course. How convenient that you're the exception.
> Does Chess sap the intellectual potential of humanity?
arguably, yes. it's a closed universe which at best provides entertainment for outsiders, unlike writing fiction which can inspire even revolutions, to say nothing of enriching minds and widening the emotional and intellectual horizons of individual readers. not sure if you were being serious about higher mathematics.
arguably, yes. it's a closed universe which at best provides entertainment for outsiders, unlike writing fiction which can inspire even revolutions, to say nothing of enriching minds and widening the emotional and intellectual horizons of individual readers. not sure if you were being serious about higher mathematics.
Okay, that's some wonky high brow elitism. I'm trying to break into fiction writing as a career and even though I'd like to prop up writing's value in society, you're going too far.
First off, everyone needs fun hobbies to distract them from their day to day. While many gravitate to hobbies similar to their career, it should never be a requirement. Its whatever recharges your batteries. However you achieve that, whether chess, reading, woodworking or nature walks, it doesn't matter. Again, as a fiction writer, the academic elitism of it really pisses me off. Not all entertainment needs to broaden your horizons. It first has to entertain and make you lose track of the miserable real world. Teaching you something is second on the list. Not first. Shoving the "it must enrich you or it's not art" is the most heinous elitist gatekeeping there is. This is the exact reason people dont like reading. Being told, "you're not reading the right books" turns people off, thus will never read said books.
First off, everyone needs fun hobbies to distract them from their day to day. While many gravitate to hobbies similar to their career, it should never be a requirement. Its whatever recharges your batteries. However you achieve that, whether chess, reading, woodworking or nature walks, it doesn't matter. Again, as a fiction writer, the academic elitism of it really pisses me off. Not all entertainment needs to broaden your horizons. It first has to entertain and make you lose track of the miserable real world. Teaching you something is second on the list. Not first. Shoving the "it must enrich you or it's not art" is the most heinous elitist gatekeeping there is. This is the exact reason people dont like reading. Being told, "you're not reading the right books" turns people off, thus will never read said books.
> Shoving the "it must enrich you or it's not art" is the most heinous elitist gatekeeping there is.
I'm not sure he said that it must enrich you or it isn't art. His point was whether or not the effort one puts into a particular thing saps or uses up intellectual intelligence of a person. Is the task a hamster wheel where no benefits are experienced by anyone other than the hamster or is the hamster wheel connected to a capacitor and providing electricity to the other hamsters. I don't see a reason to get into the elitist arguments. All of these activities fall somewhere on the spectrum of the amount of good provided to humanity. Closed loop activities that only recharge one's battery provide less benefit to humanity and can be said to sap or use up our intellectual intelligence. There is no elitism about this argument, it's just a 30k foot view of us hamsters and which ones use more or less intelligence that benefits the rest of the hamsters.
I'm not sure he said that it must enrich you or it isn't art. His point was whether or not the effort one puts into a particular thing saps or uses up intellectual intelligence of a person. Is the task a hamster wheel where no benefits are experienced by anyone other than the hamster or is the hamster wheel connected to a capacitor and providing electricity to the other hamsters. I don't see a reason to get into the elitist arguments. All of these activities fall somewhere on the spectrum of the amount of good provided to humanity. Closed loop activities that only recharge one's battery provide less benefit to humanity and can be said to sap or use up our intellectual intelligence. There is no elitism about this argument, it's just a 30k foot view of us hamsters and which ones use more or less intelligence that benefits the rest of the hamsters.
What is with this closed loop fascination? 100% of your time has to be devoted to benefiting humanity? I'm all for ranking certain careers and their value to society, but if someone who is apart of Doctors Without Borders likes to drink shitty Pats Blue Ribbon and watch a Kardashian show at the end of a long day... so? Whatever they have to do to ready for the next day with enthusiasm, who the fuck cares? Why does their relaxing, time off endeavor have to benefit someone else?
Get off your Silicon Valley, always got to hustle hamster wheel. Go watch a sunset.
Get off your Silicon Valley, always got to hustle hamster wheel. Go watch a sunset.
> 100% of your time has to be devoted to benefiting humanity?
I don't see him saying that, or even implying it. Rather, he seems to be indicating that is a valid vector by which the activity can be rated. It is not the only thing it can be rated on, nor is it even necessarily _worth_ rating it on that. But it is a thing that can be discussed.
I don't see him saying that, or even implying it. Rather, he seems to be indicating that is a valid vector by which the activity can be rated. It is not the only thing it can be rated on, nor is it even necessarily _worth_ rating it on that. But it is a thing that can be discussed.
Where at all did I say you need to devote 100% of your time to humanity? Where at all did I say a person is better or worse than another based on how productive their intellectual interests are? Not sure my response deserves that much hostility. The original article is purely about whether or not eve online and similar pursuits burn intellect without any positive impact on society. I am on the nihilistic end of the tech spectrum. I made no argument that working on apps in their free time makes one better than one that spends their free time writing novels. The reality is that intellectual activities can have some meaningful benefit to humanity and some activities benefit humanity more than others. That is what the article is attempting to tease out and measure.
Chess knowledge doesn't really transfer to anything else but chess as far as I know.
Fiction can have the potential to broaden knowledge if only by making writers doing some research.
Fiction can have the potential to broaden knowledge if only by making writers doing some research.
the question reduces to something like "is society entitled to the brain cycles of particularly smart people?". if so, then one can criticize just about anything smart people spend time thinking about that doesn't create material returns for their communities.
It is deeper than that because even if we were to assume society was entitled to them, we still wouldn't know how best to optimize them. To what extent does play involving complex problems contribute to those brain cycles being worth as much as they are.
Also, I think we can represent the problem in a different way to make it more desirable to be solved. Instead of being entitled, we can represent it as incentivizing trade. So rephrase it into "Can society incentivize particularly smart people to trade brain cycles."
I think this one has an decently agreeable answer of yes. Having now answered it, we can then approach optimizing the market for our society which would include having more particularly smart people to trade with (especially since I suspect brain cycles are somewhat unique per person). And is allowing people to sharpen their minds using thought intensive play one method of achieving that goal? Sure, it may lead to those people being less willing to trade their brain cycles (because they now can use them on Factorio instead), but it also means that more people now have brain cycles to trade.
Also, I think we can represent the problem in a different way to make it more desirable to be solved. Instead of being entitled, we can represent it as incentivizing trade. So rephrase it into "Can society incentivize particularly smart people to trade brain cycles."
I think this one has an decently agreeable answer of yes. Having now answered it, we can then approach optimizing the market for our society which would include having more particularly smart people to trade with (especially since I suspect brain cycles are somewhat unique per person). And is allowing people to sharpen their minds using thought intensive play one method of achieving that goal? Sure, it may lead to those people being less willing to trade their brain cycles (because they now can use them on Factorio instead), but it also means that more people now have brain cycles to trade.
> the question reduces to something like "is society entitled to the brain cycles of particularly smart people?".
No, it doesn't. A conclusion that something is a drag on society is not necessarily (and frequently not) an argument for banning it. The implication only exists in a pure form if one assumes a "government knows best" sort of politics. Label it what you like, I'm not going to pick fights.
I am a bit worried about this line of reasoning, though -- basically saying it isn't a line of thought that can lead to good policy, so it probably shouldn't be investigated or argued.
No, it doesn't. A conclusion that something is a drag on society is not necessarily (and frequently not) an argument for banning it. The implication only exists in a pure form if one assumes a "government knows best" sort of politics. Label it what you like, I'm not going to pick fights.
I am a bit worried about this line of reasoning, though -- basically saying it isn't a line of thought that can lead to good policy, so it probably shouldn't be investigated or argued.
I don't believe anyone is seriously talking about banning factorio, but I do have a hard time trusting that an affirmative answer to these questions isn't accompanied by some level of value judgement. how could I not? we are literally contemplating all the great things that could have been accomplished if nerds didn't spend so much time playing certain video games. you never hear about all the furniture that could have been moved for the elderly if people didn't spend so much time at that damned gym.
frankly, I think we should not care so much about what people do with their leisure time, as long it isn't actively harming anyone (ie, not in a "what could have been" sense). if we want smart people to do more useful stuff, we should figure out how to pay them for it.
frankly, I think we should not care so much about what people do with their leisure time, as long it isn't actively harming anyone (ie, not in a "what could have been" sense). if we want smart people to do more useful stuff, we should figure out how to pay them for it.
> I do have a hard time trusting that an affirmative answer to these questions isn't accompanied by some level of value judgement
Sure, I'll grant "value judgement", and I don't have much of a problem with it. I think people saying X is a waste of time are often right and often misguided, and it's a useful kind of conversation in general.
The comment I replied to said this was about whether people are entitled to waste time, though, which is a stronger argument that I object to.
Sure, I'll grant "value judgement", and I don't have much of a problem with it. I think people saying X is a waste of time are often right and often misguided, and it's a useful kind of conversation in general.
The comment I replied to said this was about whether people are entitled to waste time, though, which is a stronger argument that I object to.
> that doesn't create material returns for their communities.
More realistically, for the elite in charge of their communities.
Its a practical problem for employment. No company complains about smart people not making their coworkers lives better; its all about "stealing from the company" by doing projects at home on their own time using their own materials, that may or may not be the feudal property of their owner/employers depending on their state of residence's attitude toward modern slavery.
More realistically, for the elite in charge of their communities.
Its a practical problem for employment. No company complains about smart people not making their coworkers lives better; its all about "stealing from the company" by doing projects at home on their own time using their own materials, that may or may not be the feudal property of their owner/employers depending on their state of residence's attitude toward modern slavery.
does it? we're simply considering input -> output. society does not own your brain, do with it whatever pleases you. how you feel about your responsibility, if any, to your species is entirely your business, not mine. that's basically belief system (secular or spiritual) territory. do i have rights in respect to society? does society have rights in respect to me? these are interesting questions, but not what i had intended.
to be verbose: since smart people are a limited resource it is imho correct to note that an intellectually, emotionally, and life-focus demanding activity, such as chess, that has not (and can not) ever transfer knowledge gains in that closed system to other domains of concern to our species, is in fact, as a matter of simple math, sapping a precious resource.
(but i'm open to the suggestion that maybe chess is keeping society safe from otherwise unoccupied mad geniuses -- calling B.F. .. :)
to be verbose: since smart people are a limited resource it is imho correct to note that an intellectually, emotionally, and life-focus demanding activity, such as chess, that has not (and can not) ever transfer knowledge gains in that closed system to other domains of concern to our species, is in fact, as a matter of simple math, sapping a precious resource.
(but i'm open to the suggestion that maybe chess is keeping society safe from otherwise unoccupied mad geniuses -- calling B.F. .. :)
I think A LOT of people i play with end up having jobs that don't engage their creativity at all. The end up playing games and building gorgeous bases and interesting complex setups.
Does D&D do the same? The amount of time spent on thinking about games, writing the story, etc is non-trivial.
The thing that all games share is that "losing" isn't gonna hurt your life. I'm not gonna lose my house because I blew up my factorio factory. I don't have to finish it. I don't have to play it every day.
Personally I hate games that make me build and design, I already overload on that at work, so for me a lot of my game time is more action-based games. Things I don't get to do during my work time. Does that mean I want to go learn how to shoot an arrow off a running horse? No. Does it mean I want to learn how to fly a helicopter? Nooooot that much. But I sure as hell enjoy flying a helicopter without the fear of death in a game.
Does D&D do the same? The amount of time spent on thinking about games, writing the story, etc is non-trivial.
The thing that all games share is that "losing" isn't gonna hurt your life. I'm not gonna lose my house because I blew up my factorio factory. I don't have to finish it. I don't have to play it every day.
Personally I hate games that make me build and design, I already overload on that at work, so for me a lot of my game time is more action-based games. Things I don't get to do during my work time. Does that mean I want to go learn how to shoot an arrow off a running horse? No. Does it mean I want to learn how to fly a helicopter? Nooooot that much. But I sure as hell enjoy flying a helicopter without the fear of death in a game.
Doesn’t this depend on scope? If you have 50,000 kids spending 5hrs on chess a day it’s one thing, if you had 5,000,000 it’s another thing.
Is there any grind-catch in chess, like in addictive videogames? And why novel writting, but not reading? Both are seen as intellectual, but reading I'd say has far higher chance to end in brainless consuming, wasting intellectual potential.
there could be an argument here though. it’s not so obvious. Chess might be because all the chess players only contribute to advancing chess. novel writing is obviously different, it means sharing knowledge so it contributes to whole humanity.
I know very little about chess, but to me it feels that any such activity is kind of relative to how exactly you're engaging with the activity, and what skills you already possess.
Arguably, if it benefits you via learning new things/skills, it also benefits the humanity because later you'll apply these skills at something else. So for example we can 'classify' the returns from engaging with chess depending on your current skills:
- playing a (single) game of chess
Arguably, if it benefits you via learning new things/skills, it also benefits the humanity because later you'll apply these skills at something else. So for example we can 'classify' the returns from engaging with chess depending on your current skills:
- playing a (single) game of chess
- high if you never played chess or games like that before. A lot of it is a very transferable skill that applies to other games, and more importantly, real world reasoning
- medium if you don't know chess but familiar with similar games (e.g. checkers/go) -- you might advance your skill
- low if you're a good chess player -- you just maintain your chess skill? also of course it could still be beneficial if playing it makes you relaxed and happy, nothing wrong with this -- just in that sense it's not objectively better than idk, watching a tv show - high if you're new to algorithms
- low if you're an experienced with algorithms (basically just yet another interview problem)
- high for most programmers
- not so useful if you're a member of AlphaZero team?
Well, by being bad at chess I was motivated to code up a chess engine for the first time. Does that mean being bad at chess is good for my intellectual potential? I learned a lot about chess programming...
Factorio, Eve Online, Chess, (or whatever you enjoy doing) *IS* the intellectual potential of humanity.
> Does Chess sap the intellectual potential of humanity? Does novel writing sap the intellectual potential of humanity? Does algebraic geometry sap the intellectual potential of humanity?
what if it does ?
what if it does ?
In what way is gaming nerdy ... seriously.
All hobbies are "dorky" in a way (maybe except sports-related hobbies like hiking), they're considered especially so if one is obsessive about this hobby. Non-art hobbies, in my experience, are more likely to be classified "nerdy" as opposed to "dorky". I should note that, at least in the US for people in mid 20s, in the last few years (maybe thanks to Covid) "dorky" or "nerdy" sort of stopped being pejorative. Even in dating apps, it's normal for people to write stuff like "the dorkies things about me is... thinking about programming/gaming/drawing all the time" etc.
I would guess "dorky", "nerdy" are more mildly self-deprecating than pejorative nowadays. But this could change wildly from one area to another.
I would guess "dorky", "nerdy" are more mildly self-deprecating than pejorative nowadays. But this could change wildly from one area to another.
Sports are / can be massively nerdy tbh, some of them crunch more numbers and statistics than the average Eve Online spreadsheet warrior. And the bigger fans cosplay to the sports conventions.
Also, there's Football Manager, which takes the 'playing football' game out of the game.
Also, there's Football Manager, which takes the 'playing football' game out of the game.
Yeah, that football manager is still catergorised as a game is hilarious. I think I may have even developed a appreciation of the finer aspects of the modern games use of data analysis.
But I do find something attractive about games that keep someone's brain active. Never played factorio though my colleagues wax lyrical about it ad nauseum.
But I do find something attractive about games that keep someone's brain active. Never played factorio though my colleagues wax lyrical about it ad nauseum.
Football Manager once got described as being a game whose gameplay seems to have been inspired by accounting software.
Think I've completed that circle by suggesting to a friend working on accounting SaaS that he look at FM as UX inspiration...
Think I've completed that circle by suggesting to a friend working on accounting SaaS that he look at FM as UX inspiration...
Sports players and fantasy sports players live in different universes. Almost zero overlap.
Gaming is the most common hobby there is for males. And that includes men who do a lot of sport. They regularly happen to be gaming a lot. School drop outs game a lot.
Non nerds and non dorks have hobbies, always had. Having hobbies is quite normal and used to be normal. And frankly, playing computer games was popular among popular young boys for whole generations now.
"Dorky", "nerdy" never really described average gamer. It described small groups of people who had social issues regardless what they did - including sport.
Non nerds and non dorks have hobbies, always had. Having hobbies is quite normal and used to be normal. And frankly, playing computer games was popular among popular young boys for whole generations now.
"Dorky", "nerdy" never really described average gamer. It described small groups of people who had social issues regardless what they did - including sport.
I think some of us older folks have a hard time shaking the notion that gaming is nerdy. When I was a kid, you didn't tell people you played video games. Today it's a streamed e-sport in which people make huge sums of money. The transition was, I think, surprisingly fast and very unexpected back then.
As a kid I said I played Secret of Mana on a weekend (SNES) and for the rest of that school year I was taunted and called "Secret Banana", haha. How far we've come. Or have we.
As a kid I said I played Secret of Mana on a weekend (SNES) and for the rest of that school year I was taunted and called "Secret Banana", haha. How far we've come. Or have we.
Certain types of games, like factorio and eve online, are firmly nerd games. We make jokes in grand strategy game circles about how few not "traditional nerds" play these games. I still have not seen proof of a SINGLE woman who plays grand strategy games.
These kinds of games are the most uniquely intellectual outside of puzzle games, programming games, and even more difficult strategy games.
These kinds of games are the most uniquely intellectual outside of puzzle games, programming games, and even more difficult strategy games.
> I still have not seen proof of a SINGLE woman who plays grand strategy games.
We exist. We generally are not motivated to provide proof that we exist, especially because many requests for proof are expected in the form of "SEND NUDES". That was not implied in your comment, but your experience likely consists of this exchange and mine reflects a universe of incredulity and harassment.
If you gain insight from reading this, great. But that's not why I'm replying. Somewhere reading this thread is a girl in high school or a woman in college who's into grand strategy, or programming, or something else that's "uniquely intellectual". She's heard messages all her life that girls and women aren't the kinds of people who do this stuff. I know this because I've been that girl - going back decades to where I would read "I'm pretty sure there are no 12 year old girls using Linux", at age 12, from my dual boot Fedora/Debian machine.
Sis, you matter, even if you're just starting to get into this. If we only look at gaming, I've had thousands of hours across Factorio, Paradox games, Zachtronics games, and study sims (not to mention - gasp - mass market tactics games), but you can't get to hour #1000 without hour #1. Whether you choose to keep a low profile in nerd spaces or you choose to be a Girl Gamer (TM) lightning rod, I'm glad you're here, and I hope you pay more attention to comments like mine than the one above mine.
We exist. We generally are not motivated to provide proof that we exist, especially because many requests for proof are expected in the form of "SEND NUDES". That was not implied in your comment, but your experience likely consists of this exchange and mine reflects a universe of incredulity and harassment.
If you gain insight from reading this, great. But that's not why I'm replying. Somewhere reading this thread is a girl in high school or a woman in college who's into grand strategy, or programming, or something else that's "uniquely intellectual". She's heard messages all her life that girls and women aren't the kinds of people who do this stuff. I know this because I've been that girl - going back decades to where I would read "I'm pretty sure there are no 12 year old girls using Linux", at age 12, from my dual boot Fedora/Debian machine.
Sis, you matter, even if you're just starting to get into this. If we only look at gaming, I've had thousands of hours across Factorio, Paradox games, Zachtronics games, and study sims (not to mention - gasp - mass market tactics games), but you can't get to hour #1000 without hour #1. Whether you choose to keep a low profile in nerd spaces or you choose to be a Girl Gamer (TM) lightning rod, I'm glad you're here, and I hope you pay more attention to comments like mine than the one above mine.
This particular game is very nerdy.
I think it does, but I also think it sharpens it.
I have been helping one kid with a programming class and one thing I've noticed is that they often lack a certain approach to problem solving that I personally developed by playing video games. They also played video games but far fewer and definitely less of the harder problem solving ones. It is entirely possible I liked the games because I already had the talent and the games didn't build the talent, but until we get a definite study on the correlation and causation my bet is going to be on them sharpening the skill.
After a certain point it does begin to sap. This is the nature of all entertainment. A few good books can enlighten a mind but too many books can result in someone who reads but never does anything with the knowledge. Even one doing math for fun can end up spending all their time solving math puzzles that are created just to be math puzzles and which don't tie into any greater discoveries.
I think this is fine. First, the system is far too hard to control so I don't see any way to improve it that wouldn't wreck the system. Maybe minor suggestions to diversify entertainment a bit and to be sure to share your experiences with a like minded community, but these are small tweaks and not massive overhauls.
I also don't think we can predict when something will produce the best results. Even if 9 of every 10 kids who get heavily drawn into math problem solving end up just wasting time solving math problems that exist just for the sake of math problems, that last 1 might get into applying the problem solving to novel fields of math that expand the total knowledge of humanity. If one is too heavy handed in optimizing that they'll risk destroying the ability for that 1 who goes further. I doubt we can be sure that trade off is worth while.
I have been helping one kid with a programming class and one thing I've noticed is that they often lack a certain approach to problem solving that I personally developed by playing video games. They also played video games but far fewer and definitely less of the harder problem solving ones. It is entirely possible I liked the games because I already had the talent and the games didn't build the talent, but until we get a definite study on the correlation and causation my bet is going to be on them sharpening the skill.
After a certain point it does begin to sap. This is the nature of all entertainment. A few good books can enlighten a mind but too many books can result in someone who reads but never does anything with the knowledge. Even one doing math for fun can end up spending all their time solving math puzzles that are created just to be math puzzles and which don't tie into any greater discoveries.
I think this is fine. First, the system is far too hard to control so I don't see any way to improve it that wouldn't wreck the system. Maybe minor suggestions to diversify entertainment a bit and to be sure to share your experiences with a like minded community, but these are small tweaks and not massive overhauls.
I also don't think we can predict when something will produce the best results. Even if 9 of every 10 kids who get heavily drawn into math problem solving end up just wasting time solving math problems that exist just for the sake of math problems, that last 1 might get into applying the problem solving to novel fields of math that expand the total knowledge of humanity. If one is too heavy handed in optimizing that they'll risk destroying the ability for that 1 who goes further. I doubt we can be sure that trade off is worth while.
> Even one doing math for fun can end up spending all their time solving math puzzles that are created just to be math puzzles and which don't tie into any greater discoveries.
Numberphile had a good take on 'recreational maths' with their video on the loops and strings in pi. Dr. Crawford has a good bit near the end (~12:30 mark) on how these techniques lead to bigger discoveries. The 'playing' around and the methods generated often lead to much deeper truths in math, and serve as very good practice for new mathematicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W20aT14t8Pw
Numberphile had a good take on 'recreational maths' with their video on the loops and strings in pi. Dr. Crawford has a good bit near the end (~12:30 mark) on how these techniques lead to bigger discoveries. The 'playing' around and the methods generated often lead to much deeper truths in math, and serve as very good practice for new mathematicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W20aT14t8Pw
> I've noticed is that they often lack a certain approach to problem solving that I personally developed by playing video games
What does that consist of?
What does that consist of?
Ability to divide a problem in smaller problems recursively until you have problems that are more manageable while avoiding being overwhelmed by the overall problem. Anyone who has played a new 4x game blind likely has experienced a sort of information overload that can deter someone from learning the game at all. With experience, I learned to break down the new information and UI into parts that closely match existing experience, with verifying that the match does hold, and then slowly expand my knowledge of each area until I've figured out how to play the game. Often this involves playing against the easy AIs until I have the basics and then working my way up the chain until the level of optimization and understanding ceases to be fun.
The same applies to handling a programming problem. Larger problems can involve many smaller problems that are mostly unrelated, but students new to programming can be overwhelmed and mentally shut down because they can't solve the entire problem at once.
Once a student learns to break it down into much smaller problems, they can find the ones they know or can easily solve and separate it from the parts of the problem that requires googling around. If a teacher tells them to use a certain library, knowing how to break down the problem into smaller ones helps arrive at the problems that need the library and the ones that don't. Maybe you need to visualize the data, so knowing if it is possible generate and store the data while ignoring the entire visualization until you are ready, knowing how to handle visualizing sample data you create on the spot while ignoring how it should be created, and knowing how to merge these two partial solutions into a larger one can make a daunting problem much more manageable.
This is a skill you can learn many ways. Just doing sudoku puzzles can teach a methodology approach to problem solving of solving the bits you know and seeing how that opens up more options. Board games are another great tool that can teach similar approaches.
Even a game like Final Fantasy 12 where you can build basic programs your allies follow when fighting can help reinforce concepts like handling edge cases and the computer doing exactly what you specified. Do you keep wiping because you set heals to only happen <20% hp when the boss does 25% hp damage an attack?
The same applies to handling a programming problem. Larger problems can involve many smaller problems that are mostly unrelated, but students new to programming can be overwhelmed and mentally shut down because they can't solve the entire problem at once.
Once a student learns to break it down into much smaller problems, they can find the ones they know or can easily solve and separate it from the parts of the problem that requires googling around. If a teacher tells them to use a certain library, knowing how to break down the problem into smaller ones helps arrive at the problems that need the library and the ones that don't. Maybe you need to visualize the data, so knowing if it is possible generate and store the data while ignoring the entire visualization until you are ready, knowing how to handle visualizing sample data you create on the spot while ignoring how it should be created, and knowing how to merge these two partial solutions into a larger one can make a daunting problem much more manageable.
This is a skill you can learn many ways. Just doing sudoku puzzles can teach a methodology approach to problem solving of solving the bits you know and seeing how that opens up more options. Board games are another great tool that can teach similar approaches.
Even a game like Final Fantasy 12 where you can build basic programs your allies follow when fighting can help reinforce concepts like handling edge cases and the computer doing exactly what you specified. Do you keep wiping because you set heals to only happen <20% hp when the boss does 25% hp damage an attack?
In other words, if you obsess about efficiency, you might be chasing a local optima and making your system more fragile.
Yes, but even worse it will be a local optima of the efficiency function you've chosen and people often choose very poor efficiency functions that ignore second order and higher effects.
I tend to frame this in terms of the Multi-Armed Bandit Problem. It's a trade-off between exploration vs exploitation. It's often impossible to predict beforehand which strategy is optimal for a given environment. Which, I suspect, is why progressive temperments and conservative temperments coexist.
The current economic system prevents virtually everyone in the system other than a few at the top of the pyramid from achieving their potential.
How much extra money will the people at the top centrally controlling everything make if, for example, your plumber is a more intellectually well rounded individual? Possibly a negative amount of money. So the plumber plays modded minecraft.
Some of the reddit apologists claim telecommunications will free us all, but its mostly bringing us purity spirals, cancel culture, and identity politics. If political demographic membership is more important than programming skill, such that a skilled programmer cannot be hired, that person should grind survival rations at walmart and play factorio for recreation.
There's the optimistic view that maximizing intellectual potential means curing cancer and living on mars. But the people currently at the top make a lot of money off cancer, and won't make any money off mars, but we do know "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads." so in that pessimistic sense I'm glad our propaganda driven prison is not as optimized as it could be. Unleashing autonomous walking AI robots to randomly kill people in the middle east to make oil cheaper would require amazing intellectual potential but is a negative outcome, and frankly it would make the people in charge a lot more money than positive stuff like curing cancer.
People are already educated beyond the economies means to employ them. Having them pretend to work while remaining unable to employ them sounds like too much of a free lunch. Who benefits, follow the money, it won't be us. We already have too much intelligence and education to apply to our current economy, making even more structural underemployment isn't going to help. If under the current system there's 20 postdocs living in poverty trying to apply for that one paying job to cure cancer, creating a "fairer" system where 2000 people intellectually capable of being postdocs all living in poverty applying to that one paying job to cure cancer isn't going to provide statistically better results for the cancer curing program although it will make 1980 people highly dis-satisfied with life. Is it worth making 1980 people suffer if the overall program isn't more successful? Even if the program is more successful, which I find unlikely, how much torture of how many people is acceptable in exchange?
How much extra money will the people at the top centrally controlling everything make if, for example, your plumber is a more intellectually well rounded individual? Possibly a negative amount of money. So the plumber plays modded minecraft.
Some of the reddit apologists claim telecommunications will free us all, but its mostly bringing us purity spirals, cancel culture, and identity politics. If political demographic membership is more important than programming skill, such that a skilled programmer cannot be hired, that person should grind survival rations at walmart and play factorio for recreation.
There's the optimistic view that maximizing intellectual potential means curing cancer and living on mars. But the people currently at the top make a lot of money off cancer, and won't make any money off mars, but we do know "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads." so in that pessimistic sense I'm glad our propaganda driven prison is not as optimized as it could be. Unleashing autonomous walking AI robots to randomly kill people in the middle east to make oil cheaper would require amazing intellectual potential but is a negative outcome, and frankly it would make the people in charge a lot more money than positive stuff like curing cancer.
People are already educated beyond the economies means to employ them. Having them pretend to work while remaining unable to employ them sounds like too much of a free lunch. Who benefits, follow the money, it won't be us. We already have too much intelligence and education to apply to our current economy, making even more structural underemployment isn't going to help. If under the current system there's 20 postdocs living in poverty trying to apply for that one paying job to cure cancer, creating a "fairer" system where 2000 people intellectually capable of being postdocs all living in poverty applying to that one paying job to cure cancer isn't going to provide statistically better results for the cancer curing program although it will make 1980 people highly dis-satisfied with life. Is it worth making 1980 people suffer if the overall program isn't more successful? Even if the program is more successful, which I find unlikely, how much torture of how many people is acceptable in exchange?
This is a great comment. We are already way too educated and self-improved as it is. Consider the 24 year old with bachelors and masters degrees who is currently working at Starbucks because there simply is no professional work available to him. Does anyone really think “moar education” is going to improve his life? If I were him and the decision was between vegging out on the PlayStation or futilely going to night school, I know what I’d choose.
We are in this spot where there is really very, very little work that needs to happen to keep society rolling along, and a glut of educated people wanting to do that work. More education, more up-skilling, and more self-improvement is not going to fix this.
We are in this spot where there is really very, very little work that needs to happen to keep society rolling along, and a glut of educated people wanting to do that work. More education, more up-skilling, and more self-improvement is not going to fix this.
Making more money isn't the only potential life improvement that is possible. Yes, there are things that a person working at Starbucks can learn that will still improve their lives, and make it more fulfilling: languages, philosophy and knowledge are often their own reward.
Further, it seems obvious to me that hunting money is a fools game. If money made people happy, at some point, then why do billionaires push for tax cuts, and more power and wealth? As research is starting to show, wealth is an emotional hunger that you can never sate.
Further, it seems obvious to me that hunting money is a fools game. If money made people happy, at some point, then why do billionaires push for tax cuts, and more power and wealth? As research is starting to show, wealth is an emotional hunger that you can never sate.
"make it more fulfilling: languages, philosophy and knowledge are often their own reward"
The required crushing level of debt closes more doors than it opens.
The required crushing level of debt closes more doors than it opens.
> We are in this spot where there is really very, very little work that needs to happen to keep society rolling along
Half true. Knowledge workers yeah, but there's actually a shortage of skilled blue-collar workers.
Half true. Knowledge workers yeah, but there's actually a shortage of skilled blue-collar workers.
I played an incredible amount of Runescape. Then the creators of the game ended up getting bought out by a Chinese mining and commodity's company. Slowly the game started dying as they pushed microtransactions and changed the very nature of the game. But the spirit of the game never died.
That spirit of the game was the 'Dos Equi's guy' [0]. You had all these different skills (mining, woodcutting, farming, etc.) and the purpose of the game was to have the highest level in them all, while accumulating gold and items. As I started hating the changes that where going on within the game, I slowly started to feel a sense of waste as i spent time into the game. I started to think of how i could spend my time better and it turns out this vision for what time spent valuable is directly shaped from my experiences with runescape. If you replaced those 'Skills' in-game, with real life skills and tracked your progress, you could theoretically gamify life. Take for instance cooking. It is a skill in runescape that you can perform in real life. The goal of runescape is to gain more experience and you 'Unlock' the ability to 'Cook' a certain fish or item. In real life there is no barrier to entry or immediate feedback, but you can 'learn' these skills. Turns out they aren't as fun because you can't show off to your friends that you have level 40 flute playing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Interesting_Man_in_th...
That spirit of the game was the 'Dos Equi's guy' [0]. You had all these different skills (mining, woodcutting, farming, etc.) and the purpose of the game was to have the highest level in them all, while accumulating gold and items. As I started hating the changes that where going on within the game, I slowly started to feel a sense of waste as i spent time into the game. I started to think of how i could spend my time better and it turns out this vision for what time spent valuable is directly shaped from my experiences with runescape. If you replaced those 'Skills' in-game, with real life skills and tracked your progress, you could theoretically gamify life. Take for instance cooking. It is a skill in runescape that you can perform in real life. The goal of runescape is to gain more experience and you 'Unlock' the ability to 'Cook' a certain fish or item. In real life there is no barrier to entry or immediate feedback, but you can 'learn' these skills. Turns out they aren't as fun because you can't show off to your friends that you have level 40 flute playing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Interesting_Man_in_th...
I was going to write something but then I started reading your comment.
I couldn't agree more, and I couldn't write it better myself.
Thank you
I couldn't agree more, and I couldn't write it better myself.
Thank you
I share much of your grim assessment. It is such a vast indignity that so much of use, so much amazing awesome potential, has no where to go, while the demands to support ourselves remain so persistent & challenging.
I do have some areas of hope.
> Some of the reddit apologists claim telecommunications will free us all, but its mostly bringing us purity spirals, cancel culture, and identity politics.
The current status quo is that technology is a system for building products that consumers consume. Social media is another consumer device, another ready-made provided thing.
We don't have a very good established front for pro-humanistic technologism. Even though these social platforms are about content creation, they're through the narrow windows of what the tools provide, engagement is even more un-liberal, more constrained. The environments are artificial, we have only a small provided window of them that we can participate in, and our participation is prescriptive, via the defined channels of the software.
But that is not an inherent vice of technology nor information technology. This reliance upon adoption adoption adoption adoption, on onboarding as many as possible, as the means of measuring success has suppressed the other forms of technology that are available for us to explore: holistic technologies. Technologies that embrace all of our potential, that always leave the door open to examination & modification. Yes, this is a Free Software rant!! To quote Programming is Hard[1][2],
> No other science is as accessible as computer science, and most of its proceeds happen out in the open - computer science thrives on the internet, and although there are corners that do actual gatekeeping, most of content is freely accessible and thrives on this accessibility.
Science & code are replicable & experimental, always, it's just a question of how accessible science & creativity are. Software faces so few material constraints, so few connectivity limitations- software is malleable, and vast, and forever willing to let us explore our potential, to develop ourselves & grow ourselves. To ongoingly experiment with will & creation, all from a phone and bluetooth keyboard. If and when we are given access to participate, to find our potential!
The current facts on the ground are not nearly so sunny. The iron hold of big platform feels a prison, and virtually is, except that we can escape at any moment. Free Software missed the jump to the internet entirely. Instead Open Source became the underpinnings for great vast monoliths, huge corporate properties to emerge, that dictate digital spaces we might use, but which give us none of the libre liberty that software might so deeply let us enrich ourselves with.
So yeah, I think you're over-doing it, but sure, I think IT is playing a really crap role right now, and I think being trapped on these content-farms has made the natives do some really weird shit. Humankind can deploy none of their amazing perceptual skills, has only abstract potential on these limited, controlled, finite systems, and we never get to see the greater game as it's played: we only have what glimpses the platforms give us. "purity spirals, cancel culture, and identity politics" are not what trouble me, I am way way way more progressive, but I think there are all manners of cultural loops that society becomes bound up in, and our inability to see the knots stems from the consumeristic nature of these systems, from there not being an honest, potential-respecting, augmentative free technological basis from which to perceive, operate, & advance from, in a distributed decentralized pro-human manner.
It's not clear to me where we need to go to start changing things. Free software, not necessarily copyleft, but software made by people for people not for developers, needs to become internet relevant. It missed the connectivity revolution entirely. Social Media/Web Protocols[3] like ActivityPub give me hope, but there still feels like a great missing, that we're still on a too application-ized view of the world, trying to provide experiences, not seed the ground to allow us each to find & discover our own experiences, our own activities: too mechanistic, not computational enough. Systems like Yahoo Pipes were built more upon will & volition & watching & experimentation with computing itself, and I think that sort of componentry is key to starting to unravel some of the built up anti-humanity IT has become shrouded in.
In all, it's really down to Ursala Franklin's Prescriptive vs Holistic technologies[4]. The first, prescriptive, categorizes all technology which is definitive, which has well defined mechanisms that enact processes. These are used to control & process. For example, the control & process of gathering to a central place & then syndicating out posts people make to each other: that's a prescriptive technology. Holistic technologies are those in which the human has total control over means & materials to shape & create an outcome. In short, holistic technologies are technologies built with Free Software ethos, if not necessarily their hard copyleft politics. When humankind can share & exchange & experiment with the world about it, & learn, & form knowing exploring peers, humanity goes places: we explore our potentials, we find new things to get up to. Technology ought be a hotbed for this, for exploring our potentials, & it has gaps but it is already very far along de-pyramidizing the material/monetary order that pervades & so powerfully persists in our world, but this idea of free/pro-human software needs new initiatives & envigorated direction to maintain relevance amid our rising communicative capitalism.
[1] https://dorinlazar.ro/2021-02-programming-is-hard/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26711862
[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Holistic_and_p...
I do have some areas of hope.
> Some of the reddit apologists claim telecommunications will free us all, but its mostly bringing us purity spirals, cancel culture, and identity politics.
The current status quo is that technology is a system for building products that consumers consume. Social media is another consumer device, another ready-made provided thing.
We don't have a very good established front for pro-humanistic technologism. Even though these social platforms are about content creation, they're through the narrow windows of what the tools provide, engagement is even more un-liberal, more constrained. The environments are artificial, we have only a small provided window of them that we can participate in, and our participation is prescriptive, via the defined channels of the software.
But that is not an inherent vice of technology nor information technology. This reliance upon adoption adoption adoption adoption, on onboarding as many as possible, as the means of measuring success has suppressed the other forms of technology that are available for us to explore: holistic technologies. Technologies that embrace all of our potential, that always leave the door open to examination & modification. Yes, this is a Free Software rant!! To quote Programming is Hard[1][2],
> No other science is as accessible as computer science, and most of its proceeds happen out in the open - computer science thrives on the internet, and although there are corners that do actual gatekeeping, most of content is freely accessible and thrives on this accessibility.
Science & code are replicable & experimental, always, it's just a question of how accessible science & creativity are. Software faces so few material constraints, so few connectivity limitations- software is malleable, and vast, and forever willing to let us explore our potential, to develop ourselves & grow ourselves. To ongoingly experiment with will & creation, all from a phone and bluetooth keyboard. If and when we are given access to participate, to find our potential!
The current facts on the ground are not nearly so sunny. The iron hold of big platform feels a prison, and virtually is, except that we can escape at any moment. Free Software missed the jump to the internet entirely. Instead Open Source became the underpinnings for great vast monoliths, huge corporate properties to emerge, that dictate digital spaces we might use, but which give us none of the libre liberty that software might so deeply let us enrich ourselves with.
So yeah, I think you're over-doing it, but sure, I think IT is playing a really crap role right now, and I think being trapped on these content-farms has made the natives do some really weird shit. Humankind can deploy none of their amazing perceptual skills, has only abstract potential on these limited, controlled, finite systems, and we never get to see the greater game as it's played: we only have what glimpses the platforms give us. "purity spirals, cancel culture, and identity politics" are not what trouble me, I am way way way more progressive, but I think there are all manners of cultural loops that society becomes bound up in, and our inability to see the knots stems from the consumeristic nature of these systems, from there not being an honest, potential-respecting, augmentative free technological basis from which to perceive, operate, & advance from, in a distributed decentralized pro-human manner.
It's not clear to me where we need to go to start changing things. Free software, not necessarily copyleft, but software made by people for people not for developers, needs to become internet relevant. It missed the connectivity revolution entirely. Social Media/Web Protocols[3] like ActivityPub give me hope, but there still feels like a great missing, that we're still on a too application-ized view of the world, trying to provide experiences, not seed the ground to allow us each to find & discover our own experiences, our own activities: too mechanistic, not computational enough. Systems like Yahoo Pipes were built more upon will & volition & watching & experimentation with computing itself, and I think that sort of componentry is key to starting to unravel some of the built up anti-humanity IT has become shrouded in.
In all, it's really down to Ursala Franklin's Prescriptive vs Holistic technologies[4]. The first, prescriptive, categorizes all technology which is definitive, which has well defined mechanisms that enact processes. These are used to control & process. For example, the control & process of gathering to a central place & then syndicating out posts people make to each other: that's a prescriptive technology. Holistic technologies are those in which the human has total control over means & materials to shape & create an outcome. In short, holistic technologies are technologies built with Free Software ethos, if not necessarily their hard copyleft politics. When humankind can share & exchange & experiment with the world about it, & learn, & form knowing exploring peers, humanity goes places: we explore our potentials, we find new things to get up to. Technology ought be a hotbed for this, for exploring our potentials, & it has gaps but it is already very far along de-pyramidizing the material/monetary order that pervades & so powerfully persists in our world, but this idea of free/pro-human software needs new initiatives & envigorated direction to maintain relevance amid our rising communicative capitalism.
[1] https://dorinlazar.ro/2021-02-programming-is-hard/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26711862
[3] https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Holistic_and_p...
I upvoted you, and leftist in me agrees with you.. but then I am also not so sure.
I spent a lot of time in Minecraft and Factorio, managing my virtual house/factory to perfection, while completely forgetting that I could (and in some sense, would love to) learn skills to maintain my apartment (and my parent's house).
I often wonder why is that, and I doubt that it is because somebody (or the capitalist system itself) would actively prevent me from engaging in the hobbies that are more grounded to the real world.
Lot of it has to do with the perception of freedom, and some of the perception comes from the fact you're not serious about something, and you don't have to deal with other people.
So I suspect some (if not most) people are more productive in games precisely because they do not take them too seriously. Maybe in a different economic system, if we take the stress out (and have something like basic income), we could somewhat resolve that problem, but perhaps some component of it would still stay.
Also, when you write "achieving their potential", I always remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r, who showed that we might be educating our children very much under their potential. However, his method is extremely time consuming - you would have to be a really dedicated parent to go for it (although understandably economic system might prevent it here as well). Most parents, I believe, do not have the patience for this, so they do not believe it.
And many successful computer games (like Minecraft or Factorio) are really environments that are optimized for learning via immersion. So it is somewhat understandable that in the absence of direction for the real world, kids do gravitate towards such environments.
I spent a lot of time in Minecraft and Factorio, managing my virtual house/factory to perfection, while completely forgetting that I could (and in some sense, would love to) learn skills to maintain my apartment (and my parent's house).
I often wonder why is that, and I doubt that it is because somebody (or the capitalist system itself) would actively prevent me from engaging in the hobbies that are more grounded to the real world.
Lot of it has to do with the perception of freedom, and some of the perception comes from the fact you're not serious about something, and you don't have to deal with other people.
So I suspect some (if not most) people are more productive in games precisely because they do not take them too seriously. Maybe in a different economic system, if we take the stress out (and have something like basic income), we could somewhat resolve that problem, but perhaps some component of it would still stay.
Also, when you write "achieving their potential", I always remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r, who showed that we might be educating our children very much under their potential. However, his method is extremely time consuming - you would have to be a really dedicated parent to go for it (although understandably economic system might prevent it here as well). Most parents, I believe, do not have the patience for this, so they do not believe it.
And many successful computer games (like Minecraft or Factorio) are really environments that are optimized for learning via immersion. So it is somewhat understandable that in the absence of direction for the real world, kids do gravitate towards such environments.
I think it's opportunity cost and interest/emergency. If you had some woodworking tools, wood, basic skills and a project, you might do nothing with it. If your brother suddenly said " i prepurchased 3 hen, they are coming to you on your bday in two month", I'm sure you would react the same way I did and make a henhouse and improve your woodworking skills. And maybe learn basic electronic skills and automate the door if you're lazy.
>I often wonder why is that, and I doubt that it is because somebody (or the capitalist system itself) would actively prevent me from engaging in the hobbies that are more grounded to the real world.
I've thought about this and have since I was a kid who enjoyed Harvest Moon while not enjoying growing plants in the garden, something my parents didn't hesitate to call attention to.
Speaking for myself (but expecting at least some of this to generalize to others) I think there are quite a few factors.
* The immediate turn around between work and result. If I want to grow strawberries, I have to wait months from start to finish. In Harvest Moon/Stardew Valley I get results in under an hour.
* The ratio between input and output. Strawberries can take many hours of labor over those months, and while I do get strawberries (or money if I sell them) in exchange for it, the overall enjoyment per hour spent is much lower than with virtual strawberries.
* The clarity and simplicity of the rules of 'the game'. If I grow real life strawberries, there are many things that can destroy them that I have little knowledge about or that I can stop. Industrial farmers might be able to control for most of these, but as a kid with a family garden I'm at the mercy of these factors. In a game the rules are much simpler and the risks much easier to understand and account for. A game with too many risks for the reward ends up being an unfun game and I can pick a better one, but we are stuck with a single instance of reality.
* Ability to avoid what I don't like. Expanding upon the freedom that games offers, I can avoid content I don't like. For example, I don't like spiders. In real life gardening, I can't avoid them. In a game, I can either avoid them or settle for a compromise involving virtual spiders that are simplified to the point they don't activate my phobia. This can even expand to avoiding laws of man (building things virtually that would never pass legal building code) and even laws of nature (building things that would collapse in reality).
I don't think economic system plays a major role in these factors. Sure, it is related in a few areas, but even if were to pick the most optimal legal and economic systems I think the end result would still not be as good as a game because of the systems beyond our control which can't be changed.
I've thought about this and have since I was a kid who enjoyed Harvest Moon while not enjoying growing plants in the garden, something my parents didn't hesitate to call attention to.
Speaking for myself (but expecting at least some of this to generalize to others) I think there are quite a few factors.
* The immediate turn around between work and result. If I want to grow strawberries, I have to wait months from start to finish. In Harvest Moon/Stardew Valley I get results in under an hour.
* The ratio between input and output. Strawberries can take many hours of labor over those months, and while I do get strawberries (or money if I sell them) in exchange for it, the overall enjoyment per hour spent is much lower than with virtual strawberries.
* The clarity and simplicity of the rules of 'the game'. If I grow real life strawberries, there are many things that can destroy them that I have little knowledge about or that I can stop. Industrial farmers might be able to control for most of these, but as a kid with a family garden I'm at the mercy of these factors. In a game the rules are much simpler and the risks much easier to understand and account for. A game with too many risks for the reward ends up being an unfun game and I can pick a better one, but we are stuck with a single instance of reality.
* Ability to avoid what I don't like. Expanding upon the freedom that games offers, I can avoid content I don't like. For example, I don't like spiders. In real life gardening, I can't avoid them. In a game, I can either avoid them or settle for a compromise involving virtual spiders that are simplified to the point they don't activate my phobia. This can even expand to avoiding laws of man (building things virtually that would never pass legal building code) and even laws of nature (building things that would collapse in reality).
I don't think economic system plays a major role in these factors. Sure, it is related in a few areas, but even if were to pick the most optimal legal and economic systems I think the end result would still not be as good as a game because of the systems beyond our control which can't be changed.
Anecdotal and speaking in terms of EVE, but I think there is a long term benefit to these types of technical games. I used to have zero idea how, "the markets" worked in my early 20s. No explanation ever "clicked". About 10 years ago, I was introduced to EVE. Played it and mostly played the economic aspect of the game. Later I found out, even though simplified, the economics are based on real world principles. They even have a PhD to monitor the ingame economy. After one or two years of playing, got bored, moved on. I later read something on the stock market and for the most part, I could follow. I decided to re try learning economics. It was a cakewalk. I'm not saying EVE taught me econ, it just made it super easy for me to understand when I tried again to learn it.
As intros to complex concepts, I think these kinds of games have long term intellectual value. As long as you understand you only have a cartoon understanding that creates a decent jumping off point to learning the real thing.
As intros to complex concepts, I think these kinds of games have long term intellectual value. As long as you understand you only have a cartoon understanding that creates a decent jumping off point to learning the real thing.
This is how pretty much the entire internet learned basic orbital mechanics from KSP.
Years of physics, and yet I had no intuitive understanding of what was going on till I'd sunk about 40 hours into KSP - sure, I couldn't plan a real solar transfer trajectory, but I certainly have a much deeper appreciation for why things are the way they are, why rockets have launch windows and the like. There's a difference between sort of seeing an explanation written down, and realizing why you're time accelerating on the launch pad to get the Mun into the right position...
Years of physics, and yet I had no intuitive understanding of what was going on till I'd sunk about 40 hours into KSP - sure, I couldn't plan a real solar transfer trajectory, but I certainly have a much deeper appreciation for why things are the way they are, why rockets have launch windows and the like. There's a difference between sort of seeing an explanation written down, and realizing why you're time accelerating on the launch pad to get the Mun into the right position...
> Years of physics, and yet I had no intuitive understanding of what was going on...
The difference between knowing something and having a intuition is so LARGE it can not be overstated. That is also one of the reasons why I love 3b1b [1]. It just clicks for me on some of his videos.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw
The difference between knowing something and having a intuition is so LARGE it can not be overstated. That is also one of the reasons why I love 3b1b [1]. It just clicks for me on some of his videos.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw
I'm pretty sure I learned the basics of international politics from reading Dune. Sometimes the most effective learning technique is tricking your brain into having fun.
Absolutely. Hell, how many people self taught themselves the real life influences of Game of Thrones, Vikings, the Last Kingdom, Master and Commander, etc? Sure, not everyone, but I bet theres a bigger history enthusiast demographic because of certain shows, movies and books. I dont think a bigger demographic of history enthusiasts is bad for a society.
I became an history nerd because of those. Sadly I now don't have time to follow tv show because my nerdin as is eating too much of my time :/
watwut(3)
"Railroad Tycoon" taught the gen-x generation to read and manipulate the various standard financial reports as kids.
For some cultural reason we don't teach kids how, for example, in the long run, income statements interact with balance statements until at least their 20s and even then we limit the knowledge to a small elite, although I was an expert on reading financial reports by age 10 due to playing RRT. Certainly the math and logical concepts are not difficult for kids to learn.
Why do we intentionally limit "the masses" ability to understand how businesses are financed? Because knowledge is power... Ability to read financial reports is not much knowledge and not much power but its greedily guarded...
For some cultural reason we don't teach kids how, for example, in the long run, income statements interact with balance statements until at least their 20s and even then we limit the knowledge to a small elite, although I was an expert on reading financial reports by age 10 due to playing RRT. Certainly the math and logical concepts are not difficult for kids to learn.
Why do we intentionally limit "the masses" ability to understand how businesses are financed? Because knowledge is power... Ability to read financial reports is not much knowledge and not much power but its greedily guarded...
I’m all for basic financial literacy. I think things like how to balance your checkbook/bank account and how to do your taxes should be taught in school, and earlier, because everyone needs to do this. That said, very few people will ever have to read a financial statement in their life, and even fewer will have to produce one. This seems like a very niche skill that you’re only going to need if you run your own business, or if you go into finance or pick stocks or something. It’s fine to wait and only teach it to people going that direction in their careers.
Oh shit... I used to play railroad tycoon all the time as a kid. That and simcity. It never dawned on me until you said it, I never had an issue understanding finance reports unlike a lot of my peers. I never understood how some people were completely lost when looking at one. Damn, it's an interesting idea if those types of games really helped folks that much to understand more serious, and boring, concepts. Huh... my econ anecdote seems a lot more tame now when it comes to the implications of certain games on society.
> Why do we intentionally limit "the masses" ability to understand how businesses are financed
Someone in online forum (reddit iirc) said that even if they teach it, not many will follow. So I guess that demand isn't that high to begin with.
However if game or interactive actions can somehow teach it, it will reach many more people than lessons.
Someone in online forum (reddit iirc) said that even if they teach it, not many will follow. So I guess that demand isn't that high to begin with.
However if game or interactive actions can somehow teach it, it will reach many more people than lessons.
> They even have a PhD to monitor the ingame economy
Not anymore, alas (though I seem to recall there was still a process of players explaining to him how certain game mechanics impacted the economy, like the fixed insurance prices for ships making an artificial price floor for the minerals used to make them, as well as producing inflation because of the currency appearing out of thin air during this process).
Not anymore, alas (though I seem to recall there was still a process of players explaining to him how certain game mechanics impacted the economy, like the fixed insurance prices for ships making an artificial price floor for the minerals used to make them, as well as producing inflation because of the currency appearing out of thin air during this process).
The irony of this question is that the OP is concerned about the maximum optimization of "intellectual potential" wasted by people that are seeking maximum optimization of a game system.
There is more to life than a feverish march of scientific progress. There's value in wasted time, boredom, and frivolity.
Furthermore, I'm certain that current/historic systemic oppression of large swathes of humanity contributes more to "wasted intellectual potential of humanity". And in those cases, it is actually detrimental to the person, whereas a game is usually provides benefit to a person in happiness, relaxation, or challenge.
There is more to life than a feverish march of scientific progress. There's value in wasted time, boredom, and frivolity.
Furthermore, I'm certain that current/historic systemic oppression of large swathes of humanity contributes more to "wasted intellectual potential of humanity". And in those cases, it is actually detrimental to the person, whereas a game is usually provides benefit to a person in happiness, relaxation, or challenge.
I don't want to spend all my time being slave to productivity goals, yet there are things that worthwhile to work on according to my value. I would like to be efficient.
There are time that I decided I don't want to work more in th evening and spend my time intentionally just watching youtube instead. That wasn't procrastination.
A game like factorio, I would like to ideally spend maybe 3-4 hours per week. But if I spent like 10,000 hours cumulatively, that might be too much for me. If I spent way too much time on video games, that start to become procrastination.
There are time that I decided I don't want to work more in th evening and spend my time intentionally just watching youtube instead. That wasn't procrastination.
A game like factorio, I would like to ideally spend maybe 3-4 hours per week. But if I spent like 10,000 hours cumulatively, that might be too much for me. If I spent way too much time on video games, that start to become procrastination.
My wife is a teacher and, like most people, she sometimes complain about her work. The most common complaint I hear is that students don't pay attention or do their assigned work, then turn around and complain that they haven't learned something or panic at the end of a semester and pester her for ways to improve their grade. Some of them exclaim that they are just too dumb to pass, so they wont even bother trying. When my wife advises these kids, she usually discovers that they have no (or very limited) career or academic aspirations.
I bring this up because I think a person's ability (intellectual or otherwise) is usually nurtured by a passion. People with a passion put extra effort into developing the skills required to fulfill that passion. People with no passion simply don't invest the same level of effort and so are sometimes perceived as "dumb" in comparison.
One of the ways in which my wife tries to help her students is by helping them find something to be passionate about. She talks to parents/guardians to help discover their passions and often references the Occupational Outlook Handbook to help the students and their guardians figure out what they can do with that passion economically and what to invest the most in academically.
I think a person's "intellectual potential" is linked to their passion for a particular academic subject. I also think that intelligence is not a finite resource, but passion is.
So when analyzing the opportunity cost of games like Factorio or Eve Online, I think you must consider their effect on a person's passion. If I stopped playing games like Factorio altogether and forced myself to invest all that time into improving my software development skills, I'm confident I would quickly "burn out" - or exhaust my passion for the subject. Rather than "sapping my intellectual potential", I think relaxing with games such as Factorio from time to time allows me to replenish my passion which fuels my intellectual potential. Everything should be enjoyed in moderation of course, but I certainly don't think the existence of games like those is a net negative for humanity.
I bring this up because I think a person's ability (intellectual or otherwise) is usually nurtured by a passion. People with a passion put extra effort into developing the skills required to fulfill that passion. People with no passion simply don't invest the same level of effort and so are sometimes perceived as "dumb" in comparison.
One of the ways in which my wife tries to help her students is by helping them find something to be passionate about. She talks to parents/guardians to help discover their passions and often references the Occupational Outlook Handbook to help the students and their guardians figure out what they can do with that passion economically and what to invest the most in academically.
I think a person's "intellectual potential" is linked to their passion for a particular academic subject. I also think that intelligence is not a finite resource, but passion is.
So when analyzing the opportunity cost of games like Factorio or Eve Online, I think you must consider their effect on a person's passion. If I stopped playing games like Factorio altogether and forced myself to invest all that time into improving my software development skills, I'm confident I would quickly "burn out" - or exhaust my passion for the subject. Rather than "sapping my intellectual potential", I think relaxing with games such as Factorio from time to time allows me to replenish my passion which fuels my intellectual potential. Everything should be enjoyed in moderation of course, but I certainly don't think the existence of games like those is a net negative for humanity.
I feel like 'sap' is maybe a bit strong of a word here which might trigger many people.
I think that we shouldn't judge others' hobbies on some intellectual basis and that people need some downtime and rest. It's fine to play chess, or improvise on a musical instrument or go clubbing without thinking whether it benefits the humanity.
Also I don't think it has to be restricted to 'obsessive tinkerer' games. You can make something cool in the 'real world' or learn more without being an engineer. Arguably tinkerer games or even chess are not any better in this respect than, say, call of duty, or some casual platformer.
If I was asking the same question, I'd ask "how can we make 'real word' activities as entertaining and rewarding as games".
To elaborate: I program a lot in my free time, I love building stuff, it's very rewarding when you reach milestones and do progress. On the other hand very often it's kinda meh. You know what you need to do, but then you spend massive amounts of time actually achieving it. You can easily spend hours and days debugging some crap, which results in a one-liner fix. This is not fun at all, it completely sucks!
Compare this to a dopamine train while playing Minecraft or SimCity or Civilisation where you're doing steady progress all the time. I can completely understand people who prefer video games to building things. But at least I know that I'm doing something that has never been done before, it will be useful for me later and other people so it wasn't all for nothing. In comparison, after playing video games all I feel is regret is that I'll never get this time back.
I'd imagine it's similar with many other 'real world' things. It's hard to push the boundaries of what you know or capable of, so brains resist it.. in comparison playing a video game is usually fun and easy since you know the drill.
I think that we shouldn't judge others' hobbies on some intellectual basis and that people need some downtime and rest. It's fine to play chess, or improvise on a musical instrument or go clubbing without thinking whether it benefits the humanity.
Also I don't think it has to be restricted to 'obsessive tinkerer' games. You can make something cool in the 'real world' or learn more without being an engineer. Arguably tinkerer games or even chess are not any better in this respect than, say, call of duty, or some casual platformer.
If I was asking the same question, I'd ask "how can we make 'real word' activities as entertaining and rewarding as games".
To elaborate: I program a lot in my free time, I love building stuff, it's very rewarding when you reach milestones and do progress. On the other hand very often it's kinda meh. You know what you need to do, but then you spend massive amounts of time actually achieving it. You can easily spend hours and days debugging some crap, which results in a one-liner fix. This is not fun at all, it completely sucks!
Compare this to a dopamine train while playing Minecraft or SimCity or Civilisation where you're doing steady progress all the time. I can completely understand people who prefer video games to building things. But at least I know that I'm doing something that has never been done before, it will be useful for me later and other people so it wasn't all for nothing. In comparison, after playing video games all I feel is regret is that I'll never get this time back.
I'd imagine it's similar with many other 'real world' things. It's hard to push the boundaries of what you know or capable of, so brains resist it.. in comparison playing a video game is usually fun and easy since you know the drill.
The irony of posting this on Reddit: huge.
The irony of me replying on HN: priceless.
I don't play video games as much as I did in my youth, but I must note that the real world is a struggle to learn anything.
Games have very tightly designed feedback loop that makes thing fun, while the real world has none of that.
I have been trying and failing to cultivate an electrical engineering hobbies various time. Thankfully, I can 'save' my progress in Anki, in so far that I engaged in study. Perhaps this is wrong the approach. I want to be an electronic hobbyist, not possess the knowledge of an electrical engineer, although that is essential.
Games have very tightly designed feedback loop that makes thing fun, while the real world has none of that.
I have been trying and failing to cultivate an electrical engineering hobbies various time. Thankfully, I can 'save' my progress in Anki, in so far that I engaged in study. Perhaps this is wrong the approach. I want to be an electronic hobbyist, not possess the knowledge of an electrical engineer, although that is essential.
You don't really need EE knowledge (the ability to create schematics) to do hobby stuff. You need reasonable tools, (soldering station, multimeter/measurement tool, snips, stripper, tweezers, light and some sort of work holding solution) the ability to read an electrical schematic/match symbols with components, the ability to fully utilize a multimeter (audible continuity anyone) and physical practice. Eventually you may need to operate a very simple CAD program, but this is a last step, not a first. Once you get making, a 3D printer and associated skills can be nice for making enclosures for your projects.
Start by looking up schematics for basic fun stuff like DIY audio amplifiers or start even simpler with a joule thief. Read the schematic, translate the symbology into a bill of materials, figure out how to buy your bill of materials from digikey/mouser/amazon and then get to work stitching the pattern together on a solder-able protoboard. It will look like crap at first and probably sound like crap if you made an amp, but at least it will work.
Keep doing this and you will gradually build up a stash of 'homie knowledge' similar to 'but if I plug this circuit into this circuit, something cool happens'. Eventually you will have enough knowledge that you can solve some basic problems by building familiar circuit patterns from schematic/memory and tying them together in useful ways. As you practice more, your soldering and protoboard construction will get cleaner and your wire routing will likely improve. This is generally works by the magic of OCD.
Eventually, you will get frustrated by the limitations of protoboards and jumper wires. You will want your wiring to be perfect. At this point, you should start messing around with PCB layouts. This is basically just etching wires on a non-conductive substrate. I would recommend starting simple and using a copper sticker and craft knife. Once you get the idea from practical experience, you can find a free PCB layout software tool and start laying out your wires in CAD and having the result fabricated via OSHpark or someone similar.
Congratulations, you are now a level 4+ electronics hobbyist.
Start by looking up schematics for basic fun stuff like DIY audio amplifiers or start even simpler with a joule thief. Read the schematic, translate the symbology into a bill of materials, figure out how to buy your bill of materials from digikey/mouser/amazon and then get to work stitching the pattern together on a solder-able protoboard. It will look like crap at first and probably sound like crap if you made an amp, but at least it will work.
Keep doing this and you will gradually build up a stash of 'homie knowledge' similar to 'but if I plug this circuit into this circuit, something cool happens'. Eventually you will have enough knowledge that you can solve some basic problems by building familiar circuit patterns from schematic/memory and tying them together in useful ways. As you practice more, your soldering and protoboard construction will get cleaner and your wire routing will likely improve. This is generally works by the magic of OCD.
Eventually, you will get frustrated by the limitations of protoboards and jumper wires. You will want your wiring to be perfect. At this point, you should start messing around with PCB layouts. This is basically just etching wires on a non-conductive substrate. I would recommend starting simple and using a copper sticker and craft knife. Once you get the idea from practical experience, you can find a free PCB layout software tool and start laying out your wires in CAD and having the result fabricated via OSHpark or someone similar.
Congratulations, you are now a level 4+ electronics hobbyist.
Yeah, I definitely focused way too much on formal engineering knowledge than building electronic hobbyist. No wonder I didn't have much fun/momentum.
[deleted]
Blockchain is probably doing a lot worse for the world than either game. And intellectual output isn’t fixed - someone might be very productive in Factorio where they might not be in any other pursuit. And for some, cognitive transfer means that playing games will improve their performance in other arenas.
What about high energy physics? You could make an argument that bigger better colliders should wait till engineering makes building and operating them more efficient (like say, wait until space manufacturing).
Taking the biggest individiual things for both colliders and blockchains, the energy draw of the LHC is absolutely miniscule when compared to Bitcoin (even if we take the most conservative estimates for the latter). I would consider that energy cost justified given the chance of discovering new knowledge about physics that could help in the process of space exploration. The chance that Bitcoin would help with that is really small in comparison, especially when contrasted with its ludicrous energy usage.
The obvious reply to this one is the secondary effects are worth it and not 'sapping intellectual potential'. i.e. CERN led to development of the web.
It was the 70s. How many secondary effects have emerged from colliders in the last, say 20 years? I would say the biggest thing is generation of collimated X-rays for structural biology and materials science, but that was kind of late 90s.
If you can even begin to measure "sap[ping] the intellectual potential of humanity" then we should be talking about the most pointless brain-drain of our age - thousands of the most highly talented technical minds all being relegated to serving increasingly targeted ads.
Yes there is a huge economic incentive for these individuals to pursue this work, but I don't think its a stretch to say it cant be benefitting humanity overall in any real useful way.
Yes there is a huge economic incentive for these individuals to pursue this work, but I don't think its a stretch to say it cant be benefitting humanity overall in any real useful way.
The real answer to this question is "Yes." But humanity isn't about optimization for something like intellectual potential. Most of us are just trying to damp down the constant suffering among ourselves and others.
Unfortunately our current system is optimized to create suffering and then sell something to damp it down a little. We create extreme stress by attaching huge consequences to the smallest actions. We start with the kids by constantly grading them. Then once they become adults we slam them with financial pressures and advertisements. We give them jobs where if they make a mistake they will end up out on their ear and destitute. We then give them credit so they can feel anxious about not having enough to pay the credit card bill. Then when they eat the crud from the advertisements to feel better they get fat and anxious about that too!
Factorio and Eve Online are a small balm for those people who haven't found a way out of that spiral of suffering we call western society. If you want to find the Intellectual Potential of a human being we're going to reach that limit not because of Factorio. Instead it will be because we have forced our children and friends to constantly run on a metaphorical treadmill.
Unfortunately our current system is optimized to create suffering and then sell something to damp it down a little. We create extreme stress by attaching huge consequences to the smallest actions. We start with the kids by constantly grading them. Then once they become adults we slam them with financial pressures and advertisements. We give them jobs where if they make a mistake they will end up out on their ear and destitute. We then give them credit so they can feel anxious about not having enough to pay the credit card bill. Then when they eat the crud from the advertisements to feel better they get fat and anxious about that too!
Factorio and Eve Online are a small balm for those people who haven't found a way out of that spiral of suffering we call western society. If you want to find the Intellectual Potential of a human being we're going to reach that limit not because of Factorio. Instead it will be because we have forced our children and friends to constantly run on a metaphorical treadmill.
Do you believe in self-control, agency, accountability, personal responsibility, that kind of thing? Because much of what you mentioned isn't forced on anyone, and your comment overall is oddly despairing to me.
> Then once they become adults we slam them with financial pressures and advertisements.
What pressures? Buy food and pay your bills? If you're poor that's difficult, but if you're not poor then you don't need to do much nowadays. Pay your rent, utilities, phone, and internet online and you're mostly done. This is only difficult if you're financially illiterate or lack the self control to not make bad financial decisions. Both of these can be improved with studying and practice, though poverty is much more difficult to address
> We give them jobs where if they make a mistake they will end up out on their ear and destitute.
Again, unless you're already in a difficult place in life, you shouldn't be ending up homeless just because you lost a job. I lived frugally after graduating college and saved money towards an emergency fund rather than getting a flashy new car, a swanky apartment on my own, traveling lavishly. This falls into the same issue of being bad with finances (fixable) or poverty (can be fixable but much more difficult)
> We then give them credit so they can feel anxious about not having enough to pay the credit card bill.
Who's forcing you to get a credit card? I didn't have one until I was in my late 20s, and even now I only use it as a replacement for my debit card, not to buy stuff I don't have the money for. As a result I've never had an issue with payments or anxiety
> Then when they eat the crud from the advertisements to feel better they get fat and anxious about that too!
Even if you can't afford netflix or something like that without advertisements, you can always download an adblocker on your phone or laptop. Don't stare at the advertisements on your commute to work. Put some time to craft a food lifestyle and not be so suggestible to advertisement.
I opened with questions about accountability and agency because there's a lot we can't control in our world, but almost all of the points you made can be completely controlled by a person, and they all have totally feasible solutions. Unless you're poor, self control and financial literacy pretty much take care of almost everything you mentioned
> Then once they become adults we slam them with financial pressures and advertisements.
What pressures? Buy food and pay your bills? If you're poor that's difficult, but if you're not poor then you don't need to do much nowadays. Pay your rent, utilities, phone, and internet online and you're mostly done. This is only difficult if you're financially illiterate or lack the self control to not make bad financial decisions. Both of these can be improved with studying and practice, though poverty is much more difficult to address
> We give them jobs where if they make a mistake they will end up out on their ear and destitute.
Again, unless you're already in a difficult place in life, you shouldn't be ending up homeless just because you lost a job. I lived frugally after graduating college and saved money towards an emergency fund rather than getting a flashy new car, a swanky apartment on my own, traveling lavishly. This falls into the same issue of being bad with finances (fixable) or poverty (can be fixable but much more difficult)
> We then give them credit so they can feel anxious about not having enough to pay the credit card bill.
Who's forcing you to get a credit card? I didn't have one until I was in my late 20s, and even now I only use it as a replacement for my debit card, not to buy stuff I don't have the money for. As a result I've never had an issue with payments or anxiety
> Then when they eat the crud from the advertisements to feel better they get fat and anxious about that too!
Even if you can't afford netflix or something like that without advertisements, you can always download an adblocker on your phone or laptop. Don't stare at the advertisements on your commute to work. Put some time to craft a food lifestyle and not be so suggestible to advertisement.
I opened with questions about accountability and agency because there's a lot we can't control in our world, but almost all of the points you made can be completely controlled by a person, and they all have totally feasible solutions. Unless you're poor, self control and financial literacy pretty much take care of almost everything you mentioned
> Unless you're poor, self control and financial literacy pretty much take care of almost everything you mentioned.
You are correct! However, personal responsibility and accountability are a distraction from the real problem, which is a culture of profound ignorance. If someone has zero instruction in financial literacy and no training in self-control then is it a surprise that they don't practice either?
Trying to apply personal responsibility and accountability to a person who is completely ignorant for cultural and educational reasons is absurd. If a person doesn't even know what a budget IS then is it a surprise they max out their credit card? If a person is taught only compliance throughout school and their childhood then is it a surprise they have no sense of self-control?
Most of the people I know are in a sort of endless anxiety cycle about their finances with no understanding of why their finances are such a mess.
Applying responsibility and self-control to someone who is ignorant of even the most basic aspects of being an adult is ridiculous. This is like yelling at a puppy who pees on the rug who doesn't even know that they can go in the backyard instead. They just learn to resent you and the system who holds them accountable for something they don't understand. At best they just learn to comply with everything people in authority tell them to do and hope for the best, accepting that every so often they will get yelled at for an unknowable violation.
You are correct! However, personal responsibility and accountability are a distraction from the real problem, which is a culture of profound ignorance. If someone has zero instruction in financial literacy and no training in self-control then is it a surprise that they don't practice either?
Trying to apply personal responsibility and accountability to a person who is completely ignorant for cultural and educational reasons is absurd. If a person doesn't even know what a budget IS then is it a surprise they max out their credit card? If a person is taught only compliance throughout school and their childhood then is it a surprise they have no sense of self-control?
Most of the people I know are in a sort of endless anxiety cycle about their finances with no understanding of why their finances are such a mess.
Applying responsibility and self-control to someone who is ignorant of even the most basic aspects of being an adult is ridiculous. This is like yelling at a puppy who pees on the rug who doesn't even know that they can go in the backyard instead. They just learn to resent you and the system who holds them accountable for something they don't understand. At best they just learn to comply with everything people in authority tell them to do and hope for the best, accepting that every so often they will get yelled at for an unknowable violation.
> Applying responsibility and self-control to someone who is ignorant of even the most basic aspects of being an adult is ridiculous.
I consider this sentiment the problem. It's not ridiculous to expect adults to do some basic research, especially now that information is almost overwhelmingly available. Treating adults like helpless children or zoo animals with no power or autonomy is part of what created this societal state, in my opinion. And that's coming from someone who grew up poor, with a single parent, and no connections/mentors/role models/etc growing up, in case somebody wants to counter by saying that it was easy for me because I had xyz privilege. I just think before I act, put in the work to get informed about important things, and try to practice self-control and delayed gratification
I consider this sentiment the problem. It's not ridiculous to expect adults to do some basic research, especially now that information is almost overwhelmingly available. Treating adults like helpless children or zoo animals with no power or autonomy is part of what created this societal state, in my opinion. And that's coming from someone who grew up poor, with a single parent, and no connections/mentors/role models/etc growing up, in case somebody wants to counter by saying that it was easy for me because I had xyz privilege. I just think before I act, put in the work to get informed about important things, and try to practice self-control and delayed gratification
Quite the opposite: such complicated games are an outlet for creativity and cleverness that's stifled by our repetitive, heavily automated society. Most people don't get to make a movie or conduct a particle accelerator experiment. Even art forms like writing or music that can be done on a shoestring budget are generally a fool's errand. Everyone has a backlog of music to listen to and books to read that would occupy the remainder of their life without anything being added, so it takes marketing savvy and nigh-psychotic dedication to get anyone to pay attention to new work.
The popularity of games like Factorio says more about how much intellect and creativity has nowhere to go.
The popularity of games like Factorio says more about how much intellect and creativity has nowhere to go.
Judging by the comments on that thread, I posit that social media sites like Reddit are sapping the intellectual potential of humanity.
This question was asked whenever young found a new way of amusing themselves. The same was told about penny-thrillers that came with an advent of literacy, and internet discussion groups.
It may well be that when we amuse ourselves in new ways, the other activities get less attention. But ultimately our creativity will bring scientific papers about Factorio and Eve Online, just like there are interesting papers about number theory, optimal strategies in Chess, or AI for StarCraft.
It may well be that when we amuse ourselves in new ways, the other activities get less attention. But ultimately our creativity will bring scientific papers about Factorio and Eve Online, just like there are interesting papers about number theory, optimal strategies in Chess, or AI for StarCraft.
> Do games like Factorio or Eve Online sap the intellectual potential of humanity?
It uses some. It develops some. The net effect is unclear, but even if there was more available to use without it, the people indulging in it probably wouldn’t be using it in ways the author approves of more even if it wasn’t available, just as is the case with the author’s use of intellectual potential on this question instead of something less futile and more useful to humanity.
It uses some. It develops some. The net effect is unclear, but even if there was more available to use without it, the people indulging in it probably wouldn’t be using it in ways the author approves of more even if it wasn’t available, just as is the case with the author’s use of intellectual potential on this question instead of something less futile and more useful to humanity.
Yea, for sure it goes both ways. Many people lost years to gaming 12 hours a day. Others credit gaming with saving their lives when they would otherwise have been driven to suicide.
Aren't most of us under employed? I currently work in a maintenance-only project that hasn't seen really change since Obama's first term. There is not much work here. These give me an outlet to think, problem solve, and express myself.
Looking back at it, I used to pay factorio too much because my day job was not satisfying. I hated the office politics, and felt in a no-solution situation. After work, my understimulated brain needed a challenge, and this is where the addictive game logic kicks in.
In factorio, there is alway something to do to increase the efficiency of the project. No boss to tell you that your ideas were not selected for mysterious reasons, that you you should not be thinking about processes but only about your todolist, no favoritism or special privileges. You are in control.
Being convinced that all workplaces were the same and that efforts in the real world were useless, launching that rocket was my redemption. It was a way to send my excess brainpower somewhere.
In factorio, there is alway something to do to increase the efficiency of the project. No boss to tell you that your ideas were not selected for mysterious reasons, that you you should not be thinking about processes but only about your todolist, no favoritism or special privileges. You are in control.
Being convinced that all workplaces were the same and that efforts in the real world were useless, launching that rocket was my redemption. It was a way to send my excess brainpower somewhere.
Wow, imagine thinking you are REQUIRED to put your intellectual energy into labor in order to make wealthy people wealthier... truly wild.
At times, I've used to be a productivity nerd with elaborate systems (now I mostly rely on experience and common sense) and also I've spent many months cumulatively on gaming and "unproductive" endeavors. Today maybe I'm not doing anything sure-fire revolutionary, but I'm okay with my work, and I don't have to view my day job as the most meaningful part.
The real life is often structured in such a way that there's little reward for (more) work. And your official position and environment matters so, so much. It's quite hard to get into many academic/industrial places where something actually happens, especially if you didn't spend your whole life checking the specific boxes expected by hiring committees for that particular domain. I would say this is the biggest block, when we raise that OP question.
I'd also say it may be good, if you can, to spend some time detaching your mind from your local environment. Then you may be in a better mental state to make larger decisions about where to direct your time and effort. In my experience (and also my friends') there is a big threshold when you finally exit academia and your decisions suddenly start to matter, you aren't dependent on one bureaucracy etc. Although I'd advise to milk your studies for the credentials you can get.
Maybe I've learned some resource management (it's brutal in NetHack) and such from games, but in truth I don't know.
The real life is often structured in such a way that there's little reward for (more) work. And your official position and environment matters so, so much. It's quite hard to get into many academic/industrial places where something actually happens, especially if you didn't spend your whole life checking the specific boxes expected by hiring committees for that particular domain. I would say this is the biggest block, when we raise that OP question.
I'd also say it may be good, if you can, to spend some time detaching your mind from your local environment. Then you may be in a better mental state to make larger decisions about where to direct your time and effort. In my experience (and also my friends') there is a big threshold when you finally exit academia and your decisions suddenly start to matter, you aren't dependent on one bureaucracy etc. Although I'd advise to milk your studies for the credentials you can get.
Maybe I've learned some resource management (it's brutal in NetHack) and such from games, but in truth I don't know.
I understand the point of the post but what is “intellectual potential” really? Even if we’re discussing helping humanity as a whole, what does “helping” mean? Maybe we want to make society better, say by helping everyone involved to live the best lives they could possibly live, but this is also a quite vague and subjective concept.
What I’m trying to say is that a fulfilling life is something that changes per individual. Perhaps a less-scientific and more art-driven society is preferable and would result in a much more enjoyable life for specific individuals. Others might prefer the complete opposite. For instance I want to go to the stars and conquer different worlds because I feel that a life worth living means exploring the unknown. But I also understand that using our resources to reach for the stars might also exploit some other parts of society in a negative way.
So who’s to say that playing a video game that fulfils your needs is less valuable than doing anything else? Life is beautiful because it’s diverse. Let the billions of variables coalesce and generate an existence that fulfils the needs of the people that live it. Sure you can push the needle in a specific direction (like scientific research) but the variables are so many and the individuals so diverse that it’s hard to contemplate a formula that would work at scale for everyone.
Instead of concentrating on the intellectual potential I would argue that “diversity” is a much more important variable. Life thrives in diverse conditions - we see this in how important biodiversity is for ecosystems (like plants). I think the same concept also applies for intellect.
What I’m trying to say is that a fulfilling life is something that changes per individual. Perhaps a less-scientific and more art-driven society is preferable and would result in a much more enjoyable life for specific individuals. Others might prefer the complete opposite. For instance I want to go to the stars and conquer different worlds because I feel that a life worth living means exploring the unknown. But I also understand that using our resources to reach for the stars might also exploit some other parts of society in a negative way.
So who’s to say that playing a video game that fulfils your needs is less valuable than doing anything else? Life is beautiful because it’s diverse. Let the billions of variables coalesce and generate an existence that fulfils the needs of the people that live it. Sure you can push the needle in a specific direction (like scientific research) but the variables are so many and the individuals so diverse that it’s hard to contemplate a formula that would work at scale for everyone.
Instead of concentrating on the intellectual potential I would argue that “diversity” is a much more important variable. Life thrives in diverse conditions - we see this in how important biodiversity is for ecosystems (like plants). I think the same concept also applies for intellect.
Whatever harm it does, it can take a ticket in the long line behind war, advertising, financial engineering, tax law, etc. etc.
Foolishly presumptuous that the emergent culture from these interactive spaces isn’t an amazing realization of intellectual potential instead of a dismissive “waste of time”.
I suppose it’s difficult to step back and analyze things beyond their purely productive economic utility and appropriately judge its value in the grand scheme.
I suppose it’s difficult to step back and analyze things beyond their purely productive economic utility and appropriately judge its value in the grand scheme.
There's two things here that seem to be competing with eachother. A life well lived and the economic fecundity of a life. Two very separate things and only sometimes do they cross.
Playing a single video game obsessively is bad for both. If you dabbled in many different creative and technical pursuits, you'd probably be happier than spending 10 hours reoptimizing your factorio line if you learned to speak spanish, play the sax and knew how to code in python. Learning in real life, without the immediate feedback of a game is harder for sure, but more rewarding in the end. However, you should never look at your time spent in the lens of economic fecundity for 'Others'. that never ends well.
Playing a single video game obsessively is bad for both. If you dabbled in many different creative and technical pursuits, you'd probably be happier than spending 10 hours reoptimizing your factorio line if you learned to speak spanish, play the sax and knew how to code in python. Learning in real life, without the immediate feedback of a game is harder for sure, but more rewarding in the end. However, you should never look at your time spent in the lens of economic fecundity for 'Others'. that never ends well.
Gandhi's take on the "bread-labour" idea via Tolstoy/Bondarev puts a better perspective on issues of intellect. Bread-labour being the physical labours involved in the direct sustainment of human life.
Based on their insights, I think that if we're privileged enough to live without worry of the basics needs of human life, and make our livelihoods on intellect alone, then that comes at the expense of humanity's potential for equality. If this is what is happening, then engaging some of our time in bread-labour becomes a concrete way to combat inequality.
Based on their insights, I think that if we're privileged enough to live without worry of the basics needs of human life, and make our livelihoods on intellect alone, then that comes at the expense of humanity's potential for equality. If this is what is happening, then engaging some of our time in bread-labour becomes a concrete way to combat inequality.
I was always a big gamer. All genres, multiple hours a day.
But lately I try to avoid games that require too mich thinking and invest my time in work instead.
Coding feels like playing a game anyway, so why not getting paid for it.
But lately I try to avoid games that require too mich thinking and invest my time in work instead.
Coding feels like playing a game anyway, so why not getting paid for it.
I think people that would do something for humanity are not blocked by these games. that kind of people will not get satisfaction from building something virtual so they won’t play that much
this is like asking if exercise saps the fitness potential of humanity
If humanity wants it badly enough, she can buy it.
Considering the general waste of human ressources worldwide, I don't think she herself thinks she is in dire need of a higher intellectual potential.
That may change at the moment of 'peak human'. With shrinking population, the then existing unused intellectual potential and others may be higher valued.
Of course, just in case artificial intelligence and creativity are not more cost effective and profitable than the human one.
Considering the general waste of human ressources worldwide, I don't think she herself thinks she is in dire need of a higher intellectual potential.
That may change at the moment of 'peak human'. With shrinking population, the then existing unused intellectual potential and others may be higher valued.
Of course, just in case artificial intelligence and creativity are not more cost effective and profitable than the human one.
Nahhh, I reject the hypothesis. Escapism has always popped up as an intellectual distraction during stressful or stagnant times. It's nothing about Factorio or Eve specifically, other than they are well designed to scratch certain itches. Present someone with a real world challenge to scratch that itch and they'll take it.
[deleted]
We are richer than ever, far richer than during the renaissance, and one is tempted, when looking around, to ask "well, where is all the great art?"
The great art, and artists, are in our video games. Physical art and architecture is sclerotic and adversarial, so the true creative geniuses have been funnelled into the digital.
The great art, and artists, are in our video games. Physical art and architecture is sclerotic and adversarial, so the true creative geniuses have been funnelled into the digital.
No, no more than any other "reward based system" triggers that response.
This question assumes people who play a lot of hours of Factorio are somehow more likely to drive innovation than a person who plays hours and hours of Call of Duty.
This question assumes people who play a lot of hours of Factorio are somehow more likely to drive innovation than a person who plays hours and hours of Call of Duty.
3D MMO action game engines are the final medium.
The game of building games is the last revolution.
All other potential has been discovered and most of it has been or will be discarded because of thermodynamics.
The game of building games is the last revolution.
All other potential has been discovered and most of it has been or will be discarded because of thermodynamics.
If it truly was a cause it would be a negligible one versus fighting poverty and discrimination.
My friend is an IC layout engineer. He really enjoys Factorio. I'd say he excels at both.
i would say of course they can and in many cases do - same for TV shows or drinking with friends or exercising. Everything can be taken to an unhealthy extreme.
What about: Do video games like those impact the potential intelligence of a person? the shopify CEO is famous for saying Factorio counts as a business expense.
What about: Do video games like those impact the potential intelligence of a person? the shopify CEO is famous for saying Factorio counts as a business expense.
Surveillance capitalism saps the intellectual potential of humanity. Imagine what we could accomplish if our "best and brightest" were tasked with solving humanity's true problems instead of how to trick people into buying more crap they don't need.
Sleep saps the intellectual potential of humanity. Imagine what we could accomplish if our "best and brightest" didn't have to spend 1/3rd of their lives in pseudo-death.
Social life saps the intellectual potential of humanity. Imagine what we could accomplish if our "best and brightest" weren't weighed down by thousands of hours in churches, concerts, funerals, bars, and birthday parties.
etc, etc
Social life saps the intellectual potential of humanity. Imagine what we could accomplish if our "best and brightest" weren't weighed down by thousands of hours in churches, concerts, funerals, bars, and birthday parties.
etc, etc
Not sure what argument is posed by your rhetorical statements.
The original comment lamented the fact that among the most lucrative positions within mathematics and computer science is ultimately tuning models for the purpose of spying on consumers. Be it an phd at Google trying to better categorize target demographics for advertisements or a high level engineer at Amazon trying to figure out what other products to recommend you.
It can be argued that sleep and social life are productivity drains. It can also be argued that it is part of a well-rounded life which is key to happiness. A happy individual is likely productive. Even so, it is besides the point. People sleep and socialize because they enjoy it. People don't waste decades of education and experience on gaming consumer behvaiour because its enjoyable however. They do it because it is lucrative.
My take on the original comment is that it encourages one to imagine a world where we instead incentivise the best and brightest of our generation to pursue nobler goals than consumer surveillance. It is also a natural response to the top level post. Why worry about video games as a productivity drain when there are far greater structural obstacles to building a better world.
The original comment lamented the fact that among the most lucrative positions within mathematics and computer science is ultimately tuning models for the purpose of spying on consumers. Be it an phd at Google trying to better categorize target demographics for advertisements or a high level engineer at Amazon trying to figure out what other products to recommend you.
It can be argued that sleep and social life are productivity drains. It can also be argued that it is part of a well-rounded life which is key to happiness. A happy individual is likely productive. Even so, it is besides the point. People sleep and socialize because they enjoy it. People don't waste decades of education and experience on gaming consumer behvaiour because its enjoyable however. They do it because it is lucrative.
My take on the original comment is that it encourages one to imagine a world where we instead incentivise the best and brightest of our generation to pursue nobler goals than consumer surveillance. It is also a natural response to the top level post. Why worry about video games as a productivity drain when there are far greater structural obstacles to building a better world.
I was being heavily sarcastic.
I don't like surveillance capitalism either, but my argument was that this line of reasoning is silly because you can use it to conclude that literally anything is a waste of time or resources.
We shouldn't do surveillance capitalism because it sucks, not because everyone has some vague obligation to work on what you think is most important to society.
We're agreeing with each other, kind of.
I don't like surveillance capitalism either, but my argument was that this line of reasoning is silly because you can use it to conclude that literally anything is a waste of time or resources.
We shouldn't do surveillance capitalism because it sucks, not because everyone has some vague obligation to work on what you think is most important to society.
We're agreeing with each other, kind of.
Note that I made my comment as someone who has taken an 80% cut in income to leave the "net negative for humanity" megacorp where I worked for 17 years to work for a non-profit.
More productivity for the productivity god! Produce, produce, produce!
What saps the intellectual potential of humanity, is the marathon of horrors. From the first teacher out to extinguish curiosity in his students, for a easy time to the last professor, praising this golden age were all "important" things are discovered. In fact, one thing discoverers have brought to the table in the last century, is the ability to keep a distance to society from the start. Nothing good comes from mingling..
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26686767
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26411589